Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Amenities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo staff propose amenity‑scoring system for multifamily projects, elevating EV readiness
Summary
Planner Hannah Salts presented an ordinance amendment to Title 14 that would require multifamily projects to meet a 60‑point amenity score; EV charging readiness and indoor/outdoor tenant spaces score highest while staff preserved developer choice and substitution flexibility.
Provo planners recommended a change to the city’s multifamily amenity rules that would add a scored menu of amenities and set a 60‑point minimum for compliance, with the stated goal of aligning amenities with city priorities while allowing developers flexibility.
Planner Hannah Salts walked council through the draft text and scoring table. The proposal does not mandate specific amenities but awards higher points to EV‑charging infrastructure and EV‑ready wiring, as well as to well‑furnished indoor and outdoor gathering spaces. "The score just helps guide them on how to fill the square footage requirement," Salts told the work session, adding that developers would continue to meet square‑footage minimums but could pick amenities from the menu to reach the required score.
Staff said an analysis of recent Provo projects shows many developments already meet or exceed the 60‑point threshold and that small or budget projects can also comply with careful amenity choices. The ordinance would also close observed loopholes — for example, preventing counting a hallway or leasing office as general amenity square footage — and would not allow property owners to charge tenants for most amenities (EV charging would be an exception to allow charging for electricity).
Councilors asked how maintenance would be enforced and whether amenities could be monetized for outside users; staff said the city would not patrol maintenance but could use the code's remedy language to press developers or HOAs if amenities fell into disrepair. Several councilors suggested formatting and presentation changes to make the published scoring table easier for developers to navigate.
Staff and planning commission recommended retaining the 60‑point minimum as a "minimum acceptable standard," not an aspirational ideal, and asked whether the council felt comfortable moving the ordinance forward to the evening meeting for action. Council feedback focused on clarity of the scoring table and ensuring the policy would not create undue cost pressure on lower‑income housing.
