Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Provo Council debates tighter ADU setbacks, parcel-coverage cap and flexibility for historic lots ahead of state law
Summary
Council staff reviewed proposed external ADU rules for Provo’s zoning rewrite (chapter 14.43) to comply with state changes due Oct. 1; key proposals include a 40% accessory-coverage cap, extra setback for units above 16 ft, a 25 ft maximum height limit, and administrative review for utility connections, with councillors pressing for exceptions for pioneer/historic lots.
Malia Daly, Provo’s council policy analyst, presented a package of proposed changes to external accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules intended for inclusion in the city’s zoning rewrite (chapter 14.43) and to align the city with new state requirements that take effect Oct. 1.
Three principal elements were discussed. First, a parcel-coverage rule would cap the combined footprint of accessory structures (the house, ADU and sheds) at 40% of the lot area, reflecting standards in other zones. Second, staff proposed a privacy/height-offset rule: any ADU taller than a single story (about 16 ft) would need an additional foot of setback for each foot of height above 16 ft (rounded up), with a maximum allowable ADU height of 25 ft or less than the primary residence. Third, utility connections would be handled administratively because sewer depth, lot contours and other site constraints mean that forcing separate service or forced connection in a single ordinance could cause problems; public-works review on a case-by-case basis would be retained.
Council members raised recurring issues: smaller pioneer lots and corner lots may be physically unable to meet added setback requirements; the difficulty of obtaining variances for common corner-lot conditions; how to treat areas where detached ADUs have long been allowed; and methods to limit investor-owned units (measures such as deed restrictions, occupancy requirements or a 20% rental cap were discussed).
Staff recommended keeping the core language but asked for direction on whether to apply rules uniformly across old and newly impacted areas created by the state statute; several councillors favored retaining existing standards for historic neighborhoods while applying the new rules prospectively to newly affected areas.
The council did not adopt final language at the work meeting; staff will return with revisions and additional analysis of impacts on pioneer lots and potential exception frameworks.
