What do you think of the proposed amendment to Provo City Code to add mixed-use zones?

My wish is that the Provo City Council would acknowledge that the National park service has placed parts So of 5th North in Joaquin neighborhood and a few blocks into Maeser neighborhood on the National register of historic places as Provo East Central Historic District. Projects and mixed uses applications would dwindle and would protect the R C areas of Joaquin neighborhood that are at common risk to over anxious developers. Thanks!

I'm a former resident who just moved north to Salt Lake County, so please take that into consideration.

With that said, I'd like to voice my support for the adoption of these two mixed use zone categories.

Mixed use zoning allows for neighborhoods to be built with amenities (corner stores, office space, shops, etc.) closer to residential areas, thereby reducing the need for excess trips by car. This traffic reduction further increases safety around roadways and reduces pollution and carbon emissions.

Along with the other supporter, I want to emphasize that adopting these zoning categories does not imply using them all over Provo. It simply means having them ready to be used where appropriate. The city and neighborhood councils, as well as all residents, will still have the ability to ratify or deny any zone change proposal.

When I moved north for work (I hope to move back in a few years), I looked for a place similar to Provo's land use. It's proven difficult. Much of Utah is unfortunately too "separated" in use, in that large stretches of land are only residential, with no other use allowed by law. These zoning practices were created in the 1960's at a time when the car was seen as the way of the future, and there was a huge move away from mixed-use zoning. Now, society is beginning to aknowledge the inconveniences built into our environment by those decisions (i.e. traffic), as everyone is required by that design to drive for even the smallest errands. Mixed-use zoning represents a move towards healthier design that encourages walking for short trips by moving amenities closer to residents.

Even if Provo's zoning ordinances don't currently include "mixed-use" categories, the city of Provo is far more "mixed" in it's land use than most of Utah's towns and suburbs. nearly all historical development (predating the 60's) was "mixed-use", because euclidian zoning didn't exist yet. My recommendation for the residents of Provo is to value what you have and continue to encourage development in the direction of mixed-use zoning. This change to adopt the next categories seems like a simple, important step to me.

It's surprising that this zoning area was not already on the books. This kind of zone makes perfect sense and would greatly enhance resident experience. Before I delve into why I think mixed-use zoning would be so beneficial, I must acknowledge that some may not wish to live in a mixed use zone and that's fine. No one is proposing that the entire city of Provo be made mixed use. But to say that such a zone should not even be on the books of the city—thereby hindering others' ability to live there—is an overreach.

Mixed use zoning can lead to a generally better quality of life. Allowing business to be closer to where people live would improve quality of life by removing time that people spend driving in traffic as they could walk to more places. People would have higher incentive to walk where they're going thereby passively increasing physical activity which leads to a number of health benefits.

Furthermore, mixed use zoning could be used to direct developers where the city wishes to see this kind of development built. Currently, if a developer wishes to build a development that would fit into such a zone, they must guess where in the city such a development could be permitted and then prove to the city council it makes sense. This is costly to the city and to the developer. If a mixed-use zone existed, the developer would not have to guess where mixed use development is desired.

I would personally love to live in a mixed use zone as described by the proposal and hope to see this piece of legislation pass and put into practice.

My comments on the zoning itself:

- The two story limit on buildings adjacent to R1/RC zones seems rather low. I feel like 3 stories ought to be acceptable. Town homes are often built at that height and if done well, it shouldn't pose an issue to the R1/RC zones

- It was brought up that perhaps an auto shop could be opened in a mixed-use zone. I don't think this is correct, is it? It doesn't look like it's on the list of allowed uses.

This zoning type hurts residents and only benefits commercial developers and lazy city employees (or volunteers).

Commercial developers can already request zoning exceptions and get the exact same result, if the residents agree. However, with this new zoning type, “mixed-use”, a “busy Starbucks” or a “poorly maintained auto shop” could literally appear next door to your house and you, the resident, wouldn’t have any say or recourse. This takes power from the residents to have a say in how their neighborhood develops. Again, the only difference in the zones is that the Residents loses their voice and city employees don’t have to work.

I think this is taking rights and power from the Residents and giving it to the Commercial Developers and that this fact should be a part of the description of this proposed amendment. Why only describe the benefits and not the negative consequences to the residents?

This focus seems to be a pattern with zoning, to focus on big businesses exclusively.