Click this link to optimize Open City Hall for screen readers Skip to Content
Open City Hall
Open Town Hall

We are in the process of updating the General Plan and would like your input on these drafts.


Instructions

The General Plan is a lengthy document. We have broken it up so you can comment on the particular chapter instead of the document as a whole. On the upper left corner of each section, a speech bubble speech bubblewill appear. Click on that to add your comments.

A PDF version of each chapter is also available for ease of reading:

There are two tabs directly below these instructions. 

"Full Text" 

will display the General Plan text here on Open City Hall.

"Abbreviated" 

has a section for each chapter where you can leave your comments and is meant for those who read the PDF version.

Note: These are draft documents so please overlook any formatting issues

Chapter One - Land Use, Growth, and Urban Design

Chapter One
Land Use, Growth, and Urban Design

1.1: Design Corridors Map (PDF)

1.1 Introduction

The Land Use Chapter of the General Plan establishes policies regarding urban growth, annexation, General Plan Map designations, and key land use policies for individual neighborhoods and groups of neighborhoods within Area Councils. The Land Use section is organized:

  • To plan for sufficient land for residential, industrial, commercial and public uses;
  • To appropriately locate land uses;
  • To preserve important natural resources and sensitive lands; and
  • To provide adequate municipal services.

This chapter of the General Plan (herein referred to as “the Plan”) – in conjunction with other chapters of this Plan – provides a guide for the future use of undeveloped land, the use and maintenance of the built environment, and redevelopment and in-fill policies for the City. This chapter helps to define neighborhoods’ visions for changes that may occur within their boundaries. It provides the Municipal Council, commissions, and City staff a framework in the evaluation of land development proposals and the policies that guide land use in Provo.

As it is difficult to include informal visioning documents as part of the General Plan policies, some of this information will be placed on file in the City Recorder’s Office. While not a part of the adopted General Plan, these statements can provide a useful reference to Plan users.

1.2 Background

SECTION HEADINGS

1.2.1 Relationship between the General Plan Map and Land Use Element

1.2.6 Design Corridors Approved by Ordinance

1.2.2 Relationship between Land Use Policies and Zoning

1.2.7 General Plan Designations

1.2.3 Urban Growth

1.2.8 Zoning and Development Policy Changes

1.2.4 Urban Design

1.2.9 Key Land Use Policies (by Area and Neighborhood)

1.2.5 Design Standards

1.2.10 Additional Tools for Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation Policy Plan

1.2.1 Relationship between the General Plan Map and Land Use Element

The General Plan Map is developed from the policies in this chapter, but is not intended to be used as a stand-alone reference. The neighborhood policies in this chapter are intended to be used in conjunction with the map. Where there seems to be a discrepancy between the two, the written policies generally take precedence.

However, in some cases, a restrictive map designation serves as notice that physical limitations or hazards may be associated with development of some lands. These are often found in the areas designated as Developmentally Sensitive (DS), described further in Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environment, although a parcel’s location outside the DS boundaries cannot be taken as assurance that similar characteristics do not exist on that property. Any lands with specific characteristics, whether located within this generally defined DS boundary or outside the boundary, will be subject to Title 15 of the Provo City Code, relating to Sensitive Lands.

Likewise, the broad-brush application of the DS map designations does not, in itself, indicate that a specific parcel of land within this boundary is not suitable for development – or even that there will be problems associated with the development of a specific area within or comprising one parcel or multiple parcels. It does indicate a higher likelihood that additional studies may be required prior to determining whether the land can or should be developed. It also indicates a higher likelihood that special requirements and restrictions may apply to any development that is approved on at least some portion of these lands.

Existing zoning designations govern the use of land within Provo City limits until a change in land use is approved through the rezoning of property. Written policies in this element provide additional insight and guidance for evaluating zone change proposals.

1.2.2 Relationship between Land Use Policies and Zoning

Land use designations on the General Plan Map are often not indicative of the current zoning on the land and may or may not be clearly indicative of an appropriate zoning for future use. The Council should use discretion in determining the most appropriate zone district in relation to the guidance available.

Zoning is legislation that regulates the use and development of property. The General Plan Map designation does not change current zone regulations; rather it informs interested parties of what types of land uses may be considered for future development. The written policies of this chapter are consulted in the analysis of such proposals, but with consideration for the uses and the development parameters of the current zone applied to the property.

General Plan Map designations and General Plan policies included in this chapter may strongly influence zone change requests. The rezoning of property is a legislative act that amends the Zoning Map, which is an integral part of Title 14 Zoning of the Provo Municipal Code.

Proposed changes in zoning that do not comply with the General Plan will be considered only after making a decision on an application to amend the General Plan. The General Plan should be substantially reliable as a guide to land use to those who may reside in an area or who may be considering purchasing or investing in an area of the City.

General Plan Map designations are broader or more specific depending on areas of the City and the level of concern over specific parcels of property. These differences may be influenced by the density of the area, the special character of an area, a development aspect unique to a parcel, or some other concern that warrants a greater level of specificity in defining land use boundaries. For this reason, there may be times when the Council will use its discretion in determining that a parcel complies with the generalized boundary of a recommended land use designation, or with the overall guiding principles of the General Plan, and may make zoning decisions without the requirement for a General Plan amendment.

1.2.3 Urban Growth

Provo’s population growth, and the resulting demands on the built environment, continues at a steady rate. Much of Provo is developed, with limited areas for new construction (particularly east of I-15).

Redevelopment (replacing or rehabilitating existing development) and infill development (making use of confined parcels of land surrounded by existing development) are useful tools in these areas for meeting the City’s current and expanding needs for housing, businesses, schools, medical facilities, recreational spaces and other uses.

Provo has geographic limitations, which can limit traditional growth patterns. The Wasatch Range blocks the City’s physical growth to the east, and Utah Lake limits physical growth to the west and southwest. Orem and Springville block physical growth to the north and south, though there are still some areas within Provo’s influence that can be annexed to Provo. If it is the desire of Provo to accommodate some of the projected population increase for Utah County, a variety of housing products and forms will need to be considered due to the lack of available raw land.

Provo is a mature city with an established infrastructure. Nevertheless, the City must balance demands for development with cost effective capacity in meeting the needs for water, sewer, storm drainage, flood protection, fire protection, police services, street construction and maintenance, and other aspects of public support for the City’s residents and businesses. Infill development may be more timely and appropriate in order to provide for logical growth of the built environment and control of costs to taxpayers for expansion of municipal services. Those constraints on new growth are particularly important when considering the mountainous bench areas to the east and on the agricultural lands of west Provo.

The 5200-foot elevation from mean sea level is generally considered the approximate boundary for urban development along the eastern benches of the City. This corresponds roughly with the natural gas easement that traverses the City. A system of trails for recreation and access to the canyons is being developed along the easements and service roads through this area. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is envisioned to someday provide nearly continuous trail access from Logan to Spanish Fork along the ancient “shoreline” Lake Bonneville. Efforts should be made to ensure that public access to these trails and canyons is maintained.

For the most part, lands above these elevations become too steep for development (usually 25 percent slope and greater) and are fraught with geologic hazards and natural drainageways that should not be disturbed.

Slopes of 30 percent or greater are restricted from development by Chapter 15.05 of the Provo City Code, relating to Sensitive Lands. These areas are designated as Developmentally Sensitive (DS) in the General Plan. Providing services to these areas brings inordinate costs or, in some cases, is simply impossible. Residents in these areas may be at risk because of the natural hazards and the City’s limited capability to provide services to these areas. The DS designation and related physical constraints of the land are further discussed in Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environment.

The natural boundary to urban growth on the west side has historically corresponded roughly with the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) definition of the “AE” flood zone, as defined on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Policies intended to ensure that infrastructure for development can be extended in a logical manner without “leap-frogging” (expanding to non-contiguous properties by jumping over undeveloped land and areas without municipal services) will continue to influence decisions about the use of agricultural lands and properties west of I-15 for the foreseeable future. These areas include those designated as DS on the General Plan Map.

For sustained growth, the demands on our natural and man-made resources should be in balance with the ability of those resources to be replenished. The City needs to wisely utilize its available resources; conserving where necessary and replenishing where possible. Having a strong agricultural base may become extremely important to the City if normal inter-urban or interstate lines of transportation are disrupted, if weather conditions adversely affect major agricultural suppliers, or if the supply of fossil fuels is suddenly disrupted.

The protection of some rural, natural, and even “wild” places in urban areas is something Provo’s residents seek, almost as a refuge from the urbanization that is taking place all around the City. Many communities that have set out to preserve significant open spaces on their periphery, and to guide development into more compact urban corridors, have found that their communities have become even more attractive places to live and work. Many high-tech companies gravitate to those types of communities for the quality of life.

1.2.4 Urban Design

Urban design standards for commercial and residential developments should be implemented to promote neighborhood conservation, maintain property values, and enhance Provo City’s appearance. Design standards should promote public health, safety, and general welfare. Design standards should regulate landscaping, signage, architecture, scale, setbacks, and the overall style character of developments in order to help protect important views, significant architectural resources, and improve the overall built environment.

Urban design should also include the overall contextual design of neighborhoods and streets to promote safe and convenient walkability and bike-ability where possible. Easy access to public transportation and basic shopping needs to cut down on automobile traffic and encourage alternative modes of transportation is a positive outcome of effective urban design.

Design Review Process

A Design Review Committee (DRC), consisting of professionals in various fields of design, architecture, and planning, was established to address general design relationships and site planning principles that are applicable citywide. District guidelines, based on existing design characteristics, as well as needs observed in particular districts, are also addressed in design review.

The design review process seeks to ensure compatibility of structures in districts. This can be achieved by repeating building lines and surface treatment and by requiring a degree of uniformity in detail, scale, proportion, textures, materials, color, and building form. Harmony of design is sought to protect visual patterns of the community and to enhance visual relationships and transitions between older and newer buildings.

Visible Design Influences in Provo

Provo has not developed as a design-oriented community, nor does it have thematic districts; however, areas with strong design elements do exist. Developments and infrastructure improvements have helped to establish a character for localized regions of the city and have, in some cases, influenced the design of new projects occurring on nearby properties. Favorable examples of urban design elements may be seen in the Jamestown office park region along N. University Avenue, the pedestrian-oriented historic downtown Provo region of the Central Business District, the Provo City Old Academy Library, the Shops at Riverwoods and Riverwoods Research and Business Park, and the South University Avenue/East Bay planned commercial and industrial complex.

Landscaping is a common element that enhances the appearance of any site. Best practices for incorporating water-wise landscape design should be used where and when possible. Plantings and design, including endemic and drought-tolerant plants, should be utilized to reduce unnecessary water use.

The absence of freestanding signs and the use of small-scale signs reduce the amount of visual clutter. Architectural design has improved the appearance of buildings that could otherwise be mundane. Urban design is not limited to exterior design of buildings. It takes into account the appearance of the entire built environment and all aspects of development.

The implementation of urban design requirements will establish citywide design standards to beautify the City as a whole and will help to carry out the values, goals, and objectives of Provo’s citizens.

1.2.5 Design Standards

The following categories are to be implemented in some type of policy, regulation, or ordinance to establish urban design criteria within Provo City. Design elements should promote public health, safety, and general welfare while serving the general interest of the public. Policies should be implemented in a timely fashion to encourage the style of development requested by the general citizenry.

Landscaping

Landscaping adds aesthetic qualities to the built environment. Without trees, shrubs, grass, and other greenery, the environment may be dull and unattractive. Landscaping improves the look and feel of the community. It softens hard surfaces, adds color and visual contrast, provides pedestrian appeal and comfort, creates human scale along large-scale building faces, screens parking or mechanical areas, provides transition between uses, and provides shade and cooling in urban areas. To avoid becoming a concrete and asphalt-paved community, the City should require developments to meet landscaping standards.

Signs

Without restrictions, signs can become garish and overbearing. Provo City has a sign ordinance, but further steps need to be taken to improve the appearance of signs throughout the city. Steps need to be taken to improve the desirability of monument signs. Signs should be required to reflect the building’s architecture and complement landscaped areas. Billboards should be removed from developed sites.

Construction

Incentives that encourage diversity in appearance (material, height, form) in multi-structure projects need to be provided. While diversity is encouraged, compatibility needs to exist in architecture and themes. Multi-structure projects that could benefit from incentives include commercial, multiple-family, and one-family residential subdivisions. New construction in older, developed areas should be sympathetic to existing form, color, material, style, and scale. Remodels and additions should also be sympathetic to form, color, material, style, and scale of the existing structure. However, there may be a few areas of the city where there are no aesthetic qualities. In these areas, a new design or style may benefit the community and offer diversity in theme, form, color, material, style, and scale.

1.2.6 Design Corridors Approved by Ordinance

Design corridors preserve the aesthetic integrity of an area by imposing criteria for the appearance and design of buildings within the corridor. In 1997, twelve design corridors were proposed to improve design and beautify the city; the list has since been expanded to fourteen. Map  1.1 Design Corridors Map shows the current and proposed design corridors for Provo. As Table 1.1 Current Design Corridors indicates, four design corridors have been implemented by ordinance. The design corridors should be comprehensively evaluated and amended, where appropriate. As these corridors typically straddle neighborhood boundaries, amendments should be developed to all design corridors that will make meaningful connections between neighborhoods.

TABLE 1.1 CURRENT DESIGN CORRIDORS

Design Corridor

Location of Design Corridor

North University Avenue

500 North to 960 North

North University Avenue Riverbottoms

2230 North to the mouth of Provo Canyon

West Center Street

Interstate 15 to Utah Lake

South State Street

300 South to Highway 75

Proposed—Standards to Be Developed

Listed below, in Table 1.2 Proposed Design Corridors, are design corridors that still need implementation. Some of the proposed corridors are dilapidated, and there are no aesthetic qualities to maintain. In these corridors, it is hoped that attractive, uniform design will aid redevelopment efforts. Each corridor will be established with design requirements specific to that corridor. Developments in these corridors will be subject to design review. Corridors at City entryways will have logos, landscaping, and welcome signs. Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) rights-of-way also need to be beautified, but are subject to special regulations and approvals through the State of Utah.

TABLE 1.2 PROPOSED DESIGN CORRIDORS

Design Corridor

Approximate Location of Design Corridor

University Parkway

University Avenue to City Boundary

North State Street

1230 North to City Boundary

South University Avenue

600 South to Interstate 15

Downtown University Avenue

500 North to 600 South

500 West

300 South to 1230 North

Center Street

1100 West to 1000 East

4800 North

University Avenue to City Boundary

3700 North

University Avenue to City Boundary

300 South

500 West to 850 East

Columbia Lane

500 West to 1200 West / City Boundary

Geneva Road

Center Street to 2000 North/ City Boundary

1.2.7 General Plan Designations

Table 1.3 General Plan Land Use Designations shows the names and acronyms of the land use designations as used on the General Plan Land Use Map. It also shows the zoning districts that may be allowed in the various land use designations. When property is annexed to the city, the property annexed is zoned to the lowest density or intensity zone allowed under that land use designation.

For order of lowest to highest density or intensity of zones, please refer to Table 1.3 General Plan Land Use Designations.

TABLE 1.3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Designation

Zones

Developmentally Sensitive (DS)

A1.40 when annexing to Provo City. Lands currently within City limits retain their current zoning designations, but are designated as DS on the City General Plan Map to denote the need for additional studies needed to determine if lands can or should support new development or redevelopment.

Agricultural (A)

A1.40, A1.20, A1.10, A1.5, A1.1, and RA

Residential (R)

R1.20, R1.15, R1.10, R1.9, R1.8, R1.7, R1.6, RC, RM, R2, R2.5, R3, R4, R5, SDP1, SDP2, LDR, MDR, HDR, CHDR, and PRO-R or PRO-A

Public Facilities (PF)

PF

Commercial (C)

SSC, PO, SC1, SC2, SC3, CA, CBD, CG, MP,CM, PIC, and PRO-C

Industrial (I)

FI, PIC, M1, and M2

Mixed-Use (M)

PRO and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

ITOD and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Downtown Planning Area (D)

CBD and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Airport Related Activities (AR)

PIC, M1 and future zoning districts tailored for this designation

Using the above General Plan Land Use Designations in Table 1.3, Table 1.4 Acres of General Plan Land Use Designations shows the acres of land for each category as proposed on the General Plan Map.

TABLE 1.4 ACRES OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Designation

Acres without Seven Peaks Annexation

Acres with Seven Peaks Annexation

Agricultural (A)

9,508 (36.4%)

16,734 (50.2%)

Residential (R)

8,748 (33.5%)

8,748 (26.2%)

Public Facilities (PF)

3,594 (13.8%)

3,594 (10.8%)

Commercial (C)

821 (3.1%)

821 (2.5%)

Industrial (I)

1,651 (6.3%)

1,651 (5.0%)

Mixed-Use (M)

528 (2.0%)

528 (1.6%)

Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

350 (1.3%)

350 (1.0%)

Downtown Planning Area (D)

268 (1%)

268 (0.8%)

Airport Related Activities (AR)

651 (2.5%)

651 (2%)

Total

26,120

33,345

1.2.8 Zoning and Development Policy Changes

This subsection identifies several major issues Provo is facing and sets forth goals, objectives, and specific actions to deal with these issues. Refinements in overall build-out have been modified downward as a result of the scarcity of developable land, politically unacceptable changes in the quality of life, and the adequacy of public facilities.

Protecting Viable One-Family Neighborhoods, while Meeting the Need for Affordable Owner-Occupied Housing

Past City policies of rezoning older neighborhoods for multifamily housing created a hodgepodge of densities in some central city neighborhoods. Potential homeowners have to compete with outside investors who are willing to pay duplex, triplex, and four-plex prices for homes. As a result, these once affordable homes are being priced outside the reach of many homebuyers.

Apartment Licensing was started in 2003 to help enforce existing occupancy requirements. The object of apartment licensing is to make sure all rentals are legal, safe, and have sufficient parking. Zoning verification is part of the licensing process and can identify units that were illegally, and often unsafely, created. Landlords must also provide the name of a responsible agent within 20 miles of the rental, which helps with any enforcement issues. In the end, legal and safe rentals make things better for renters, as well as for home homeowners, both of whom reside in the same neighborhood.

NeighborWorks of Provo, Provo Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, and other interested groups have combined forces and are working with the Redevelopment Agency to provide new and refurbished housing units for families desiring to stay in, or move to, the Pioneer neighborhoods. Residents of these neighborhoods have also made a positive difference by working with the Community Oriented Policing (COP) program and by forming Neighborhood Watch organizations.

In addition to the Pioneer Neighborhoods, other neighborhoods are also struggling and have requested that homebuyer assistance programs be made available outside the current boundaries for these programs.

Finding Ways to Reduce the Exponential Growth of Automobile Traffic

In many neighborhoods, the number of vehicle trips made by households exceeds national averages. Provo’s development pattern has historically segregated land use activities, causing reliance on the automobile which probably will not change significantly unless area specific plans are adopted and implemented that facilitate reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, in developing and redeveloping areas, changes in development patterns—such as a mix of uses and modern housing alternatives--could help decrease automobile traffic. Much can be done to encourage pedestrian travel, bicycle usage, and other forms of transportation.

Efforts to reduce commuter traffic to locations of employment, commerce, and major educational institutions are likely to be most effective in automobile trip reduction. New public transit options such as FrontRunner and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) are providing or will provide increased opportunities for decreased automobile dependence. Both residents and nonresidents benefit from increased transit usage through reduced traffic congestion and reduced emissions.

Transit-Oriented Development

Provo’s Intermodal Center and BRT route have great potential to combine transit ridership and higher-density residential and commercial development in a development pattern know as Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), which is a significant opportunity to decrease local and regional vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion. The Mountain Lands Association of Governments – who helps facilitates regional transportation planning – has indicated the BRT line may be upgraded to light-rail in the future if warranted.

The Interim Transit-Oriented Development (ITOD) zone around the intermodal center sets the stage for this development pattern. Future TOD areas should be planned and tailored for selected bus-rapid transit station areas. Special attention should be given to each TOD plan and regulating zone to:

  • Determine the appropriate mix and intensity of residential and commercial development to be centered around future BRT stations.
  • Be cognizant of creating an appropriate transition from BRT stations to established neighborhoods using transitional zoning standards in building form, mass and scale.
  • Define the desired urban form with emphasis on enhancing the pedestrian scale and relationship to the planned environment through carefully articulated form and design standards.
  • Enhance transit ridership through carefully cited retail locations, civic and open spaces and density.
  • Reduce the need for parking and automobile ownership.
  • Enhance additional alternative transit modes such as pedestrian, bicycle and bike and car- sharing facilities to FrontRunner and BRT stations.

Transit-Oriented Planning Areas are identified on the General Plan Map as TOD.

Mixed-Use Development Areas

Occasionally areas within the General Plan call out mixed-use (commercial and residential) development areas that currently have limited access to alternative transit options such as bus and bike facilities. Reductions in parking and automobile facilities in these areas should be augmented by development of alternative transit options along with a traffic demand management plan.  However, these mixed-use planning areas, like TOD, should:

  • Determine the appropriate mix and intensity of residential and commercial development to be centered around future determined neighborhood centers.
  • Be cognizant of creating an appropriate transition from neighborhood centers to established neighborhoods using transitional zoning standards in building form, mass and scale.
  • Define the desired urban form with emphasis on enhancing the pedestrian scale and relationship to the planned environment through carefully articulated form and design standards.
  • Enhance transit ridership, where available, through carefully cited retail locations, civic and open spaces and density.
  • Enhance additional alternative transit modes such as local bus service, pedestrian, bicycle, and car-sharing facilities.

Within newly developing areas, careful attention to placement of housing types, commercial and public services, and employment, in relation to each other and in relation to key transportation corridors, help to reduce the resulting need for excessive automotive trips. Throughout the city, much can be done to encourage walking and bicycling as a primary means of transportation and to access transit and for travel independent of transit.

Protecting Historic Neighborhood Character

The mix of land uses, density, and design affect neighborhood character. Historically significant design themes should be preserved through rehabilitation and protection of significant existing properties. New construction should be compatible with existing design themes in an area. Provo City’s Design Review Committee is raising the level of awareness of design issues, and quality projects are being constructed because of this awareness. The Landmarks Commission is identifying properties worthy of preservation, finding ways to provide preservation incentives, and protecting historic properties.

Promoting Safe Development, Promoting Open Space Preservation, and Protecting Public Access to Recreational Areas in the Foothills

Current policies regarding hillside development should be strictly enforced and periodically re-evaluated to ensure public services are not strained, homes are safe, and access to open space is preserved.

Increasing the Tax Base through Commercial Development

Residential development requires more services than property taxes and user fees provide. This is also true of many institutional land uses, such as churches and schools. To offset this, opportunities to establish and sustain  revenue-producing uses, or to revitalize old uses, need to be found. Provo City should be a “full service” community, providing consumer choices and convenient shopping opportunities.

Replacing and/or Consolidating Neighborhood Plans Adopted Since 1977

Lacking resources to revise the 1977 General Plan, the City adopted neighborhood plans. They were substitutes for a comprehensive general plan and filled policy voids. The neighborhood plans resulted in an amalgam of policies, codes, and requirements, that proved cumbersome to administer and difficult to interpret. Since that time, Provo City has worked with many stakeholders to provide a more comprehensive General Plan. The creation of that General Plan in 1997 provided one document, ensuring consistency within the document and with overall citywide needs. The comprehensive update to the plan, adopted in 2004, addressed changing needs and circumstances in a number of these neighborhoods, but through a comprehensive, citywide planning process. Since the 2009 General Plan Update, several other neighborhood plans have been adopted. These plans have been incorporated into the General Plan and added as appendices.

For a discussion regarding the population and demographic characteristics of Provo City, please see the Plan’s Introduction, Administration, and Population chapter.

CHAPTER 1 - CENTRAL AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

CENTRAL AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

1.2.9 Key Land Use Policies (by Area and Neighborhood)

Neighborhood Structure in Relation to Land Use Policies

The City is divided into 34 neighborhoods within five area neighborhood councils. Map 1.4 Provo City Neighborhoods Map shows the 34 neighborhood boundaries. Map  1.5 General Plan Map shows the General Plan land use designations for all of Provo. Area Neighborhood Council Maps for the various area neighborhood councils can be found in the map document accompanying the General Plan with its land use designations (Maps 1.6 to 1.10). They include the Central Area Neighborhood Council, Northeast Area Neighborhood Council, Northwest Area Neighborhood Council, Southeast Area Neighborhood Council, and the Southwest Area Neighborhood Council.

Land Use Policies by Area Council and Neighborhood Central Area Neighborhood Council Map 1.6

CENTRAL AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Downtown

Joaquin

Dixon

Maeser

East Bay

North Park

Franklin

Timp

Franklin South

The Central Area Neighborhood Council consists of nine neighborhoods. They include the Downtown, Dixon, East Bay, Franklin, Franklin South, Joaquin, Maeser, North Park, and Timp. Five of those neighborhoods are defined as Pioneer Neighborhoods; they are Dixon, Franklin, Joaquin, Maeser, and Timp. The Pioneer Neighborhoods are being targeted for neighborhood conservation by protecting one-family structures. By protecting these homes, the City hopes that the real estate market will stabilize so these homes will be preserved for residential uses and to make it possible and desirable for greater numbers of families to move back into these neighborhoods.

While the single-family dwelling should remain the ideal, this emphasis should not exclude a growing demand for housing types for middle-income individuals who often are priced out of larger family homes and not looking to move into student apartments.

Key policies for the Central Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Central Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance.

Central Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals:

The following policies and goals are considered to be shared, to some degree, by all of the Central Area neighborhoods and apply in addition to the policies listed individually for each neighborhood:

  1. Residents in the Central Residential Area strongly support establishing and encouraging healthy neighborhoods where residents and property owners live and invest their time, energy, and money because they are family friendly and because financial investment makes economic sense. Actions include:
    1. Increasing owner-occupancy; and
    2. Establishing the one-family dwelling as the principal residential use except in areas designated for higher-density, campus-oriented redevelopment in the Joaquin South Campus Planning Area, the Central Business District zone, Transit-Oriented Development zones and areas identified as Transit Oriented Development, Downtown or Mixed-Use on the General Plan Map.

Within Central Residential Area neighborhoods, the City must continue to strongly support and participate in revitalization programs and ensure responsible management of non-resident owned properties through enforcement of the Rental Dwelling Business Licensing ordinance.

  1. Strengthen and enhance the Community Oriented Policing, mobile watch, and neighborhood watch programs, to increase crime awareness, provide key contact people and a process for reporting crime concerns, and to educate neighbors in neighborhood safety. Report back to the neighborhoods and maintain a responsive relationship between law enforcement and citizens.
  2. Pedestrian-friendly design is strongly encouraged to achieve standards of “livability” within urban corridors, with special concern for safety aspects of collector streets for pedestrians and bicyclists, including children using these corridors to access schools, parks, libraries and community-oriented commercial services.
  3. Integrity in architecture is strongly urged for any new development or redevelopment; the styles that exist may vary between neighborhoods and within sections of a neighborhood.
  4. Evaluate development proposals against the backdrop of the community goals to promote homeowner-occupancy, but also with consideration for the character and general scale of housing on surrounding and nearby properties. Projects should reflect the type of housing and architectural style of the surrounding neighborhood and be compatible with the density of the neighborhood. The benefits of redevelopment should be weighed against the current use of the property in order to achieve the most desirable result, but not as a substitute for good maintenance of existing uses through responsible property management and enforcement of the rental dwelling business-licensing requirements.
  5. Ensure that businesses comply with zoning laws.
  6. Monitor and enforce truck routes for businesses that impact neighborhoods with illegal truck routing, stacking and standing. Continue to improve infrastructure to provide appropriate and adequate street access for trucking, as an alternative to unsatisfactory routes through residential areas. The need for social service clients to reside near public transit or within walking distance of social service agency offices, places of employment and shopping is acknowledged; yet there is concern with concentrating special populations within a particular neighborhood and the possible inequitable burden placed on a neighborhood’s residents as a result of this concentration of high-impact residents.
  7. Plan for appropriate transit-oriented redevelopment (TOD), to focus new development and redevelopment along transit corridors, with (a) appropriate residential densities to support transit use, (b) mixing of uses to reduce the need for vehicle trips, and (c) efficient use of infrastructure, in such a way as to further support a reduced reliance on individual automobile trips.
  8. Plan for new street connections to open up large blocks of land that have inadequate access for good development or redevelopment.
  9. Consider possibilities for grade separation of streets (including pedestrian walkways) and railroad tracks to:
    1. Reduce access issues, related to trains blocking streets, for buses and automobiles using the intermodal station, and
    2. Facilitate pedestrian access between the Amtrak station (located north of the railroad tracks on 600 South, east of Freedom Blvd) and the intermodal station; and
    3. Improve safety and access for other walking and bicycling trips to surrounding dwellings, services, and businesses.
  10. Work with the railroads to resolve feasibility issues for transit improvements impacting neighborhoods:
    1. Impacts to traffic related to neighborhood access and related to scheduling of buses traveling to and from the planned intermodal station and providing local bus service; and
    2. Safety, noise and aesthetic issues for existing, new and redeveloped residential and business uses in the vicinity of the intermodal station through facility enhancement of the existing heavy rail lines (such as fencing, landscaping, walkways and bicycle paths) and through operations management related to heavy rail use and switching yards.
    3. Work with UTA and railroad companies to improve quiet zones in conjunction with commuter rail.
  11. Commercial development fronting an arterial or collector road should not be extended beyond existing property lines to include other lots that do not front on an arterial or collector road. The rear yard of a lot fronting on a local street should not be used to extend the depth of a lot used for commercial purposes.
  12. Study the feasibility of establishing a transferable development rights (TDR) program to increase owner occupancy in targeted areas. Potential TDR sending and receiving areas should include, but not limited to, the North Joaquin, Interim Transit Oriented Development and Center Street areas, including West Center Street to I- 15.
  13. Structures originally built for residential use on the streets listed below should be allowed to retain commercial uses. A feasibility study should be conducted of historic and other aesthetically valuable structures along arterial and collector roads that have been identified for mixed-use and commercial redevelopment to determine costs and viability of their relocation within adjacent neighborhoods as a tool for neighborhood revitalization programs.
  • Center Street: 100 East to 400 East and 600 West to 800 West
  • 500 West: 200 North to 500 North
  • University Avenue: 500 North to 960 North
  1. Freeway-oriented commercial zoning should be initiated for property adjacent to I-15. Planning for the area should identify and implement mechanisms to ensure that frontage properties are developed with adequate street access to the north and south.
  2. Center Street, between 500 West and the railroad tracks should be studied and planned to capitalize on the reconstruction of the Interstate 15 Center Street interchange. An analysis of appropriate mixed-use and commercial land uses, densities and other factors should guide the development of any zoning ordinances regulating this area.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Central Area Council are listed, below, by neighborhood:

Downtown Neighborhood

The Municipal Council adopted the Downtown Master Plan on April 7, 2015 as a component of the General Plan. The Downtown Master Plan provides specific details on the existing conditions of the Downtown Neighborhood. Guidance for future land uses and development patterns are detailed in the Downtown Master Plan. Additionally, it sets forth urban design criteria and gives direction for parks and open space as well as transportation patterns and circulation. The Downtown Master Plan is incorporated into the General Plan as Appendix X1 and it should be adhered to as redevelopment projects within the area are reviewed. 

Dixon Neighborhood

One of the first areas settled in historic Provo, Dixon Neighborhood is adjacent to Downtown and has a rich heritage. It offers an attractive and sustainable mix of housing focused on long-term homeownership while meeting the needs of a variety of short-term residents, both homeowners and renters.  Dixon Neighborhood is a walkable community due to its proximity and convenient access to numerous and varied destinations in the neighborhood and nearby neighborhoods, including parks and trails, schools, churches, libraries, community centers, arts, entertainment and recreation venues, government and business offices, grocery and other shopping opportunities, medical centers and a post office. Close to public transportation, Dixon offers a safe, attractive, atmosphere of large, tree-lined streets, sparse traffic and friendly neighbors. Dixon residents envision the neighborhood as a family-oriented area with one-family households, residing in one-family dwellings, with or without accessory apartments.

Goals of the Neighborhood:
  1. Increase permanent residents to support community, school and a mix of ages.
  2. Improve the housing choices to accommodate the people who do want to stay. Provide good housing options for all life stages.
  3. Maintain the family nature of the neighborhood while welcoming people of various household structures. Maintain and improve on the great quality of life while addressing the changing development pressures and resident preferences.
  4. Maintain and improve on the historical feel, sense of place, and heritage of the area. Become the premier location for families and individuals looking for a semi-urban lifestyle. (As properties within the neighborhood redevelop, architectural styles to be reflected include Victorian, Victorian Classic, Modern Victorian, Tudor Revival, bungalow, Salt Box, Post War and Modern Ranch in order to preserve the historic character of the community.)
  5. Support and encourage quality businesses who serve the needs of the residents. Improve the pedestrian-friendly aspects of our neighborhood.
  6. Improve the sense of safety and well-being of people out in the neighborhood.
  7. Improve the transportation options for residents. Improve the feeling of belonging and of mutual concern among residents particularly across demographic differences.
  8. Improve the two existing schools (Dixon Middle School and Timpanogos Elementary) to meet the demands of new population growth and to replace, or bring up to code, existing structures.
Key Land Use Policies to achieve the goals of the Dixon Neighborhood
  1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R).
  2. Restrict commercial uses along Center Street from 500 West to 1000 West from extending into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.
  3. Ensure that approved redevelopment projects will move Dixon Neighborhood forward to realize the neighborhood vision.
  4. Study the feasibility of placing landscape medians in Center Street from 500 West to 900 West to enhance the proposed design corridor.
  5. Study the feasibility of conducting a historic designation survey in the Dixon Neighborhood.
  6. If redevelopment of the Fresh Market Commercial Center—located between 600 West and 500 West Center Street—should occur, the plan should provide for a more appropriate transition between commercial and residential uses on 600 West. Loading docks, block walls and other uninviting design is strongly discouraged. Preferentially, residential development should front 600 West.
  7. Support the Gateway, West Gateway, Freeway Commercial, and Freeway Commercial Two zones, to transform Center Street into a fitting entry into the City and to take full advantage of the prime freeway access of the Draper Lane area. Consider a pedestrian bridge to connect Draper lane to the rest of the neighborhood near 200 North.
  8. Consider Complete Street principles when planning any road maintenance or improvement.

East Bay Neighborhood

  1. Restrict the heavy commercial and heavy manufacturing uses from encroaching into the retail shopping areas.
  2. Evaluate the Planned Industrial/Commercial Zone to determine whether greater distinction should be drawn between the industrial park development and the commercial development, using East Bay as the foundation for the evaluation. Distinction in principal uses, conditional uses, sign standards and colors, and traffic circulation may be appropriate for greater distinction between the industrial and commercial areas.
  3. Evaluate the East Bay covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for conflicts with the PIC zone language and consider revisions that impact the City’s issuance of permits in conformance with City ordinances that may conflict with the East Bay covenants.
  4. The Neighborhood Chair will continue to serve on the East Bay Association Board of Directors during the development phase of East Bay and work toward establishing and maintaining long-term, successful businesses in the planned industrial/commercial park.
  5. That approximately 60 acres located south of 1860 South and east of the I-15 Freeway be developed as a Regional Shopping Center and zoned SC3. This project should be high quality and consist of retail and professional office uses that will complement the existing East Bay Center and the Provo Towne Centre Mall.
  6. Continue to encourage quality development and redevelopment near the Provo Towne Centre Mall, including an attractive, well-landscaped frontage along University Avenue, to create a more significant entrance to this vital retail anchor. Uses that complement and support the shopping mall should be actively sought and encouraged. Ordinances should be reviewed for uses that could detract from the long-term success of the Provo Towne Centre Mall. Design to facilitate traffic circulation between the mall and these University Avenue businesses should be required during the development process.
  7. Consider a study that evaluates development of the East Bay Golf Course for retail and consider relocation of an enhanced golf course elsewhere.

Franklin Neighborhood

Neighborhood Vision, Challenges, and Goals

Franklin Neighborhood encompasses the first permanently settled area in what is now Utah County. The Franklin Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the Municipal Council, and it is incorporated in the General Plan as Appendix (#). It details existing conditions in the neighborhood and provides additional detail on acceptable future land uses. It should be closely followed as properties redevelop. 

Franklin South Neighborhood

Goals of the Franklin South Neighborhood are as follows:
  1. Add another access across the railroad tracks;
  2. Develop intermodal plans and design all development around the plan;
  3. Develop better road infrastructure and access to the neighborhood;
  4. Increase  homeowner-occupancy;
  5. Eliminate existing blighted, high-density properties and identify locations for appropriately located and designed public recreational parks to serve this densely populated neighborhood.
  6. Complete sidewalks and off-site improvements to provide walkability throughout the neighborhood and adjoining communities.
Challenges for the Neighborhood

Franklin South Neighborhood is one of Provo’s more population-dense neighborhoods, yet lacks recreation facilities for children and families. Children are bussed to schools outside the neighborhood, and central park space is not available. Neighborhood cohesion that builds on the strengths of diversity is also a challenge.

Franklin South needs the cooperative efforts of the City and other agencies to achieve appropriate new development and redevelopment. The neighborhood could significantly benefit from the Provo Redevelopment Agency homebuyer assistance programs and other related neighborhood programs.

Franklin South is the gateway to the Provo Towne Centre Mall. Transportation connections between this neighborhood and the mall and other commercial services should include walkways, bikeways, traffic calming measures, and transit. Improvements for pedestrian access from the neighborhoods to the mall should be identified and implemented.

Key Land Use Policies for the Franklin South Neighborhood
  1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.
  2. Encourage an open public place or a small park for any large-scale redevelopment within the neighborhood.
  3. New development should be coordinated with the intermodal center and related street network and redevelopment guidelines, including mixed use, transit-oriented development in appropriate locations. Residential development in mixed-use projects should be developed above the ground floor. Commercial development on ground floors within mixed-use zoning should be carefully sited to ensure maximum success and long-term viability with the neighborhood.
  4. Develop a dialogue between citizens, the City and social service agencies.
  5. Continue to evaluate how eligible neighborhoods may effectively utilize neighborhood revitalization initiatives, such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).

Joaquin Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Joaquin Neighborhood

The Joaquin neighborhood has long been a desirable area to live in Provo due to its excellent location, peaceful tree-lined streets and rich architectural history, but has experienced special challenges due to its proximity to Brigham Young University. The Joaquin Neighborhood Plan was adopted by the Municipal Council, and it is incorporated into the General Plan as Appendix (#). It further describes the existing conditions of the Joaquin Neighborhood and provides guidance for implementation of future land uses. The Joaquin Neighborhood Plan should be closely followed when considering redevelopment of properties in the neighborhood.

Maeser Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Maeser Neighborhood

The Maeser neighborhood is one of the Pioneer Neighborhoods of Provo, with a desirable central location and pleasing architectural styles that reflect the history of the area. The Maeser School is a valuable historical architectural resource and a reflection of community values through the efforts to preserve this structure, which have resulted in an adaptive reuse of the school building and surrounding grounds to one-family dwellings.

Residents of the neighborhood have concerns about encroachment of multiple-family housing structures that are not appropriately designed for transition and compatibility with one-family homes. Residents of Maeser desire to reestablish the neighborhood as a location with long-term residents who can energize and provide stability to the neighborhood. Proximity to social services, while a benefit to residents, can also present special challenges as in other Pioneer Neighborhoods. Residents feel it is important to establish a dialogue with social service agencies to evaluate how best to provide services while encouraging home ownership investment.

Residents desire improvements to promote better access to public transit and improved walkability. They see a need for visioning studies to help identify desirable redevelopment scenarios and standards in areas such as 600 South from University Avenue to 900 East.

Key Land Use Policies to address the goals of the Maeser Neighborhood
  1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures within areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map. Promote owner-occupancy throughout the neighborhood by limiting new development to detached, one-family homes. Some exceptions, such as development along State Street, may be considered through the City’s established planning and development procedures.
  2. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family, detached housing. Higher density residential housing, such as duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments, other than legal accessory apartments created in owner-occupied, one-family dwellings, is not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood. Some exceptions, such as development along State Street, may be determined through the City’s established planning and development procedures.
  3. Promote use of existing neighborhood residential design standards to assist developers with infill development or redevelopment of one-family homes.
  4. Encourage responsible property management through enforcement of the Rental Dwelling Business Licensing ordinance.
  5. Develop a dialogue between citizens, the City and social service.
  6. The need for social service clients to reside near public transit or within walking distance of social service agency offices, places of employment and shopping is acknowledged; yet there is concern with concentrating special populations within a particular neighborhood and the possible inequitable burden placed on a neighborhood’s residents as a result of this concentration of high-impact residents. Rental Dwelling Business Licensing requirements should be diligently enforced, and responsible property management set as the standard.
  7. Existing commercial development should not be allowed to expand to the degree that it encroaches into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.
  8. Study the feasibility of placing landscape medians in Center Street from 100 East to 1000 East.
  9. Promote the use of a professional vision-planning consultant to identify desirable development in areas such as 600 South, from University Avenue to 900 East.
  10. Although a primary goal of the neighborhood is to increase one-family owner-occupied residences, areas of the neighborhood near University Avenue and 600 South that are currently zoned Light Manufacturing should be considered for future zone changes to transit-oriented development zoning to encourage improvement to the adjacent one-family areas of the neighborhood.

North Park Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the North Park Neighborhood

The North Park Neighborhood shares many of the characteristics of the other Central Area neighborhoods. There is a desire to reestablish one-family occupancy and opportunities for home ownership and residency by families and individuals who can make a long-term commitment to the neighborhood. A high rate of rental properties and a general decline in the condition of many properties provides a challenge for the revitalization of the neighborhood. The architectural character of historic homes contributes character to the neighborhood, and there is a desire to see these homes preserved and restored.

  1. Increase the number of owner-occupants to stabilize and strengthen the neighborhood.
  2. Improve and support the availability of off-street parking and enforce current requirements.
  3. Improve the pedestrian-friendly and safety aspects of the neighborhood.
  4. Reduce crime and implement programs to have a drug-free neighborhood.
  5. Preserve and maintain the family-oriented public recreational facilities in the neighborhood, including, Exchange Park, North Park, Paul Ream Wilderness Park, and Riverside Park.
  6. Maintain the architectural heritage on University Avenue that is a unique part of Provo’s heritage.
Key Land Use Policies to address the goals of the North Park Neighborhood
  1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map. Promote owner-occupancy throughout the neighborhood by limiting new development to detached, one- family homes and the rehabilitation of existing one-family homes, where designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map
  2. Study the feasibility of doing a historic designation survey in the North Park Neighborhood with the goal of preserving homes and buildings of historic and architectural value that help to create the character of the neighborhood.
  3. Should redevelopment occur, efforts should be made to incorporate historic structures into the development or relocate them.
  4. Encourage responsible property management through the enforcement of the Rental Dwelling Business Licensing ordinance and other applicable zoning ordinances.
  5. Develop a dialogue between neighborhoods, the City, landlords, and social service agencies to review concerns and complaints about social service clients living in the neighborhood. Evaluate the service the agencies are providing, the degree of responsibilities for clients by these agencies, and possible changes to reduce neighborhood resident complaints and concerns resulting from these services.

Timp Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Timp Neighborhood

The residents of Timpanogos neighborhood seek to provide restoration and redevelopment of the remaining homes, as well as the substandard multi-family apartment units. Approximately 80 percent of Timp residents live in apartment units. Restoring and maintaining one-family homes, many of which are historic, in owner-occupancy will provide balance and stability to this neighborhood.

Solutions

The residents believe that the zoning laws currently in place and their enforcement will hold the solutions to the many difficult problems the neighborhood is facing. Residents envision a neighborhood without blight, restoring the community feel that once existed, through careful planning and zoning. Residents urge continued, aggressive enforcement of zoning laws add continued pursuit of effective rental dwelling business licensing implementation to ensure public safety and the quality of residential properties.

Key Land Use Policies to address the goals of the Timp Neighborhood
  1. Increase permanent residents to support local schools and strengthen the neighborhood.
  2. Preserve and maintain remaining historic homes in Timpanogos. Study the feasibility of doing a historic designation survey in the Timp Neighborhood.
  3. Where possible, redevelop and restore current multi-family/apartment dwellings.
  4. Through zoning and enforcement, begin to eliminate illegal and substandard housing.
  5. Enforce parking standards.

Currently, a Timp Neighborhood Plan is being drafted which will provide additional details on existing land uses and conditions. The Timp Neighborhood Plan will provide guidance on future land use policies and redevelopment preferences. After the Timp Neighborhood Plan is completed and adopted by the Municipal Council it should be incorporated into the General Plan and closely adhered to as redevelopment occurs.

CHAPTER 1 - NORTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

NORTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Northeast Area Neighborhood Council Map 1.7

NORTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Edgemont

Rock Canyon

Indian Hills

Sherwood Hills

North Timpview

The Northeast Area Neighborhood Council consists of five neighborhoods: Edgemont, Indian Hills, North Timpview, Rock Canyon, and Sherwood Hills. Key policies for the Northeast Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Northeast Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Northeast Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Northeast Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

  1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.
  2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development with a goal of increasing the amount of owner-occupied housing units.
  3. Any new development within areas with the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) will be subject to studies of potential geologic hazards, geotechnical constraints, slopes or other conditions, as required by the City Engineer or State Geologist. This will ensure that sensitive lands are appropriately developed or, where necessary, to protect people, property or significant natural features, withheld from development.
  4. Establish policies and ordinances for Rock Canyon that limit commercial activity and development as well as protect and enhance the area as a citywide recreational asset.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Northeast Area Neighborhood Council are listed, below, by neighborhood:

Edgemont Neighborhood

  1. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family, detached housing. Duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments, are not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood. Housing should be developed at the scale of surrounding existing development. The neighborhood may consider design regulations to control housing scale in established residential areas to prevent incompatible infill development.
  2. Limit rural agricultural tracts south of Timpview High School to one-family residential development. If developed as performance developments, they should be limited to one-family dwellings.
  3. Prohibit existing commercial and office nodes from expanding into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.
  4. Retain the auto repair service and gas station property on the northeast corner of 2950 North and Canyon Road as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map to reflect neighborhood concern that this property not be sold for commercial redevelopment or change in commercial use. The City has approved a PRO (Project Redevelopment Option) zone to allow facility expansion and redesign of the existing, nonconforming business within the original parcel boundaries, using the PRO process. This action recognizes that this business has provided a needed service to the community for many years, but is in need of modernization to compete economically and to better integrate into this substantially one-family residential area.
    1. This action is not intended to encourage or facilitate further commercial development at this intersection, but to allow this nonconforming use to establish as a conforming business through the PRO process. It is not the Council’s intent to amend the General Plan Map upon rezoning, but to maintain the R map designation.
    2. The adjoining lot(s) under the same ownership, fronting 2950 North, would remain designated as Residential (R) for the purpose of one-family residential use. The General Plan boundary for expansion of the existing commercial use is considered to be the existing property line.
  5. The property located generally at 3645 North Canyon Road, now used for a car wash, may be redeveloped for low-density residential use (R1.10 Zone) with areas exceeding 30 percent slope restricted from development. Any development must be compatible in density, scale and design with adjoining residential development. Consolidating the property with additional property is encouraged.
  6. The Fire Station along Canyon Road should be designated as Residential on the General Plan Map. If the property is sold by the City, it should be developed comparable to the R1.10 Zone.

Indian Hills Neighborhood

  1. Prohibit development in the unincorporated USDA Forest Service land east of Indian Hills within the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS).
  2. Work with the Provo City Traffic Engineer to explore the possibilities of developing a traffic-calming improvement plan to address issues of traffic speed concerns, particularly on Navajo Lane and Indian Hills Drive.

North Timpview Neighborhood

  1. Prohibit new Agricultural (A) designations, within the City limits, which grant animal rights, except where agricultural use is established on property that may be annexed into City limits.
  2. Strive for increased owner-occupancy. Density higher than R1.10 zoning is not within the goals of this neighborhood.
  3. Although not shown on the map as PF - Public Facilities, the anticipation is that the East Lawn Cemetery will expand in a manner consistent with the PF designation. Provo City recognizes the need to appropriately expand the East Lawn Cemetery to provide services for Provo’s population and does not intend this expansion to require an amendment to the Provo City General Plan.
  4. Work to establish an infrastructure improvement plan that focuses on installing, replacing, or repairing sidewalks, and streetlights. Also, improve access of private residences to sewer laterals to replace existing septic systems.

Rock Canyon Neighborhood

See Appendix C-2 for information regarding the Country Club Manor Specific Development Plan.

Sherwood Hills Neighborhood

New development above the 5200-foot elevation within the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) is restricted due to conditions described in Chapter 4 Natural Resources and Environment of this General Plan.

CHAPTER 1 - NORTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

NORTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Northwest Area Neighborhood Council Map 1.8

NORTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Carterville

Grandview South

Grandview North

Rivergrove

The Northwest Area Neighborhood Council consists of four neighborhoods: Carterville, Grandview North, Grandview South, and Rivergrove. Key policies for the Northwest Area Council are listed below. Policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Northwest Area neighborhoods, are followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Northwest Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Northwest Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures within areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.

2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Northwest Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood:

Carterville Neighborhood

  1. Property designated as Mixed-Use (M) on the General Plan Map should not develop under mixed-use guidelines until an area master plan has been established. The area master plan should specifically address how development interacts with the Provo River frontage. Policies that encourage a pedestrian friendly, mixed-use riverwalk area are highly encouraged.

Grandview North Neighborhood

  1. This neighborhood is well established and expected to remain consistent in its uses and continue to meet the guiding principles for the Northwest Area.

Grandview South Neighborhood

  1. This neighborhood is well established and expected to remain consistent in its uses and continue to meet the guiding principles for the Northwest Area.
  2. Plan, adopt, and implement a landscaping plan for property adjacent to the 1375 West corridor in order to beautify the area and mitigate safety hazards created by vegetative overgrowth into the sidewalk and right-of- way.

Rivergrove Neighborhood

  1. Provide alternative land use designations for the mobile home park at Columbia Lane and Grandview Lane as Commercial (C), Residential (R), or Mixed-Use (MU). Any of these designations could be appropriate in this location, and would facilitate the redevelopment of that parcel. Whatever is approved on this site should have landscaping along the street frontage consistent with the residential developments on the northeast and southwest corners, and commercial buildings should be designed to fit in with the residential character.
  2. Encourage the commercial redevelopment of Columbia Lane from State Street to the residential development just south of Grandview Lane. Sidewalk, curb, and gutter should be installed for safety and to prohibit parking backing out onto Columbia Lane. Land uses should be better screened in the future or promote retail rather than automotive related uses. The Council may consider a design corridor for this area. Bike lane planning should be included in the development of a design corridor plan and ordinance.
  3. Encourage the improvement of the neighborhoods and by supporting policies and ordinances that attract a mix of family types, including retirees and singles, increasing owner-occupancy, encouraging neighborhood activities, requiring the proper maintenance of homes, and landscaping.
  4. Work with law-enforcement programs, such as Community Oriented Policing (COP) to decrease illegal activities within the neighborhood.
  5. Work to develop and implement an infrastructure improvement plan to install sidewalks in areas that do not have them.
  6. Preserve and maintain park and open space by working with the Parks Department to repair, maintain, improve and increase recreational facilities within the neighborhood.
  7. Commercial uses should not encroach into established residential areas.

CHAPTER 1 - SOUTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

SOUTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Southeast Area Neighborhood Council Map 1.9

SOUTHEAST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Foothills

Provost South

Oak Hills

Spring Creek

Pleasant View

University

Provost

Wasatch

The Southeast Area Neighborhood Council consists of eight neighborhoods: Foothills, Oak Hills, Pleasant View, Provost, Provost South, Spring Creek, University, and Wasatch. Key policies for the Southeast Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood. Key policies for the Southeast Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Southeast Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Southeast Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Southeast Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

  1. Viable, significant areas of one-family structures within the Residential (R) should be protected for continued one-family use.
  2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development, except where specified otherwise.
  3. Any proposed development within Developmentally Sensitive areas will be subject to studies of potential wetlands, flood plains or other conditions, as required by the City Engineer or by any State or Federal regulatory agency with jurisdiction to ensure that sensitive lands are appropriately developed or, where necessary, to protect people, property or significant natural features, withheld from development.
  4. Establish policies and ordinances that protect and enhance Slate Canyon.

South State Street Corridor Development Policies

South State Street is the main entrance into southeast Provo City and traverses from the intersection of State Road (SR) 75 (Springville City Limits) to 300 South. From approximately 900 South to the city limits, State Street divides the Provost South and Spring Creek Neighborhoods from each other.

The intent of this policy is to create a mixed-use corridor with uniform public and private property design and development standards that are conducive to both of the adjacent neighborhoods and that will enhance the character of South State Street. The policy encompasses all properties located between the existing railroad tracks west of State Street and all properties adjacent to State Street on the east side.

Due to the length and character of South State Street, the corridor is divided into two large areas for discussion of land use policy. These areas are described as Area A (North of 1860 South) and Area B (South of 1860 South). The Public Way Design Standards are for the entire length of South State Street.

Public Way Policies

Policies should address uniform public way improvements for the entire corridor including the following:

  1. All new and existing utilities should be placed underground when development occurs where feasible.
  2. The street design (acceptable to UDOT and Provo City by mutual agreement) should include, but not be limited to: uniform curb, gutter, sidewalks, street width, street lighting, landscaping, street signage, etc. and provide for efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Southeast Area Neighborhood Council are listed, below, by neighborhood:

Foothills Neighborhood

Vision, Challenges, and Goals of the Foothills Neighborhood

Over time, the Foothills neighborhood has become a diverse neighborhood including homes ranging in size from small, post-war starter homes to large luxury homes. The neighborhood includes a small, but distinct commercial zone and a strip of high-density student housing. This mix of uses creates advantages and challenges for the neighborhood.

Foothills is an ideal place for young couples just starting out to rent or even own a small home, duplex, or basement apartment as they transition toward permanent housing. At the same time, there are a significant number of families that have lived in the neighborhood for decades. New, larger homes on the east side of the neighborhood are also very attractive to established families that are looking for a place to sink roots.

Additionally, baching singles rent student housing along 450 North.

The vision for this neighborhood is to maintain the current delicate balance of residents and uses in a way that is sustainable economically and socially. Some of the keys to making this viable:

  1. Attracting permanent residents to the neighborhood is a critical focus. Having permanent residents provides community stability and support for those that are just starting out.
  2. Encourage policies that prompt baching singles to reside in the South Campus Planning Area and reclaim dwellings for one-family occupancy.
  3. Ensure that all property owners are aware of the neighborhood rules and municipal regulations.
  4. Enforce occupancy and Rental Dwelling Licensing rules.

Past efforts to maintain this balance have focused on stricter enforcement of zoning requirements, modification of parking requirements and zones, and the implementation of restrictive covenants in new developments. The intent of these efforts has been to make housing pleasant and attractive to families appropriate to the size of the home as well as to providing adequate, usable, and attractive housing in areas designated for baching singles.

It is the goal of the neighborhood to work with owners of condominium complexes in the heart of the neighborhood to encourage the unit owners to abide occupancy limitations and other noise, nuisance, and parking issues as regulated by Provo City Code.

The City-owned property near 1480 North be developed as a park in the future.

Goals of the Foothills Neighborhood
  1. Increase owner occupancy within the neighborhood.
  2. Attract longer-term residents to increase neighborhood stability.
  3. Foster a sense of community.
  4. Find a permanent resolution to the occupancy violations and concerns within the condominium complexes.
  5. Ensure that existing designated student housing remains an attractive option for baching singles.

New residential developments should focus on creating housing that will encourage permanent residents.

  1. Promote owner-occupancy throughout the neighborhood by limiting new development to detached, one- family dwellings.
  2. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family detached housing. Higher density residential housing such as duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments are not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood.
  3. It is the intent of Council that a boundary between the higher density uses of Brigham Young University (BYU) on the west side of 900 East and the one-family residential uses of the Foothills neighborhood be maintained. This plan designates 900 East as the boundary that best respects existing uses and protects both uses from the incompatibility of having high density residential or commercial uses next to one-family residential uses. Because 900 East provides the most logical buffer between these two incompatible uses, this plan designates that residential properties on 900 East, where currently zoned and used for one-family detached homes, should be maintained as one-family detached housing. Higher density residential housing such as duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments are not compatible with the goals for this area.
  4. Commercial and other non-residential development not be allowed to expand.
  5. The former Meridian School property should be developed in a way that is compatible with adjacent properties. One acceptable use would be a public facility that benefits the neighborhood, such as a church or park. An alternative acceptable use would be a mixed-use project, as long as the proposed project is structured in a way to create a buffer between any high-density elements and the one-family uses that border the property. It is anticipated that the property will be developed in a manner that will encourage the long-term stability of the one-family neighborhoods near the property. Any residential or mixed-use development of the property should have a high ratio of parking to minimize any on-street parking. If the development includes any high-density elements, after such a development is completed, the property should remain under one ownership in accordance with Brigham Young University housing rules. Regardless of the final use, there should be no access from 300 North.
  6. Residential project plans for property under the Residential (R) General Plan Map designation east of the Seven Peaks Water Park Resort may develop with a variety of housing types, including one-family detached, one-family semi-detached (twin homes), or one-family attached (townhomes or condominiums not stacked above or below each other). Multiple-family configurations incorporating stacked units may be suitable if designed with dispersed massing (not centrally located in a few buildings). Any project should be designed with sensitivity to the adjacent hillside and should integrate with existing residential development to the north. The project design should not draw attention to itself but rather seek to blend the new residential use with the surrounding land uses.

Oak Hills Neighborhood

  1. Limit development east of 1550 East to one row of homes one lot in depth, with no flag or panhandle lots.

Pleasant View Neighborhood

  1. Restrict the Supplementary Residential overlay zone from expanding beyond its current boundaries.

Provost Neighborhood

  1. Maintain the Public Facility (PF) General Plan designation for the detention basins along Slate Canyon Drive.
  2. Maintain the one-family character of the neighborhood by:
    1. Limiting development in the R designation to detached, one-family dwellings;
    2. Enforcing relevant zoning laws to resist conversion of owner-occupied, one-family homes into two-family dwellings;
    3. Be included in neighborhood revitalization initiatives.
  3. Property in the Developmentally Sensitive designation is of notable concern for protection from inappropriate development.
  4. Continue implementation of the South State Street Design Corridor.

Provost South Neighborhood

  1. New, quality, one-family homes should be developed to provide adequate living space for growing families that wish to relocate to or remain within the Provost South neighborhood, including detached homes. Focus for new development for mixed housing types suitable for owner-occupancy should develop using appropriate rezoning tools and provide adequate open space, amenities, buffering from non-residential uses, and such architectural styles and orientation as to not give the appearance of multiple-family housing.
  2. Encourage and/or maintain owner-occupancy.
  3. Evaluate the impacts of road designations to existing residents, especially collector designations. Evaluate the impacts of new development on street parking in constrained areas such as the east bench and implement traffic calming measures and parking restrictions as determined appropriate.
  4. Provide and upgrade infrastructure, including appropriately designed and located, public recreational space.
  5. Continue to implement the South State Street Design Corridor from the south City limits to 300 South for new development and redevelopment. Properties along the South State Street corridor should develop for quality businesses that are compatible with adjoining and nearby residential development, with focus on retail commercial and shopping center uses within a planned, well-designed configuration.
  6. The Slate Canyon Area Master Plan has been adopted as Key Land Use Policy for the area of the Provost South Neighborhood encompassed by the Plan. The Slate Canyon Specific Area Plan is included in Appendix B- 3 of the General Plan.

Spring Creek Neighborhood

  1. Ironton should be developed as an upscale business park, with industrial and commercial uses in a park-like atmosphere. Ironton Boulevard should connect to Larsen Parkway with adequate traffic control for the area.
  2. Mixed-use development should be considered for the property along the west side of South State Street (US 89), between 900 South and 1860 South, after an area master plan has been completed. Multi-family housing may be developed within this area with or without the commercial elements if developed as part of a project redevelopment option (PRO), performance development (PD), or specific development plan (SDP) zone.
  3. Exceptions to this policy should be made for existing businesses, developed within the M-1 zone, that have made significant investment in the area and have upgraded their properties to comply more closely with the expectations of the adopted design corridor through enhanced landscaping, architectural improvements, and other standards.
    1. Flexibility in interpretation of these use boundaries and careful planning in establishing uses within the corridor, based on need and the desire to “soften” the frontage with limited areas of residential, is encouraged.
    2. Mixed-use neighborhood centers should be focused near the intersections of 1320 S State and 1860 S State. The highest vertical mixed-use intensities should be closest to these mixed-use neighborhood centers with residential density and commercial intensities tapering off between the general centers.
    3. Exceptions to this policy should be made for existing businesses, developed within the M-1 zone, that have made significant investment in the area and have upgraded their properties to comply more closely with the expectations of the adopted design corridor through enhanced landscaping, architectural improvements, and other standards.
  4. Continue to implement the South State Street Design Corridor from the south City limits to 300 South for new development and redevelopment.
  5. Properties along the South State Street corridor should develop for quality businesses that are compatible with adjoining and nearby residential development.
  6. Provide public recreational space to service the residents of this neighborhood.
  7. Evaluate the process by which CDBG eligible neighborhoods may effectively utilize revitalization initiatives.

University Neighborhood

  1. The University is an exception to the guiding principles of the Southeast Area Neighborhood Council as there are no significant areas of one-family housing within its boundaries.
  2. Due to its magnitude and unique characteristics, Brigham Young University (BYU) is significantly different from other public facility land uses. In particular, BYU-owned properties that lie within or in proximity to the boundaries of the adjoining Joaquin Neighborhood South Campus Planning Area should be reviewed for compatibility with key land use policies for campus-oriented student housing, mixed-use development, and ancillary services in the areas south and west of the BYU campus.

Wasatch Neighborhood

  1. The Supplementary Residential Overlay Zone should not expand beyond its current boundaries.
  2. Promote owner-occupancy throughout the neighborhood.
  3. Maintain all existing one-family residential areas of the neighborhood as one-family detached housing. Duplexes, twin homes, condominiums, and apartments are not compatible with the goals for this neighborhood.
  4. A boundary between the higher density uses of Brigham Young University (BYU) on the west side of 900 East and the one-family residential uses of the Wasatch neighborhood be maintained. This plan designates 900 East as the boundary that best respects existing uses and protects both uses from the incompatibility of having high density residential or commercial uses next to one-family residential uses.
  5. Existing commercial development not be allowed to expand to the degree that it encroaches into the Residential (R) General Plan designation.
  6. Non-residential uses such as commercial, public facilities, and professional office not be allowed within the residential area on 900 East between Cedar Avenue and the Public Facilities (PF) Zone.

CHAPTER 1 - SOUTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

SOUTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Southwest Area Neighborhood Council Map 1.10

SOUTHWEST AREA NEIGHBORHOODS

Fort Utah

Lakewood

Lakeview North

Provo Bay

Lakeview South

Sunset

The Southwest Area Neighborhood Council consists of six neighborhoods: Fort Utah, Lakeview North, Lakeview South, Lakewood, Provo Bay, and Sunset. Key policies for the Southwest Area Neighborhood Council are listed below by neighborhood. Key policies for the Southwest Area Council are listed below, with policies to address issues shared, to some degree, within all Southwest Area neighborhoods, followed by policies of specific importance, by neighborhood.

Southwest Area Guiding Principles, Policies and Goals

The following policies and goals are shared, to some degree, by all of the Southwest Area Neighborhoods, and they apply in addition to the policies listed for each individual neighborhood:

  1. Protect viable, significant areas of one-family structures in areas designated as Residential (R) on the General Plan Map.
  2. Maintain the Residential (R) General Plan designation with one-family residential development. The aggregate gross density for any development or SDP should not exceed four units per acre, except as designated in item number 12.
  3. Restrict the conversion of agricultural lands to urban development until the majority of vacant land in the Residential (R) area is developed in order to provide logical sequencing of development where infrastructure is available to support increased density and to avoid leapfrog development.
  4. Land within the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) definition of the “AE” flood zone, as defined on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), should be included within the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS).
  5. Development of wetlands and flood plain south of the Utah Lake meander line should be prohibited or restricted.
  6. Update the Transportation and Wastewater Collection System Master Plans in order to evaluate and respond to the impact of new development on critical infrastructures. No development (including annexation, preliminary plan approval, rezoning, etc.) should occur in areas where development will place a burden upon Provo City and the ability to service the areas. Requests for additional development west of I-15 should only be considered after the Public Works Department confirms that public facilities are adequate.
  7. Subject to documentation that the public street and utility systems can support a new development, private property owners interested in the development of land should cooperatively assemble multiple parcels to allow for large-scale, unified, and cohesive development through the application of a Specific Development Plan (SDP) or other applicable zoning tool.
    1. Undeveloped tracts of land, other than those deemed as infill to the development of a general area, should not be annexed into the City, or be rezoned, until a Specific Development Plan addressing that area has been adopted.
    2. In most instances, private parties, rather than the City, will be responsible for the preparation of a Specific Development Plan. Private parties will work closely with the Community Development staff to ensure that General Plan and other goals are incorporated into the plan.
    3. The City may amend the General Plan to outline general goals for Specific Development Plans in targeted areas.
    4. The section of this chapter of the General Plan addressing Specific Development Plans provides additional information on the purpose, intent and method for this process. Title 14 Zoning, of the Provo Municipal Code, provides the regulatory framework for the SDP Overlay Zone.
    5. The adoption of a Specific Development Concept plan does not guarantee the development of properties if the utilities and street systems need to be upgraded.
  8. Additional parks and recreational facilities should be provided for the Southwest.
  9. A master plan is being created for the Southwest Area, and it should be incorporated into the General Plan after its adoption.
  10. The area located on the southeast corner of 820 North and Geneva Road, bordered on the north by 820 North, on the west by North Geneva Road, on the east by I-15, and on the south by the southern boundary of the property owned by Chris Olsen as of February 21, 2012, was allowed to develop with one-family, attached dwelling units with a density greater than four units per acre.

Key land use policies for individual neighborhoods within the Southwest Area Council are listed, below, by neighborhood:

Fort Utah Neighborhood

  1. Encourage 100 feet of public open space along the south side of the Provo River with the development of each property.
  2. The area bounded by Center Street and the Provo River, west of the Lakeside Village Subdivision, within the Residential (R) designation of the Fort Utah Neighborhood, should develop as one-family detached homes with lot sizes of one-half acre or greater, and may include limited animal rights unless a proposed subdivision is designed as a “cluster” type development wherein smaller lots enable the developer to provide a significant amount of common open space. It should be noted that a future collector road is proposed by UDOT to connect into Geneva Road (approximately 2000 North, Provo) and connect to Center Street (Provo) west of 3110 West. The minimum width of right-of-way required will be 100 feet. The exact alignment of the collector road is unknown; therefore, prior to approval of any future development including rezoning of any property in this vicinity, the location of the proposed collector road should be determined. Right-of-way dedication for the proposed road may also be required.
  3. The Residential Agricultural Specific Development Plan, adopted by Municipal Council Resolution 2006-104, is included as Appendix C-3 of the General Plan in order to guide development of this area when the Specific Development Plan zone is adopted.
    1. The three (3) acre parcel identified in the Pelican Creek Specific Development Plan as open space should develop with recreational uses such as an equestrian center, riding park or other similar uses.
    2. The Master Street Plan indicates that 3110 West, designated as a collector road, will eventually cross northward over the Provo River via a future bridge linked to Lakeshore Drive. The timing of this element will be addressed with each successive phase of the Pelican Creek Specific Development Plan.
  4. The River’s End Specific Development Plan, adopted by Municipal Council Resolution 2007-72, is included as Appendix C-4 of the General Plan in order to guide development of this area when the Specific Development Plan zone is adopted.
  5. Center Street, between Geneva Road and Interstate-15, should be studied to capitalize on the Interstate 15 Center Street interchange. An analysis of appropriate mixed-use and commercial land uses, densities and other factors should guide the development of any zoning ordinances regulating this area.

Lakeview North Neighborhood

  1. The property west and parallel of Geneva Road from Lakeshore Drive to 2000 North should be developed for uses compatible with the Residential (R) land use designation.
  2. Property within and to the west of land located within the “AE” flood zone of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) should receive the Provo City General Plan Map designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) and be subject to the same provisions as defined under the guiding principles for the SW Area.
  3. Infrastructure needs should continue to be evaluated in order to resolve issues for existing and future residents, particularly where road conditions may be hazardous.
  4. Continue to review for appropriately siting the airport access road and consider potential impacts to current residents along Lakeshore Drive.
  5. The area between 1680 North and 2000 North, and between Geneva Road and I-15, should be developed as a Specific Development Plan comprised of: high density multifamily units to be located at the southeast corner of Geneva Road and 2000 North, where density and design are determined at the time of approval of the Specific Development Plan, and one family subdivision development comprised of approximately 135 lots in the areas designated as R (residential). No commercial uses shall be permitted between Geneva Road and the railroad corridor.

Lakeview South Neighborhood

  1. An infrastructure improvement plan should be considered for improvements to sidewalks, drainage, parks, landscaping, and traffic conditions.
  2. All development within the Residential (R) designation should develop as one-family detached homes with lot sizes of one-half acre or greater, and may include limited animal rights unless as proposed subdivision is designed as a “cluster” type development where in smaller lots enable the developer to provide a significant amount of common open space.
  3. Retail development should be discouraged within the Lakeview South Neighborhood.
  4. The neighborhood supports the mobile home park known as Leisure Village to redevelop to consist of one-family detached, one-family semidetached (twin homes), and/or one-family attached (town homes).

Lakewood Neighborhood

  1. Continue to evaluate airport access and the potential impacts or benefits to existing residents resulting from planned road connections to the airport access road, taking into consideration a neighborhood recommendation to connect 1600 West rather than 500 West.
    1. The need for northbound and southbound access on 1-15 into the neighborhood should be evaluated and implemented if warranted.
    2. The collector road system should seek to make minimal impacts on existing farming/agricultural properties.
    3. 500 West and 680 West should be carefully evaluated for their need to be developed as collector roads and appropriate design measures should be incorporated into the design of these streets to mitigate detriments to the neighborhood.
  2. Continue to work toward infrastructure improvements to serve existing residents and to ensure that infrastructure is in place, prior to new development, to provide adequate storm drainage, street connections and appropriately designed and located public park space.
  3. New development should be appropriately incorporated to respect the rural feel of the Lakewood area, to complement and enhance the neighborhood, and to provide adequate living space for growing families that wish to relocate to or remain within the Lakewood neighborhood.
  4. Provide sidewalks where they currently do not exist.
  5. Evaluate environmental impacts prior to approving any new development in the Lakewood Neighborhood.
  6. The City-owned property at 920 South and 770 West should be improved to be a pleasing entrance into the Neighborhood.
  7. The Lakewood Neighborhood should be evaluated for additional neighborhood parks.
  8. Mitigate traffic and on street parking impacts from Footprinters Park.

Provo Bay Neighborhood

Goals of the Provo Bay Neighborhood:
  1. Preserve the current open feel of the neighborhood.
  2. Achieve a balance of sizes and styles when new one-family homes are developed.
  3. Provide better recreational opportunities and take advantage of recreational opportunities afforded by Utah Lake.
  4. Evaluate and encourage retail development in appropriate areas that would provide needed neighborhood services.
  5. Evaluate the feasibility of locating new arterial roads in locations that are not adjacent to current residential development.
Key Land Use Policies – Provo Bay Neighborhood
  1. Discourage residential development west of 3110 West to avoid airport flight paths and the airport protection area, as identified in the Airport Master Plan (Appendix B-1).
  2. Achieve a balance of sizes and types of one-family residential development. New developments should complement and enhance the neighborhood, providing adequate living space for growing families that wish to relocate to or remain within the Provo Bay Neighborhood.
  3. Enhance recreational opportunities and take advantage of the proximity to Utah Lake. These include, but are not limited to developing recreation access to Provo Bay and trails along the proposed West Side Connector. The purchase of Utah Lake State Park from the State should be evaluated and considered. Access from the proposed West Side Connector to Provo Bay for canoeing, bird watching, and fishing, along with a paved trail system to provide residents with biking, walking and other activities along the Provo Bay shore line should be considered.
  4. Retail development should be encouraged at proper locations within the neighborhood, such as along Center Street and the proposed West Side Connector. Retail should include but not be limited to grocery and banking services.
  5. The area west of 1600 West and South of 600 South that borders the proposed West Side Connector road should be developed as a Specific Development Plan consisting of commercial, retail and residential use. This Specific Development Plan should be initiated by the City and not left entirely up to developers and landowners. This property, if properly planned, could have a combination of retail and residential uses.
  6. Study the feasibility of maintaining 3110 West as a residential arterial road and align the West Side Connector road to the edge of the airport development area as it proceeds north.
  7. Conduct a study to identify appropriate land uses within the Airport Related Activities designation

Sunset Neighborhood

  1. The area between 600 South and 1150 South from 1100 West to 1600 West should be developed with uses compatible with the Residential (R) land use designation. The following guidelines should be considered in the development of this area:
    1. The area should be developed (allowably in phases under multiple ownerships) as a whole and integrated plan using the SDP process as described in the SW Area Guiding Principles and Goals.
    2. Those currently wishing to maintain animal rights should do so through the application of a Residential Agricultural (RA) zone on their property.
    3. The area should develop with a rural character in mind and should incorporate a balanced distribution of lot sizes, which should be interspersed amongst each other and should not exceed density limitations expressed in the SW Area Guiding Principles and Goals.
    4. Equestrian based facilities and trail systems are highly encouraged.
    5. Footprinters Park should be expanded to add additional neighborhood recreational facilities.
    6. Commercial and non-recreational public facilities are currently not encouraged but may be considered if designed as part of the SDP process and demonstrates that it will be an asset to the development and surrounding neighborhood.
    7. Road connectivity is encouraged in the design of the SDP. Cul-de-sacs will be highly discouraged unless it is demonstrated that alternatives do not exist.
  2. Evaluate opportunities to expand public park services to better serve the Sunset neighborhood and to resolve traffic, parking and light pollution impacts to neighborhoods in the vicinity of the ball park.
  3. An infrastructure improvement plan should be considered for improvements to sidewalks, drainage, parks, landscaping, and traffic conditions.

Chapter 1

1.2.10 Additional Tools for Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation Policy Plan

1.2.10 Additional Tools for Urban Growth and Land Use Annexation Policy Plan

Provo City’s Annexation Policy Plan was brought to the Planning Commission for a public hearing in 2002 and was approved by Resolution 2003-15 of the Municipal Council on February 4, 2003. This plan has received subsequent review through public hearings of the Planning Commission and Municipal Council in association with the Comprehensive Update to the 1997 General Plan, initiated in 2002 and approved in 2004. As the changes effected through recent annexations reflect policies of the Municipal Council and elements of agreements with Utah County, Springville City, Orem City, and the U.S. Forest Service, the plan incorporated herein as part of the Provo City General Plan retains the 2003 Annexation Policy Plan, but notes which annexations have been completed at the time of adoption of the update to the General Plan in Fall 2009.

Need for an Annexation Policy Plan

It is necessary that the City maintain an annexation policy plan to assure orderly growth and development of the community. An annexation policy will also protect the general interests of the taxpaying public, as well as those individual property owners who wish to annex to the City. There must be specific policy guidelines by which a proposed annexation is evaluated. The following constitutes the guidelines established for the Provo City annexation policy plan.

Annexation Policy Plan Guidelines

Each annexation under consideration should be expanded to include the greatest amount of property possible, within the limits shown on the attached map, to assure that:

  1. Public reaction in and around the annexation area is appropriately balanced with the needs of the community;
  2. Duplication of services is eliminated;
  3. City standards related to improvements are maintained consistently on a contiguous block face and on adjoining properties to the greatest extent possible;
  4. No piecemeal annexation of individual small properties which would diminish the potential for later annexation of small pockets or “islands” of opposing unincorporated area;
  5. Expansion of City boundaries will include some unimproved land which will provide an inventory for future development;
  6. The circulation system of streets and highways is enhanced by placing a system in one jurisdiction to eliminate  maintenance confusion;
  7. There is an increased ability to plan for orderly community and area-wide development;
  8. Fire, police, and other safety-oriented service systems are more controlled with logical political boundaries;
  9. Utilities and other public services have more systematic city boundaries;
  10. The City’s self-determination and local home rule is enhanced through the resulting city boundaries;
  11. The City is able to exercise greater regulation over improper and undesirable land uses and development in the fringe areas.

The Character of the Community

Annexation proposals should be evaluated based upon the compatibility of the proposed land uses with the character of the overall surrounding neighborhood and City.

The Need for Municipal Services in Developed and Undeveloped Unincorporated Areas

Provo City utility services shall not be provided to unincorporated areas, but shall only be made available to those areas which are annexed to Provo City. The only exception shall be those extensions made to other units of government under the Interlocal Government Cooperation Act, as deemed appropriate by the Municipal Council.

The Municipality’s Plans for Extension of Municipal Services

City services should be extended to annexed areas as soon as practicable after annexation. The requirements for extension of such utilities are set forth on an area by area basis described in “Areas Proposed for Future Annexation,” below.

The City feels the responsibility of developing the backbone of the various utility distribution and collection systems in newly developing areas. This work includes the development of new water wells, reservoirs, and utility trunk lines. However, specific commitments and the construction period for such utilities will be dependent upon development demand and sufficient capital budgets. Such commitments and timeframes will be determined when annexation occurs and will be a part of the impact report required by the Provo City Code.

How Services Will be Funded

Provo City’s policy is to participate with developers in the cost of improvements, which benefit the City as a whole. For instance, when utility mainlines are required to be a certain size to serve an entire area, but that size is larger than that required to service a given subdivision, the City will fund the difference in the cost of providing the larger size. The City’s share is financed by the general fund, gas tax, road funds, and connection and user fees.

An Estimate of the Tax Consequences to Residents both Currently within the Municipal Boundaries and in the Expansion Area

Tax consequences and interests of affected entities, relative to a proposed annexation, should be considered. Present mil levies in Provo City are comparable to adjacent County areas, including Utah County residents in the Nebo and Alpine School Districts. Utility costs, particularly for electricity, are less expensive in the City than in the County. Thus, many times it is economically beneficial for property owners to annex to Provo City.

Additionally, such property owners receive many benefits in return for higher tax assessments. These include snow removal, increased police and fire protection, and other City services.

The Interests of All Affected Entities

Areas proposed for annexation are logical expansions of Provo City’s corporate limits and will not unduly affect the tax revenues of adjacent entities. Utah County, the City of Springville, and the City of Orem may also be impacted by land annexed into and developed in Provo City. Noticing and coordination with these jurisdictions, along with noticing and coordination with special improvement or service districts and school districts, should also occur.

Areas Proposed for Annexation Policy Plan Map 1.1

Area One: Area One is bounded by existing Provo City limits on the north and west. No serious water or sewer constraints exist in this area. There are gravity flow sewers in the immediate vicinity, and the culinary water supply to the area was extended with the East Mountain development. The General Plan calls for Residential (R) and Commercial (C) development in this area. However, a portion of this area is currently being used for a sand and gravel mining operation with permits issued in the county. Any significant development here would first require the reclamation of the sand and gravel operation. There is also an auto salvage operation just south of the East Mountain development and Utah County’s Public Works buildings. Since South State Street is one of the major entries to the city, having this property in the City gives Provo some control over how it develops, and the image created as one enters Provo. South State Street is one of the “design review” corridors proposed along major entrances to the city.

Annexation Ordinance 2006-1, annexing approximately 1.25 acres of real property, located generally at 2400 S. Alaska Avenue, Provost South Neighborhood, was approved by the Municipal Council on May 6, 2009. 08-0001(A)

Area Two: Area Two is bounded by I-15 on the west, existing Provo City limits on the north and east, and the Provo/Springville City Boundary Agreement Line on the south. The General Plan calls for a combination of light and heavy industry (I) in this area, between the railroad tracks and between Kuhni Road and I-15. Provo City has electrical lines in this area, and has extended sewer lines as far south as the Kuhni rendering plant. Water and sewer line extensions would be required to continue annexation south of the rendering plant and east of the railroad tracks.

Area Three: Repealed by Res. 2013-70.

Area Four: Area Four is bounded by existing Provo City limits on the south and east, Utah Lake on the west, and 2000 North on the north. The development of this area will require additional water system distribution capacity as well as the construction of wastewater lift stations. Present land uses in this area are agricultural and residential types. A large conservation easement, wetlands, and other environmental factors in this area will need substantial consideration in the annexation and development process.

Annexation Ordinance 2004-1, annexing approximately 139 acres of real property, located generally between 1552 North, 2000 North, Geneva Road and I-15, Lakeview Neighborhood, was approved by the Municipal Council February 3, 2004. 03-0002(A). This represents the northeast portion of the Area Four proposed annexation.

Annexation Ordinance 2009-2, annexing approximately 346.72 acres of real property, located generally between 1300 North and 2000 North from Geneva Road to the Utah Lake 100 Year Flood Plain Meander Line, Lakeview North Neighborhood, was approved by the Municipal Council on October 8, 2009. 08-0001(A)

Area Five: Area Five is bounded on the west and south by existing Provo City limits, and on the east by the Uinta National Forest boundary. Existing water pressure zones can serve this area to an elevation of approximately 5,200 feet. Area Five can be served by gravity waste water systems, but main lines would have to be extended into the area from existing lines several thousand feet away. Development in most of this area (over 10% slope) would be controlled by the Hillside Development Standards of the Subdivision Ordinance. The General Plan calls for Residential (R) development in this area.

A petition to annex 4.6 acres, known as the Loveless Annexation, within Area Five, generally located at 5001 N. Canyon Road, between Canyon Road and University Avenue, application 04-0002 A, was approved in 2004. [Approved 11/9/2004, Annexation Ordinance 2004-2]

An annexation of 1.18 acres, known as the Gillespie Annexation, within Area Five, generally located at 5290 N. Canyon Road, application 05-0001 A, was approved by action of the Municipal Council on 10/18/2005, Annexation Ordinance 2005-1, in response to a petition to annex 0.93 acre.

An annexation of 9.04 acres, known as the Budge Annexation, within Area Five, generally located at 5240 N. Canyon Road, application 09-0001A, was approved by action of the Municipal Council on August 8, 2009, Annexation Ordinance 2009-01.

Area Six: Area Six is bounded on the west, south, and north by Provo City limits and on the east by Utah County. The area encompasses the Forest Service land east and north of Sherwood Hills and north of Little Rock Canyon. Even though this area contains steep slopes that would limit development, it would be annexed into Provo to preserve the hillsides from future mining uses.

Area Seven: Area Seven is located between 4400 North and 4600 North from University Avenue to Canyon Road. This property is an island of Utah County, which is completely surrounded by Provo City limits. Most of these properties receive Provo City municipal services.

A City-initiated petition in 2003 to annex 26 acres within Area Seven for the purpose of street improvements did not meet the requirements of annexation due to protest by more than 50 percent of the property owners living in the area. The petition to annex was withdrawn. 03-0001(A). Based on the intended use stated by the property owners, the land has been designated on the General Plan Map as A - Agricultural rather than its previous designation of R - Residential.

Areas Proposed for Municipal Boundary Adjustment Map 1.2

Area One: Area one is located along 1700 North 2100 West and should be adjusted with the City of Orem to allow for the Ercanbrack property to be developed in Orem. The railroad right-of-way that Provo City owns should be purchased by the Ercanbracks and should also be adjusted to Orem’s boundary.

Area One has been accomplished by agreement with the City of Orem.

Area Two: Area two is located in Provo just before the Carterville Road bridge northeast of University Parkway. The City of Orem owns a lift station on this property, which is located in Provo City, and should be adjusted to Orem’s boundary.

Area Three: Area three is located in Orem just north of 3700 North and just east of the Provo River. Provo City owns a deep well on this property, which is located in the City of Orem and should be adjusted to Provo’s boundary.

Area Four: Area four is located in Orem east of the Provo River at the entrance of Provo Canyon and should be adjusted to Provo’s boundary. The property is very steep and probably will not be developed, but it should be in Provo to establish U.S. Route 189 as the common boundary between Provo and Orem in Provo Canyon.

Areas Proposed for Municipal Disconnection Map 1.3

Area One: Area One is the Heritage Mountain Ski Area Annexation and was annexed into Provo City in 1978 to construct a world-class ski resort. After review of the Environmental Impact Statement, the U.S. Forest Service denied the permit, and the facility was never built. Therefore, Provo is proposing a disconnection of 7,035 acres, which is most of the 7,515 acres of the Heritage Mountain Ski Area Annexation.

Project Redevelopment Option

The Project Redevelopment Option, or PRO, was adopted in 2002 as an element of Title 14 Zoning to provide a flexible zoning tool, primarily for redevelopment and infill development within Provo. The evaluation factors for use of a PRO as a development tool for land within Provo is detailed in Title 14 Zoning of the Provo Municipal Code. The General Plan is consulted as a guide, but recognition is given to the PRO as a tool intended for flexible and creative development that will better meet the needs of the immediate community, and the greater community of Provo, than would be produced through use of standard zone districts.

Approval of a PRO zone is a legislative action, as it includes three approval steps, two of which require action of the Municipal Council. The PRO involves (1) Council approval, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, of an ordinance text amendment to Title 14 Zoning to create the development parameters of the new PRO zone; (2) Council approval, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission, of a request to rezone a specific tract of land to the new PRO zone; and (3) approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary project plan for the new development.

The best use of the PRO is being evaluated over time and may continue to change to meet concerns related to administering the Provo City Zoning Ordinance. A long-range planning effort should be undertaken to develop and adopt zones tailored to the unique needs of the neighborhoods. Once appropriate locations for the specialized zones have been determined and the standards adopted, the PRO should be used limitedly to facilitate redevelopment of exceptionally difficult properties or to allow development of an exceptionally unique project that cannot be modified to accommodate the zone standards.

An alternative possibility would be to establish four or five PRO zones that had enough flexibility to regulate existing and newly proposed PRO zones. These zones could be developed in such a way to also eliminate the Performance Zoning standards (which have been identified in the General Plan to be updated or absorbed into the PRO format).

The PRO is a tool used for multiple-family residential developments or one-family attached developments, as a city-wide rezoning of multiple-family residential districts to the Residential Conservation (RC) zone necessitated that a rezoning occur to construct or expand multi-family housing projects. The PRO can also be used for one-family detached homes where the development parameters do not comply with the standard R1 zones and where use of the Performance Development (PD) overlay zone is not possible or preferable. This is more likely to occur for redevelopment projects that replace a single home or several homes with new homes, whereas a PD is more likely to be used for new development on larger tracts of previously undeveloped land.

It is intended that a PRO will be used for assembling multiple parcels into a larger development area and that the PRO will look beyond its own boundaries and consider how adjoining lands could be incorporated in the future, particularly within a single city block. The PRO may be applied by the Council, at its discretion, to a larger boundary than the area owned by or under contract for purchase by the developer.

Use of the PRO tool is not limited to residential development. Although not yet widely used for commercial or other non-residential proposals at the time this General Plan was adopted, the PRO has been used for mixed- use proposals that will combine residential and commercial uses in a new-urbanist design. In this application of the ordinance, the PRO has also been used for new development on previously undeveloped land (in contrast to its expected use for redevelopment or infill development) due to severe constraints that made development within standard zone district parameters difficult. These have not yet been constructed, so it will take some time to evaluate the long-term usefulness of the PRO, particularly where it is applied to previously undeveloped land. This use has also raised issues related to deviations from design corridor standards, which must be further evaluated over time.

Specific Development Plans

A primary problem of growing cities and towns is piecemeal, uncoordinated development. Undeveloped land is often parceled into many separately owned holdings, each with a variety of sizes and configurations. If such properties develop independently, coordinated features, such as an overall network of connected streets or neighborhood parks, may be difficult to obtain. Standard subdivision requirements that prescribe open space requirements and street connections attempt to address this problem but may not always go far enough, resulting in uncoordinated, patchwork development, rather than a coherent neighborhood.

Different goals between property owners or a simple lack of communication can unnecessarily fragment new development. The design of development projects is left largely to landowners and prospective developers. Plans are then reviewed by the City for compliance with existing policies and standards. Often, little design cooperation exists between neighboring property owners involved in a prospective development. As a result of different goals, many fractious hearings may be held concerning development proposals and associated zone map amendments.

These kinds of problems may be addressed by developing and adopting a Specific Development Plan (“SDP”) for a given area. An SDP describes in more detail the type of development planned for a specific area than is typically found in most general plans, zoning ordinances, or public-facilities plans. Unlike a project plan, which is typically applied to a land area assembled within single ownership for the purpose of development, an SDP can apply to a large area with multiple landowners. An SDP may require more detailed planning, but also allows for more innovation in design and organization of land uses.

The SDP is intended to promote coordinated planning concepts and pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development. Establishing an SDP in a particular area in advance of a development proposal can help to ensure that an area is built in a coherent fashion. An SDP can also provide a framework for locating creative, smart development features such as a connected network of safe streets, neighborhood parks, open space, efficient development patterns, and better neighborhood design.

The City and/or property owners should prepare SDPs for large or critical areas of the City. Undeveloped or developed tracts with inadequate facilities may be considered for inclusion within an SDP so that the timing of critical infrastructure can be coordinated with development. Specific Development Plans may include residential development, commercial development, or a combination of the two in mixed-use projects.

Once an SDP is approved, however, no building permit should be issued unless subdivision applications, project plans and other development approvals are consistent with the SDP. Where separate SDPs are proposed on adjoining or nearly adjoining tracts of land, there should be no gaps or islands of land not covered by the plans.

Use of the SDP versus the PRO as a Development Planning Tool

The PRO is primarily intended as a redevelopment tool where assemblage of multiple, smaller parcels is desired for encouraging a more cohesive plan for redevelopment of land previously developed as discrete parcels. The PRO envisions that these properties redevelop as a whole and typically under single ownership.

For raw land or land formerly used for agricultural and very low density housing – and in particular for large areas of land suitable for master planning with varied land uses – the SDP is a better tool. The SDP creates an overall plan for an area, which may include parcels that remain under control of multiple landowners. It addresses General Plan issues and allows the overall plan to guide individual applications for rezoning and project development on parcels in separate ownership.

The SDP Process

The process to establish a SDP may be initiated by the Mayor, the Municipal Council, or interested property owners who represent a majority of the land area, and at least 1/3 of the value of real property within the planned area. Property owners who initiate SDP requests should pay the cost of preparing the plan. Similarly, an SDP fee should be imposed on persons seeking approvals required to be consistent with a specific plan initiated by the City in an amount that is proportional to the applicant’s relative benefit derived from the SDP.

SDPs should be prepared in consultation with the landowners and neighbors. The Mayor may appoint a steering committee to guide development of the plan, when it involves more than one property owner, and it is undertaken by the City. The steering committee should include persons representing affected property owners, neighbors, Planning Commission, Municipal Council, and City departments. If a consultant is hired by the City to prepare the specific plan, the Steering Committee may assist in evaluating the proposals and selecting the consultant.

A specific plan must have enough detail so that individual projects can be reviewed and approved administratively if the proposal conforms to the plan. Stakeholders need to be involved in the planning process to identify objectives for each SDP. For example, the plan may encourage a certain type of development or may endeavor to protect open space.

The adoption of a specific plan does not necessarily vest development, but its entitlements may be defined by development agreement. Specific plans themselves are dynamic documents and may be subject to future revisions.

A principal purpose of each SDP is to provide administrative approval for projects consistent with the plan. Thus, each SDP, rather than a project, requires close scrutiny. Each SDP should:

  • Be consistent with General Plan policies;
  • Meet identified objectives;
  • Be compatible with the surrounding community;
  • Identify specific uses and detailed site and building design guidelines, including street designs and locations; and
  • Identify the location, timing, and financing of public facilities.

Draft SDPs should be submitted to the Planning Commission and Council for review, modification, and approval. Application requirements are included in Title 14 of Provo Municipal Code. The hearing process is essentially the same as for amending the General Plan.

Once approved, a specific SDP should be added to the General Plan’s appendices with a reference in the specific policies of Chapter One for that area. Each SDP area should be rezoned to a new Specific Development Plan Overlay zone that requires all future development in the area to conform to the adopted SDP. If an SDP plan applies to land outside the City limits, the plan should indicate where the SDP overlay zone will be applied upon annexation. New construction under site review or building permit review should be required to meet the special development and design standards of an applicable SDP. Finally, allowed uses, standards, and procedures of an SDP zone should supplement and supersede standards and procedures of the underlying zone.

Special Considerations for Use of the SDP as a Long Range Planning Tool

This new level of planning in the City will solve problems for both the City and developers. It empowers the City to exert greater control and coordination over the development process, promotes more livable neighborhoods, creates a more predictable development process, and achieves greater consensus in the process. A thorough specific plan can enable planners to effectively implement selected long-term General Plan objectives in a relatively short timeframe. This policy is to be flexible, allowing the City to create standards for the development of a wide range of projects or solutions to any type of land use issues. The plan may present the land use and design regulations, which guide the development of a new civic center or incorporate land use and zoning regulations, infrastructure plans, and development approval processes for the development of residential, office, commercial and open space uses.

The City may need to budget monies for the preparation of SDPs for areas determined to be of critical need, with reimbursement from individual property owners within the SDP as development occurs. Development within areas targeted for SDPs should be restrained to the extent possible until such plans are prepared. The Administration, Council, and Planning Commission must be included in the process of prioritizing areas where SDPs will be prepared. SDPs that have not been developed within five years of their adoption should be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine whether such SDPs remain viable or need to be amended.

Chapter 1

1.3 VISION

1.4 GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION

1.3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

Provo City is characterized by well-maintained neighborhoods that accommodate diversity and enrich the quality of life while maintaining their own unique sense of place. Provo’s neighborhoods are well connected and offer recreational opportunities by capitalizing on its abundant local natural amenities. Provo’s neighborhoods offer families and individuals a safe and positive environment in which to interact and prosper.”

Provo is a city where families and individuals feel safe, where land use is planned and zoned to promote a vibrant and active downtown, quiet residential neighborhoods, and a thriving commercial and environmentally sensitive industrial tax base. The city is balanced appropriately to encourage an exceptional quality of life. As a maturing city, with a limited amount of undeveloped land remaining, the focus for land use is on quality rather than quantity.

1.4 Goals and Implementation

1.4.1                       Improve neighborhood inter-connectivity.

1.4.1.1            Encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment throughout Provo.

1.4.1.2            Create and maintain bike trail and sidewalk systems that connect all parts of Provo.

1.4.2                       Capitalize on local natural resources and neighborhood amenities.

1.4.2.1            Consider gathering and social spaces (plazas, community gardens) within the context of each neighborhood.

1.4.2.2            Utilize the Provo River to foster gathering and an increased sense of community.

1.4.2.3            Improve the access and recreational uses to the Wasatch Mountains east of  Provo and especially Provo, Slate and Rock Canyons.

1.4.2.4            Include preservation of vistas and views in open space requirements.

1.4.3                       Help neighborhoods preserve their own identity and sense of place.

1.4.3.1            Create neighborhood-gathering places that draw people from their homes and encourage interaction, awareness, and interdependence.

1.4.3.2            Encourage strong neighborhood organizations.

1.4.3.3            Foster a strong sense of ownership and “place” in each neighborhood.

1.4.3.4            Provide and publicize a clearinghouse for information about neighborhoods for residents.

1.4.3.5            Encourage new developments to create a sense of identity and belonging in their designs, fencing, entrances, landscaping, etc.

1.4.4                       Empower neighborhoods by giving families, individuals, and businesses opportunities to participate in neighborhoods.

1.4.4.1            Use social networking, the Internet, and other communications tools and technology to involve all individuals in neighborhood discussions and activities.

1.4.4.2            Foster activities that involve and support youth and students attending local schools and universities in city activities and government.

1.4.4.3            Seek to minimize divisions within the community by removing perceived barriers to interaction and foster a sense of belonging.

1.4.4.4            Continue emphasis on the Neighborhood Program.

1.4.4.5            Involve neighborhood representatives to ensure orderly growth.

1.4.4.6            Address specific concerns from each part of the city with regular area meetings.

1.4.5                 Encourage owner occupancy or long-term residency by promoting healthy and balanced neighborhoods and by involving schools, businesses, religious congregations, and community organizations.

1.4.5.1            Encourage new, one-family detached neighborhoods.

1.4.5.2            Identify and reserve areas suitable for family housing.

1.4.5.3            Maintain low crime rates in neighborhoods.

1.4.5.4            Maintain and encourage good quality, sustainable housing and infill developments.

1.4.5.5            Increase direct landlord responsibility and accountability for overuse of city resources.

1.4.5.6            Continue the support of neighborhood loan and grant programs that encourage owner occupancy or long-term residency and neighborhood revitalization.

1.4.5.7            Identify criteria for properties with potential for multi-family and one-family housing.

1.4.5.8            Encourage diversity of age groups in neighborhoods.

1.4.5.9            Regulate the scale of buildings by the land size of the parcel.

1.4.6                       Maintain and improve the physical appearance and beauty of neighborhoods.

1.4.6.1            Plant larger, long-lived canopy trees in parks, green spaces, and recreation areas where shade will increase the enjoyment of future users

1.4.6.2            Ensure adequate enforcement of zoning regulations.

1.4.6.3            Provide, encourage and maintain attractive landscaping in medians and corridors.

1.4.6.4            Beautify and improve gateways into the city.

1.4.6.5            Seek grants and promote volunteer efforts to improve neighborhood appearance.

1.4.6.6            Use non-profit partners to assist in revitalizing Provo neighborhoods as needed in focused efforts to improve curb appeal and neighborhood appearance.

1.4.6.7            Enhance ordinances, incentives, and penalties that would encourage the cleaning up of properties by removal of trash, junk, weeds and the repair of deteriorating  facilities.

1.4.6.8            Continue and expand the present program of regular cleaning of streets.

1.4.6.9            Continue and enlarge the present programs of picking up seasonal trash through a community volunteer effort.

1.4.6.10         Maintain integrity and preserve the identifiable personality of neighborhoods.

1.4.7                       Help neighborhoods become well informed and educated on city-related issues.

1.4.7.1            Have effective communication tools in place to disseminate information to the public.

1.4.7.2            Improve the emergency notification system to better inform the public and keep neighborhoods safe.

1.4.7.3            Review and establish laws and ordinances for the protection of all residents.

1.4.7.4            Provide public instruction about Provo City ordinances on a regular, on-going basis.

1.4.7.5            Provide service opportunities for the public as a part of this education process.

1.4.8                       Protect existing owner-occupied housing and neighborhoods and encourage an increased percentage of owner-occupied or long-term residency housing in Provo neighborhoods.

1.4.8.1            Encourage owner occupancy in one-family neighborhoods.

1.4.8.2            Encourage reinvestment in, and the beautification and restoration of, established neighborhoods.

1.4.8.3            Identify exceptional areas that would benefit from area specific master plans, where the city would conduct a detailed land-use analysis. The objective is for a plan  for every neighborhood.

1.4.8.4            Develop strategies to increase owner-occupancy or long-term residency in the city’s residential neighborhoods.

1.4.8.5            Limit additional rental housing outside areas specifically planned for higher density development.​​​​​​​

1.4.8.6            Require landscaping, which could include xeriscape, around perimeter of residential projects to soften development.

1.4.8.7            Encourage site-specific designs to take into account the uniqueness of the surroundings.

1.4.9                       Identify opportunities for neighborhood amenities in established neighborhoods.

1.4.9.1            Provide opportunities to establish neighborhood amenities such as neighborhood oriented retail, small parks, leisure activities and/or medical services for residents in existing neighborhoods.

1.4.9.2            Preserve public facilities, parks and schools in each neighborhood.

1.4.9.3            Maintain and upgrade neighborhood infrastructure.

1.4.9.4            Revitalize blighted, dilapidated neighborhoods and distressed commercial centers.

1.4.9.5            Design the open space first in future residential development projects.

1.4.10                     Disperse the increasing demand for affordable housing throughout the City and the County. 

1.4.10.1         Initiate actions necessary to encourage other cities within the county to accommodate a share of the rental housing market.

1.4.10.2         Encourage home ownership and preservation through neighborhood-qualified economic assistance programs.     

1.4.10.3         Encourage development patterns that reduce land and development costs.

1.4.10.4         Make quality housing and services that are accessible to all segments of the population.

1.4.10.5         Encourage housing of diverse design in order to adequately accommodate all types of users (singles, young couples, families, and the elderly).

1.4.10.6         Encourage maximum buildout in existing higher-density areas (south of Brigham Young University and within the Central Business District) with adequate parking and infrastructure.

1.4.10.7         Establish acceptable service levels for public infrastructure and limit growth to maintain those levels.

1.4.11                     Prioritize areas within the city for economic development

1.4.11.1         Determine the appropriate type, level, and location of economic development initiatives for Provo City.

1.4.11.2         Size utilities consistent with anticipated growth when development occurs.

1.4.11.3         Continue to require developments to pay for their fair share of infrastructure.

1.4.11.4         Encourage site-specific designs to take into account the uniqueness of the surroundings.

1.4.11.5         Consider amending zoning districts and regulations to encourage higher-density uses in proximity to major transportation facilities. Discourage high-density  development where transportation facilities cannot be developed to provide an acceptable level of service commensurate with the high-density development proposed.

1.4.11.6         Ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect the Provo Airport from the encroachment of incompatible development.

1.4.12                     Facilitate environmentally sensitive industrial land use and development to contribute to employment opportunities and the city’s tax base without negatively impacting quality of life.

1.4.12.1         Accommodate an appropriate amount of industrial growth in the city.

1.4.13                     Promote safety through urban design

1.4.13.1         Require maximum fire and life safety devices in multi-residential and commercial developments.

1.4.13.2         Promote better pedestrian safety, including bicyclists, by using interior connections, footpaths, adequate lighting, crosswalks, etc.

1.4.13.3         Encourage design that focuses activity and surveillance on front yard space and limits access by unwanted visitors (i.e., front porches, verandas, windows for surveillance, fences, gates, hedges, outdoor lighting, etc.).

1.4.14                     Establish reasonable community-based design review standards for all developments

1.4.14.1         Encourage quality design standards where desirable design themes are present.

1.4.14.2         Discourage “cookie-cutter” (overly repetitive) designs.

1.4.14.3         Establish higher minimum landscaping and tree density requirements for all development.

1.4.14.4         Establish open space requirements within developments.

1.4.14.5         Encourage open space through appropriate clustering of developments.

1.4.14.6         Recognize and plan for existing and future commercial corridors, particularly at major entrances into Provo, in order to maintain a critical mass for business

development.

1.4.14.7         Provide effective transitional areas between commercial and residential areas.

1.4.14.8         Encourage gradual land-use transitions.

1.4.14.9         Encourage signage compatible with development.

CHAPTER 2

TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY

Chapter Two
Transportation and
Mobility

2.1 Introduction

Transportation and mobility are essential to Provo's fabric, growth, and character and are crucial factors in the city's lifestyle, health, and well-being. Provo’s transportation and mobility systems balance accessibility and convenience with public safety, economic and environmental considerations. Steps need to be taken to ensure that an adequate transportation and circulation system will be available for the future. Alternative modes of transportation and mobility are needed to increase the effectiveness of the current system and reduce demand on existing resources. Other ways to increase effectiveness and reduce demand for transportation include community design, increasing mixed uses and integrating neighborhood commercial nodes.

2.2 Background

The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan will concentrate on both the current status and future proposals for improvements in the transportation system. Those areas include the headings found in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 – TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION HEADINGS

2.2.1 Regional Planning

2.2.7 Air Transportation

2.2.2 Land Use

2.2.8 Railroads

2.2.3 Street System

2.2.9 Transportation Demand Management

2.2.4 Bike Paths

2.2.10 Parking

2.2.5 Pedestrian Paths

2.2.11 Funding

2.2.6 Public Transportation

2.2.12 Education

2.2.1 Regional Planning

In addition to Provo City, five other entities - the Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Transit Authority, Utah County, City of Orem, and Springville City–influence transportation within Provo City. Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) has a responsibility to ensure that each of these entities considers area-wide transportation planning in Utah County. As the metropolitan area continues to grow, there are increased transportation impacts on Juab, Salt Lake, and Wasatch counties. If Provo City is to be successful in controlling its transportation future, cooperation and coordination with other jurisdictions and agencies is essential. See Mountainland Association of Governments’ TransPlan40.

Economic issues may create major impediments to regional land use planning. Every jurisdiction should develop its own commercial and industrial developments to maintain a stable economic base. There is competition among these jurisdictions to lure tax revenue-generating businesses. Without cooperation in the planning of land uses, regional transportation plans fail to adequately address the impacts of land use decisions across jurisdictional boundaries.

Economic development desires can impact decisions relating to the planning and operation of the transportation system. Many of the incentives and disincentives used to influence the transportation choices are ineffective or economically unacceptable if implemented inconsistently or by only one jurisdiction. The vision and direction expressed in the General Plan and Transportation Master Plan must be shared with and understood by other jurisdictions and transportation agencies for these visions to be fully successful. Provo City looks to these agencies and jurisdictions for a cooperative partnership in helping Provo City to achieve the objectives contained in the City’s master plan documents.

2.2.2 Land Use

There can be no doubt of the link between land use and transportation. The types of land uses and their locations influence the travel patterns of an area. In the past, the primary solution for congestion was to build newer roads and additional travel lanes. This approach, which is very costly, does little to discourage more sprawl in growth patterns, resulting in further increased levels of congestion.

As the transportation and circulation system in Provo City is modified to be more transit-oriented and allow greater options for other modes of travel, we need to recognize the benefits of matching land use patterns with the total transportation and circulation system. The Transportation Master Plan should consider the Land Use context and future land use recommendations identified in the General Plan, including the area specific neighborhood plans.

Utah Transit Authority’s Bus-Rapid Transit provides opportunities for transit-oriented development along a corridor connecting Provo Towne Centre Mall, the Intermodal Hub, downtown, south BYU campus, shopping areas along University Avenue and University Parkway and into Orem City, terminating past Utah Valley University at the Orem Intermodal Station. Additional, well-planned, density around these major transit stops will contribute to increased transit ridership and may result in decreased vehicular demand on the overall street network.

Allowing neighborhood commercial uses in residential neighborhoods provides economically viable services within walking distances of the users. New commercial developments can be designed to better interact with non-motorized modes of transportation. For example, bicycle racks and shower/locker room facilities can be provided by employers to encourage bicycling, walking, and jogging.

2.2.3 Street System

The street system is the circulatory system of the city, providing routes for the movement of goods, services, and people. The street system provides both access and mobility. Many roads in Provo are laid out in a grid pattern. The grid pattern allows for the greatest accessibility and spreads local traffic over a number of streets. This street pattern generally minimizes travel lengths to get from one point to another. However, recent developments have built streets that contain long block lengths and cul-de-sacs. Long block lengths and Cul-de-sacs often discourage walking in a neighborhood, and make it difficult to travel from one street to another. Further details of the existing street system are found in the Provo City Transportation Master Plan.

2.2.3.1 Right-of-way Designations

Within the city, streets serve different purposes; each is classified by its function and purpose. There are several types of rights-of-way, with various purposes and design standards as outlined in the Provo City Transportation Master Plan.

2.2.3.2 Challenges

Many arterial streets pass through residential neighborhoods and commercial developments. These streets need to function as designated in order to meet the legitimate travel needs for which they were planned and designed while being sensitive to the safety and quality of life needs of the adjacent land use. Although land use relates directly to travel demand, street classifications (particularly major streets) do not necessarily relate directly to the land use adjoining a street.

The street system doesn’t always function the way it is intended to function. Increased residential and economic growth inside and outside of Provo City and increased enrollment at Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University have put additional pressures on the City’s street system to accommodate travel demand. Currently, travel demand is primarily composed of automobile trips, which have steadily increased in number. As traffic volumes and congestion increase along the arterial streets, drivers look for less-congested alternatives. Hence, traffic spills over onto adjacent collector and local streets.

2.2.3.3 Traffic Calming Measures

Physical traffic management techniques the City could use as ’traffic-calming’ devices range from mildly restrictive to very restrictive. Methods for traffic calming are discussed in detail in the Provo City Transportation Master Plan. Area specific neighborhood plans have also identified many of the specific areas where implementation of these measures could be immediately beneficial.

2.2.3.4 Education and Enforcement

Traffic control enforcement is a key component of a traffic calming program, although enforcement alone should not be considered an effective means of managing traffic violations. In particular, police enforcement of speed limits and other traffic regulations is important to ensure compliance with these regulations.

A number of programs implemented in other communities may be beneficial for implementation in Provo. Salt Lake City, for example, offers a Neighborhood Speed Watch Program for residents who want to be actively involved in monitoring traffic speeds on their streets. Residents use radar equipment on loan to them from the Salt Lake City Transportation Division to record speeds of vehicles driving on local streets. Drivers found to be driving well over the speed limit are mailed an education pamphlet explaining safety concerns associated with speeding. This is an educational and awareness program; no citations or fines are levied.

2.2.3.5 Traffic Signal Coordination

Traffic signal coordination is effective in meeting some street system challenges. In general, traffic signal coordination results in fewer stops for traffic traveling at the speed limit along a major corridor. Decreasing traffic delays by reducing stops decreases vehicle emissions, resulting in better air quality.

2.2.3.6 Street Conditions

Street conditions vary greatly throughout the city depending, in part, on the type or classification of road. The Provo City Engineering Division inspects city streets on an ongoing basis and assigns each street a Remaining Service Life (RSL) value.  The RSL value ranges from 0 to 20, with a value of 20 representing a new road in excellent and/or best possible condition. The Engineering Division manages annual programs to upgrade and maintain streets and continues to make improvements in the overall condition of Provo’s street network.

2.2.3.7 Major and Local Streets Plan

Provo City has adopted and maintains a major and local streets plan as a part of the General Plan (see Map # 8.1 Major and Local Streets Plan Map), which should be updated in conjunction with each General Plan update. The major streets designations identify the current and proposed location of all arterial and collector streets. The local street plan, which provides long-range planning for local neighborhoods, specifies locations of local streets that should be constructed to ensure that property within a given area can be adequately developed and serviced. To amend the major streets, a General Plan amendment is required. However, to amend the local streets, a General Plan amendment is not necessary.

2.3.4 Bike Paths

The popularity of cycling both for recreation and commuting to work is rising in Utah County. In 2014, Provo City adopted a Bicycle Master Plan that largely identifies the future vision for bicycle facilities in Provo. Conscious efforts should be made to continue construction of safer on-street bikeways and separated path and trail systems. Future bicycle and trail planning should be coordinated between the Provo City Transportation Master Plan and the Provo City Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Provo has been recognized as a silver-level bicycle friendly community and will work towards becoming a gold-level bicycle friendly community as designated by the League of American Bicyclists. It is believed that many more people would commute to work and school by bicycle if safe and efficient bikeways were available. Bicycle commuting should be encouraged through an increased number of bike paths and on-street bike lanes, as it would reduce both automobile traffic and air pollution within the city. Provo City plans to significantly increase bike facilities within the city. Additional bike facilities would contribute to a network of safe and efficient transportation routes between residential areas, employment areas, recreational areas, and shopping areas. Employers can promote greater use of bicycles for commuting by providing showers, lockers, and secure and convenient bicycle parking for employees and customers.

As land and easement acquisitions and road construction projects occur, bike paths and bikeways will continue to be implemented and improved in Provo. Further network expansions are outlined in the Provo City Transportation Master Plan.

2.2.5 Pedestrian Paths

The City’s network of sidewalks provides a safe means for pedestrians to travel within their neighborhoods, to schools and other community amenities, and to connect to the Provo River Trail system. Walking has changed in popularity from the first, and often only, choice of transportation for nearly all people a century ago, to an activity now enjoyed by only a small percentage of our population. As urban growth spreads farther out into the suburbs, walking is increasing for recreational purposes, but is declining for all other trip purposes.

The City should make efforts to maintain a network of well-designed sidewalks and pathways to create the sense of comfort and safety necessary to encourage walking. Important design features include, but are not limited to, traffic calming techniques to reduce conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians, adequate lighting designed for pedestrians, and generous sidewalk widths. From a funding standpoint, it is impractical to propose building sidewalks in all areas where they do not exist; however, the City should make efforts to fill critical gaps and make improvements to the walkway areas as funding or development opportunities present themselves.

2.2.6 Public Transportation

The use of public transportation reduces the number of vehicles on the road and reduces the demand for parking. Transit increases the people-carrying capacity of our transportation system by increasing the number of people per vehicle. Bicycle and pedestrian connections for transit are important to the success of bus transit, as noted under the discussions of Bike Paths and Pedestrian Paths in this chapter.

Transit use is also impacted by land use. Higher densities of residential and commercial developments encourage more efficient use of transit. Additional transit centers should be considered to improve transit service anywhere with a concentration of shopping and employment. Large employers should be encouraged to locate in areas already served by transit or in areas easily served by an extension of the transit system. Transit stops should be conveniently located and comfortable. Information needs to be provided to inform people how the system works with routes, times, and dates of transit service.

2.2.6.1 Provo Amtrak Train Station

The existing passenger rail station located at 300 West 600 South was completed in 2002. According to the Rail Passengers Association, approximately 5000 to 6000 passengers arrive at or depart from this station each year, beginning or completing trips that average 686 miles.

2.2.6.2 Utah Transit Authority

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) provides a variety of services in Provo City and the surrounding areas. The newest of these services is a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system that connects the Provo Towne Centre Mall, the Provo Intermodal Station, Historic Downtown Provo, Brigham Young University (BYU), The University Place Mall in Orem, and Utah Valley University (UVU), ending at the Intermodal Station in Orem. Additional services include FrontRunner Commuter Rail, Rideshare programs, and traditional bus service.

2.2.6.3 Intermodal Station Planning: Bus Rapid Transit, Express Bus, Commuter Rail, Private Carriers, and Other Transportation Connections

The Provo Intermodal Station site is generally located at 650 South Freedom Blvd and encompasses an area approximately 17 acres between Freedom Blvd, University Avenue, the south rail right-of-way and 750 South with a portion extending southward to 920 South.

The station accommodates FrontRunner Commuter Rail, bus-rapid transit and local bus service. Other transit options, such as taxi, rental car and greyhound bus service may be incorporated at a future date.

An Interim Transit-Oriented Development zone has been adopted for the site and the immediate area. The purpose of the interim zone is to prohibit incompatible uses for TOD and to establish acceptable development minimums should a development be proposed prior to the adoption of a comprehensive plan and zoning strategy.

2.2.7 Air Transportation

Provo City’s Municipal Airport has been in operation at its present location since 1943. It provides complete General Aviation (GA) service for the Utah Valley area and the southern portion of the Wasatch Front. While there is no question that the Salt Lake City International Airport will remain the predominant airport in Utah, Provo’s airport has limited commercial service and Provo is interested in expanding routes. It has also undertaken a major expansion by Duncan Aviation of its corporate aviation maintenance facility. As growth continues in Utah Valley, the Provo Airport will need to grow as well. Plans for expansion and detailed information are outlined in the Provo City Airport Master Plan, which as of 2018 is in the process of being updated.

2.2.8 Railroads

Freight rail service in Provo City is provided by the Union Pacific Railroad, the Utah Railway, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. The mainline tracks pass through Provo, paralleling South State Street, 600 South, and I-15. Approximately 25 trains pass through Provo on a daily basis. Many of these trains are interstate trains that do not stop or switch in Provo. Some trains cause minor delays and inconvenience for motorists and pedestrians at designated crossings. Future plans for addressing these conflicts are discussed in the Provo City Transportation Master Plan.

2.2.9 Transportation Demand Management

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a system of actions intended to alleviate traffic problems through improved management of vehicle trip demand. The purpose of TDM is to maximize the movement of people, not vehicles, within the transportation system. Provo City recognizes TDM as a powerful tool in reducing congestion, improving air quality and community livability. TDM strategies should be included in periodic reviews of the City’s Transportation Master Plan.

2.2.10 Parking

Parking can be a significant contributor to advancing the community’s economic development goals as well as helping to improve the overall experience of accessing Provo’s pioneer neighborhoods and downtown business district. The Provo City Parking Master Plan identifies both short and long-term goals for the development of a forward-thinking and holistically-managed public parking system. See the Provo City Parking Master Plan for information about objectives and organization related to parking.

2.2.11 Funding

Funding for transportation is divided into two categories: capital budget for the construction of new facilities and an operating budget to fund the day-to-day staffing and maintenance work of the City. A capital improvements program is developed as part of the City’s budget each year. Current funding sources for capital improvements in the City include: (1) General funds, (2) Community Development Block Grants, (3) Class “B” and “C” State of Utah gas tax, (4) Utah Department of Transportation funds, (5) Utility Transportation Fund, and (6) other grants.

2.2.12 Education

Public education can have a measurable impact on commuter choices and travel behavior. The Provo City Engineering Division and Community Development Department participate each year with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), MAG/UVMPO, and other Utah County municipalities in an “open house” dedicated to local and regional transportation issues. These annual open houses provide an opportunity for Provo City residents to learn about transportation plans and construction projects and to provide input to the various public agencies. In addition to this open house, Provo City has formed a Transportation and Mobility Advisory Committee, which holds public meetings once a month to discuss various transportation related issues.

2-3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

“Transportation and mobility are essential to Provo’s fabric, growth, and character. Population growth, transportation, and mobility have become crucial factors in the city’s lifestyle, health, and well-being. Due to its transportation system, Provo is able to:

  • Move large volumes of traffic on arterial and collector roads to lessen traffic in residential neighborhoods;
  • Provide alternative modes of transportation such as bus rapid transit and light rail, and provide sufficient bus routes, route alternatives, and incentives to encourage ridership;
  • Use a state-of the art inter-modal hub to connect local entities such as BYU, downtown, Provo Towne Centre mall, the airport, venues, attractions, and entertainment; encourage ridership; and reduce traffic congestion; and
  • Expand bike lanes and paths to increase the use of clean transportation. Trail and sidewalk systems provide safe, well-maintained and lighted areas that encourage walkability.”

Transportation in Provo City balances travel demand with the need to provide for a healthy and vibrant community. Residents and employees within the City should have extensive opportunities to bike and walk throughout the City. Road building needs should be balanced with transit projects, trails, and bike lanes. With the City approaching buildout, emphasis should be placed on enhancement of our existing system over the addition of new streets. The vision of the future transportation system for Provo is influenced by the goals and objectives derived through various public outreach efforts. Further detailed analysis and implementation strategies for these goals and objectives are defined in the Provo City Transportation Master Plan. Consideration should be given to opportunities for expanded services for alternative fuel vehicles.

2-4 Goals and Implementation

Goal 2.4.1            Promote connectivity for all modes of transportation to key locations throughout the City.

2.4.1.1             Evaluate existing traffic and the current transportation system.

2.4.1.2             Provide direct routes from key locations in the City by promoting the use of alternative methods of transportation.

2.4.1.3             Use state-of-the-art technology to promote and enable use of automobile and non-automobile transportation options.

2.4.1.4             Provide bicycle and pedestrian-friendly streets and paths throughout the City with emphasis on areas of high pedestrian activity.

2.4.1.5             Ensure effective transportation and mobility systems are incorporated into the west-side development.

2.4.1.6             Focus mass transit options on commercial, business, health service, higher-education and government destinations.

2.4.1.7             Cooperate with UTA, UDOT, MAG and surrounding communities to implement regional transit connections.

2.4.1.8             Establish connection to key business centers.

2.4.1.9           Revisit City access control policies and procedures and evaluate how effective they have been in preserving traffic capacity on arterial and collector streets. Amend access control policies and procedures as needed to improve future traffic flow on major streets.

2.4.1.10          Study and take action to improve traffic signal coordination where feasible.

2.4.1.11          Upgrade facilities and market the Provo Airport for commuter airline service.

Goal 2.4.2            Augment and ensure proper maintenance of the current and future transportation opportunities in Provo.

2.4.2.1             Reduce reliance on automobiles by encouraging alternative modes of transportation when cost effective and appropriate. Maintain and increase the allocation of resources toward the development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program in Provo that encourages employees to utilize alternative modes of transportation (other than the single-occupant vehicle). Encourage incentives for major employers to participate in rideshare, car pool or other employee trip reduction programs.

2.4.2.2             Prioritize and preserve the existing multi-modal transportation system.

2.4.2.3             Identify adequate and sustainable funding to maintain existing transportation facilities.

2.4.2.4             Identify new funding sources for expansion and enhancement of the city-wide transportation network. 

2.4.2.5             Reduce delays and blockages due to trains and train crossings, possibly by providing additional pedestrian and vehicle overpasses to the Union Pacific railroad tracks.

2.4.2.6             Design streets to favor mass-transit options.

2.4.2.7             Secure future rights-of-way for all types of transportation systems.

2.4.2.8             Improve pedestrian safety by evaluating pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, trails and overpasses.

2.4.2.9             Develop a congestion management plan that will encourage flex-time, rideshare programs, alternative methods of parking, and discourage driving to work and school.

2.4.2.10          Work toward becoming a gold-level bicycle-friendly city.

2.4.2.11          Provide educational opportunities for how to safely use alternative transportation.

2.4.2.12          Amend zoning regulations to make new development and redevelopment more “user friendly” to bicyclists and pedestrians. Encourage businesses to provide appropriately designed and secure bicycle parking facilities.

2.4.2.13          Monitor street conditions and plan for the systematic resurfacing of streets, with emphasis on high-volume collector and arterial streets.

2.4.2.14          Continue to work with neighborhoods desiring to implement options provided by City ordinance for parking permit programs.

2.4.2.15          Identify and support opportunities for the expansion of services and infrastructure supporting  alternative fuel vehicles.

Goal 2.4.3            Modify current street standards and encourage utilization of design tools to promote complete street design in appropriate areas of the City.

2.4.3.1             Utilize design elements in the street rights-of-way in residential areas to reduce driving speeds and to make neighborhoods safer and livable.

2.4.3.2             Encourage well-designed street plans, including complete street design parameters in conjunction with new developments.

2.4.3.3             Consider street design options from the Urban Street Design Guide by the National Association of City Transportation Officials and other national publications which support the vision of the City related to a safe, efficient and livable experience for all transportation modes.

2.4.3.4       Incorporate Complete Streets policy into the Transportation Master Plan to demonstrate Provo City’s commitment to providing a safe, comfortable, and convenient transportation network for all users and all modes.

2.4.3.5             Create walkable areas through the City.  Walkable areas should be attractive, providing adequate lighting, a sense of safety, appropriate crossings, and social nodes.

2.4.3.6             Make design standards for public and private roads similar.

2.4.3.7             Design collector and arterial roads to support neighborhood residential streets.

2.4.3.8             Prohibit on-street parking on arterial and collector streets.

2.4.3.9             Define, identify and beautify the major entrances to the community.

2.4.3.10          Develop uniform street landscaping standards.

2.4.3.11          Continue to enhance the street tree planting program.

2.4.3.12          Complete a collector and arterial road system (major streets plan) throughout the City.

2.4.3.13          Establish acceptable service levels for roads and intersections and manage via TDM growth to maintain those levels .

2.4.3.14          Reduce the number of fatalities and injuries from traffic-related accidents.

2.4.3.15          Create a comprehensive safety management system for traffic.

Goal 2.4.4            Promote easier navigation with appropriate signage and education throughout the city. 

2.4.4.1             Target key points of interest, such as public parking lots, restaurants, entertainment, lodging, medical, government, and other points of interest.

2.4.4.2             Continue to implement the wayfinding signage plan to enhance Provo City.

2.4.4.3             Inform the public of the benefits of public transportation.

2.4.4.4             Continue the removal of billboards.

Goal 2.4.5            Enhance Provo City Downtown as a destination.

2.4.5.1           Identify and promote alternative routes which would help the need for vehicular through-traffic to use Downtown streets as a means of passing-though Provo.

2.4.5.2           Balance current parking needs with a desire to eventually reduce excessive

CHAPTER 3

HOUSING

Chapter Three
Housing

3.1 Introduction

The term housing is defined as a dwelling, or dwellings in the collective sense, in which people live. The data provided in the Background of this chapter covers all housing within Provo City and is intended to provide a snapshot of housing conditions at the time of the General Plan update.  In analyzing and projecting future housing needs for Provo City, it serves the community well to keep in mind that every family or individual needs a place to live. In Provo, housing is an especially important concern because of low vacancy rates, rising land values that affect housing costs, and a steady growth in population.

 As the centralized location of many public assistance services for Utah County residents, Provo also has a significant population with a need to live in close proximity to those services. These factors can create challenges in providing sufficient affordable housing while maintaining the framework of strong and diverse neighborhoods. Strategies to meet housing needs and a process for the ongoing monitoring of needs and supply are tools for managing those challenges.

3.2 Background

Information was gathered from the Utah County Board of Realtors and the U.S. Census Bureau to evaluate the value of owner-occupied units in the City over recent years in comparison with values in Utah County overall. The numbers show that the average price for a house in Provo has increased from $183,959 in 2014 to $222,133 in 2016, which equates to a 17.1% increase in the average home sales price. At that average price, the mortgage for a $222,000 home at 4.5% interest would be $1,125 per month ($1,642 on a 15-year note at a 4% interest rate).

Affordability questions continue to arise. However, the question of affordability largely depends upon an individual’s income and credit score. The average income in Provo is $56,376. For an individual to afford the average home price in Provo, they would be required to have excellent credit (720+). 

Table 3.1 contains data on the median home price data for zip codes within Utah County based on actual home sales information from the Utah County Board of Realtors. This table shows that homes withIn Provo City remain an attractive option for those in the market to purchase a home.

Table 3.2 below contains information from the 2012-2016 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. According to the survey, the 2016 median home price in Provo City was $214,000, with the largest percentage of homes (30%) having a value between $200,000 and $249,999.

3.2.1 Rent Charged for Renter-Occupied Units

Information was gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau to evaluate the rent charged for renter-occupied units in the City. A housing unit is defined as a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have a direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. In accordance with this definition, each apartment unit in an apartment building is counted as one housing unit. Housing unit statistics exclude group quarters (such as dormitories and rooming houses), transient accommodations (such as transient hotels, motels, and tourist courts), moved or relocated buildings, and housing units created in an existing residential or non-residential structure. Units in assisted living facilities are considered to be housing units, however, units in nursing homes are not considered to be housing units.

With the definition in mind, Table 3.3 below shows where the rental-occupied units within Provo City fall within a certain rental range. The table shows a broad and diverse range of rental offerings within Provo City.

 

3.3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

Provo City is characterized by well-maintained neighborhoods that accommodate diversity and enrich the quality of life while maintaining their own unique sense of place. Provo’s neighborhoods are well-connected and offer recreational opportunities by capitalizing on its abundant local natural amenities. Provo neighborhoods offer families and individuals a safe and positive environment in which to interact and prosper.”

Provo City recognizes the important role of housing in the health, safety, and welfare of the public and is committed to pursuing an optimal housing inventory to ensure that every neighborhood is vibrant, healthy, and stable. To meet the challenges of growth, the City must work judiciously, cautiously, and creatively to:

  1. provide quality, affordable, and sustainable housing, in sufficient quantity, for residents of every age, income, ability, and family-type within the community.
  2. create and sustain neighborhoods of distinct character and a sense of place where families and individuals feel safe and want to and can remain.
  3. ensure new affordable, mixed, or higher density housing options are appropriately distributed throughout the city.
  4. sustain the services and amenities that the residents enjoy.
  5. build, renovate, and maintain architecturally sound, aesthetically pleasing, and responsible and sustainable housing.

Provo’s primary housing goal is to provide adequate housing that meets population demands and supports the health, safety, and welfare of the public. To help achieve this goal, and to comply with Utah Code, a moderate income housing plan is provided.

3.4 Goals and Implementation

Goal 3.4.1            Encourage healthy and balanced and stable neighborhoods where schools, businesses, religious congregations, and community organizations can thrive.                            

                3.4.1.1           Maintain low crime rates in neighborhoods.

                3.4.1.2           Maintain and encourage good quality, sustainable housing and infill developments.

                3.4.1.3           Increase direct, landlord responsibility and accountability for overuse of city resources.

                3.4.1.4           Continue the support of neighborhood loan and grant programs that encourage owner occupancy or long-term residency and neighborhood revitalization.

                3.4.1.5           Identify criteria for properties with potential for multi-family and one-family housing.

                3.4.1.6           Encourage diversity of age groups in neighborhoods.

               3.4.1.7           Offer a range of housing types within neighborhoods that meet the changing needs of an aging population and facilitate long-term residency.

               3.4.1.8          Regulate the scale of buildings by the land size of the parcel.

3.4.1.9          Encourage such tools as community land trusts and inclusionary housing to ensure more stability in owner occupancy rates.

Goal 3.4.2      Protect existing owner-occupied housing and neighborhoods and encourage an increased percentage of owner-occupied or long-term residency housing in Provo neighborhoods.

            3.4.2.1           Conduct a comprehensive city-wide housing audit, including an analysis of housing available for very-low income residents, for both student and non-student populations.

                3.4.2.2           Identify exceptional areas that would benefit from area specific master plans, where the city would conduct a detailed land-use analysis. The objective is for a plan for every neighborhood.

                3.4.2.3           Develop strategies to increase owner-occupancy or long-term residency in the city’s residential neighborhoods.

                3.4.2.4          Limit additional rental housing outside areas specifically planned for higher density  development.

                3.4.2.5         Provide sufficient housing options for single professionals as a means to increase family occupancy in the single-family areas.

                3.4.2.6         Promote low cost land or subsidies in the form of reduced impact fees and down payment and financing assistance.

               

Goal 3.4.3    Encourage stability and owner occupancy in Provo's housing inventory by recognizing that zoning and land use have a significant and direct impact on the local school district and the district's ability to educate its students. Families that are unstable in terms of their location within the community make educating their children a daunting challenge for the school system.

            3.4.3.1           Nearly 60 percent of Provo's housing inventory is not owner occupied. Owner occupancy or long-term residency in new housing developments should be encouraged, especially in developments designed and marketed as non-student, multi-family, or attached, housing.

            3.4.3.2           Emphasize continued renewal and beautification of the city’s older sections.

            3.4.3.3           Encourage a diverse population within Provo, blend home ownership with rental housing in developments that are not meant for college-student housing.

            3.4.3.4           Avoid concentrating large numbers of rental housing, either in one development or within one neighborhood, outside of areas intended for college student housing.

Goal 3.4.4    Disperse the increasing demand for affordable housing throughout the City and the County.

                3.4.4.1           Initiate actions necessary to encourage other cities within the county to accommodate a share of the rental housing market.

                3.4.4.2           Encourage home ownership and preservation through neighborhood based economic assistance programs.

                3.4.4.3           Encourage development patterns that reduce land and development costs.

                3.4.4.4           Make quality housing and services that are accessible to all segments of the population.

                3.4.4.5           Encourage housing of diverse design in order to adequately accommodate all types of users (singles, young couples, families and the elderly).

                3.4.4.6           Encourage maximum buildout in existing high-density areas (south of Brigham Young University and within the Central Business District). and

                3.4.4.7           Establish acceptable service levels for public infrastructure and limit growth to maintain those levels.

Goal 3.4.5    Provo City will encourage the development of various types of housing inventory to increase the health of existing neighborhoods while providing sufficient accommodations for people who want to work and live in Provo.

              3.4.5.1           Provo City will encourage the development of market-rate housing throughout the community, with special care and analysis being taken into consideration for the construction of tax-subsidized housing inventory.

               3.4.5.2           Provo City will encourage infill developments and redevelopment of multifamily and denser housing inventory options in areas surrounding retail trade area to help increase demographic figures and provide a larger consumer bas to current and future retailers.

             3.4.5.3           Provo City will work with major employers and BYU to discover the housing needs of existing employees, understand growth projections and find suitable housing options for young married students and post-graduate professionals.

             3.4.5.4           Provo City will continue to work within existing Neighborhood Plans while providing information to neighborhoods and about opportunities for development barriers to business/residential entry or any other issues that could potentially impact both the short and long-term health of the neighborhood.

               3.4.5.5           Provo City will seek cooperation with local businesses and non-profit organizations to provide critical assistance to poor and transient populations in our community to balance community health, employment, housing and safety issues.

3.4.5.6          Provo City will set aside a reasonable and effective minimum of any new commercial or residential development for affordable housing units or redevelopment in the City (inclusionary zoning).

3.4.5.7         Require moderate and high density housing developments to be attractive, functional, desirable, and connected.

Goal 3.4.6   Encourage energy efficiency and use of clean and renewable energy in the housing inventory of Provo and increase the environmental health of neighborhoods.

               

             3.4.6.1           Identify standards in the state code that the City is willing to adopt.

            3.4.6.2           Train a city employee to assess and certify new construction projects according to those standards.

            3.4.6.3           Encourage homes for sale to list their energy ratings to empower buyers to make wiser choices and to incentivize higher standards of energy efficiency.

            3.4.6.4           Encourage new construction that meets standards for low-impact construction materials, energy-efficiency, and use of clean and renewable energy that are

                        consistent with state code.

            3.4.6.5           Promote more walkability and access to mass transit by identifying areas that are best suited for mixed and higher density housing.

            3.4.6.6           Collaborate with other city agencies to ensure neighborhood connectivity and access to trails, parks, and open space.

CHAPTER 4

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Chapter Four
Natural Resources and Environment

4.1: Liquefaction Hazards Map (PDF)

4.2: Geologic Hazards Map (PDF )

4.1 Introduction

The natural features and resources in and around Provo contribute to the City’s visually spectacular setting. They provide habitat for a diverse range of plant and animal life, affect the year-round climate, and provide abundant opportunities for recreation. These features and resources attract and support industry and thriving residential, business and academic communities.

Provo City is rich in natural resources such as the Provo River, Utah Lake, high quality potable water, canyons, foothills, and mountains. Conservation efforts that make wise use of resources and protect them from loss or depletion are needed to ensure future viability of these resources. Preservation efforts that protect undisturbed resources, restore the damaged environment, or mitigate damage in one area by enhancing the natural environment in other areas are important elements of this Plan.

Natural resource usage should be tempered with wisdom and governed by a vision of future needs and desires for the natural and physical environment. Development of land and infrastructure is often shaped by the natural environment. Land development and associated activities can also impact the natural environment in harmful ways. General Plan policies for future development should consider potential negative externalities resulting between the natural environment and the built environment. The City should focus on identifying negative impacts and establishing goals and policies that will preserve natural features and conserve natural resources.

4.2 Background

SECTION HEADINGS

4.2.1 Provo’s Natural Resources

4.2.3 Developmentally Sensitive Lands

4.2.2 Environmental Hazards

4.2.4 Land Use Regulations for Developmentally Sensitive Lands

Environmental issues are interrelated with many aspects of the General Plan. Decisions affecting the environment affect everyone who lives in that environment and warrant careful consideration. The natural environment may also significantly impact planning and processes associated with the built environment and influence development patterns within the city. The use of sound community planning, urban design and engineering principles, combined with a respect for natural values that contribute to the quality of life within and around Provo, can help us to wisely use the resources available to us and ensure their long-term survival for the good of future generations. This section describes Provo’s natural resources and some of the considerations the City should keep in mind when interacting with those resources.

4.2.1 Provo’s Natural Resources

This section describes seven natural resources in Provo—air, forests, soils, rivers, watersheds, and storm drainage—and highlights relevant information and potential issues pertaining to these resources.

Air

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed in an effort to reemphasize the air quality standards. Congress established deadlines for progress to be achieved in non-attainment areas with accompanying federal funding and penalties for noncompliance. Federally funded highway and transit projects are required to come from a Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)(See Chapter 2 Transportation and Mobility for more information).

“Non-attainment areas” are those areas that were found to repeatedly violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As of 2017, Utah County is designated as non-attainment for moderate particulate matter (PM-10) and Provo specifically is designated as non-attainment for serious particulate matter (PM-2.5).1

Inversions that trap air in the valley increase levels of particulates and could exceed the national standard. The primary manmade components of PM10 include nitrogen oxides (NOx), fugitive dust from road sanding, motor vehicles, combustion of solid fuels, agricultural activities, and construction services. A considerable portion of PM10 emissions in Utah County are attributed to motor vehicles; the rest come from industrial and area-wide sources.

Not meeting the air quality standards developed by the federal government can result in the loss of federal funding for transportation projects (see Transportation Master Plan).

Forests

Provo City owns many forested acres in the South Fork and Squaw Peak, adjacent to United States Forest Service lands. While these forests are to be enjoyed, they are also important watershed areas. Strict enforcement of watershed policies is needed to maintain the water supply quality. Forested lands are designated in the General Plan as Developmentally Sensitive (DS)(see Chapter 1 Land Use).

Provo City has an urban forestry program that manages the public tree resources within Provo City. Trees are valuable to the City in terms of the appearance and microclimate of neighborhoods. Efforts should be continued in the management of a sustainable urban forest. 

Soils

In order to provide the best mix of future land uses, the capability of the land to support a specific use and the compatibility of the current land use with the proposed future use must be considered.

Soils vary in terms of their suitability for agricultural, residential, public facility, commercial, and industrial uses. Knowledge of soil types is very important when determining land uses. Areas with shallow water tables have limited use for foundations and septic tanks. Steep slopes with rocky soils place severe limitations on foundations and other underground building features. When placing a foundation, the potential for settling, cracking, and flooding of basements needs to be considered. The weight capacity of the soil is important in such considerations.

Rivers

The Storm Water Division of the Public Works Department monitors and maintains the levees and any other storm drainage structure within the City boundaries. The 1983 floods made clear the need to develop a storm drain system that would help protect property, decrease soil erosion, and prevent toxic materials from entering the natural stream system that runs through the heart of Provo City. Several million dollars have been spent to upgrade the system. Improving the storm drain system is a primary function of the Storm Water Division of the Public Works Department. (For more details, please refer to the Storm Water Facilities subsection of the City Facilities Section in Chapter Five of this General Plan. For more information concerning flooding, see the Flood Hazard and Control heading, below.)

The Provo River is a prized natural resource for the City. However, over the years, neglect of the river and its surroundings has left areas that need special attention and effort to restore and enhance this treasure. The Provo River should attract residents and visitors like never before through cleaning efforts and design standards for surrounding developments.

Watersheds

Watersheds critical to Provo City’s spring collection areas exist in several areas of Provo Canyon as well as South Fork of Provo Canyon. Watershed areas for surface waters tributary to the Provo River are much more extensive and extend all the way to the Upper Provo River drainageways. Provo City has adopted a Watershed Protection Ordinance designed primarily to protect the City’s pristine spring collection areas from potential contamination. This ordinance is based upon State law, which allows a municipality to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in watershed areas. While the ordinance is not intended to prohibit any or all development in watershed areas, it does allow the City to regulate development in such a way as to protect the integrity of the City’s sources of water supply.

Wetlands and Wildlife

Wetlands play an important role in the ecological system. They are recharge zones for natural aquifers and ground water reservoirs. Wetlands provide a habitat for many varieties of aquatic, land, and waterfowl wildlife. Natural beauty is sustained by wetlands. Wetlands can be created and incorporated into the landscape of industrial parks, subdivisions, and shopping centers. This is being done already in areas of the City (for example, East Bay Business Park and the East Bay Golf Course).

In the process of identifying, preserving, and mitigating wetlands (creating new wetlands to offset the loss of wetlands that are eliminated or compromised during the course of land development), the City has effectively protected habitats and created new wildlife habitats for waterfowl and other aquatic life. The land west and south of Provo along Utah Lake and the land south of East Bay are prime locations for wildlife preserves and are to remain wetlands.

Parts of west Provo are being considered as additional wildlife preserves. The creation of a wetland bank will be valuable to Provo’s future development potential. The designation of Developmentally Sensitive (DS) protects natural habitats and local deer trails.

Storm Drainage

As wetlands are natural recharge zones, which are necessary for continued replenishment of groundwater, concerns, arise with respect to development. Rainwater run-off is ordinarily absorbed into the ground. However, as open lands are replaced with impervious surfaces such as buildings, streets, and parking lots, this natural recharge process is disrupted.

On impervious surfaces, oil, antifreeze, and other toxic substances (including those deposited on streets by the exhaust systems or leaking transmissions of automobiles) are concentrated and redirected into the storm drainage system, which drains directly into the rivers and lakes. In short, these substances are never broken down biologically, as they should be, because toxins are not filtered through the soil, as occurs with natural recharge, or treated at the wastewater treatment plant, as with discharges to the sanitary sewer system. As a result, these pollutants threaten to contaminate surface waters. Significant amounts of common pollutants, or even smaller amounts of regulated pollutants, may also be discharged into soils with the resulting contamination of ground water. As these types of pollutants are not typically identified with a specific “point source,” such as an industrial plant with regulated discharges, these are categorized as “nonpoint source” pollutants.

Increasing levels of pollutants in water sources may lead to additional regulation of municipalities under federal and State pollution control laws, resulting in additional costs to municipalities for treating and controlling storm water discharges to waterways.

4.2.2 Environmental Hazards

Provo faces various flood and geological hazards. This section exposes those hazards

Flood Hazard and Control

Soil Drainage and Overflow Hazard

Flood hazards must be recognized when developing land. The federal government has issued specific regulations to cities where extensive flood areas are located. Thus, knowing which soils are susceptible to flooding and the overall drainage capabilities of soils in Provo is important. Generally, floods have occurred near Utah Lake in poorly drained, lower lying areas that are susceptible to rising water levels. Serious flash flooding has occurred along the Provo River and in the mouths of both Slate and Rock Canyons. The last major floods of this nature were in 1983 and 1984. With the addition of the Jordanelle Dam upstream of the Deer Creek Dam, greater capacity is available to store runoff and to manage potential flooding through control of these two dams as a system.

Flood Insurance Study

A flood insurance study for the city has been developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The study includes flood insurance rate maps that identify areas of the city subject to flooding during 100 year flood episodes. Land use policies should discourage dense development in flood hazard areas. Zoning ordinance provisions can be utilized to ensure that development in flood hazard areas occurs in accordance with FEMA regulations. Administration of flood zone regulations consistent with federal law enables Provo citizens to be eligible for participation in the national flood insurance program. As of 2017, updated studies are being done and are a few years away of when they would be ready for adoption by the City.

Upstream of Provo, the Deer Creek Dam on the Provo River is managed by the Provo River Water Users Association. This facility helps provide for the water needs of the community. Although there is no cause for concern at this time, extraordinary events could lead to the failure of this dam. In 2002, the U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, re-mapped the approximate areas that would be affected by such an event in order to provide information for public and emergency service providers who must prepare response plans in anticipation of this unlikely event.

Geological Hazards

Rock Fall

Frost wedging can cause boulders to fall from the mountains of the Wasatch Range. Homes located in the foothills are at risk to potential rock fall. As boulders fall and roll through the gullies and ravines of the hillside, it is possible that a multi-ton boulder will find its resting place in a residential area. While it is too late to protect existing homes from this danger, caution must be taken to prevent new homes from being built in the path of potential rock falls, avoiding possible damage to persons and property. In past years, two major boulders have broken off from the cliffs above Provo and fallen during the spring thaw period, causing significant damage to two homes bordering the Y Mountain area. Future planning for development along the mountainside should consider this issue and explore measures to balance development needs with the potential for future damage to structures and lives.

Faults, Earthquakes and Liquefaction

There is great potential for earthquake damage along the Wasatch Front. Areas with high risk of earthquake damage due to liquefaction (soil liquefaction as a result of ground movement) are found throughout the city (see Map # 4.1  Liquefaction Hazards Map). The river bottoms and the west side, especially near Utah Lake, are areas in danger of damage caused by liquefaction. Special engineering standards and additional code requirements must be met to build in these areas.

Earthquake hazards in Provo are important considerations for planning. Map #4.2 Geologic Hazards Map shows two major faults exposed in the mountains east of Provo and two inferred faults, one in the mountains and one in the valley. The term “inferred fault” means that somewhere between the mountains and Utah Lake there is probably an additional fault. An exact location of this fault would be difficult to pinpoint.

Land Slides

Along the Wasatch Front, alluvium or unconsolidated strata is deposited at the canyon mouths. This land can move in what is called a landslide or slump. When the water table rises, soils become saturated. Water adds weight to the soil, causing movement down the slope. This movement is very rapid at times and can cause major property damage and, occasionally, loss of life.

Strata Expansion

The Manning Canyon Shale Formation and its related problems for development are common along the Wasatch Front. This formation is characterized by soils and strata that expand and shift when saturated. Many building foundations have been displaced and cracked in areas associated with this formation, in particular along the higher benches, due to strata expansion.

Extensive areas affected by strata expansion and rock fall have been identified through geologic research. The public needs to be made aware of incentives and funds available to landowners who want their lands designated as permanent open spaces, or who will record conservation easements on their lands, or who will grant public access across their lands for nature trails or parks.

4.2.3 Developmentally Sensitive Lands

Hillsides

Areas generally located above the approximate 5,200-foot level of the east bench are designated in the General Plan as Developmentally Sensitive (DS). Proximity to the Wasatch Fault Line contributes to the unstable nature of the land. The existing and future Bonneville Shoreline Trail is just below the actual shoreline and follows the Questar Gas easement, which acts as a buffer and provides transition between the higher slopes and development existing or planned at lower elevations. Land at this altitude along the east bench of Provo has been determined to have a greater incidence of poor stability for construction due to soils, slopes, and faulting. The east-bench DS designation was mapped in general correlation with the 5,200-foot elevation or by concentration of slopes 25 percent or greater, with some adjustment to reflect existing development. Capabilities for providing fire control, water, and other services above the 5,200-foot level are also development impediments. Access to these areas is very limited, and new roads are difficult to construct due to grade limitations and poor soil stability.

For these reasons, any new development or construction to be considered for these areas will require geologic and soils testing and slope analysis by a qualified professional to determine suitability for development. As in other areas of the city with steep slopes or other natural limitations, development within these lands is generally subject to the Sensitive Lands ordinance of Title 15, Land Use and Development. Disturbance of hillsides with slopes greater than 30 percent is prohibited in that ordinance. Other community interests in preserving hillside views from the valley, protecting significant geologic features that give character to the land, and preserving open space may not be related to geologic stability or feasibility of engineering solutions to development. They are, however, considerations that are relevant to the long-term planning of Provo City and may be factors in restricting or limiting development on the hillsides.

Wetlands Areas

Other lands designated Developmentally Sensitive (DS) are west of I-15, incorporating significant land areas along the shoreline of Utah Lake. This designation reflects wetlands that provide valuable environmental benefits; these areas must be given special consideration in development in accordance with federal, state and local laws. Lands designated as DS also include areas of potential flooding and high water tables, both of which figure into the determination of the types of development suitable for these lands and any special construction limitations for uses in these areas.

4.2.4 Land Use Regulations for Developmentally Sensitive Lands

Title 15 Land Use and Development, of the Provo Municipal Code, was amended in 1999 to adopt Chapter 15.05, Sensitive Lands, regulating the development of land with particular geologic, hydrologic, and topographic features and limitations. This chapter addresses:

1.    High-risk development;

2.    Uses and actions prohibited due to geologic or topographic features, soil conditions, or presence of surface or groundwater;

3.    Procedures to minimize risk to the project and to the environment;

4.    Special engineering or geologic evaluation and reporting requirements;

5.    Standards for hillside development where slopes exceed thirty percent;

6.    Development in high water table and wetland areas; and

7.    Professional qualifications required for environmental studies and related reporting.

Other chapters of the Zoning (Title 14) and Land Use and Development (Title 15) ordinances have been adopted to modify development standards where opportunities may be realized to preserve open lands, reduce impacts to land features and vegetation, establish conservation easements, or eliminate mass grading where topography is a desirable natural feature within the built environment. These include the Subdivision ordinance in Title 15 and elements of the Planned Development, Research and Business Park, and Planned Industrial Commercial zones.

4.3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

The best elements of Provo’s natural resources, including Provo River, Utah Lake, high quality potable water, clean air and beautiful canyons, foothills, and mountains are preserved and protected from the adverse impacts of increased population and potential environmental pollution. Impairments to these natural resources have been remedied by a plan of action adopted by the leadership of Provo City.

In an effort to protect its natural resources, Provo responsibly provides electrical energy to its citizens. Provo enjoys very low energy rates and profits in many ways from its municipal power company. Provo also benefits from its association with the Utah Municipal Power Association (UMPA) where Provo is the largest consumer of energy among UMPA participants. Provo provides residents, businesses, educational institutions, and industries with reliable, low-cost electrical energy with attractive or non-intrusive delivery systems and seeks the same qualities in heating, transportation and other energy needs.

4.4 Goals and Implementation

The following subsections will outline goals and objectives related to the general environment, energy, specific natural resources (air, forests, soils, rivers, watersheds, wetlands, and wildlife), and natural hazards. These goals and objectives should serve as a guide for the protection, conservation, development, and use of natural resources in Provo.

General Environmental Goals

4.4.1                      Recognize and support volunteer efforts to keep Provo City clean.

4.4.2                      Study a sliding scale solid waste collection fee, based on container size that encourages recycling and reduces the amount of waste that is landfilled.

4.4.3                      Work effectively as a city and with other governmental agencies and private organizations to protect, preserve, and restore its natural resources in the surrounding mountains, canyons, foothills, wetlands, shorelines, riverbanks and associated wildlife corridor; agricultural lands; and in all city parks; and develop a citywide culture of proactive stewardship to preserve the ecological integrity of these resources.

4.4.3.1           Regularly assess the current ecological health of Provo City.

4.4.3.2           Increase public education and awareness of the city’s natural resources and environmental challenges.

4.4.3.3           Reduce the adverse impacts of growth, development, and environmental   pollution.

4.4.3.4           Encourage resource preservation through greater participation in recycling and energy conservation efforts.

4.4.4                      Encourage clean business and industry

4.4.4.1           Develop a plan that encourages non-polluting business and industry to locate in Provo.

4.4.4.2           Provide regulations and incentives to encourage established businesses to improve air quality.

Energy

4.4.5                      Improve energy efficiency in Provo and reduce our dependency of fossil fuels.

4.4.5.1           Implement new advances in electrical energy delivery and control systems (i.e., smart grid, smart houses) as they become practical and economically feasible.

4.4.5.2           Work with residential, commercial, educational, and industrial customers to identify and implement energy savings through increases in consumption efficiency and reduction in use of energy in a cost-effective manner. 

4.4.5.3           Consider private and public generation of renewable energy resources (i.e., wind, solar).

4.4.5.4           Promote alternative vehicle fueling sources such as compressed natural gas and electrical vehicle stations.

4.4.6                      Work with UMPA to continue to seek long-term electrical energy resources that are stable, affordable, and renewable.

4.4.6.1           Seek opportunities to diversify energy resources in a cost-effective manner, including increasing energy percentages from renewable and alternative sources. and

4.4.6.2           Seek opportunities for consumer alternatives to purchase energy from renewable resources.

Air

4.4.7[KZ12]                       Work with the Utah County Bureau of Air Quality and with the Air Quality Division of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to develop and implement programs to improve ambient air quality in Provo during all seasons of the year.

  • public health education efforts,
  • voluntary winter wood burning curtailment programs,
  • financial incentives for the installation of clean-burning heating appliances,
  • encouragement of alternative modes of transportation to reduce reliance on the automobile and thereby reducing automobile-related emissions,
  • continued efforts to improve traffic signal timing, and
  • installation of additional bus turnout areas for more efficient transit operation and related reductions in traffic congestion with its increased emissions.

4.4.8                      Improve air quality to meet or exceed all national and state standards for PM2.5, PM10, ozone and carbon dioxide because clean air will improve the health of our residents, aid in recruiting new businesses, increase tourism, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

4.4.8.1           Clean our air with a sustained, energetic, multi-faceted approach as outlined in the Provo Clean Air Toolkit .

4.4.8.2           Improve our air quality through better monitoring of automobile emissions, fire place and industrial pollution, and enforce standards not to exceed those set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

4.4.8.3           Encourage synchronization of semaphores at intersections to reduce the stopping, starting, and idle time of vehicles.

4.4.8.4           Encourage high energy-efficiency in new construction and remodels to reduce pollution.

4.4.8.5           Encourage combustion of natural gas rather than coal during winter at major industrial sources.

4.4.8.6           Encourage alternative transit modes.

Forests

4.4.9                    Increase emphasis and efforts to enforce the Watershed Protection Ordinance to ensure the protection of forests in City watershed areas.

4.4.10                    Identify and evaluate the urban forest and habitat areas with the city and develop policies and ordinances that would protect plant life, encourage planting, maintain a green belt and preserve habitats for wildlife.

4.4.11                    Plant new trees on a systematic basis to replace trees that decline in health due to urban impacts, old age, or insects/disease.

4.4.12                    Provide guidance to citizens regarding the selection, planting, and proper maintenance of trees citywide, including the avoidance of “topping,” which creates an unnatural appearance for deciduous trees and eventual decline in the health of individual trees and the urban forest.

Soils

4.4.13                    Work with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to develop educational materials informing the public about the soil properties in the area and the consequences or limitations for development thereon.

4.4.14                    Require appropriate engineering expertise in development projects on poorly drained and low bearing strength soils to properly design projects in relation to soil conditions.

Rivers

4.4.15                    Ensure that Provo River is a year-round stream with protected flows that provide both spawning and rearing habitat for native fish species and seasonal sport species, support and sustain general fishing use, and develop trail access to the river, which will be free flowing from Provo Canyon to an ecologically restored delta area that enters Utah Lake.

4.4.15.1        Support minimum flows in Provo River based on ecological and user needs through cooperation with all user groups.

4.4.15.2        Continue to support the Utah Lake Commission in accomplishing its goals that align with the goals of Provo City.

4.4.15.3        Ensure and communicate the needs of all parties, including adjacent homeowners, water users, and the fishing and recreating public to maintain aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

4.4.15.4        Improve public access to and use of the Provo River.

4.4.15.5        Protect and enhance lands adjacent to Provo River. Enhance upkeep and the removal of litter and debris.

4.4.15.6        Evaluate runoff and drainage into the Provo River and Utah Lake to protect the quality of those water bodies.

4.4.16                    Restore areas of the Provo River that have been neglected and negatively impacted by development and misuse. Enhance and provide elements that will attract residents and visitors to better enjoy this amenity in a way is sustainable economically, environmentally and socially.

4.4.17                    Develop design standards that will generate development that contributes to rather than detracts from the beauty of the River.

4.4.18                    Establish program amenities along the River that will attract residents and visitors to explore and enjoy the river corridor in both developed and undeveloped areas of the City.

Watersheds

4.4.19                    Maintain lot coverage/open space ratios for new development that will ensure adequate lands are preserved for water absorption and percolation for groundwater recharge.

4.4.20                    Maintain the current high quality of Provo's groundwater resources, both springs and aquifers, and protect them from contamination and reduction in quantity. Watersheds contributing to water sources will also be managed to protect both surface water quality and recharge of groundwater resources.

4.4.20.1        Protect both current and future drinking water sources.

4.4.20.2        Manage watersheds and distributions systems for the protection of drinking water sources.  Protect the quality of surface waters.

4.4.20.3        Maintain and improve the quality of our water through constantly updating and modernizing our treatment plants and protecting our water supply.

4.4.20.4        Improve water conservation.

4.4.20.5        Conserve water through educating citizens about water conservation.

4.4.20.6        Acquire additional water resources.

Wetlands and Wildlife

4.4.21                    Work with applicable state and federal agencies to identify and preserve significant wetlands.

4.4.22                    Consider establishment of a “wetland bank” or other means to mitigate the loss of wetlands with future urbanization.

4.4.23                    Coordinate with state and federal fish and wildlife officials and adopt land use regulations as necessary to protect land areas frequented by wildlife.

4.4.24                    Recognize that Utah Lake is a focal point of local natural resources systems that contribute to the environmental health, economic prosperity, and quality of life of area residents and visitors. Through collaborative restoration, protection, and sustainable-use efforts, the lake and its multiple-use amenities are fully recognized, enjoyed, and protected for current and future generations.

4.4.24.1        Support the protection and restoration of the lakefront and wetland areas in a natural state.  Identify and protect wildlife corridors, and encourage less impactful uses (trail use, hiking, birding, and photography) focused on ecological attributes and experiences.

4.4.24.2        Provide a range of educational opportunities that complement the recreational experience and showcase the lake’s physical characteristics, biological uniqueness, and cultural resources, as well as its socio-economic significance.

4.4.24.3        Control and effectively manage existing invasive species (e.g., carp and phragmites) to minimize their negative effects on Utah Lake natural resources. Implement programs to prevent additional invasions.

4.4.24.4        Pursue site-specific enhancements and engineering solutions (e.g., re-created deltas, urban and riparian forests, mixed-use storm water detention areas, selective dredging and diking, re-vegetation) consistent with the Utah Lake Master Plan.

4.4.24.5        Attain high-quality lake water (chemically, biologically, and visually) free from deleterious contaminants and suitable for its beneficial uses.

Storm Drainage

4.4.25                    Acquire, develop, and publicize the availability of educational materials reminding the public of the importance of proper disposal of chemicals.

4.4.26                    Encourage participation in Household Hazardous Waste disposal programs offered by governmental or environmental agencies.

4.4.27                    Design parking lots to provide for filtration of storm water before discharge.

Flood Hazard and Control

4.4.28                    Continue maintaining the levee system and floodway areas free of encroachments to facilitate the discharge of flood flows.

4.4.29                    Minimize development in flood hazard areas to preserve storage space for flood waters and protect persons and property.

4.4.30                    Continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, in coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Maintain a library of FEMA publications for public use.

Geological Hazards

4.4.31                    Enforce building codes that will protect new construction from seismic hazards.

4.4.32                    Explore incentives and funding sources for the seismic retrofitting of existing buildings.

4.4.33               Enact land use regulations that will limit development in areas subject to rock fall, landslides, and strata expansion.


1 Environmental Protection Agency, Nonattainment/Maintenance Status

. Retrieved online Nov. 30, 2017 at (https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ut.html).

CHAPTER 5

MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Chapter Five
Municipal Services and Facilities

5.1 Introduction

Municipal Services and Facilities are intended to provide residents, visitors, and businesses a safe, healthy, and secure environment. Citizens depend on government and private agencies to provide essential and desirable services and facilities which benefit the community.  Municipal services are the backbone of the City and municipal services need to keep pace with the desired service needs of the city as well as the City’s future residential and commercial growth.

5.2 Background

Municipal Services and Facilities meet the daily needs of Provo City residential and business population. The extent of these facilities, their services level and quality is a vital component of the quality of life the City offers and its ability to attract new businesses and residents. Provo City provides sanitation, water, electric power, streets, fire, police, streets, parks and recreation, economic development, community and administrative services.  Other government agencies such as the Provo School District, Utah County, and the State of Utah provide other services such as schools, health inspections and health care, and social services Private service providers supply natural gas and communication services. 

The following listing of City Departments and Divisions is intended to give some scope to the services provided by the City.  Details of the specific purpose and service provided by each of these departments or divisions may be obtained from the City web site at www.Provo.org.

       

Administrative Services

  • Finance
  • Human Resources
  • Information Systems
  • Facilities
  • Justice Court
  • City Recorder

City Attorney’s Office

  • Criminal Prosecution
  • City Legal Services
  • Litigation, Claims, Risk Management, and Safety

       

Community Development

  • Planning
  • Zoning / Code Enforcement
  • Building Inspection
  • Ombudsman / Property Manager
  • Parking Administration

        Customer Service

Economic Development

Fire and Rescue

  • Emergency Response
  • Prevention and Education

        Library

        Parks & Recreation

  • Parks
    • Design and Development
    • Park Maintenance
  • Programs and Activities
  • Recreation and Arts Facilities
    • Provo Recreation Center
    • Covey Center for the Arts
    • Peaks Ice Arena
    • Shooting Sports Park
    • East Bay Golf Course
  • Provo City Cemetery

Police Department

  • Administration
  • Patrol
  • Criminal Investigation
  • Special Operations
  • Operational Support

Energy (Power)

  • Power and Electrical Service
  • City Forestry

Public Works

  • Engineering
  • Water Resources
    • Culinary Water
    • Waste Water
  • Sanitation
  • Storm Water
  • Streets
  • Vehicle Management
  • Provo Airport

Redevelopment

The Municipal Services and Facilities element of the General Plan will concentrate on the current services and facilities aimed at improving the quality of life in Provo. Those areas include the headings found in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.1 – MUNICIPAL SERVICE AND FACILITIES IN PROVO CITY

5.2.1 City Facilities

5.2.3 Capital Improvements

5.2.2 Provo City School District Facilities

 

5.2.1 City Facilities

5.2.1.1 City Center Offices. 

The City Center Offices located at 351 West Center Street, is also known as “City Hall.” The building contains the Council Chamber where Public Hearings are held and new City legislation is enacted, as well as a majority of the City’s administrative offices.  Besides offices for the Mayor and Municipal Council, the building also serves as the location of the Police, Fire, Community Development, Economic Development, Redevelopment, Legal Services, Information Systems, Finance, City Recorder, Human Resources, and other City departments and divisions. 

Provo City is the owner of the two block area between Center Street and 100 South, and between 300 and 500 West Streets. City Hall totally occupies the eastern half of the two block area. However the western portion of the two blocks is occupied by the Covey Center for the Arts. The Covey Center was created from the building which originally housed the City Library before the library’s relocation to Academy Square in 2001.  The Center includes a main theater and a smaller theater, but increasing demand has resulted in considerations to expand the Covey Center.  Design constraints caused by the Arts Center being a retro-fit of a previous building, has also brought conversations about instead creating an entirely new Arts complex in conjunction with the redevelopment of the two blocks. 

The City Center building was completed in 1971, but was constructed for a City population of approximately 80-100,000. City growth has greatly exceeded that population number, as has the demand for City services.  Because of staffing and operational needs, the administrative offices of the Parks and Recreation Department, as well as the Public Works Department were relocated to the East Bay area.  Additionally, a large portion of the Fire Department’s original building was converted to provide adequate space for the Community Development Department. The Police Department’s Community Resource Office was moved to a nearby satellite office at 48 North 300 West.  The city’s Justice Court is located at 75 East 1700 South (over 1.5 miles from the City Center). There is a desire to bring the Justice Court into whatever Police or City Hall facilities eventually replace the current City Center.

The city has in the recent past, strongly considered and evaluated the ongoing repair costs of the current City building and the future staffing necessary for the projected City population.  Considered options have included the further creation of satellite facilities, adding onto existing buildings, and the construction of a new city building.  Recently, as part of that consideration, development proposals were solicited for the City’s two block area.  Although several proposals were strongly considered and their submitters further interviewed, none of the proposals were deemed financially workable at that time. However, as the downtown area continues to grow and develop, it is anticipated that a redevelopment proposal for the two block area will be deemed feasible at some point in the future.  The result will either be the construction of new city offices on-site and as part of a mixed-use complex on the site, or else the construction of new city offices at an alternative location.

5.2.1.2 East Bay Facilities 

The City’s East Bay facilities include the operational offices and maintenance facilities of the Public Works and the Parks and Recreation Departments.   The Public Works Department at 1377 South 350 East, includes the administrative offices and maintenance facilities for the Engineering Services, Streets Maintenance, Sanitation, Storm Water, and Water Resources Divisions.  On the south of the Public Works Department is the Parks Administrative Facility and Maintenance Yard at 1740 South. The two areas together total approximately 18.5 acres.  Recent improvements have been made in this area and the departments they serve through additions to existing buildings and new construction of vehicle maintenance and equipment storage areas. Additional buildings will likely be needed in the future, however the size of the site is deemed adequate for those expanded needs.

Just to the south of those the Public Works and Parks and Recreation facilities is the City’s 50+ acre Waste Water Treatment Plant.  Considerable investment has been made to the treatment plant over the past several decades to add capacity, enhance the treatment process, and to run the plant more efficiently.  However, because of the age of the current plant and needed upgrades both in terms of function and environmental requirements, the City is currently considering whether to continue upgrading the existing waste water facility, or else construct an entirely new facility on the south side of the Lakeview Parkway, near  the southeast corner of the airport. Studies are currently being completed which will lead to a better understanding of the cost and time frame of the upgrades or new construction in relation to the future growth projections for the City.  Because of existing environment and overall capacity issues on the west side of the City, a determination will need to be quickly made during the year 2018, as to which course of action to pursue. 

5.2.1.3 Energy Department 

The Energy Department’s principal facilities are located at 251 West 800 North and include administrative offices, fleet management buildings, the power generation plant, and pole and equipment storage area.  Other Energy Department facilities (principally power sub-stations) are located as necessary to serve electrical distributions needs throughout the city.

5.2.1.4 Public Safety

Police Department facilities consist principally of their administrative and operational office at the City Center.  An additional Community Resource Office is located near the City Center, at 48 North 300 West.  Other small satellite offices may exist when deemed effective and are principally located within commercial centers.

Fire and Rescue Department facilities include the administrative offices and Fire Station 21 at the City Center, as well as the following community fire stations:

Airport Operations Center at 1140 Aviation Drive

        Fire Station 22 at 2737 N Canyon Road

        Fire Station 23 at 601 W Columbia Lane

        Fire Station 24 at 95 S 2050 West

        Fire Station 25 at 275 S 700 East

For a variety of reasons, current facilities require improvement or replacement. Station 22 at 2737 North Canyon is expected to be the first station to be replaced.

5.2.1.5 Parks and Recreation

In 2013, the City built a brand new Recreation Center at 320 West 500 North in Provo. The Recreation Center also serves as the Senior Center and a gathering place for Provo residents. At the time the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan was adopted in 2013, the City boasted a total of 54 established park sites, 12 special-use facilities (both indoor and outdoor), a network of urban trails and pathways that is, per capita, among the most extensive in the nation.  Also included are the Peaks Ice Arena which was used as a hockey venue for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics; the Covey Center for the Arts, a shooting sports venue, the East Bay Golf Course and a new state-of-the-art multi-amenity recreation center. The Parks Department also oversees the Provo City Cemetery grounds.   Details of the various Parks and Recreation Facilities, as well as the department’s goals and objectives are contained in the Provo City Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

       

5.2.1.6 Provo City Airport

Provo City’s Municipal Airport has been in operation at its present location, 3100 West 1200 South, since 1943. Further information on the current status and needs of the Airport can be found in the Airport Master Plan.  Additionally, Goals and Objectives regarding the Airport and its future facility needs are contained in the both the Transportation and the Economic Development Sections of the General Plan.

5.2.1.7 City Library

The library is located at 550 North University Avenue in the old Brigham Young Academy Building (completed in 1892), which was remodeled and expanded to house Provo City’s library. This 96,000 square-foot library which opened in September of 2001, provides a 300-seat auditorium, a children’s library, 400 personal computers, 1,200 square feet for Project Read, 1,000 square feet to educate parents, a browsing library, covered parking, a full floor reference library, seven conference and meeting rooms, 100 multimedia stations, and room for holdings of 450,000.  No physical expansion of the library is planned at this time, however library services are constantly evaluated and expanded to meet the community’s needs.

5.2.1.8 Public Works

The operational offices and maintenance facilities of the Public Works Department are located in the East Bay Facility at 1377 South 350 East.  Besides the East Bay facilities, various public works facilities are located throughout the city and even in areas outside of the Provo City limits.  Principally, these other facilities consist of wells, pumps and storage tanks for the culinary water system; storm water control facilities including detention and retention ponds; waste water lift stations; and collection and disposal facilities for solid waste. A summary of these facilities is provided below, with further details available within the Master Plans for each system.     

        5.2.1.8.1 Culinary Water Facilities 

The primary supply source for Provo City’s culinary water system is represented by spring areas in Provo Canyon and Rock Canyon. In addition, eleven deep wells scattered throughout the city provide additional water to meet peak demands during the summer months.

It is estimated that a build-out population in Provo of approximately 170,000 will require approximately 45,000 acre-feet of culinary water per year.. Provo City is working to meet the build out demand through implementing a variety of water conservation methods, acquiring additional water rights for new wells, and where possible, converting and adding irrigation water rights to the municipal supply.    

        5.2.1.8.2 Water Reclamation Facilities

The City’s 50+ acre Waste Water Treatment Plant is located on the south end of the City’s East Bay Facilities.  As mentioned previously, the age of the current plant and needed upgrades both in terms of function and environmental requirements, have resulted in current discussions on whether to upgrade the existing waste water facility, or else construct an entirely new facility on the south side of the Lakeview Parkway, near  the southeast corner of the airport. Studies are currently being completed which will lead to a better understanding of the cost and time frame of the upgrades or new construction in relation to the future growth projections for the City.  Because of existing environment and overall capacity issues on the west side of the City, a determination will need to be quickly made during the year 2018, as to which course of action to pursue. 

        5.2.1.8.3 Storm Water Facilities

The City has developed a Master Storm Water Facilities plan which it follows to address and handle excessive water runoff resulting from snow melt or intense rain storms.  The plan addresses where new lines are needed, as well as where the size of a line may need to be upgraded.  Additionally, the plan addresses surface channeling to direct runoff, and the use of a variety of basins to either detain runoff until the water can be safely released into the system, or else retained where it can be allowed to percolate into the aquifer.  In the end, the stormwater systems empties into Utah Lake.

        5.2.1.8.4 Solid Waste Facilities

Provo City participates with seven other south Utah County Cities in a special service district for solid waste disposal.  The district utilizes a transfer station in Springville, from where solid waste is trucked to the Bayview landfill on the west side of Utah Lake.  With implemented yard waste and recycling programs, the landfill has a capacity which is deemed adequate for the next 75 years.

5.2.2 Provo City School District Facilities

The Provo City School District is actually an autonomous body, separate from Provo City Government.

The district operates elementary middle and high schools, as well as a young mothers’ school, and a school for students with disabilities. The District has completed the reconstruction of the majority of its elementary schools to meet seismic standards, and a new Provo High School is located at 1199 N. Lakeshore Drive on the west side of the City.  The old site (approximately 26 acres at 1125 North University Avenue is owned  by Brigham Young University.  It is anticipated that no new schools will be necessary for the areas of the City east of Interstate 15; however, one or two additional schools may still need to be constructed in the western portion of the City, where much of the City’s new single-family growth is occurring.

Provo City works closely with the school district to coordinate issues involving growth, traffic, and several other areas of mutual concern.

5.2.3 Capital Improvements

The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) allows various City departments to collaborate and prioritize projects. Decisions regarding privatization and funding of capital improvements should be based on the department’s master plans, as adopted by the City Council. The collaboration and planning of capital improvements allows for comprehensive consolidation of department projects City-wide in light of limited funds available for capital improvements.

Capital improvements in Provo City are defined as an expenditure of assets over $XXXX or more, which have a life of more than a year. Department heads propose projects along with construction and operating costs. Projects are given a priority based on department and City needs after they have been reviewed by the Finance Department and the City Administration. The plan is then taken to the City Council who ultimately determines the action to be taken.

After a project is approved and prioritized, timelines are established based on available funds. Provo City works to project capital improvement needs for a five-year period, although some departments have longer defined timelines.

It is the belief of the City that a strong CIP lends to better understanding the fiscal impacts and priorities.

5.3 Vision

Municipal Services and Facilities provide key services to enhance livability. The services that Provo City offer are among the best in the state. As Provo City grows, we will provide sustainable, quality Municipal Services and Facilities that are effectively and efficiently delivered at the level our residents request and at the level the community is willing to pay for.

5.4 Goals and Implementation

Neighborhoods

5.4.1                      Identify opportunities for neighborhood amenities in established neighborhoods.

                5.4.1.1           Provide opportunities to establish neighborhood amenities such as neighborhood oriented retail, small parks, leisure activities and/or medical services for residents in existing neighborhoods.

                5.4.1.2           Preserve public facilities, parks and schools in each neighborhood.

                5.4.1.3           Maintain and upgrade neighborhood infrastructure.

                5.4.1.4           Revitalize blighted, dilapidated neighborhoods and distressed commercial centers.

                5.4.1.5           Design the open space first in future residential development projects.

5.4.2                     Continue the partnership with the Provo City School District and the Parks and Recreation Department in the creation of school and City parks.

                5.4.2.1           Provo City should meet with the Provo City School District on a regular basis to discuss growth, residency stabilization, and other issues related to developing and maintaining strong and appropriately located schools.

Airport

5.4.2                      Focus on maximizing our airport for business and increasing recreational vacation traffic.

               5.4.2.1           Create innovative marketing campaigns to promote the Provo Municipal Airport to local businesses and tourists as an economical and convenient alternative to using the Salt Lake International Airport.

                5.4.2.2           Work with land owners and businesses surrounding the Provo Municipal Airport to create business opportunities for businesses directly involved with the aviation industry.

                 5.4.2.3           Continue to work with Allegiant Air to open new destinations from the Provo Municipal Airport, specifically to major terminal hubs such as San Diego, Orlando, Des Moines, Baltimore, Kansas City, Honolulu, Billings, Las Vegas and Austin. and

                5.4.2.4           Strengthen the airport and access to the airport as assets to the business community.

                5.4.2.5           Provo City will seek cooperation with local businesses and non-profit organizations to provide critical assistance to poor and transient populations in our community to balance community health, employment, housing and safety issues.

Public Safety

5.4.3                      Meet or exceed national standards in our preparation to respond to and mitigate all

                                emergency situations, whether accidental, natural, or man-made.

                 5.4.3.1           Activate the Emergency Operations Center through live drills.

             5.4.3.2           Maintain a number of police officers and firefighters per thousand residents equitable with the national standard and proportionate to the level of community growth.

                5.4.3.3           Improve surveillance and monitoring of crime, disaster, and other emergencies through the enhancement of infrastructure.

                5.4.3.4           Locate fire stations appropriately throughout the city to ensure quality proximity, access, and circulation for response.

                5.4.3.5           Complete a facilities study to determine the adequacy and replacement schedule for police and fire facilities.

5.4.4                     Staff and fund unit to identify community needs, provide enforcemen, and educate owners and landlords.

5.4.5                      Use the Officer Friendly program and establish the DARE program in schools. Meet with parent groups for training and education.

Energy

 5.4.6                     Improve energy efficiency in Provo and reduce our dependency of fossil fuels.

                 5.4.6.1           Implement new advances in electrical energy delivery and control systems (i.e., smart grid, smart houses) as they become practical and economically feasible.

               5.4.6.2           Work with residential, commercial, educational and industrial customers to identify and implement energy savings through increases in consumption efficiency and reduction in use of energy in a cost-effective manner.  

                5.4.6.3           Promote private and public generation of renewable energy resources (i.e., wind, solar).

                5.4.6.4           Promote alternative vehicle fueling sources such as compressed natural gas and electrical vehicle stations.

                5.4.6.5           Where appropriate purchase alternative fuel vehicles for the city fleet.

 5.4.7                     Work with UMPA to continue to seek long-term electrical energy resources that are stable, affordable, and renewable.

 

                5.4.7.1           Seek opportunities to diversify energy resources in a cost-effective manner, including increasing energy percentages from renewable and alternative sources.

                5.4.7.2           Seek opportunities for consumer alternatives to purchase energy from renewable resources.  

5.4.8                     Update annually the five-year CIP and periodically review the ten-year plan to anticipate future projects and the need to upgrade existing electrical infrastructure. As load growth warrants, convert the east 46 kV sub-transmission lines with associated substations to 138 kV.

                 5.4.8.1                  Coordinate with other City departments concerning current and long-range projects.

Library

5.4.9                     Institute programs through the library that educate citizens about various cultures, beliefs, traditions, and heritage.

 5.4.10                   Provide the information on community events data base and the home page on the Internet.

Infrastructure

5.4.11                    Maintain the high quality of Provo's groundwater resources, both springs and aquifers, and protect them from contamination and reduction in quantity. Watersheds contributing to water sources will also be managed to protect both surface water quality and recharge of groundwater resources.

                 5.4.11.1        Protect both current and future drinking water sources.

                 5.4.11.2        Manage watersheds and distributions systems for the protection of drinking water sources.  Protect the quality of surface waters.

                 5.4.11.3        Maintain and improve the quality of our water through constantly updating and modernizing our treatment plants and protecting our water supply.

                 5.4.11.4        Improve water conservation.

                 5.4.11.5        Conserve water through educating citizens about water conservation.

                 5.4.11.6        Acquire additional water resources.

5.4.12            Provide and maintain the high quality delivery of culinary water throughout the city, including periodic updates to the Water Master Plan and annual updates to the Capital Improvement Plan.

                 5.4.12.1        Provide adequate redundancy in critical pumping facilities to ensure an uninterrupted water supply to all areas of the community under a variety of circumstances.

                 5.4.12.2        Replace and modernize major components of the water and wastewater SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) systems.

5.4.13                   Maintain aggressive efforts to obtain new water rights as appropriate, to protect existing water rights, and to manage water rights for the most effective beneficial use.

5.4.14                    Provide and maintain appropriate storm water infrastructure, including periodic updates to the Storm Water Master Plan and annual updates to the Capital Improvement Program.

                 5.4.14.1        Prepare and implement a Storm Water Management Plan, including minimum control measures and best management practices, to achieve compliance with the NPDES storm water quality regulations.

                 5.4.14.2        Develop a computerized storm drain system inventory and routine maintenance program.

                 5.4.14.3        Implement the Storm Water Capital Improvement Program with design and construction of new storm drain infrastructure.

5.4.15                    Provide and maintain appropriate wastewater infrastructure, including periodic updates to the Wastewater Master Plan and annual updates to the Capital Improvement Program.

                 5.4.15.1        Implement the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan to provide adequate capacity and protect against property damage from main line back-ups.

                 5.4.15.2        Continue to rehabilitate and upgrade the water reclamation plant facility to ensure compliance with State and Federal regulations, protection of the environment, and adequate capacity.

                 5.4.15.3        Replace aging sewer collection lines and mains.

Sanitation

5.4.26                   Improve Provo City’s recycling program beyond the yard waste program to include a drop-off recycling center, curbside recycling program, or combination of both drop-off and curbside recycling programs for metals, cardboard, plastics, newspaper, and other waste products, with recycling benefits to reduce landfill requirements and save energy. (See Vision 2030 – 6.4.1)

CHAPTER 6

HISTORIC PRESERVATION, REDEVELOPMENT, AND RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION

Chapter Six
Historic
 Preservation, Redevelopment,

and Residential Conservation

6.1 Introduction

Provo City’s sense of place and community identity is enhanced by the continual preservation of the city’s unique historical resources, by the rehabilitation of older areas of town, and by conserving neighborhood character. Provo residents and visitors will have the opportunity to become aware of the city’s heritage through the preservation of its historic structures and sites while enjoying the benefits of a beautiful, vibrant, and civic-minded City. 

This chapter seeks to build on the foundation of the City’s past successes in historic preservation and redevelopment, adapting and expanding in response to changing needs and priorities.

This chapter establishes guidance for achieving:

1.    Preservation and reuse of historic buildings and sites;

2.    Redevelopment of the built environment, including the elimination of blight in residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial districts; and

3.    Conservation of one-family housing within Pioneer neighborhoods, including the reclamation of one-family homes converted for multiple-family use.

6.2 Background

SECTION HEADINGS

6.2.1 Residential Conservation

6.2.3 Historic Preservation

6.2.2 Redevelopment

6.2.1 Residential Conservation

The City seeks to enhance and preserve various areas of Provo through residential conservation. The changing character of Provo’s central neighborhoods in recent decades is manifested in the physical condition of the neighborhoods and in social conditions. In many instances, the neighborhoods today are characterized by:

1.    An older housing stock with limited appeal to contemporary home owners (i.e., small rooms, too few bedrooms and baths, obsolete systems);

2.    The growing obsolescence of the neighborhoods’ old infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, underground utilities);

3.    An influx of new, generally lower-income, non-student households into neighborhoods not immediately adjacent to Brigham Young University;

4.    A trend toward absentee landlords whose primary interest is usually short-term economic gain, resulting in a great decline in the property maintenance and reinvestment which come with pride of ownership;

5.    Conversion of older homes into multiple apartments, often with haphazard floor plans and little regard for building codes and overcrowding;

6.    Breakdown of neighborhood civic tradition as long-time residents are replaced in large numbers by transitory renter households, frequently with little interest in community involvement;

7.    High turnover in public school enrollment, resulting in challenges in educational achievement; and

8.    Impacts to the downtown retail district as confidence in the future of Provo’s Pioneer neighborhoods changes.

In many areas, one-family homes, built during a time when little or no off-street parking was needed for individual families, were converted to multiple units. These conversions often occurred without required approvals or permits, and increasing numbers of homes became rental-only units. Renter occupants replaced many long-time owner occupants. Over-occupancy of these dwellings became a common complaint. Yards were paved over to create parking for multiple “single” tenants (occupancy by multiple, unrelated individuals), and residents became more transient due to the seasonal fluctuations of student housing demand. Nevertheless, many neighborhoods in the City are dealing with increased pressures for redevelopment and different living arrangements.

With these changes came widespread disinvestment in the existing housing stock, as maximization of rental income replaced pride of ownership as a fundamental driving force among property owners. In general, cost of housing became inflated as off-site owners found they could collect higher rents from multiple “single” renters than from families. These inflated property values also contributed to higher costs for the land acquisition and assemblage that would be necessary for more comprehensive and coordinated redevelopment. In some cases, homes converted to rentals have been allowed to deteriorate, intentionally, as part of an investor strategy to eventually replace the homes with more multi-family projects. Seeing their neighborhoods decline around them has led still more owner occupants to abandon their neighborhoods in favor of absentee owners.

Provo is working to conserve and restore a strong civic fabric to its central neighborhoods  through a combination of initiatives which focus on promoting home ownership and establishing and implementing reasonable, effective development codes. Zoning and other codes in central neighborhoods should reinforce the traditional, one-family residential land uses, building types, lot sizes, and layouts which contribute to this package of lifestyle assets.

Rental housing in these areas will always be a necessary part of the community and may attract families that, while not in a position to become homeowners, may make a longer-term commitment to neighborhood residency and integration than expected under today’s declining conditions. The neighborhoods must, however, re-establish and reinforce a basic framework of owner-occupant households who will maintain the civic traditions, norms, and continuity from which all residents – be they owners or renters – can benefit.

Furthermore, careful attention must be paid to the physical forms which the rental housing takes. It must be of a physical scale, orientation to the street, and architectural style so as to be compatible with the surrounding traditional, one-family development. Failure to pay attention to the physical form of rental housing in the past has contributed to the condition of central-area neighborhoods today.

The establishment of the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone and creation of a Project Redevelopment Option (PRO) tool have worked together to create an opportunity to slow down the transition that resulted from the previous high-density zoning in the Pioneer neighborhoods, while recognizing legally established uses that resulted during this time period. These tools provided an opportunity to step back, evaluate the present and future needs of the neighborhoods, and make informed choices about specific redevelopment proposals. They also provided an opportunity to help stabilize spiraling property values, opening new doors for reestablishment of owner occupancy in these neighborhoods.

To create an even more predictable and coordinated plan for the central neighborhoods, Neighborhood Plans have been completed for the Downtown, Joaquin, and Franklin neighborhoods with plans for the Maeser and Timp underway. These plans establish long term future land use designations to replace the RC Zone with its Project Redevelopment Option, leading to increased certainty in the character of future development.

The application of the Accessory Apartment (A-overlay) zone to one-family (R1 zoned) neighborhoods, formerly zoned for higher-density as R2 and R2.5, has allowed the creation of accessory dwelling units within one-family dwellings, with the goals of providing financial assistance to owner-occupants of the homes and providing affordable housing for residents of the accessory dwelling units, while discouraging two-family (duplex) dwellings that are typically rental-only units. These have proved to be successful tools for stabilizing and revitalizing these neighborhoods.

While proper zoning and other regulatory controls and redevelopment activities must be part of the solution, success will also require attention to law enforcement, physical infrastructure, public perception, and other issues in the neighborhoods. Tools to accomplish these objectives include:

1.    On-street parking permit programs or other on-street parking controls, as over-occupancy complaints are often driven by excessive on-street parking;

2.    Proactive zoning enforcement – rather than complaint-driven enforcement – of occupancy, parking, business use in residential areas (other than permitted or conditional home occupations), and other violations that lead to dissatisfaction within neighborhoods;

3.    Greater flexibility of land development standards in Pioneer neighborhoods to encourage revitalization and reuse of homes that may not meet today’s standards for families without expansion of living area.

It is anticipated utilizing the relevant tools outlined in this section will increase home ownership, enable residents to acquire individual housing equity, enable neighborhoods to strengthen community-held assets, and stabilize property values. These results will then encourage families, retirees, single professionals, and others desiring the values of a stable, centrally located, community-based neighborhood to move to the city’s many and varied neighborhoods and invest in the long-term viability of Provo as a city. Committed, well-organized residents will continue to be crucial to the successful implementation of strategies to reclaim and conserve one-family homes and to reestablish a foundation of owner-occupancy within Provo’s neighborhoods.

6.2.2 Redevelopment

Redevelopment of existing neighborhoods can occur organically by private initiative based on market forces or it can be initiated with the help of a redevelopment agency. Redevelopment agencies help the conservation and redevelopment of older areas. The cost of redeveloping previously built-out areas can be high, particularly when compared to developing raw land. The costs of new development farther from the built areas of the City, are, however, also high—although these costs are difficult to quantify. These costs include increased travel, time lost to commuting and the associated increased air pollution, inefficient provision of utilities and government services, and excessive or untimely land consumption.

The Provo Redevelopment Agency (RDA) was established under Utah law primarily to form redevelopment project areas and carry out redevelopment projects in older areas. In order to address these goals, the Provo Redevelopment Agency was endowed with tax increment financing and occasionally eminent domain powers—tools granted by the State Legislature to redevelopment agencies. Over time, the Provo Redevelopment Agency has also assumed other roles, resources, and responsibilities delegated to it by Provo City to further the original conservation and redevelopment objectives.

In addition, Provo receives grants from the Federal government which, in many cases, are used to further the City’s redevelopment objectives. These grants are used both in redevelopment project areas and in other targeted areas. Chief among these grants are the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the HOME Investment Partnerships Grants, but the City also has been awarded several Special Purpose Grants and other federal funding for undertaking specific projects. CDBG and HOME require adoption of a five-year consolidated plan with annual-update “Action Plans” to guide the use of these funds. In order to understand the full scope of Provo’s redevelopment, neighborhood conservation, and reinvestment planning policies, one should review this General Plan in tandem with the Five-Year Consolidated Plan and its annual updates.

Ultimately, redevelopment objectives and methods should always be tailored to providing the necessary and sufficient catalyst to stimulate private investment in behalf of the City’s goals, harnessing powerful economic forces in ways to help the community be productive, rather than trying to reverse these forces. The Redevelopment Agency will never have sufficient resources to take the place of the private sector, nor should it. Its role must therefore focus on: 1) brokering redevelopment deals; 2) finding solutions to financing gaps; 3) improving the governmental environment in which quality private development can thrive; and 4) working in other limited ways to promote reinvestment, particularly in Provo’s older areas.

At this time, three Redevelopment Project Areas and five Community Development Project Areas, formed in accordance with State law, function in Provo. The Redevelopment Project Areas are 1) the Central Business District, 2) South University Avenue, 3) Project Area Number Four (Provo Towne Centre Mall area). The five Community Development Project Areas are 1) Aviation Services CDA, 2) Mountain Vista CDA, 3) South Downtown CDA, 4) Financial Center CDA, and 5) Center Street CDA.  These project areas have all existed for several years and, over time, are losing some of their original redevelopment powers; for example, the Redevelopment Agency’s power of eminent domain no longer exists in any of these areas.

Redevelopment Project Areas

Central Business District

In the Central Business District, redevelopment is used to strengthen downtown economic conditions while preserving the historic qualities of central Provo. The specific goals for the Central Business District development project area are to:

1.    Maintain and enhance the Central Business District as the business and financial center;

2.    Maintain the Central Business District as a government center by encouraging the centralization of city, county, state, federal, and judicial activities in the Central Business District;

3.    Encourage the continued viability of retail and service businesses, including specialty types of retail that may be unique to downtown;

4.    Encourage the promotion and development of the conference center and facilities in downtown Provo in an effort to attract conferences and serve the traveling public; and

5.    Maintain and enhance the dining, entertainment and cultural opportunities of the Central Business District.

Toward achieving these goals, the Redevelopment Agency has identified the following projects, as well as others which may be considered in the future:

1.    The west half of the block bounded by 100 North, 100 West, 200 North, and Freedom Boulevard should be redeveloped, probably as either an expansion of the court facilities or as an office building. The Redevelopment Agency sold this property to the State courts system. The new courts building is being constructed on the block across Freedom Boulevard from this site.

2.    Following completion of the Sears store at the Provo Towne Centre Mall, the former Sears, covering the block between 100 West and Freedom Boulevard from 200 North to 300 North, was sold to the Redevelopment Agency. The buildings have been demolished to make way for planned redevelopment on this block. Currently the Agency will use the block has a temporary parking lot for the benefit of the Convention Center and other downtown businesses.

3.    On the block bounded by Center Street, University Avenue, 100 West, and 100 North, the Town Square parking structure was originally designed to provide for the later addition of two floors, which may yet be built at some point in the future.

4.    With downtown Provo continuing to evolve as the preeminent business, financial, and government center of Utah County, the need for office space will also grow. Adaptive reuse of existing buildings will help to meet the demand, but construction of additional new office space will also be central to the downtown redevelopment strategy. New “Class A” downtown office space is particularly lacking and deserves attention. The Agency has been working with local developer s to increase the amount of space in the downtown area to compliment the other development that has taken place.

 The Redevelopment Agency’s role in recent years has tended toward providing downtown parking structures to serve office and other development, and this is expected to continue. There will be cases, however, where the Redevelopment Agency helps to assemble sites and otherwise foster new building construction downtown. The current effort to develop a new building at the southeast corner of the intersection of 100 North and University Avenue is an example of this. The Redevelopment Agency has also acquired properties on this block farther south on University Avenue to eventually enable additional office building development.

5.    The retail, service, and restaurant sectors will also continue to be a key part of the downtown character, particularly as they cater to people living, working, and seeking educational, cultural, and entertainment opportunities in and near downtown. In large measure, this will occur as a natural outgrowth of drawing people downtown for these other activities. There will also be a continuing Redevelopment Agency role in promoting the preservation of historic blocks of continuous buildings, built to the sidewalk, along parts of Center Street and University Avenue where these continuous facades have best maintained their original qualities. Many such buildings will continue to house specialty retail, service, and restaurant businesses.

 The Redevelopment Agency will also help to redevelop infill buildings in the downtown. The site of the former Paramount Theater, at 61 East Center, is an example of this. The Redevelopment Agency has acquired the property and worked with a private-sector developer. The result is a new mixed-use building compatible with the old in terms of scale, placement on the lot, use, and architectural style. New downtown offices and other buildings should also be planned feature retail, commercial services and restaurants on their ground floors and should be designed with traditional storefront-type windows, entries, signage, and other features which will invite pedestrian activity along the street.

6.    A resurgence of new downtown housing on the upper floors of retail and office buildings is a trend sweeping the country in the early years of the twenty-first century. The viability of this type of housing is suggested by the Village at Riverwoods in north Provo and the Wells Fargo Tower in Downtown. There is evidence that a latent, untapped market for this type of housing exists downtown among downtown workers, aging baby-boomers seeking to downsize their homes and be close to amenities, and others. New downtown residents will be a key part of the downtown land use mix by adding to the customer base of downtown businesses and generally increasing the round-the-clock vitality of the district. Upper-floor housing should occur both in new buildings and in vacant or underutilized parts of existing buildings.

South University Avenue

The South University Avenue development project area was created primarily to beautify the south entrance to the downtown and to keep automobile dealerships in the University Avenue and 300 South corridors. Over time, however, prevailing business trends have drawn the larger, new-car dealerships to other locations, and little redevelopment has occurred in this project area. Consequently, the major focus of this redevelopment area has shifted away from auto dealerships and more generally toward encouraging strong, attractive businesses along South University Avenue.

Project Area Number Four (Provo Towne Centre Mall area)

Project Area #4 was created to redevelop the area between University Avenue and Interstate-15, south of 1100 South. Through the establishment of this project area, a blighted area was transformed into a large regional shopping mall, which improves the entrance to the city at its south I-15 interchange and greatly enhances the city’s economic health. These goals for achieving economic growth, redeveloping under-utilized commercial areas, and improving the gateways to Provo are being achieved further through the recent development of a large, new retail home-improvement center south of the mall. Several older motel and commercial properties have also been recently demolished for redevelopment with new free-standing restaurant businesses, which will contribute to the appearance and vitality of the S. University corridor adjacent to the mall and enhance the entryway to the Provo Towne Centre. The mall may also add other anchor stores in the future.

Future Redevelopment Project Areas

Areas of Provo suitable for commercial development are generally built out. Consequently, most future commercial expansion will need to take the form of carefully-planned redevelopment in existing built-up areas.

As Provo’s infrastructure and, particularly, its commercial-industrial districts continue to age, the City will be alert to additional areas where redevelopment may be a valuable tool. Residential development should play a part in some of these locations. Each such area would be scrutinized carefully, and in the light of public involvement, to verify that designation as a redevelopment project area is a necessary and appropriate means of accomplishing the City’s objectives.

Community Development Project Areas

Aviation Services CDA

The Aviation Services CDA was established to help facilitate and finance the expansion of Duncan Aviation at the Provo Airport. This project is anticipated to bring 500 new skilled jobs to Utah County.

Mountain Vista CDA

This area is comprised of 222 acres at the southeast end of Provo and was once the home of Ironton Steel Mills. The Redevelopment Agency acquired the land in the 1990’s and worked with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality to clean up the contaminated properties and return them to a productive use. There are now hosts 10 businesses and the Redevelopment Agency has several letters of intent to development additional property in the area. The Redevelopment Agency expects to have all remaining property in the area under contract for development in 2018.

South Downtown CDA

This area is comprised of 242 acres of both commercial and residential properties. There is currently no increment being collected in the area.

The goals when establishing this area were to improve business and employment opportunities as well as housing opportunities. Currently there is a great deal of private investment in the area, negating the need for active Redevelopment Agency initiatives. This includes the Startup building which provides meeting space for a weekly gathering of Provo entrepreneurs to share ideas and seek investors. The Redevelopment Agency has expanded its Commercial Façade Improvement Program to include much of this area for improvements to commercial facades.

Financial Center CDA

This project area is 1.4 acres in size and was established to develop the Zion’s Bank building. In addition to Zion’s bank, the building houses other offices as well as meeting space and restaurants.

6.2.3 Historic Preservation

Preservation of historic buildings enriches the lives of all who reside in or visit Provo by maintaining an authentic and diverse city experience, enhancing economic productivity, providing a greater understanding of the history of the community, and contributing to the distinct visual character and appeal of the city, particularly within the central neighborhoods. History is found not only in written form, but within the homes, stores, churches, factories, and civic buildings interwoven through the fabric of the city. As a collective whole, buildings tell the city’s history, chronicling the growth, character, and culture of Provo.

When we lose historically significant buildings, we lose the sense of place these structures create. In order for us to understand the present and future, it is important for us to see and appreciate the progress that has been made since settlement. The ability to appreciate such progress is, in large part, accomplished by preserving the architecture of the past.

In the past, zoning has not been conducive to the historic preservation effort. High density residential redevelopment has been allowed in older areas with concentrations of historically significant properties. Introduction of higher densities and the escalation of land values have actually promoted the demolition of older structures because of financial disincentives for retaining one-family homes and smaller neighborhood-compatible commercial uses. Since the adoption of the Residential Conservation Zone in 2002, the City has greatly eliminated the financial incentive to demolish historic homes.  As with other neighborhood conservation efforts, zoning can be a tool to strengthen neighborhoods and support the restoration and reuse of historic properties. The City, in its desire to have a zoning system that is compatible with its historic preservation program, has provided for special conditional uses only within historic buildings to increase the economic viability of the appropriate reuse of these structures.

Zoning is only one element which affects the relationship between historic preservation and land use. In the Landmarks Preservation Title 16 of the Provo City Code, the Landmarks Commission is given the powers and duties to review land use applications affecting designated historic resources

In addition, in order for a preservation program to function well, there must be incentives for property owners to appropriately preserve historic structures, rather than substantially modifying or replacing them. Preservation incentives include recognition, regulatory allowances, and financial assistance. Provo City is doing more to encourage each type of incentives. 

Ultimately, Provo Code Title 16—Provo City Landmark’s Preservation, passed by the Municipal Council in 1994, identifies the following purpose and intent:

1.    To safeguard the City’s historic and cultural heritage, as embodied and reflected in its landmarks and historic districts.

2.    To revitalize neighborhoods by restoring confidence and creating an environment conducive to reinvestment and continued maintenance;

3.    To stabilize and enhance property values;

4.    To foster community identity and civic pride;

5.    To protect, enhance, and perpetuate the use of structures, sites and areas that are reminders of past eras, events, and persons important in local, state or national history; or which reflect the distinct phases of the city’s, state’s, or nation’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural heritage;

6.    To educate citizens about Provo’s history;

7.    To promote compatible new development while at the same time protecting the old;

8.    To protect and enhance the City’s attraction to residents, tourists, and visitors, and to serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry;

9.    To strengthen the economy of the City;

10.    To generally improve the quality of life in the City; and

11.    To maintain community integrity for future generations.

Historic preservation will not occur without action. Measures need to be taken by the City to ensure the preservation effort continues in the positive direction it has been moving. Through legislation and education, preservation efforts in Provo can be strengthened.

6.3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

Provo City’s sense of place and community identity is enhanced by the continual preservation of the city’s unique historical and cultural resources. Provo residents and visitors have the opportunity to become aware of the city’s heritage through the preservation of its historic structures and sites.

Built communities are living, changing things, experiencing different forces and changing pressures. As houses, building, and communities age, decisions need to be made between maintaining, restoring, renovating, and redeveloping. Decisions for one property or one area affect those around it. This chapter should layout the plan to direct and balance the use of these tools to keep our community strong. Conservation and Redevelopment can be seen as opposing principles to be balanced, but can also work together to achieve the desired outcomes. Historic preservation is a bit of a trump card that can tip the scales when we are weighing out the merits of conservation and redevelopment.

6.4 Goals and Implementation

Historic Preservation

6.4.1                      Raise awareness of local history, culture, and historic sites.

6.4.1.1           Educate the community regarding the social and economic benefits of historic preservation.

6.4.1.2           Establish a program for placing monuments or signs at historic sites, in historic districts, or in neighborhoods.

6.4.1.3           Create and/or promote online and physical repositories/museums that focus on Provo’s heritage and culture.

 6.4.2                     Preserve the character of existing historic districts and seek to establish new districts in areas where a concentration of eligible buildings remain. (Provo’s Downtown Commercial Historic District is the single locally designated historic district. Center Street / University Avenue Commercial District and the Brigham Young Academy complex remain intact architecturally and should be retained as historic districts.)

6.4.2.1           Revise the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance to strengthen the City’s ability to prevent the destruction of Provo’s unique historic resources.

6.4.2.2           Recognize and reward the efforts of those who provide leadership in preserving community heritage.

 6.4.3                     Preserve historic or unique cultural resources (historic sites or parks).

6.4.3.1           Identify important historical sites located throughout the city, even those where structures no longer exist, and preserve the history of the site.

6.4.3.2           Identify and preserve important cultural resources.

 6.4.4     Preserve structures and districts with unique histories or architecture.

6.4.4.1           Identify and preserve significant structures that maintain historical integrity;

6.4.4.2           Encourage identification, marking and restoration of historic landmarks.

6.4.4.3           Identify and preserve areas or neighborhoods of the city with a unique sense of place related to the collective history or architecture of its structures.

6.4.4.4           Raise awareness among property owners of preservation options and benefits related to historic preservation.

6.4.4.5           Work with the State Historic Preservation Office, the Utah Heritage Foundation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation to identify funding sources and programs to support preservation efforts.

Redevelopment

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

 6.4.5                     Update the community development plan on a routine basis, utilizing a community involvement process, to ensure that Community Development Block Grants are channeled to projects which meet the objectives of the CDBG program.

Central Business District

 6.4.6                     Maintain and enhance the position of the Central Business District (CBD) as the business, government, entertainment, and conference center for the City.

6.4.6.1           Utilize promotion and marketing, economic restructuring, management and organizational strength, provision of adequate parking, and continuing efforts to enhance the appearance of the core area.

6.4.6.2           Promote efficient utilization of building space by encouraging a mix of uses in the Central Business District (CBD), including retail, office, service, and high density residential occupancies.

6.4.6.3           Establish new zoning districts for the Downtown Planning Area under the policies in the Central Business District.

South University Avenue

 6.4.7                     Continue efforts to assist existing businesses in the South University Avenue redevelopment area and encourage design improvements.

Residential Conservation

 6.4.8                     Preserve historic or unique historic homes and buildings.

6.4.8.1           Encourage the formation of National Register Historic Districts where appropriate.

6.4.8.2           Assist private individuals to identify historic homes and buildings in order to allow them to take advantage of tax credits available for housing rehabilitation in these areas.

6.4.8.3           Target areas of historic significance and other areas appropriate for neighborhood conservation for infrastructure upgrades, such as street lighting and sidewalks, to further encourage and supplement housing rehabilitation efforts in these areas.

6.4.8.4           Offer incentives (such as low interest loans) for property owners to repair deteriorated sidewalks.

Pre-settlement Era, 1776-1849

Although there are no remaining structures from the pre-settlement era, it is known that early explorers surveyed the land and trapped animals. In 1776, Spanish explorers led by two Franciscan priests arrived in the area in search of a route from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to Monterey, California. Fathers Antasio Dominguez and Silvestre Velez de Escalante were guided by a desire to bring Christianity to the Native Americans. Efforts to reach California failed, but the friars explored much of Utah Valley, developed good relations with local Native Americans, and planned to return in order to establish a permanent settlement. Due to changes in the Catholic Church, the two never returned, but their legacy is seen in the St. Francis Catholic Church, originally operated by Franciscan clergy and constructed in the Spanish Mission Style.

Trappers led by Etienne Provost were the next visitors to this region. They were attacked by Native Americans at the Jordan River. Only two survived, one being Provost. In memory of the trappers, a nearby river was named after Provost, and – from that river – the name of our city originates: Provo.

Settlement Era, 1849-1869

Fort Utah, the first Mormon colony in Utah outside the Salt Lake Valley, was established in 1849, near present day Provo City. A fort was built for security because of hostilities with Native Americans. In time, relations between the settlers and the Native American inhabitants became less turbulent, and settlers moved from the confines of the fort. Early homes constructed outside the fort were built with logs running both horizontally and vertically, using mud to fill the gaps. Soon, an adobe yard was established, providing sufficient materials to build a meeting house, a pottery, a tannery, a saw mill, flour mills, commercial shops, and many one-story and two-story residences. In the mid-1860s, fired brick production impacted the appearance of Provo’s buildings. Red and yellow brick structures stood alongside, or replaced, earlier gray adobe buildings. Structurally superior to adobe, fired brick allowed for larger, taller, and more permanent buildings. Crowning architectural achievements of the late Settlement Era include the Provo Meetinghouse.

Economic Cooperation and Expansion, 1870-1899

The Transcontinental Railroad and cooperative Mormon economics arrived in the 1870s, bringing industrial and commercial expansion to a mostly agrarian community. Expansion brought growth and wealth, allowing development of the city’s architecture. Wealthy, influential entrepreneurs made their marks by building impressive commercial structures along Center Street and University Avenue, as well as mansions and large homes along East Center Street. Foundries, machine companies, iron processors, and manufacturers produced sophisticated churches, schools, stores and dwellings.

The Victorian era came to Provo, with its philosophy of flamboyance and extravagance. Local architecture combined older pioneer forms with fashionable Victorian ornament. Gothic Revival found its way to Provo in the 1870s, as did Italianate styling in the 1880s and a variety of Victorian styles, especially Queen Anne, Victorian Eclectic and Victorian Romanesque, in the 1890s. By 1880, brick and stone buildings of multiple masses, roofs, porches, and ornamentation appeared. The Education Building of Brigham Young Academy is the epitome of the Victorian vision of the picturesque.

Early 20th Century Growth and Development, 1900-1945

Continued prosperity allowed for construction. From 1900 to 1905 the Knight Block, with its landmark clock tower, and a square-towered bank to the west were built on the north corners of University Avenue and Center Street, by then the main intersection of Provo. These proud commercial structures, along with the new Knight Mansion on East Center Street, reflected the wealth of mining magnate and businessman Jesse Knight. During this decade, most of the school structures on the Brigham Young Academy campus were built.

Growth continued through the 1910s and 1920s, although fewer architecturally impressive structures were built after passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, requiring the payment of income taxes. Brigham Young Academy became Brigham Young University and expanded northeastward up the bench where new facilities, such as neoclassical limestone Maeser building, were built. 

From 1910 to 1930, the prevalent new house type was the Bungalow, built in many stylistic variations. The two-story neoclassical Utah County courthouse, designed by architect Joseph Nelson, is an important public edifice from the era. On the heels of World War I, Columbia Steel’s Ironton plant, built southeast of the city in the 1920s, provided further economic stimuli to Provo’s economy. Toward the end of the 1920s and into the 1930s, stylistic changes were apparent as period cottage styles, especially those of English influence, were seen in small homes and educational buildings such as Amanda Knight Hall.

In general, construction and growth slowed significantly during the years of the Great Depression. Government-sponsored building projects kept some of the work force employed during the decade between the Depression and America’s involvement in World War II.

Post-War Modern Era, 1946-Present

World War II had a marked impact on Provo due to construction of the Geneva Steel Plant, which employed many residents. After the war, a boom in growth was experienced both in the general populace and at BYU. The campus expanded dramatically after 1951, and the city continued to grow around it. New post-war styles were introduced, among them the World War II cottage and the ranch house. Modern materials and architectural styles had become highly varied.

At present, a variety of buildings combine to give insight into what Provo is like today and what it was like in the past. Each building offers a glimpse of both the needs and desires of those who built it, whether fort dwellers entering the wilds for the first time as seen in the functionality of a log cabin, or entrepreneurs at the turn of the century in their high style homes, or contemporary business executives realizing a vision through the construction of modern-day corporate headquarters. The integration of structures from all time periods provides a rich diversity of buildings on the landscape.

Early efforts to preserve buildings have been sparse, but increased interest in historic preservation is augmenting the efforts put forth by both private citizens and the City. Nominations of several properties to the National Historic Register have resulted from grassroots endeavors.  Additionally, the designation of the downtown portion of Center Street as a National Historic District is the result of work by the private sector, as was the creation of Provo Town Square at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Center Street. Much of the initial preservation in Provo was motivated by the efforts of its citizens.

Work conducted by the City includes a 1980 survey of historic locations in Provo. The survey was completed as a result of work on neighborhood revitalization and reinvestment. Unfortunately, the survey was not used until around 1994. From 1980 to 1994, some locations in Provo had been listed on the National Register for Historic Sites, but efforts at creating a local landmarks register were unsuccessful. Over the years, Provo City has tried to encourage the preservation of historic buildings by providing certain regulatory incentives through its zoning ordinance.

Authority was given to the Planning Commission (before the creation of the Landmarks Commission) to designate “historic buildings.” Once designated, buildings were eligible for land use activities that may not have ordinarily been permitted in a particular area. Adaptive re-uses of properties were permitted as “conditional uses,” and were approved by the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission did not feel qualified to make the determinations as to the qualifications of a building as historic. As a result, the Planning Commission recommended the Municipal Council adopt legislation authorizing the appointment of a Preservation Commission to make such decisions.

In 1993, renewed interest in historic preservation, along with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, led to the creation of a study committee whose purpose was to write a Landmarks Preservation Ordinance for Provo City. This ordinance, passed by the Municipal Council in December 1994, gave authority for a Landmarks Commission. Since the formation of the Landmarks Commission, commissioners have met regularly to create a base for historical preservation upon which the City can build. The commission has worked to include National Historical Register sites on the Provo City Local Landmarks Register. In addition to designating individual sites, the commission has designated the Downtown Historic District as a local historic district. The commission is continuing in its efforts to add individual sites and districts to the register, as well as making efforts to inform and educate the public on the benefits of historic preservation.

A survey of 286 city blocks was conducted from 1995 to 1996, identifying potentially eligible sites for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. It was a reconnaissance-level survey of 3,100 sites in a survey area bounded on the east by 900 East, on the south by 600 South, on the west by 900 West, and on the north by an irregular line running mostly along 700 North. The boundaries were selected because earlier surveys found this area of Provo contains the oldest and the greatest concentration of potentially eligible sites. The 3,100 sites were evaluated based on their eligibility for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. Four designations were assigned: A, B, C, and D. The “A” sites are those which are eligible and architecturally significant. The “B” sites are eligible. The “C” sites are ineligible due to alterations. The “D” sites are out of the time period. The numbers of sites, by category, are found in Table 11.1, Historic Survey.

TABLE 11.1 HISTORIC SURVEY

Type of Site

Number of Sites

Percentage

A Sites

190

6.1%

B Sites

1,422

45.9%

C Sites

310

10.0%

D Sites

1,178

38.0%

Total

3,100

100.0%

The number of sites fifty years of age or older is 1,922, or 62% of the surveyed sites. Thirty-eight percent, or 1,178 of the sites, were built after 1946. This number may actually be lower because the survey includes many World War II-era buildings, which may date from just before or after 1946. Most World War II-era buildings were recorded as built in 1950. Also, those commercial facades clearly dating after 1946 were rated “D,” although some of them may have pre-structures hidden behind their facades, in which case they might be – invisibly – “C” structures.

CHAPTER 7

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Chapter Seven
Economic Development

7.1 Introduction

The primary purpose and function of pursuing economic development in Provo is to promote job creation and increase the tax base. The Economic Development element of the General Plan identifies current market conditions that exist in our community and then recommends specific policies that will directly contribute to job creation and increases in the tax base.

7.2 Background

The Economic Development Element of the General Plan will concentrate on both the current status and future proposals for improvements in the transportation system. Those areas include headings found in Table 7.1.

TABLE 7.1 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEADINGS

7.2.1 Current Economic Development Policies

7.2.3 Quality of Life

7.2.2 Major Community Development Entrance

7.2.1 Current Economic Development Policies

Recognizing that Provo City does not operate in a vacuum, our economy is impacted by what happens in our state and nation. National trends of on line shopping, store closures and consumer willingness to drive to surrounding communities for goods and services are all having a major impact on local retail offerings.  While job creation continues to be an important focus, as higher paying jobs provide more discretionary income to consumer driven households, there is an ongoing shift in demand in our community to provide more and better retail offers for Provo residents.  Adequate local retail provides residents with the opportunity to reduce the distance of vehicle trips and to keep retails sales tax dollars within Provo. The pursuits of job creation and increasing the tax base remain the primary areas of focus. In an ever changing economic environment, the methods in which we attempt to accomplish these goals do change over time.

The long-term fiscal health of the City is a critical provision in providing for quality municipal services, including the maintenance of public infrastructure. The ongoing fiscal health of the City will allow the City to address some of the quality of life challenges we face. For the purpose of this General Plan, fiscal health refers to revenue growth to support a growing population and revenue diversity to minimize the negative effects of potential revenue shortfalls in any one category. The following are the current Economic Development policies as discussed in the Economic Development Strategic Plan:

  • Business retention and expansion: Keep existing businesses, including start ups, in Provo and help them expand their operations, facilities, and markets.
  • Attract new retail business to Provo: Provide a broad range of goods and services within Provo to keep tax dollars local, including a grocery store on the west side of I-15.
  • Encourage Downtown development: Focus on new development that increases the number of people that work and live downtown, with related services.
  • Mountain Vista Business Park development: Pursue the redevelopment of this former industrial complex into a new, state-of-the-art, mixed-use business and technology park.
  • Technology transfer: Create a stronger link between intellectual creativity (linked to higher education) and the financial and work force resources of the business community.
  • Telecom business development: Provide direct access to the business community, allowing for an increased competitive advantage.
  • Attracting new jobs: Encourage corporate recruitment in targeted technology sectors by promoting competitive advantage of Provo’s resources.
  • Business incubation and retention: Foster small business start-ups by providing access to business services and locations.
  • Targeted redevelopment: Selective approach to redeveloping underutilized properties for higher and better uses, based on the concept of “making the most of fixed land resources.
  • Financial tools: Explore both the conventional and “outside the box” financial alternatives to funding credible business ventures.
  • Targeted, but limited post performance retail sales tax incentives as a means to “jumpstart” improved or enhanced retail opportunities.
  • Economic Strategic Planning efforts: Reach out to the business community to develop a long-range, coordinated, economic strategic plan.
  • Airport transportation linkage: Capitalize on the economic advantage of the Provo Airport.

7.2.2 Major Community Entrance Development

Major entrances (or Gateway areas, as they are referenced on the Land Use Map) into Provo move large volumes of traffic and provide significant opportunities for development that is different or more intense than currently being used. Because these areas experience a daily in and out flow of workers and visitors to the City, the economic development potential for these areas is much greater, and should be a focus of economic development. This may include limited and specific more intense and dense development in and around the Bus Rapid Transit routes and stations. There are six such major entrances into Provo:

• West Center Street

• North University Avenue

• South University Avenue

• University Parkway

• South State Street

• North State Street.

Recognition of the unique character and function of each major community entrance aids in the City’s efforts to determine the best future uses of the currently vacant property in these areas and how underdeveloped properties might be redeveloped in the future.

7.2.3 Quality of Life

The quality of life of Provo City residents is also a major economic development consideration. For purposes of this General Plan, quality of life refers to education, income, jobs, and access to goods and services. The overall fiscal health of the City plays a part in all facets related to quality of life. For example, as Provo City revenue growth is continued through increasing property values, and sales tax increases, these revenue increases support a growing population and enhancement in the offerings of the City through recreation and other public services. As Provo City continues the trend of revenue growth, it will allow the City to address the many issues raised in this General Plan.

7.3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

Provo City and the business community will mutually seek to build enjoy a relationship based on mutual need , trust, and cooperation to assist the community in becoming the best place in Utah to do business. Provo City and the business community will discover ways to foster communication and cooperation to understand and resident needs while promoting business and political practices that are fiscally conservative and responsible to the taxpayer.

Provo City will strive to grow a diverse economic base. The City will grow employment opportunities by building on existing strength and attracting entrepreneurs. The City will employ the Economic Development Strategic Plan to target those items that were deemed deficient and continue to bring high value assets to the City.

                                                                                                                                                                   

7.4 Issues, Goals, and Actions

 7.4.1                     Prioritize areas within the city for economic development.

                7.4.1.1           Determine the appropriate type, level, and location of economic development initiatives for Provo City.

                7.4.1.2           Utilize redevelopment programs and incentives to encourage the revitalization of blighted commercial and industrial areas.

                7. 4.1.3          Study the feasibility of improved access on to and off of I-15 to improve access to Brigham Young University and Intermountain Healthcare.

                7.4.1.4           Collect, maintain, and regularly evaluate a sales and property tax data base, showing tax generation by commercial locations.

 7.4.2                     Facilitate environmentally sensitive industrial land use and development to contribute to employment opportunities and the city’s tax base without negatively impacting quality of life.

                7.4.2.1           Accommodate an appropriate amount of industrial growth in the city.

 7.4.3                     Work effectively and fairly with the business community to earn a reputation that it is easy to work with Provo City.

                7.4.3.1           Work to significantly reduce the barriers to growing/expanding/doing business in Provo.

                7.4.3.2           Look for ways to help grow/leverage the city assets to improve economic development.

 7.4.4                     Foster the entrepreneurial spirit and reality of Provo as the preeminent place to start a business in Utah Valley.

                7.4.4.1           Create a fertile environment for business ideas for products and services to progress more rapidly through the business cycle.

                7.4.4.2           Make it cheaper and easier to be in Provo as a new/growing business.

                7.4.4.3           Make it easier to expand a business.

 7.4.5                     Determine the appropriate types of businesses for Provo to foster and grow.

                7.4.5.1           Build on our strengths and continue in the direction the business community wants to go.

 7.4.6                     Retain/support our established businesses and talent.

                7.4.6.1           Create incentives to reinvest in growth mode businesses in Provo.

 7.4.7                     Maximize the vast second language skill set in the community.

            7.4.7.1        Take better advantage of Provo’s second language resources to improve business opportunities and services. Provo City and the business community enjoy a relationship based on mutual need, trust, and cooperation. Provo City and the business community understand and realize that each relies on the other to be successful and healthy.

 7.4.8                     Maximize our airport for business and recreational traffic.

                7.4.8.1           Promote the airport to the local business and tourism travel industry as an economical and convenient alternative to using the Salt Lake International Airport.

                7.4.8.2           Develop a business park around the Provo Municipal Airport that attracts and promotes aviation related business.

 7.4.9                     Maintain well-functioning transportation routes throughout the city.

                7.4.9.1           Ensure that all modes of transportation to, from, and within Provo are safe and efficient.

 7.4.10                   Facilitate participation by Provo business leaders in the political process.

                7.4.10.1        Encourage Provo business leaders to become engaged in the political process to ensure that business interests are appropriately balanced with residential interests.

                7.4.10.2        Facilitate a dialogue between local businesses and City government so that business and government needs and concerns can be addressed in a timely manner.

 7.4.11                   Provo City will partner with the business community to encourage greater political participation as well as ensure the process of creating, promoting and growing business is streamlined and easy to navigate.

                7.4.11.1        Provo City will regularly examine internal administrative and legislative policy regarding development review, business licensing and other processes associated with business development and regulation to ensure efficiency and responsiveness to business needs.

                7.4.11.2        Provo City will encourage business leaders and entrepreneurs to be actively involved in the political process.

                7.4.11.3        Provo City will encourage businesses to become involved in other non-political business entities, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Downtown Provo Inc., whom we partner with to help facilitate business growth and advocacy.

 7.4.12                   Develop Provo as the leader in the State of Utah and Mountain West in entrepreneurial support and the preeminent place to start and grow a business.

                7.4.12.1        Provo City will continue to be an advocate for startup-level businesses by offering access and support from City departments as well as dedicated staff to both understanding the needs of  this sector and to help generate policy to encourage growth and resources to these businesses.

                7.4.12.2        Provo City will partner with local, state and national organizations that foster entrepreneurial growth (e.g. The Kauffman Foundation) to bring a greater variety of both educational and financial resources to startup businesses.

                7.4.12.3        Provo City will work with area brokers, property owners and developers to ensure startup businesses have sufficient real estate to pursue their ideas and grow their business.

                7.4.12.4        Support city economic-develop initiatives that aid local businesses.

 7.4.13                   Provo City will encourage a robust business retention and expansion program, while also seeking to recruit businesses and services to our community that are either lacking or have been identified as targeted, key industries.

                7.4.13.1        Staff will foster open and regular communication through business visits, email communication and seminars with business owners and employers to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Provo economy.

                7.4.13.2        Staff will follow the recommendations provided in both the Economic Development Strategic Plan and Retail Strategic Plan to look for opportunities in identified, key industry sectors for both business expansion of existing industries and recruitment of additional businesses.

            7.4.13.3        Provo City will explore incentives and programs to assist in the recruitment of new businesses that will substantially add to both the tax base and service/employments offerings of the community. Incentives will also be explored for the expansion of existing businesses that are experiencing substantial growth.

                7.4.13.4        Provo City will continue to encourage infill development at Mountain Vista Business Park, as well as other City-owned properties, for developers to create employment and tax-generating uses.

                7.4.13.5        Provo City staff will work with land and property owners who have properties that are 1) non-tax generating, 2) non-conforming for the surrounding neighborhood, 3)historically vacant and underutilized properties, or any property that has developed potential for residential or commercial use to see if win-win agreements can be made to improve underserved and underutilized properties.

 7.4.14                   Require high-quality commercial development.

                7.4.14.1        Encourage performance standards for commercial developments.

                7.4.14.2        Require landscaping around the perimeter of commercial projects to soften development.

                7.4.14.3        Hide or soften commercial area parking by using berms and trees with perimeter and interior landscaping.

                7.4.14.4        Integrate signs within the architecture of a development and limit the size.

                7.4.14.5        Design the open space first in future large-scale commercial development projects.

                7.4.14.6        Regulate the scale of commercial buildings by the land size of the project.

 7.4.15                   Develop business facilities and locations to encourage new business growth and job formation.

                7.4.15.1        Support the Provo Towne Centre, Downtown Provo, University Parkway, commercial corridor and the North State Street commercial corridor.

                7.4.15.2        Support the future development of Mountain Vista Business Park as a mixed-use facility for jobs and retail services.

                7.4.15.3        Support Riverwoods and East Bay for additional business locations to accommodate both small and large business.

                7.4.15.4        Promote business creation through a small business incubator/start up program.

 7.4.16                   Promote the Central Business District.

                7.4.16.1        Work with the Provo Downtown Inc. organization to maintain the Central Business District (CBD) as a vibrant center of business, financial, residential, government, retail, service, and cultural activities in Provo.

                7.4.16.2        Improve public transportation in the Central Business District.

                7.4.16.3        Create a vibrant mix of businesses, government, residential development and cultural opportunities in the downtown area.

                7.4.16.4        Draw new cultural activities into the downtown area.

                7.4.16.5        Target land uses that bring more people to the downtown area.

 7.4.17                   Require clean business and industry.

7.4.17.1        Encourages non-polluting business and industry to locate in Provo.

7.4.17.2        Provide regulations and incentives to encourage established businesses to improve air quality.

CHAPTER 8

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE

Chapter Eight
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

8.1: Developed Parks Map (PDF)

8.1 Introduction

Provo City is nationally recognized as one of America’s most livable cities. Provo’s natural surroundings, parks, recreational amenities, and varied leisure opportunities are integral to its outstanding quality of life and livability. 

Recreation has the capacity to build communities and offer many social benefits.  The pursuit of recreational facilities and participation in leisure activities are essential factors in not only individual well-being, but in contributing to the community health.  Park and recreation opportunities serve as important benchmarks against which the quality of life within a community can be measured. 

Parks and open space, whether designed for passive or active recreation, are important elements in creating a balanced living environment. Having recreational opportunities close at hand is important not only for convenience, but for maintaining the physical and social strength of the community through active recreational and social interaction with family and neighbors. Provo’s citizens have repeatedly expressed through public opinion surveys, bond elections, and RAP funding decisions the need and the desire for additional parks, recreational opportunities, and the retention of the open and – in some parts of the city – rural feeling of the community.

In establishing a parks and recreation plan for a community, it is important to provide a variety of recreation experiences through various sizes of parks intended for different types of use and users. Parks should be designed to be inclusive with the users in mind, whether those users be healthy children and adults, senior citizens, or the disabled. It is also important to achieve equitable distribution of basic park lands, recreation facilities, and programs throughout the community by applying standards uniformly and consistently.

This chapter is intended to be an overview of the parks, recreation, and open space goals of the City. See the current version of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for more details. 

8.2 Background

SECTION HEADINGS

8.2.1 Park Standards

8.2.2 Planning for Parks

8.2.1 Park Standards

The Parks and Recreation Master Plan includes level-of-service standards for park and open space acreage in relation to population size. Standards vary according to park types, which include pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, conservation parks, and open space. Parks are classified based on their sizes and service areas.  The master plan includes an updated list of current and proposed parks.

Utilization of other facilities such as state parks, neighboring city parks, school grounds, or facilities can also address community needs through cooperative use agreements. This approach may be expanded, if public access is maintained, and especially if there is an identified shortage of City-controlled facilities in particular geographical areas or shortage of specific uses.

8.2.2 Planning for Parks

Advance acquisition of park land is vital to maintain level of service standards as the community grows. Once general locations have been identified as suitable for parks or open space, as set forth in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, land should be acquired in advance of actual need in order to ensure its protection and availability for future use. Once these lands are acquired, they may be leased for agricultural or other uses until the land is to be developed as a park. The acquisition and/or preservation of prime open space should be a priority.

Not all pieces of land are, however, suitable for park development. As the City considers land to purchase, receives offers of donated land, or requires park land dedication as a condition of development, it should be careful to not become caretakers of unusable or high-maintenance property. All property considered for acquisition should have a thorough study to assure that it will be beneficial as a public park or other recreation facility.

Funding sources should be established for land acquisition, facility development, operation, and ongoing maintenance of the park system. Federal and State agencies may have limited funding programs for recreation facility development, yet many of these sources have dwindled in recent years and some programs have ended altogether. Cities are having to depend more and more on local revenues, donations, and volunteerism to develop parks and recreation programs. Provo should take advantage of any opportunities to leverage existing funding with outside grant resources.  However, an annual commitment should be maintained within the capital improvement program for park property acquisition, new park development, and existing park renovation.

8.3 Vision

Vision 2030 states:

“Provo City is nationally recognized as one of America's most livable cities. Provo's natural recreational amenities and varied leisure opportunities are integral parts of its outstanding quality of life and livability.”

“[Humankind] has always sought opportunities to relax, restore, and invigorate the mind and body. The pursuit of and participation in leisure activities are essential factors in health and well-being. “

“Provo's excellent opportunities for cultural arts, entertainment, and recreation for all citizens are among the best in the Intermountain West. These opportunities are essential for all ages because they improve the quality of life for those who participate regularly. Providing a wide range of recreational opportunities that appeal to the largest cross-section of our citizens is a primary goal of Provo City. 

8.4 Goals and Implementation

8.4.1                      Provide a system of attractive and accessible parks and recreation facilities that will provide a complete range of activities for all age groups.

8.4.1.1                   Encourage and provide increased public access to natural amenities such as the Provo River, Utah Lake, Rock Canyon, Slate Canyon and Provo Canyon, and mountain open space.

8.4.1.2                   Promote efficiency and resource conservation in the selection, design, operation, and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities.

8.4.1.3                   Plan for and manage a system of non-motorized trails and multi-use pathways that connect recreation facilities and encourage walking and bicycling as alternative modes of transportation and for recreation. These trails should complement and align with the transportation Master Plan.

8.4.1.5                   Provide a well-rounded selection of recreation programs and activities that will provide uplifting, healthful, enjoyable, and personally satisfying experiences for Provo City residents of all ages.

8.4.1.6                   Pursue special events of regional, statewide, national, and international significance to intensify community pride, enhance economic development, and assist in providing lasting facilities to be used by City residents.

8.4.1.7                   Develop funding sources and strategies to supplement appropriation from the City general fund to provide parks and recreation facilities.

8.4.1.8                   Update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan on five-year intervals to assure that it provides for the current needs of the community.

8.4.1.9                   Consider options to expand the use of the Peaks Ice Arena that may include additional fitness and recreational opportunities.

8.4.1.10                Identify potential parkland in growth areas within the City based on level of service analysis.

8.4.1.11                Operate the East Bay Golf Course in a cost-effective manner to benefit the community.

8.4.1.12                Explore opportunities to establish a recreational beach and other site improvements and amenities near the Utah Lake boat harbor.

8.4.1.13                Operate a world-class municipal recreation center that continues to meet the needs of the community.

8.4.1.14                Operate a City Cemetery that will continue to provide a variety of interment services that meet the needs of residents and add beauty and dignity to the community.

8.4.2                      Protect and provide enhanced opportunities and facilities for the arts, entertainment, and museums reflecting Provo’s status as the county seat of the second most populated county in the state of Utah.

8.4.2.1                   Conduct a feasibility study to evaluate an expansion of facilities at the Covey Center for the Performing Arts. 

Chapter 1

Land Use, Growth, and Urban Design

Chapter 1

Land Use, Growth, and Urban Design

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 2

TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY

Chapter 2

Transportation and Mobility

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 3

HOUSING

Chapter 3

Housing

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 4

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 4

Natural Resources and Environment

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 5

MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND FACILITIES

Chapter 5

Municipal Services and Facilities

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 6

HISTORIC PRESERVATION, REDEVELOPMENT, AND RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION

Chapter 6

Historic Preservation, Redevelopment, and Residential Conservation

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 7

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 7

Economic Development

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

CHAPTER 8

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE

Chapter 8

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Enter your comments after reading the PDF version of this chapter (link in Instructions section). To see the full text of the General Plan chapters here on Open City Hall, click on the "Full Text" tab above.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+