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

Subscribe to Registered Statements From Forum Participants

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Open Town Hall.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

(You may be asked to solve a simple puzzle that is easy for humans but difficult for computers)

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).

Subscribe

Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants

Name not shown inside Franklin January 17, 2022, 6:21 PM

Do you see any needs citywide that aren’t discussed in the General Plan? Electric bikes, small commercial developments in all neighborhoods(e.g. corner cafe, food truck, etc), making the city prioritize walking and biking on roads rather than cars
What aspects of the General Plan do you like? It does focus on some amounts of increased density, affordable housing, mixed development areas, as well as a desire to improve other forms of transport
Was the "making Provo a welcoming, supportive community for all" adequately addressed? It could use consideration of expanding where low income housing is located to across the city, rather than often consolidated in one or two areas
Was stewardship of the outdoors adequately addressed, acknowledging that this is a long-term vision and details are discussed in the Parks Master Plan and the Conservation and Resiliency Plan? Overall yes
Was housing adequately addressed, acknowledging that this is a long-term vision and details are discussed in area and neighborhood plans? No. We need to significantly improve our zoning away from segregated zoning to more mixed and adaptable zoning across the city(I’m not an expert on this, but there are different and better zoning formats). We don’t need anymore solely single-family home neighborhoods, we’re running out of space, and need the “missing middle” housing in all neighborhoods. All neighborhoods need access to nearby small commercial type stores, this helps offset driving by having places people can quickly walk or bike to. All neighborhoods should allow ADUs.
Was Provo’s economy adequately addressed? I think so
Was transportation adequately addressed, acknowledging that this is a long-term vision and details are discussed in the Transportation Master Plan? While including multiple forms of transport is decent, but isn’t taking things far enough. Trading C and D levels of service on driving for more dedicated routes for walking and biking is key. Things like improved and protected intersections for bikes is barely considered in the TMP. Looking to Amsterdam(and other Dutch cities), and NACTO in addition to the TMP for guidance. Creating guides for some of this could be useful like Ottawa’s protected intersection design guide
Was Provo’s role as a community leader adequately addressed? I think so
Do you have any other comments on the General Plan update? I have probably written more than enough regarding Provo’s need to more seriously examine our zoning and transportation priorities in a whole new direction if we want to accommodate a large increase in population, a rising population that leans more to dense urbanism, and mixed development neighborhoods that reduce car usage and would be the optimal use of our remaining land over solely single-family neighborhoods.

Chris West inside Foothills January 16, 2022, 9:51 PM

Was housing adequately addressed, acknowledging that this is a long-term vision and details are discussed in area and neighborhood plans? ADUs were discussed in the housing plan. I really hope that an increase in ADU zoning actually takes place soon. I watched the council meeting when ADUs were discussed and I was disappointed that the council did the bare minimum to increase housing via ADUs when the topic was brought up. I hope that in the coming months, the council will approach the issue with the goal of addressing the housing issues and needs of the population outlined in the document instead of just making some vocal citizens happy.
Was transportation adequately addressed, acknowledging that this is a long-term vision and details are discussed in the Transportation Master Plan? Loved it. I love the emphasis on active transportation. If these ideas are actually implemented in the city, that would be great. It might be nice to outline in the General Plan or the Transportation Plan what a good bike lane looks like. I mean painted bike lanes are better than nothing, but they don't make me feel very safe when they are routinely encroached on by speeding drivers. Stating explicitly that protected bike lanes are the gold standard and that existing bike lanes should be upgraded around the city would be wonderful.

It would also be pretty great if parking and bike lanes switched places at the edge of the road, essentially creating a protected bike lane from the parked cars.

Name not shown more than 2 miles January 16, 2022, 9:20 PM

This project looks like it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. The south-west side of town is in desperate need of commercial opportunities and a lower price point for more affordable housing.

Chris West 1 to 2 miles January 16, 2022, 5:08 PM

I support the plan. We need more housing and this looks like a good plan. I appreciate that there's green space in the back too. It seems to be a pretty elegant way to increase density.

Chris West more than 2 miles January 15, 2022, 6:59 PM

I think the zone change is good. It's a great place to increase density.

However, I think the orientation of the building and the parking lot is poor. There is already an access road on the backside of the townhomes. It seems like the parking spaces should be on the east of the townhomes and share the access road with the condos; this would reduce the number of access roads onto 4800N, decrease the amount of asphalt required for the project and increase the amount of total green space, especially by the river, an asset that we should strive to protect. Furthermore, if the project were built as is, it would hurt the pedestrian environment by adding a break in the sidewalk. Pedestrians would be required to pass through space for cars at more points resulting in a poorer walking experience.

As such, I support the zone change and support the general idea of the project, but I think the planning of the project itself should be further considered before proceeding. The plan would require coordination with the neighboring development and if that coordination cannot be achieved, I would support the project as is, however, I feel that such coordination should be thoroughly pursued before proceeding with the project as shown in the plans.

Mary Millar 1 to 2 miles January 11, 2022, 5:15 PM

My greatest concern is that the applicant did not follow through with public notice to every resident within 1000 feet as per the papers he received when he made application on December 31, 2020! It is the applicants responsibility to make that notification to said residents. Many of those very residents feel as though they were blind sighted. There are those who have learned that several aspects of this project have already been approved without any public notice given to any current resident. How do we make right that woeful lapse in transparency?

Justin McMurdie inside City Boundary January 3, 2022, 4:09 PM

Concerning the “Utah Lake Restoration Project” or the proposal to add manmade islands to Utah lake by dredging the lake.

I saw that the city council had a working meeting where a presentation was given about the proposal. When I initially heard of the project I was for the project as it seemed like a slick solution to both the housing problem and the toxic algae blooms that affect the lake annually.

I’ve since been convinced by hearing from ecology experts, environmentalists, engineers, and environmental scientists that the proposal to dredge the lake is going to make the problem worse. The lake is already on the road to recovery and each year the algae bloom is getting smaller. This doesn’t seem like a situation where one problem can solve another, instead it seems like a situation where an architect who previously failed to accomplish a similar project is trying to make some money and solve a single problem at the expense of another.

I cannot summarize the concerns of experts better than they can so here’s a link to their open letter. It is my understanding that the city of provo has partial jurisdiction over the lake and I’d like to prevent an environmentally damaging, waste of money that has low chances of success given the history of the group proposing the project.

https://pws.BYU.edu/utahlakeislands

Chris West inside City Boundary January 2, 2022, 7:55 PM

Hello Provo City Council,

After watching the city council meeting on ADUs I have some thoughts I would like to share from a perspective that I think was not well represented at the meeting. I commend your efforts to listen to the citizens of Provo; however I fear that the demographic that showed up to the town meeting is not representative of public opinion on the issue.

I am a recently married student at BYU, employed in Provo and I wish to stay here after graduation. I’ve discussed the issue of housing with lots of friends and the sentiment is generally the same, landlords can get away with anything because we don’t have any other options. Even poor housing contracts are sold quickly as the demand is so high and the supply is so low. This results in a market where entry level renters have a hard time finding even bad housing. Most landlords of the properties in my neighborhood have realized that they don’t need to do anything to keep their tenants since there isn’t hardly anywhere else in Provo to go. Many students I know have moved to Springville to find better housing for this very reason (which increases car traffic and parking issues in Provo as they must commute to BYU by car).

I understand that the council committed to research how ADUs could be expanded in the coming months. I implore you to consider not just the wishes of the few homeowners that attended the town meeting last month, but also the needs of the young talent that Provo wishes to attract.

My hope is that Provo City Council will open up the whole city to ADUs, allowing homeowners to provide housing for the young families that Provo needs to support our economy. If not the whole city I would hope that the council would be as aggressive as possible in opening the city up to ADUs.

Thank you for your time,

Chris West

Name not shown 1 to 2 miles January 1, 2022, 5:48 PM

While I support adding more commercial and mixed development to West Provo, the design as proposed is lacking. Trees should be lining the street before the sidewalk, and optimally these stores would have outward facing doors to the street to make for a more welcoming front akin to downtown. Some parallel parking on the street would add to all of this as well and cut down on parking space down the back. A store on the corner would also add a desirable space for a business with it right on Center.

Ana Lewis more than 2 miles December 27, 2021, 10:55 PM

This area of Provo would thrive by adding commercial. As the temple in orem is completed and as development continues commercial will be critical!