|
Post by Administrator on Dec 14, 2010 9:17:30 GMT -7
This statement of vision, goals and objectives was recommended by the Land Use and Growth subcommittee for inclusion in the Vision 2030 document. You can see a list of the members of the subcommittee at www.provo.org/current_issues.visioning_submembers.html#landuse. Please click on reply, or go back to the main board and click add a new thread to make comments.
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 land use focus is on quality rather than quantity. Goal 1. Protect existing owner-occupied housing and neighborhoods and encourage an increased percentage of owner-occupied or long-term residency housing in Provo neighborhoods..Objective 1.1. 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. Objective 1.2. Develop strategies to increase owner occupancy or long-term residency in the city’s residential neighborhoods.
Objective 1.3. Limit additional rental housing outside areas specifically planned for higher density development. Goal 2. Identify opportunities for neighborhood amenities in established neighborhoods Objective 2.1. Provide opportunities to establish neighborhood amenities such as neighborhood oriented retail, small parks, leisure activities and/or medical services for residents in existing neighborhoods Goal 3. Disperse the increasing demand for rental housing throughout the countyObjective 3.1. Initiate actions necessary to encourage other cities within the county accommodate a share of the rental housing market
Goal 4. Prioritize areas within the City for economic development Objective 4.1. Determine the appropriate type, level and location of economic development initiatives for Provo City
Goal 5. 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.Objective 5.1. Accommodate an appropriate amount of industrial growth in the City
|
|
|
Post by gfminer on Feb 1, 2011 12:32:07 GMT -7
There has been much discussion and City Council action regarding the development of the Slate Canyon corridor of the East mountain of Provo. Discussions have pointed out the beauty of the area and the geological mountain and subsurface hazards that should be addressed for any development. It would seem prudent to add to this Section either a Goal 6 or an Objective 5.2 a statement to the effect: "Ensure that any development or use of land in the East mountain area preserves the natural canyon and environs aesthetically and is geologically sound"
|
|
|
Post by boizinho85 on Feb 3, 2011 9:15:52 GMT -7
I think that the city council committee should consider the viability of Goal 3 because there are practical impediments to the practical application of any reasonable solution. Dispersal of rental housing will be very difficult because the largest contributor to the rental market in Provo are BYU students. BYU has exacerbated the problem by requiring all single students to live in a small radius of campus. Zoning laws in many neighborhoods east and north of campus do not allow for rental tenants. Being that this accounts for the largest contribution to the rental property density in Provo, how can you think to disperse that density when BYU doesn't allow for it?
|
|
|
Post by liveworkprovo on Feb 18, 2011 11:12:18 GMT -7
These comments are in response to Objectives 1.2, 1.3, and 3.1. While I can understand the desire to encourage owner-occupancy, I have seen through my career and educational experience in land planning and development that this is very difficult to control. Certainly zoning ordinances can limit density, but owners can (and should be able to, in my opinion) in most instances allow rental tenants to occupy their properties.
I own and reside in a townhouse in south Provo and rent rooms to two other young professionals. We are no longer students, but still fit into a highly mobile demographic that prefers quality rental housing to purchasing a home. As a homeowner, I would prefer to see the ordinance limiting single-family home occupancy to three unrelated individuals changed. Why not limit the occupancy of unrelated individuals to the number of bedrooms within a residence? Why should singles and those who rent to them be punished, while large families are allowed to put far more strain on the infrastructure in the same size of home (believe me, I am pro-family, but this doesn't seem fair)?
As mentioned in the Vision document, Provo is a maturing city. When it is no longer possible to expand outward, infill development and increasing density are the next steps. I certainly feel that new multifamily housing should be limited to certain target areas, but I hope its development is not discouraged in general. For example, bringing more rental housing to downtown may be essential to restoring its vitality.
Among the major deterrents to apartment development in the rest of the county are the exorbitant impact fees charged by some cities. These are questionable from a legal standpoint, and I sincerely hope Provo will choose not to follow suit. Provo and Orem are the social and economic hubs of the county where many singles and young families, whether students or not, enjoy living.
|
|
|
Post by mstevens on Mar 9, 2011 23:03:14 GMT -7
The Land Use and Growth vision lacks any mention of open space preservation. I'm concerned about two road projects being considered, namely the Northwest Connector and the Southwest Connector. The Northwest Connector is being discussed for an area west of Geneva Road near Utah Lake and the Southwest Connector would extend 1860 South west to the airport along the shore of Provo Bay. Both of these road projects are in areas where there is little development currently and seem overblown for projected traffic needs. Additionally, they would adversely affect wetlands, farmland, and open space near the lake.
|
|
|
Post by propertyrights on Mar 14, 2011 17:21:52 GMT -7
Dispersal of rental housing will be very difficult because the largest contributor to the rental market in Provo are BYU students. I agree. And more to the point, Provo is for all intents and purposes first and foremost a college town. BYU, its students and their families who financially support them easily constitute the majority of commercial transactions in Provo. I simply do not understand the desire to punish those who most benefit us (i.e. tax paying, business frequenting student-citizens). Sarcasm aside? In all likelihood, Provo will cook up some new way to strip property owners of their rights while cloaking the regulations in noble language that refers glibly to "family" and "schools" and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by propertyrights on Mar 14, 2011 17:32:16 GMT -7
...owners can (and should be able to, in my opinion) in most instances allow rental tenants to occupy their properties. That view is shared by every other state I've lived in (New Mexico, New York, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, and Kentucky). It wasn't until I moved to Provo that I confronted the reality that citizens here think they can take away your property rights just because it would be nice to keep a school open over here, or a neighborhood quieter over there. Simply amazing. Because overcrowding isn't the concern of the zoning restrictions. Many married couples who have young children or whose children have grown and moved out, want to keep students from living next to them. It really is that simple. Overcrowding is the buzz-word (along with "family") that they use to justify their unconstitutional restrictions. I own my home and if I am living in it, I ought to be able to let anyone live with me that I like as long as I do not infringe on my neighbors' rights to life, liberty and property. Period. Again, there is nothing reasonable, fair or balanced in the current zoning restrictions. As you point out, a family with a total of 8 people can live in a 3700 sq. ft. home and that is not seen as a public problem, but five people living in a 4700 sq. ft. home is a problem if the five residents are not related to each other. Clearly there are other interests at work here than just "Provo's orderly growth." Those families who don't have children in college, simply want college students to stay away so school districts aren't affected and so forth. It's too bad this is all cloaked in language that makes it sound as if the restrictions have a legal or reasonable basis. Large families that dislike college student neighbors have quite frankly taken over Provo's government and regulation-creating bodies. It's unbalanced, it's unfair to property owners, and they don't care as long as they have schools near their homes and nurseries in their local LDS ward. Not saying I don't understand those desires. The difference is, I'm not going to rob my neighbors to get my way.
|
|
|
Post by propertyrights on Mar 14, 2011 17:39:11 GMT -7
And now, my own modest proposal to address the zoning regulations and "two-kitchen" rules. The problem? Apparently it's student renters. Decrease the number of student renters and you decrease the number of potential violations of zoning regulations. Simplest and most certain way to limit the number of student renters is to require all men who have fathered four children (and before they can father any more) to submit to a mandatory, city-administered sterilization via vasectomy to ensure no further offspring are created.
After all, offspring inevitably grow up and go to college and need somewhere to rent. As they say, instead of hacking at the leaves of the problem, hack at the roots. Then we could dispense with all this wasted time and money spent creating needless legislation, along with the requisite government bureaucracies to oversee and enforce it.
And since zoning officers currently have to come to your house to investigate every anonymous complaint, we could have the doctors make a good 'ole fashioned house call to administer the vasectomy. It doesn't get any simpler or more convenient. Plus, not having more than four children increases the economic well being of the family.
Anyone with children knows that from the moment they are born they are human vacuums attached to the family bank account, requiring a constant supply of expensive clothes, doctor visits, shots, shoes, food, toys, car seats, books, babysitters and much, much more. By limiting family size we not only prevent overcrowding and street congestion, we increase citizen prosperity by leaving more of our money in our bank accounts. Also, we would make certain that Provo City's growth is calculated and orderly, as it ought to be.
-Signed, a Concerned Citizen with Noble Desires
I highly doubt God endowed your or I with the right to a single-family neighborhood, or the right to limit how many kitchens we can have in our own houses! The absurdity, audacity and overbearing spirit behind these regulations has made me ask my wife several times in the past year whether we are living in Fascist Germany or Independent America.
Always remember: If you don't have the God-given right to do something to me or my property, you cannot empower government to do that same thing to me or my property. As for Life, Liberty and Property:
"The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one right. To give a man his life, but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty, but take from him the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave him a slave." George Sutherland, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1921.
|
|
|
Post by tomof12 on Mar 15, 2011 21:43:25 GMT -7
I live south of BYU in the Joaquin area, and I am encouraged by the general agreement that this extraordinary historical neighborhood needs to be improved. I live in a wonderful home built in 1890 that I put a lot of time and money into, but I have renters next door who never cut their grass (nor dispose of yard waste, nor fix broken sprinkler heads) and a very ugly three-story rental-box-plus-asphalt across the street. Not very homey. I am glad that high-density quality housing for students is being built between 5th and 6th North, and more will soon follow along 8th North. This is good because it will reduce the demand for student rentals south of 5th (i.e. the area that the city's general plan wants to improve). Now, my big concern is that if building these high-density apartment buildings is the ONLY concrete measure to improve the neighborhood south of 5th, it will simply fail. If BYU students move out of their ugly apartment boxes and dark basements to go fill the new housing, then UVU students and other stray young people will take their place. This will change nothing; it may make things worse. With the hundreds of new apartments that will be built in the next few years (and the new on-campus housing that BYU is working on), there needs to be NEW ZONING REGULATIONS that actually guarantee improvement. If this is not done NOW (with all the new high-density student housing going up), then when will it be done? Such an obvious opportunity--a ready-made excuse, really--will not likely come again. If we want more owner-occupants and less ugly rental boxes--and I believe that is the general desire--we need to have ordinances/regulations that take the bull by the horns. I don't mind if there are transitional periods involved--landlords and such need time to adjust--but something needs to be done. The ultra-free-market, do-nothing-and-hope-for-the-best approach won't work here. I bought a home that was renovated by NeighborWorks--a great program--and I want that spirit of renovation to extend to my neighborhood. I want it to BECOME a neighborhood. I want children to actually trick-or-treat at my door. (They don't, regardless of how inviting it looks. It is just assumed that people don't really live in this part of town!)
Thanks for listening. (I posted these same comments in the "neighborhoods" forum.)
|
|