What do you think of the draft of the new General Plan and the Conservation and Resilience Plan for Provo City?

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Acknowledgments” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Not sure where to put this, but the general plan made no mention of the Front Runner which I think could be a great asset to Provo. I think that a vision should be made considering what sort of transit oriented development we want around the Front Runner Station.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Introduction” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “A Welcoming Community?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments

I like the emphasis on walkability and multi modal transportation (pg 25 WC 1b). I think some people might enjoy living in places where they can have their huge yard and drive everywhere, but I think that most people would like to be able to use other modes of transportation. This is not to say that no one can have their huge yards, but I think that encouraging walkable and human sized development through most of the city is a good idea.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Stewardship of the Outdoors?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Growing Together?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

I thought that there was a good balance between preserving historic buildings and encouraging the density that will be required (pg 35). I think too often the wish to preserve the character of a neighborhood, street, etc. gets in the way of adapting a city to its changing needs. I feel that increasing density will be essential if Provo is to grow into what it can be. If it's going to attract the right people to continue building the city we need to have places for them to live and many of these people will not be well established individuals with sufficient resources to compete in a market where density (and thereby housing units) is not increased.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Livable Provo?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Some may site the survey results on page 44 as reason to believe that we need to build more single family homes (given that 41% of people wanted to see more Single-Family Homes and 24% wanted to see more townhomes and condos). However, if we look at Table 5 on page 49, we already see that the majority of Provo's housing is Single Family Homes at 52% of the housing while attached homes (which would include Townhomes) make up just 10% of housing in Provo. Given that nearly one quarter of survey responders wanted to see more townhomes, and just 10% of the housing stock in Provo even could include Townhomes, there is reason to believe that this segment of the population is largely underserved. For those who cannot find a townhome that meets their needs, home buyers who can afford may purchase single family homes that meet their needs. This drives up the cost of homes contributing to the affordable housing problem in Provo. Additionally, Townhomes allow buyers to get more house per dollar.

I conducted a search on Zillow within Provo and found that both the cheapest Townhome and the cheapest house currently listed (10/12/2021) started at roughly $300,000; however, the townhome was 3 bed 2 bath while the house was just 2 bed 1 bath. If we add Condos to search, we find that the cheapest condo is both cheaper and larger than the cheapest single family home at $200,000 for 2 bed 2 bath. If we want to solve the housing affordability problem we cannot keep building almost exclusively single family homes. We need to build a higher density mixed style development that can meet buyers at a range of price points. This is not to say that people can't or shouldn't live in single family homes, but is instead to say that the full range of housing style choices should be available to meet people at their preferences and budgets.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Connected and Safe?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

The emphasis on multimodal transportation on page 59 is great.

Critics might say that it will cost more to build bike lanes or better side walks, but when compared to the cost of car infrastructure for a similar number of cars, the cost is tiny. I mean if we can build a University Ave with 2 lanes of traffic in each direction plus a shoulder on each side making a grand total of 7 lanes wide, we should be able to build sufficient infrastructure for modes other modes of transportation. Cars cause both air and noise pollution, the infrastructure required to operate them costs a lot to maintain, cars wear down this infrastructure as they use it, they pose the threat of getting into much more dangerous accidents. Active modes of transportation don't pose any of these problems and don't pose any of these threats and take up significantly less space.

Another comment posted said "I see bicyclists constantly taking up space along University Ave where there is a bike and walking path along side of University Ave. Shouldn't they use one or the other? We have limited space and shouldn't be duplicating usage along the same route."
To this comment one might say the majority of that very segment of road you are talking about is full of redundancy. We have two lanes of traffic in each direction, why can't cars "use one or the other? We have limited space and shouldn't be duplicating usage along the same route."
The answer to both your question and mine is the same. Neither bike lane nor car lane is redundant. I've biked this route a number of times and have seen the difference. The bike lane along the road is the fast lane. It's straight and free of pedestrians, so cyclists biking for sport use this one. The other one is windy and completely protected from cars making it a much more comfortable ride for commuting or leisure riding. Just because cyclists are not in a car does not mean they don't deserve infrastructure fit for their needs, especially given the dramatically cheaper cost of maintaining bike lanes than car lanes.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Implementation Action Plan?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

I support the order of goals. I think that Provo has their priorities straight. I think that getting housing right is a prerequisite to attracting businesses. Employees of businesses we do have are being forced to live far from Provo due to high housing costs. I work at a Software company here and there is only one member on my team that lives in the city; the others live in other cities where housing is cheaper. If we are to attract businesses, those businesses need to know that they will be able to attract and keep talent here in Provo.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about any other aspect of the Conservation and Resilience Plan?

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Acknowledgments” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Introduction” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Baseline Dashboard?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Target Snapshot?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Carbon Emissions?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Air Quality?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Renewable Energy?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Environment?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Waste?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Water?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Mobility?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Fire Risk?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Implementation Matrix?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Appendix A - Benchmarking Studies?” Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Appendix B - Supplemental Baseline Data?” Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.

Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about any other aspect of the Conservation and Resilience Plan?