Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Acknowledgments” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
I would have liked to see the neighborhoods or focal areas in the city where the working group members are from. All too often we hear that the city has heard from a cross section of people across the city; however, it seems to be more transparent if we can acknowledge where these individuals reside, who they represent, their BIO, etc. I know that some of these members are not even Provo City residents; however, I'm sure the populace of the city is unaware and don't know why their input is justified.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Introduction” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
None
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “A Welcoming Community?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments
The theme of Walkable seems very strange to me in a city where its coordinates are long and narrow. Walkable is a great desire in some areas of the city; but I don't think the emphasis here to make the city walkable to all of its amenities is a practical solution. In established neighborhoods outside of downtown Provo; I might walk or bike to a park; but I'd have to admit there is no practical way I can avoid University Avenue nor would I want to.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Stewardship of the Outdoors?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
I see a conflict of objectives in this area compared to others. I believe it is impractical to implement a walkable city with large parks in a city the size and shape of Provo City. What I would rather see is a couple of large parks, outside of the typical baseball diamond complexes, mixed with a higher ratio of small parks with many of the similar amenities including pickle ball courts and tennis courts, playground equipment that includes jungle gyms, slides, zip lines, etc. Having multiple smaller parks across the city will provide a more walkable solution to these areas and distribute the usage of the amenities rather than everyone having to go to one large place to play e.g.. Pickle Ball.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Growing Together?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
All I read about "Growing Together" is "Grow". The plan talks about preserving historical aspects of the City; however, I'm concerned that there isn't also an emphasis on preserving the quality and culture of existing PUDs and their slight expansions. There is more discussions about creating mix housing developments. That is a great topic for new development projects that encompass a new perimeter. However, the definition of a PUD is "a community of homes that could look like single family residences, townhomes or condos, and can include both residential and commercial units"; yes it can be mixed housing; when "Planned". Modifying an existing PUD and its extension to include an alternate type of housing destroys the purpose of the PUD. It is no longer a PUD but should be changed to MUD; "Modified Unit Developmenb".
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Livable Provo?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
This entires section seems to focus on providing different types of housing; based on the numbers it appears to push on non-single family homes; condos, apartment pricing, adding ADUs, etc. (Page 55). However, the second page of the section (page 44) says that 41% percent want single family homes. That's nearly 2 to 1 in favor of single family homes; not Condos; not ADUs. There appears to be a direct conflict addressed in this section compared to the desire of residents.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Connected and Safe?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
I agree with most statements made in this section; however, as previously indicated, I think spending too much focus (and money) on making Provo more walkable is a little misguided. There needs to be a balance of usability with aesthetics. My neighborhood requires new homes to have a wider sidewalk and a strip between the sidewalk and the curb; yet existing homes do not on the same street; across from my house. (page 59). Some roadways should have the yard strip to provide better protection; but within a closed community neighborhood the ordinance destroyed the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Page 61 & 62 also talk much about providing better bicycle transit and protections; Provo City is not Amsterdam; I'm not against bicyclists; but 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.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Implementation Action Plan?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
Page 72; I'd rather see "Increase active and passive parks and recreation amenities, programs and education." as the first priority in this section; This would also equate to the city becoming not only Livable but Invitable.
Page 74: I would vote to swap LP1 with LP4..."Deploy Strategic Investments to attract new businesses." should be top on this list. Provo City has failed in this regard and lost opportunities to Lehi; growth of the airport isn't going to help Provo City unless business is in Provo; it's only going to help our adjoining cities.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about any other aspect of the Conservation and Resilience Plan?
There is no section in the plan that covers this topic other than many areas referencing the plan. One section describes that the plan is in progress (page 32). If you want more people to recycle don't force them to pay to recycle and make more areas available for recycling. There are a limited number of places to recycle large pieces of cardboard in Provo...and I can't walk to it :( I would swap SO5 with SO1.
Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Translate
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Acknowledgments” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
I would have liked to see the neighborhoods or focal areas in the city where the working group members are from. All too often we hear that the city has heard from a cross section of people across the city; however, it seems to be more transparent if we can acknowledge where these individuals reside, who they represent, their BIO, etc. I know that some of these members are not even Provo City residents; however, I'm sure the populace of the city is unaware and don't know why their input is justified.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the “Introduction” section? Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
None
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “A Welcoming Community?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments
The theme of Walkable seems very strange to me in a city where its coordinates are long and narrow. Walkable is a great desire in some areas of the city; but I don't think the emphasis here to make the city walkable to all of its amenities is a practical solution. In established neighborhoods outside of downtown Provo; I might walk or bike to a park; but I'd have to admit there is no practical way I can avoid University Avenue nor would I want to.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Stewardship of the Outdoors?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
I see a conflict of objectives in this area compared to others. I believe it is impractical to implement a walkable city with large parks in a city the size and shape of Provo City. What I would rather see is a couple of large parks, outside of the typical baseball diamond complexes, mixed with a higher ratio of small parks with many of the similar amenities including pickle ball courts and tennis courts, playground equipment that includes jungle gyms, slides, zip lines, etc. Having multiple smaller parks across the city will provide a more walkable solution to these areas and distribute the usage of the amenities rather than everyone having to go to one large place to play e.g.. Pickle Ball.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Growing Together?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
All I read about "Growing Together" is "Grow". The plan talks about preserving historical aspects of the City; however, I'm concerned that there isn't also an emphasis on preserving the quality and culture of existing PUDs and their slight expansions. There is more discussions about creating mix housing developments. That is a great topic for new development projects that encompass a new perimeter. However, the definition of a PUD is "a community of homes that could look like single family residences, townhomes or condos, and can include both residential and commercial units"; yes it can be mixed housing; when "Planned". Modifying an existing PUD and its extension to include an alternate type of housing destroys the purpose of the PUD. It is no longer a PUD but should be changed to MUD; "Modified Unit Developmenb".
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Livable Provo?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
This entires section seems to focus on providing different types of housing; based on the numbers it appears to push on non-single family homes; condos, apartment pricing, adding ADUs, etc. (Page 55). However, the second page of the section (page 44) says that 41% percent want single family homes. That's nearly 2 to 1 in favor of single family homes; not Condos; not ADUs. There appears to be a direct conflict addressed in this section compared to the desire of residents.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Connected and Safe?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
I agree with most statements made in this section; however, as previously indicated, I think spending too much focus (and money) on making Provo more walkable is a little misguided. There needs to be a balance of usability with aesthetics. My neighborhood requires new homes to have a wider sidewalk and a strip between the sidewalk and the curb; yet existing homes do not on the same street; across from my house. (page 59). Some roadways should have the yard strip to provide better protection; but within a closed community neighborhood the ordinance destroyed the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Page 61 & 62 also talk much about providing better bicycle transit and protections; Provo City is not Amsterdam; I'm not against bicyclists; but 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.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about the section “Implementation Action Plan?" Please reference page numbers for each of your comments.
Page 72; I'd rather see "Increase active and passive parks and recreation amenities, programs and education." as the first priority in this section; This would also equate to the city becoming not only Livable but Invitable.
Page 74: I would vote to swap LP1 with LP4..."Deploy Strategic Investments to attract new businesses." should be top on this list. Provo City has failed in this regard and lost opportunities to Lehi; growth of the airport isn't going to help Provo City unless business is in Provo; it's only going to help our adjoining cities.
Do you have any comments, questions, or concerns about any other aspect of the Conservation and Resilience Plan?
There is no section in the plan that covers this topic other than many areas referencing the plan. One section describes that the plan is in progress (page 32). If you want more people to recycle don't force them to pay to recycle and make more areas available for recycling. There are a limited number of places to recycle large pieces of cardboard in Provo...and I can't walk to it :( I would swap SO5 with SO1.