What do you think about a zone change at 5544 N River Run Drive in the Riverbottoms Neighborhood to allow for a new multi-family residential district?

I live within 1 mile. Most of those saying the area needs these developments don't seem to understand that the complex is planned as rental townhomes and the developer is not planning to sell to individuals. So any hope of being owner occupied is a dream. Unless the developer plans to move in.

I am not opposed to the land being developed but there is very little open land left in Provo and Orem and the river is a resource that definitely needs to be considered as well as the added traffic that will need to access either University Ave or 800 n in Orem. Both roads are extremely busy and controlled by UDOT.

I would agree with any changes that minimize traffic and preserve open space and a clean river.

I support this zone change. We need more housing, especially denser multi family housing. This would be an excellent location for that.

Although this does make me want to point out that the final plans really would need to take the river into account. There is so much hard scape In this development, is there is enough open space for it to absorb into the ground? It looks like a lot will run off into the river. Plus the space next to the river looks like grass? Which would get treated by fertilizers and herbicides. The paved area will contain tire and oil residue from cars. The river and riparian area need to be protected. But overall I support the rezoning and the project..

Support.

Too Dense; there is not enough green space within the multi-family complex. If it is true to be a multi-family versus multi-couple complex then there should be space for children to play; swap out some of the middle area with an internal park; what about dog walk or dog walk pens; replace the pool and clubhouse into the middle; no one is going to want to walk from the clubhouse down a path to the pool. Also; where is the visitor parking. I've seen too many of these types of development plans going up around Orem and Lehi; my son lived in one. No pool and no visitor parking; but they did have a playground and a small clubhouse.

I support the zone change. We need more multi-family housing in Provo.

I would support a project like this. I agree with some of the design concerns regarding this plan (such as the created reality that the front door is just in the back yard with these kinds of designs, effectively creating a more pedestrian hostile environment even as it appears to create less). But I say adjust and go for it.

I have no problem with townhomes in this location. I do have some issues with this particular design.
First the Pros:
The river park is a really cool feature and makes for a really great space for the residents.
Building their share of a trail along the river with a relatively wide green space is a plus for the whole community. Hopefully the other neighbors connect soon to make this an excellent connected pedestrian amenity.
These two uses housing and office, are the most traveled to places in our community. Having them close together will help reduce traffic. Add in the newly approved restaurants to the east of the townhomes and we have the beginnings of a real walkable area. The other offices as well as Riverwoods nearby are excellent opportunities to drive less and walk more although improvements to pedestrian facilities will make the decision to walk a more unconscious decision.

The cons:
The layout and design of the townhomes prioritizes cars over all else. It gives the impression that only automobiles will live here. At first glance I was excited to realize that every unit is a rear load townhome product. That excitement evaporated when I put on my pedestrian eyes and imagined walking through this space as a pedestrian. I came to the conclusion that overall this may be only slightly better than a frontload townhome (the worst housing product imaginable) There are no streets. Only alleyways. This means the alleyways are the streets. This hybrid design is hostile to humans not in an automobile. There is no well defined pedestrian space in the alleyways as they are all dedicated completely to automobiles. Rows of garages with expanses of ill-defined hardscape are not subconscious psychologically inviting spaces to pedestrians. The pedestrian spaces are regularly disconnected from one another by these hostile automobile spaces. This hybrid alley/street also makes for parking issues. A rear loaded townhome with a traditional street and hidden alley creates ample on-street parking. This design blocks all that ample parking because of garages and instead paves more hardscape for visitor and overflow parking.
The front doors on the perimeter buildings face the perimeter fences. These make for great pedestrian spaces...once you get there. (and hopefully you know where you are going) The juxtaposition is confusing. It's like they are a rear load townhome with the front door in the backyard. The central park area is really nice and seems to work well...once you get there. The pedestrian alleyway designs (two building fronts facing each other) are a good idea in concept, but in reality they just feel like the front doors are hiding from the pedestrians. Real world experience lacks the excitement that the concept generates on these types of "green space."
Lastly, upon further investigation the green spaces feels like it was mostly the leftover space where the engineer couldn't cram another building. The whole plan leans towards a feeling of unit cramming and the green space is the leftover space due to site constraints. It doesn't feel like the green space was planned as part of the design, but rather just the infill of what was left over. (the exception to this is the Provo river riverfront park.) I also don't feel like this level of green space is sufficient for this many units. Increased density requires increased green space. There needs to be a balance and this project just feels tipped towards more units.
Suggested Solutions:
Firstly, there needs to be connected streets and hidden alleyways. Not a hybrid. Riverwoods does this well with their rear-load product in their buildings just north of the shopping areas. The townhomes on the east side of Belmar in Lakewood, Colorado (Reed Street) are another excellent example of proper alleyway design where they cap the long alleyways with buildings thereby mostly hiding the long rows of garages. To be fair those townhomes are missing the greenspace balance as well.
Design the layout with greenspace as an equal, not the afterthought.
Think about the human experience! Once you get out of an automobile, what is the experience. Is it a vibrant experience? Or is it hostile and jarring?

NO to more development in this area. This is NOT a development serving "the people," but rather another developer looking to make money for himself and for wealthy investors who buy up multi-family housing to then RENT them out at the maximum rate. Shortage of multi-family housing in this area? Not at all ! There are townhomes and condominiums all along the north section of University Avenue (opposite RIver Woods mall), condominiums galore behind the Riverwoods mall area, and The Flats at Riverwoods, ALL of them less than 1 mile from 5544 N River Run Drive.
Furthermore, 5544 N River Run Drive abuts Ron Last Park and the River trail. When was the last time Provo City studied its green spaces? Or are green spaces in Provo limited to narrow little 25 feet stretches like the area running along the River trail? Are all green spaces and parks now for sale in Provo? The best solution would be to enlarge green spaces WITHIN Provo. The last thing Provo needs in this area is more cars, more traffic, and more parking issues.

I would much rather see this as accessible public space--near provo trail and river! If there is re-zoning, I would only be in favor of something that 1) limited space for parking, or moved it underground, and most importantly 2) restricted it to OWNER-OCCUPIED so that it is available to people who actually want to live in Provo and not just to big investors who will rent it out and make a lot of money for themselves. We don't need ANY MORE multi-family housing that isn't going to people who will buy it and LIVE IN IT.

In terms of re-zoning I don’t have an issue, though the lack of info of what the city plans are for a grocery store to offset the MDR in the area as well as not implementing crosswalks across River Park Drive on the riverside PRT, and bike lanes and parallel sidewalks down Edgewood means there will be serious issues around frequent and unnecessary car trips. Additionally, the struggle of places like this is the cookie cutter design across the project. Having multiple architects on the project to vary the designs, while more time consuming and expensive, will make for a more attractive development.

There are also several comments claiming companies will come in and buy these to rent them out. While there are likely some areas in the city where this may be happening already(single family homes would not be immune to this any more than a multi family development), I think more evidence that such companies would come into new developments like this and buy them all out is needed. Of course if this is an actual thing that is or likely will happen, the city may want to add more safeguards to protect from this behavior.