Joaquin Neighborhood - What do you think of the proposed zone change in order to build an apartment building?

I think it’s simply misguided to say that developments like this are unnecessary or unneeded. Developers don’t just pick sites arbitrarily. This neighborhood is close to transit, close to campus, and getting proposed at a time when demand is at an all time high and supply falling short. The architecture is attractive and preserves the nature of the neighborhood. We need developments like this in Provo. I see some saying that this is just one project and won’t impact prices at large. If we use that mindset to oppose all small apartment developments then Provo will slide towards San Fransisco levels of affordability. City governments should not overreach and prevent property owners from building market based solutions to the cities problems. It’s the government stepping out of the way and allowing citizens to compete in the market that makes Utah great and should be allowed in our housing as well.

Joaquin has a great forward looking plan with areas slated for increased density. This zone change does not fit the plan and will interfere with the other goals of the plan like historic preservation, organized development the follows a long range plan. The plan is well designed so that that city services, roads, trees, parks, parking and other infrastructure are not overburdened because of shortsightedness. Plus things like schools, libraries and community gardens are hurt because of sudden population shifts away from the area causing blight and more strain on things like police and fire persons.

I believe rezoning the 316 E 200 North property will be one more shock to the heart of the Provo Joaquin neighborhood. I attended the presentation by the owner of the property in question. I ask the city council to allow consistency in its urban planning and stay with the Joaquin Neighborhood plan and denying this rezoning. As I drive around south Provo, I see hundreds of apartment units in various stages of construction. More are on the way. Many more. In the thirty-three years I have lived in my home a block away from the proposed zone change, I have seen a couple of new apartment complexes appear where homes were previously. Each time, a part of the family neighborhood dies and the area starts to look like architecturally diverse but generic Orem. It is true that everyone needs housing, but it is not true that it must be a high density complex in the middle of Joaquin, where an already planned and agreed upon mix of homes and apartments keep this city neighborhood’s heart healthy. Higher density has contributed and will contribute to increased traffic security risks where there are children. The high density has proven to attract more crime as well. Neither of those are part of the Joaquin Neighborhood plan.

At the recent meeting, it was predicted by the developer that although we neighborhood residents may object to transforming the neighborhood into high density, we should know that this is going to happen soon enough and we will be powerless to stop it. I hope this view isn’t shared by the city council. I hope they look at the consistency of various neighborhoods in Provo and continue to support the integrity of all of them, including Joaquin. I support more housing in Provo, but I believe it is better to support new high density in places where it is already planned and zoned for. I believe building a single story building with four apartments to replace the ones that are on that site would continue the integrity of the neighborhood and the healthy city-approved plan of this neighborhood. Let’s not bleed the heart of Provo to death by high density. Let’s not support the requested zone change from residential conservation to high-density in the Joaquin neighborhood.

One of the things I value most about living in the Joaquin Neighborhood is the architectural diversity and history of the neighborhood. However, the structures on this property simply do not pose significant architectural and historic contributions to the neighborhood. We should not allow the general need for preservation in the area to become a blanket excuse to stop responsible developments that we are in desperate need of.

BYU is increasing enrollment and this area is in desperate need of more housing. A 3-story development with underground parking and an intriguing architectural design is exactly the way the city should be accommodating for growth in this area.
Growth is inevitable, and we do a disservice to the principle of historic preservation when we use it as a blanket excuse to enforce status- quo-ism. There are many historic and unique houses in the area that need preserving, but this is simply not one of them. Development proposals as good as this one are opportunities that the city would be irresponsible to pass up on.
I do hope the final design includes more trees.

I strongly oppose the zone change in Joaquin neighborhood.
Every developer who comes with the excuse they are only taking away one or two historic homes, one by one, there will not be any left and Provo will be filled with nothing but 3 story high-density apartment buildings. By then our history will be lost.
What makes these downtown neighborhoods so appealing is the historically significant, diverse architecture.
The homes in question are unique, and should not be torn down.
BYU has recently loosened their rules, so there is less pressure to build higher density housing so close to campus.
I agree with the person who suggested building these types of structures in East Bay, where there is still plenty of space and easy access to public transportation.

As Lee Adair and Carol Thompson have stated, the zoning laws were carefully planned and put in place to preserve historically significant tree lined streets.
Provo City Council, please, from a family that has lived within blocks of this site since 1984, do not change the zoning!

I do NOT support the requested zone change from Residential Conservation to High-Density for the property at 316 E 200 North.

After the May 26 Joaquin Neighborhood meeting, I had thought to summarize issues discussed in the meeting in comments on the proposal, but as I read again the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan (https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4447), the plan itself describes very well the issues, challenges, goals, and objectives of the neighborhood, consistent with the city’s general plan. When asked if they had read the Joaquin Plan, the property owner and development team members said they were familiar with it, and one described it as a “beautiful” plan. I suggest they read it more carefully.

I wish to amplify a few issues raised by the Denali property owner and development team.

The Provo East Central Historic District is described and depicted in the Joaquin plan (although many at the neighborhood meeting were not aware of this designation by the National Park Service). The historic district registration form (https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/AssetDetail/6500c34a-3a2e-4640-b13d-fbd291fbb5a5) provides essential information and examples of architectural design that would be far more congruent with the existing neighborhood than the Italianate design (inspired by the Florence Duomo and the Firenze Ponte Vecchio), which the property owner sees as a “monument” to her late parents.

South Joaquin does include apartment complexes renting to baching single students. Most of them were built decades ago, as South Joaquin has long included apartment housing for singles of all ages, couples, and young families as well as single-family homes. Some of those apartment buildings certainly meet the 50-year criterion for eligibility for historic status (but surely not other criteria). The reality is that most apartments in South Joaquin are occupied by families, not baching singles.

In the late 1990s single-family homes were bulldozed for boxcar and L-shaped apartment complexes in both north and south Joaquin. At 239 E 300 North, Summerlyn (a replica of Fernwood, 551 N 200 East) replaced two historic single-family homes, and neighbors now have their back yards visible to dozens of condo bedroom windows. About this time, city council members voted a 6-month moratorium on further high-density complexes while they considered land use and other issues.

In early 2000 Provo City hired consultant John Fregonese for recommendations for student housing along 700 North and adjoining blocks. The resulting South Campus Area Master Plan (with an uninspiring acronym) was never formally adopted, but current zoning and the Joaquin plan are consistent with the consultant’s recommendations. There were multiple opportunities for public input during the process. At one of those sessions Fregonese was asked his recommendations for South Joaquin. His comment did not make it into the SCAMP report (focused on the area immediately south of BYU), but he described South Joaquin as a very vibrant, viable, desirable neighborhood which should be protected from further high-density development.

Fleur-de-lis (275 N 300 East, cited as a comparable for the current proposal) must have already started the approval process during the 2000 moratorium, as Provo City allowed that development to proceed. Fleur-de-lis replaced three historic homes with a three-story boxcar building with underground parking to supplement ground-level parking behind the building. A fourth historic home on 300 North, is part of the parcel, to meet minimum landscaping requirements for the apartment building. (Tenants and guests there continue to use street parking.)

Apollo Apartments (353 E 200 North), which borders the Denali proposal on the north and east, has rented primarily if not exclusively to young marrieds and young families. The lowest of the three floors is partially below grade, with surface parking. Apollo does not seem to be a reasonable comparable to the Denali proposal.

In summary, the Denali proposal doesn’t approach congruence with the Joaquin Neighborhood Plan. Some perspectives and assertions by the development team were readily dismissed by neighborhood residents in attendance. We’ve heard those arguments before, and they bear little relation to our lived experience as homeowners in South Joaquin.

If the property owner and development team were return with a proposal that is congruent with the neighborhood plan and its historic fabric (disrupted but still valued), the neighbors may be more receptive, especially if it were targeted to young marrieds and/or small families rather than baching single students.

We and other Joaquin neighbors are greatly appreciative of attendance by several current Provo City Council members at the meeting.

Provo is in desperate need of more housing.

This is a quality design, it is close to transit, and is only three stories tall.

If developments like this don't get approved, then we can guarantee that our children and grandchildren will never be able to afford to live in Provo.

Please allow more density in this area! The transit is there, the demand is there, it is perfectly situated between the university and downtown.

To me this project seems like a great way to meet one of Provo’s goals of adding more units to lower housing costs. Additionally, I find the style of the rendering to be quite charming, and much more appealing than many of the other apartments that have gone up recently. The location is also ideal for higher density housing, as it’s close to transit corridors, biking infrastructure, and many walkable locations. To me, this looks like an ideal project for Provo.

It's a beautiful building and three stories is an appropriate height in this mixed-density neighborhood. Approve it!