Provo City

SCAMP Update as of February 2003


Update February 2003:

The South Campus Area Master Plan remains in the form of the SCAMP Report and Recommendations document published July 2000, but has not been adopted as part of the City's General Plan.  Over a period of months in 2002, various events occurred that affected the schedule and path of the SCAMP work.

SCAMP Hearings: 

In January of 2001, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the Report and Recommendations document and forwarded a recommendation of Concept Approval to the Municipal Council, along with recommendations to address four areas, summarized below:

    1) implementation of a workable parking permit program;
    2) reclamation of appropriate areas for owner occupancy and down-zoning of areas sufficient to reverse the trend of non-owner occupancy;
    3) evaluation and trial of condominium management issues; and
    4) design of development benchmarks and triggers for public improvements to ensure that density does not occur without the intended amenities.

Public hearings were conducted by the Municipal Council in June and December of 2001 and January of 2002. Although an additional hearing was planned for April 2002, concerns with some elements of the Report and Recommendations led to some hesitancy in moving forward without additional study and consideration of the impacts of these elements.  The public hearing was delayed, pending the evaluation and implementation of steps to stabilize the most affected neighborhoods.

Staff Changes:

A change in departmental administration occurred within the Community Development Department during the early months of 2002.  With the staff primarily responsible for the work on SCAMP no longer available, the necessary transition period for new staff coming on board contributed to some delay as other departmental issues were addressed.

General Plan Update Initiated:

During 2002, a five-year update of the City's General Plan, mandated by ordinance, was initiated (completed in 2004).  The General Plan will include updated neighborhood policies. This provides an opportunity to assess specific elements of the SCAMP document in relation to affected neighborhoods and in relation to the larger community of Provo. 

General Plan Public Review: 

It is anticipated that a final decision on whether or not to move forward with SCAMP as an area-specific master plan will not occur until public review of the General Plan has occurred. The City met with neighborhood chairs and solicited input to the General Plan update during the summer and early fall months of 2002, and the chairs scheduled discussion in their own neighborhoods as recommendations were compiled.  At the time of this SCAMP update report (February 2003), staff is completing the text revisions and scheduling public meetings to review the proposed changes to the General Plan.

Rezoning and New Redevelopment Tools: 

The Municipal Council initiated several changes to slow down the transition of housing in high-density zoned areas.  These changes provide an opportunity to step back, evaluate the City's goals for new development and redevelopment, and determine an appropriate course of action to ensure that new multiple-family housing projects locate in appropriate areas, with minimal impact to neighborhoods where the conservation of lower-density family housing is appropriate. These tools included rezoning of property from higher-density residential zones (R2 through R5) to RC (Residential Conservation) and the development of a new PRO zone (Project Redevelopment Option).  In combination with each other, these tools work to ensure greater opportunities for review, study and public input to redevelopment proposals, with the intent of ensuring that new developments are accomplishing the City's goals for target areas.

What kinds of concerns are there about SCAMP?

Concerns on the part of City leaders fall primarily into two categories:

    - Potential impacts and unintended consequences of changes;
    - Ability to implement recommendations.

A primary impact-related concern relates to the recommendation to reduce the parking requirements for multiple-family housing to better facilitate high-density development. Land for surface parking is very expensive, and the cost of constructing parking structures is high.  Parking facilities use valuable land that could otherwise provide housing (meeting a housing need and producing income for land owners) and open spaces (valuable for aesthetic enhancement and to serve as gathering spaces for social activities). The recommendation for a lower parking ratio reflects the intent of the plan to focus increased opportunities for housing close to campus and to build on a pedestrian-friendly design, thereby reducing the daily dependency of students on driving. 

Many of the complaints in neighborhoods are a result of on-street parking, either by students parking in neighborhoods close to campus to attend classes or parking in neighborhoods where occupancies exceed available off-street parking for residents. City leaders are not convinced that students will be less inclined to bring their personal automobiles with them, even when living closer to campus.  At the present time, transit services for students (whether University-owned, privately owned or public) are limited. Students today are better able to afford (and are more likely to own) their own cars than in years past and seem hesitant to limit their use of personal vehicles.

A principal concern related to implementation relates to the ability to combine multiple parcels into large enough tracts that significant open spaces, such as pedestrian malls and gathering areas, can be incorporated.  Due to the cost and value of land in the area, the ability to implement these recommendations would be dependent either upon a master developer assembling sufficient land area to realize a profit while preserving large open spaces (spaces that do not generate income through housing density) or upon the creation of public-private partnerships. At present, no source of funding has been identified to foster such relationships or for public preservation and development of key parcels.

 A concern overlapping implementation and unintended consequences relates to the viability of new neighborhood-scale commercial services within a mixed-use zone and the potential for unintended negative impacts to existing retail and commercial service businesses throughout the city.

     

For additional information, please contact:

Provo City Community Development Department
Gary McGinn, Director
351 W. Center Street, Second Floor
P. O. Box 1849
Provo UT 84063
Telephone: 801-852-6400
Email