Why has the city stopped overnight parking on Slate Canyon Drive?

Why are so many of the homes, twin homes, and condos occupied by more than three unrelated adults? Why are the dwellings along Slate Canyon Drive so attractive to absentee landlords and real estate investors? Why are accessory apartments allowed elsewhere in the city, but not here? What makes Slate Canyon Drive unsafe?

The answer lies in how this subdivision was originally approved. The developer bought the property after it had already been zoned for high-density housing. At the time of the rezone, the land was supposed to be a golf course surrounded by condos. Unfortunately, some short-sighted planners didn’t remove the zone after that project folded, so the new buyer had the right to build very dense housing on all the property — including on what was supposed to stay as open space.

Density, (how many homes per acre), was already determined, so the new owner was ”vested” with the right to build with an R2PD zone (Residential, 2-family, Performance Development) which allows for duplexes, twin homes, and single-family homes on 4,000 sq. ft. lots, the smallest in Provo.

At the time, Provo needed the development. The governor had mandated that every city had to build a certain percentage of higher-density, affordable housing. The # 1 demographic going without housing at that time was young married couples. The developer assured everyone that this would be family housing. The grocery store planned on South State street depended on the rooftops. The School district counted on the children from the new development when they built Spring Creek Elementary. The LDS church built a new chapel anticipating the demand from the families that were supposed to buy and live there. The buyers, the surrounding neighborhoods, and the city believed that the units would be occupied by families.

The zone normally would not allow for any increase in density, (adding even more units to the project.) But the developer was granted extra units and smaller side yard setbacks in exchange for amenities like a playground and green space and big wide sidewalks. He was allowed to build more because everyone thought that with families living there, a maximum of two drivers with two cars would occupy the homes. He got to build narrower streets, less asphalt, smaller sewer and water lines, limited access in and out of the developments, and most importantly, he was allowed to build shorter than required driveways, because there were only going to be two cars for each unit, which could park in the garage. Approval for the various phases of his project was founded on his assurances.

However, the city sought some guarantees. The HOA was supposed to enforce a prohibition on overnight parking. The local realtors association implied that they would sell to families who would be owner-occupants. The Utah County Association of Realtors (UCAR) maintained that these homes would never be attractive to rental real estate speculators because of the limited off-street parking. That was the key. Out-of-town investors would not, could not buy the homes and turn them into rentals for singles. To make extra sure, none of the homes were allowed to have second kitchens in them, since another kitchen usually meant there would be an rented apartment .

Recently, our elected representatives —the Council, and the mayor’s appointed board — the Planning Commission, have been discussing whether or not to allow citywide ADUs, (Accessory Dwelling Units.) The homes along Slate Canyon Drive were designated for NO ADUs to honor the original intent and agreement when the subdivision was approved.

The Council voted to adopt a parking regulation on Slate Canyon Drive to solve a number of problems:

• the street being unsafe due to the way it was built, with driveways backing onto a collector street, with on-street parking

• professional landlords buying up the units,

• property management companies allowing four or more tenants to reside in the units,

• investors outbidding families who want to buy the units,

• long-term residents fed up with broken promises and the decreased quality of life in their units,

• the street becoming less safe due to traffic, speed, congestion, etc., because of so many cars attached to each unit,

• the city still not reaching their affordable housing goals because we can no longer count these units,

• the tradition developing of the profiteers making money off these units breaking the law,

• large numbers of young single professionals (YSPs) seeking residency in the units,

• YSP church congregations doubling,

• membership of family church congregations dwindling,

• grade school enrollment dropping — requiring extensive bussing far away from these units,

• changes in development standards elsewhere trying to move students closer to campus and out of these units,

• air quality decreasing constantly because of all the cars from these units.

  For all these reasons, not just one, the Council wisely imposed a

  NO OVERNIGHT PARKING restriction on Slate Canyon Drive.