X Development Concept

To me there are a few issues.

1. Lot size and rezoning - Why do we have a plan if we are going to grant exceptions to all development? This is like the saying "death by a thousand paper cuts" type mentality. Maybe changing the zoning of this development isn't that critical to Lehi as a whole but it is indicative of a larger issue. We have a plan and unless there are really good reasons (besides making the developers more money) we should adhere to the plan. This development especially as a PUD doesn't make sense, and clashes with the current housing that is in that area. Residents in this area purchased homes with the understanding of the zoning in the area. To change the zoning to benefit the developer but negatively affect the current homeowners (house value, increase in traffic, noise, etc..) over what should be built based upon current code is wrong. Current and future residents need to be the focus of the city not catering to the whims and helping developers make their investments feasible/economical. If the way it is currently zoned doesn't work for the developer, that is not the problem of the city. They knew what it was zoned before buying it.
Last meeting the city council voted unanimously to not allow zone changes to this property. The newest iteration looks better as far as the reduction of the number of properties but they are still trying to maximize their profits by asking for zone changes that are closer to the current zoning but still increases their profits. Green Park has ~100 units and adding 66 more units that don't jive with the current plan and existing homes seems counter intuitive.
2. Traffic - Have traffic studies been done on this new development? How are these homes going to exit onto 2300 W during high traffic times? How about turning left onto 2300 W? How many accidents have we had on 1500 N and 2300 W and 2100 N and 2300 W? What impact will this? What about the traffic caused by the new commercial property? Will they be going through the neighborhoods to avoid issues with getting out onto 2300 W? Will the increase in traffic put kids walking/biking/riding to school more at risk? There are a whole bunch of similar questions like this and increasing the risks just so a developer that will be leaving Lehi city and it's residents with a mess doesn't seem to be in the best interest of Lehi City nor it's residents.


3. PUDs, green space, and trails - The whole "trail" is a load of garbage. They are throwing it in there just to get a "bonus" for more homes. The trail makes absolutely no sense. Go and look at the plan. They are going to be running this trail that "meanders" next to where sidewalks should go and because of this trail they will get to increase the density of homes? Whatever happened to common sense? This trail goes from 2100 N. to basically 1750 N. and then what? You need to hop on the sidewalk. It's a trail to no-where and only a trail in name. As to the green space, if current zoning is followed throughout Lehi, there would be enough green space and maybe even look at areas that aren't developed to rezone/purchase/ or set aside more for green spaces. Once it is developed it will be gone for good and now is the time to make these decisions before Lehi can't undo them.

Growth and congestion are some of the biggest issues residents have with Lehi and changing zoning is a sure fire way to add to these issues. The more homes we keep adding to the master plan will further stress our infrastructure. We are currently in a drought and live in the 2nd driest state in the US, adding more people is not a way to reduce the usage of these resources.

Lot sizes: There are sometimes just too many exceptions to the rules. A PUD gives exceptions to the zoning laws and within that PUD - there are requirements - but you can get bonus densities! When you do it in one subdivision - how do you deny doing it in another? I do find that these lot sizes are somewhat consistent with the other subdivision corners of Cranberry Farms and Cranberry Ridge. What I do not find in the other corner subdivisions are small private drives or any multi-family housing. Cranberry Ridge is a PUD also - but I am very interested to see specifically at what discretion of the planning commission and council they feel "warrants" a PUD here in this subdivision. I know that the way the development is laid out requires it to be a PUD - but why should it be? When is the zoning and land designation required to just be met? Period. What do we gain as the development, community and city to warrant this PUD - does it benefit enough to justify doing a PUD, giving lower lot sizes than the minimum 8000 sq ft. If we do PUD's often - then why do we have land designations and zoning? How small can we go in a PUD? At what point are we doing lots that resemble what is being done at Holbrook Farms - but telling ourselves it's still LDR - because there are only 63 lots! Low density to me, doesn't just mean a number. The acre of open space - is it something that will really benefit the neighbors right across from a commercial pad and the one road access out? This has a lot of units under the zoning minimum size without the PUD. Currently as shown - there are 48 of the 66 shown that are below 8000 sq foot lots. Changing the LDR designation was unanimously voted down last fall by the council and keeping it LDR - should not just be about keep the lot numbers down. It was also meant to keep things similar to the existing, connected neighborhood. It was also keep consistency with the other corners, but I want to add that the other corners did not need to connect to existing neighborhoods of larger lot sizes. I am not for giving any bonus density lots to this subdivision. I also do not believe the "trail" through it to 2100 N is a benefit and fits with this corner's subdivisions. I have seen asphalt sidewalks that look terrible later as they crack and weeds come through. I would rather see 63 lots with normal roads, without the open space, than squeezing any multi family in there for a pocket park and an asphalt sidewalk to 2100 N. I also feel that if 63 lots don't fit in there - then they don't fit. 63 lots is the maximum allowed. Nothing in zoning says that the maximum amount allowed is what is required to be given to a developer, no matter the circumstances.

Traffic and Access Point:
There is only one street access point out to 2300 west from this new development. It is north of the elementary school access points and very close to the intersection, which can back up. In last year's conceptual plan - there were 3 access points. There are roughly 25 less lots and now only 1 access point. I would propose that an access point still be given across from the south elementary school driveway access as shown in the last conceptual plan from the general plan amendment request last fall. This would help to alleviate the traffic wanting to turn left onto 2300 W, giving them one more way to go down and turn R (or left into the median area), and a better route to enter the elementary school access. An access onto 2100 N does nothing to alleviate traffic wanting to gain access to 2300 W - especially going south on that road - or trying to get over to the elementary school.

Commercial - I also still feel that commercial on this corner is going to struggle and it is not a hot spot. It is a large, fast, pass through road and this spot is not a good access spot. You are ensuring that commercial traffice will be exiting into this neighborhood. I sited to you before about the intersection of 12600 south and 1300 W - which is very similar to our intersection dynamics and the corners have struggled to keep businesses in the small parkstrip on the north east corner and also the south east corner has had multiple tenants in what was once a gas station. I would prefer to just see the commercial go away and just home's here, by the elementary school. Definitely not an increase of the commercial.