Happy Thursday South Weber!
I wanted to take a moment and address the vote the council had before us on Tuesday evening regarding the rezone request for the development on the property west of Highmark Charter School. It was my intention at the time of the vote to give numerous reasons for my “no” vote, but when the time came I only mentioned one. Here are my other reasons as well:
•I have serious concerns about the traffic/congestion of this development in an area where we already have a great deal of traffic. 2100 E continues to have increased traffic and close calls at that intersection. While a traffic study will be required when a concept plan is going under approvals, it will only tell us if the road can physically handle the traffic (which it can) but won’t clearly relay information about how that traffic will impact residents. In short, it is something we will have to work with, rather than prevent.
•While the concept plan presented isn’t tied to the development and will still need to go through the approval process and it is likely some changes will be made, it concerned me to have 2 story townhomes looking directly into the playing/recess field of Highmark. A lower density on this project would’ve meant a greater buffer distance between this field and a higher likelihood of single level homes, where one wouldn’t be able to see into the playing field from an upstairs room, which I find unsettling.
•This parcel of 10 acres was slated to be all commercial. I do agree that it would be difficult for South Weber to fulfill that much commercial and I will admit I was in favor of lowering the percentage of commercial **if** it lowered the overall density of this development. The acreage of commercial went down, but the residential portion still requested the highest amount of density available to them on the majority of the parcel. What the final proposal ended up being is residential with some commercial, instead of commercial with some residential. Had the residential portion been on less acreage or a lower zoning density, I would’ve been more open to the plan.
•I have concerns approving this development will set a precedent for other properties that have cross hatchmarks. What is stop them from presenting to us 20% commercial in exchange for 80% HDH residential on a property we are hoping to have as mostly commercial? Nothing. When we have done it for one property, it will be difficult to argue no to another property.
•And finally, for the reasons I stated at this meeting, I do feel this went against the feedback we received on our General Plan. The general plan is shaped by the feedback of the residents - it is their right and privilege to weigh in on how their future city will be developed. It was abundantly clear that majority of the city did not favor adding anymore multi-family zoning other than what was already built or zoned. I understand that sometimes in city matters, compromising is key. However, in my opinion this didn’t compromise enough when they chose the highest zone they had available to them on 80% of the property. A patio home zone, which would’ve been closer to 40 homes instead of 62 would’ve been far more enticing to me to work with.
This rezone request passed 3-2. As the approval process begins, I promise to ensure all aspects of our code have been met and will address some of these concerns at that time as a plea to the developer to consider. Sometimes developers are willing to work with a project even though they have a right to do more. Thank you for being involved. Difficult decisions aren’t easy to make, but I appreciate hearing from my constituents how they feel and helps me know how best to represent them.
If you desire, below is the meeting. Every council member weighed in on why they voted the way they did in case you would like to hear it straight from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment