9600 North, Highland
Highland City is updating its general plan, including the transportation element thereof.
One feature of the update is the widening of 9600 North from a 66-foot, two-lane residential collector to a 74-foot, three-lane major collector. Reasons cited include the lack of other east-west collectors in Highland (other than 11000 North) and the desire for access to destinations such as The Meadows in American Fork.
9600 North now connects American Fork's 100 East and 900 West, though the road itself sits almost entirely within the Highland City limits and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Highland City government.
But 9600 North also forms the boundary with American Fork City and its impact will be felt by American Fork residents who live in the Hillcrest neighborhood. The road is also proposed for extension eastward to Highland's 4800 West. The most direct alignment would take it through the Fox Hollow Golf Course (formerly the Tri-Cities Golf Course) and well within American Fork's city limits.
For this to happen, American Fork would have to give its consent. In this scenario, the connector would forge an irresistible link between the City of Cedar Hills and The Meadows, and 9600 North would become a road of regional significance.
Enter the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). Highland City reports that the mayors of Lehi, American Fork, and Pleasant Grove (the three cities of the Tri-City Golf Course) did agree, last January, to allow MAG to include just such a connector in a regional transportation study. Reportedly, MAG has already mapped the connector on a regional transportation plan, calling for completion by 2015 and attaching a budget of $38.3 million (though funding is not in place).
Understandably, local residents are concerned. Some are concerned that such a road, necessary to accommodate rapid growth in the area, is long overdue. Others -- many of whom live in the corridor between AF's 100 East and 900 West -- are concerned about impacts the connector might have on their quiet, residential neighborhood, or about the threat it would pose to wildlife in the Fox Hollow Golf Course.
MAG's Sean Sager (as quoted by Alan Choate in the Daily Herald) says that concerns "usually dissipate when people learn that plans call for a two-lane road and that there's a wider study going on."
My experience would suggest the opposite. My inbox has been deluged with queries and position statements from residents.
I wish I had time to answer each email in detail. But alas, I am subject to time's mortal bounds and must resort to a single response, which I am posting here for all to see.
I will do my best to answer all the questions that have been put to me, but please understand that some answers are impossible to provide, as events are still unfolding.
Q. Is it true that 9600 North will become a five-lane road, with speed limits of 50 mph?
A. No. As discussed above, Highland wants to put a three-lane collector on the portion between American Fork's 100 East and 900 West (the middle lane is a turn lane), and MAG is talking about a two-lane job to Cedar Hills.
Q. Is it true that homes along 9600 North will be condemned for the widening?
A. I would be very surprised if this were the case. While I cannot speak for Highland City, I can say that American Fork's planning philosophy would be highly unlikely to call for the condemnation of the properties it services along 9600 North. For one thing, it's not necessary -- we're only talking about expansions of a few feet. For another, it's prohibitively expensive. Keep in mind that condemnation, otherwise known as eminent domain, requires that the City pay full market value for the property in question. In the words of our City planner Rod Despain, "We would have to be convinced that there were no other way to do it. There would be too much cost for too little value."
Q. Can Highland City condemn houses in American Fork without American Fork's consent?
A. No. Neither can it condemn houses in American Fork with American Fork's consent. Just as American Fork cannot vote on Highland City affairs, neither can Highland act for American Fork City.
Q. Is it true that American Fork supports this road because the City cut a deal with Meadows developers, promising the developers better access to the Meadows and receiving increased tax revenues in return?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that American Fork cut a deal with Highland such that American Fork would support the road in exchange for Highland City water rights?
A. No.
Q. Why can't Highland remember that it's a bedroom community?
A. It's true that Highland limits its commercial development, choosing instead to be a residential community. This philosophy is described in detail in the City's general plan. The City's general plan, however, does not prohibit property owners from selling and subdividing their land; nor does it place any limitations on family size; nor does it make any effort to make the community a less desirable place to live. So we shouldn't be surprised -- and residents at the August 22 hearing attested to this -- that increasing numbers of Highland's children are returning to Highland to raise their own children.
These same children will grow up and drive and shop at the Meadows -- they will have to, because Highland refuses most commercial development. The inevitable result is that, in order to accommodate its own growth, Highland will need bigger and better roads to American Fork.
Short of imposing Malthusian population controls, I don't see any way around this.
Q. Why aren't American Fork City officials listening to me and fighting this battle for me?
A. I'm listening. So is Councilmember Shirl LeBaron, who lives in the Hillcrest area and spoke out at the August 22 public hearing in Highland. Councilmembers Sherry Kramer and Dale Gunther are also listening and responding to the dozens of emails they're getting. Three of our City Council attended the August 22 hearing on the subject at Legacy Elementary. And Mayor Thompson, at last Tuesday's City Council meeting, allowed residents to speak well past their two-minute time limits, extending the twenty-minute public comment period to more than an hour. Few mayors have shown such patience.
But there's one thing we won't do, and that's vote on a Highland City general plan. Law forbids us.
As to the MAG study, to which Mayor Thompson consented, it's important to remember that this is only a study. Given the rapid growth of our area, American Fork would be foolish not to allow such a study. But the study will be purely advisory. Unless UDOT takes over, then no adoption or action or funding can take place without the ratifying vote of the City Council, and American Fork's City Council will never vote without first considering public input. Law forbids us.
Q. What is your position, Heidi Rodeback, on 9600 North as a major collector?
A. Residents will be disappointed to learn that I take no position on 9600 North, though I do have opinions.
On the question of widening the existing portion of 9600 North to 3 lanes, I can take no position because I have no vote. This is a Highland City issue. Widening 9600 North to add a turn lane will make the road look like American Fork's Pacific Drive. Clearly, this will impact the surrounding residents, including those living in American Fork's Hillcrest neighborhood. But the only thing I can do for this situation is to encourage concerned residents to join forces with their Highland neighbors and make their concerns known to the Highland City Council.
Nevertheless, I do have an opinion. My opinion is that the Hillcrest area is one of our City's most beautiful, most established neighborhoods, and I will do whatever I can to protect the quality of life in this neighborhood.
On the question of extending the collector to Cedar Hills, I can take no position until the study is complete. To close my mind before the facts are known would be to perform a disservice to the residents of American Fork. It is a part of my sworn duty to listen openly to all parties and to be sure all relevant facts have been brought to light before casting an informed vote.
Nevertheless, I do have an opinion. At present, I am not convinced of the need for major connectivity from Cedar Hills to American Fork across the Fox Hollow area, and I do not feel that the value of connectivity is worth jeopardizing the natural beauty of the hollow.
To all appearances, Cedar Hills was built as a suburb of Pleasant Grove; thus its traffic flows in that direction. If Pleasant Grove continues its plans for economic development, it will eventually be able to service more of Cedar Hills' shopping needs. In the meantime, I suspect Cedar Hills residents are content living off the beaten track. I suspect that's the very reason they chose to live there.
Highland, on the other hand, is a suburb of American Fork. Its traffic flows in our direction. It makes more sense to me to upgrade the north-south collectors such as Highland's 6800 West (American Fork's 900 West) and Highland's 7200 West (Lehi's 1200 East).
Nevertheless, I cannot deny the effects of growth. So I'll listen if MAG's engineers want to tell me that creating an east-west connector at 9600 North is necessary to prevent gridlock. Especially if they tell me that they can build without disrupting the natural beauty of the hollow. And I'll listen to the cities involved if they will commit to mitigate the impact to surrounding neighborhoods -- whether through speed limits, speed bumps, walking trails, mass transit, or multiple collectors.
I'll listen. THEN I'll decide.
One feature of the update is the widening of 9600 North from a 66-foot, two-lane residential collector to a 74-foot, three-lane major collector. Reasons cited include the lack of other east-west collectors in Highland (other than 11000 North) and the desire for access to destinations such as The Meadows in American Fork.
9600 North now connects American Fork's 100 East and 900 West, though the road itself sits almost entirely within the Highland City limits and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Highland City government.
But 9600 North also forms the boundary with American Fork City and its impact will be felt by American Fork residents who live in the Hillcrest neighborhood. The road is also proposed for extension eastward to Highland's 4800 West. The most direct alignment would take it through the Fox Hollow Golf Course (formerly the Tri-Cities Golf Course) and well within American Fork's city limits.
For this to happen, American Fork would have to give its consent. In this scenario, the connector would forge an irresistible link between the City of Cedar Hills and The Meadows, and 9600 North would become a road of regional significance.
Enter the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). Highland City reports that the mayors of Lehi, American Fork, and Pleasant Grove (the three cities of the Tri-City Golf Course) did agree, last January, to allow MAG to include just such a connector in a regional transportation study. Reportedly, MAG has already mapped the connector on a regional transportation plan, calling for completion by 2015 and attaching a budget of $38.3 million (though funding is not in place).
Understandably, local residents are concerned. Some are concerned that such a road, necessary to accommodate rapid growth in the area, is long overdue. Others -- many of whom live in the corridor between AF's 100 East and 900 West -- are concerned about impacts the connector might have on their quiet, residential neighborhood, or about the threat it would pose to wildlife in the Fox Hollow Golf Course.
MAG's Sean Sager (as quoted by Alan Choate in the Daily Herald) says that concerns "usually dissipate when people learn that plans call for a two-lane road and that there's a wider study going on."
My experience would suggest the opposite. My inbox has been deluged with queries and position statements from residents.
I wish I had time to answer each email in detail. But alas, I am subject to time's mortal bounds and must resort to a single response, which I am posting here for all to see.
I will do my best to answer all the questions that have been put to me, but please understand that some answers are impossible to provide, as events are still unfolding.
Q. Is it true that 9600 North will become a five-lane road, with speed limits of 50 mph?
A. No. As discussed above, Highland wants to put a three-lane collector on the portion between American Fork's 100 East and 900 West (the middle lane is a turn lane), and MAG is talking about a two-lane job to Cedar Hills.
Q. Is it true that homes along 9600 North will be condemned for the widening?
A. I would be very surprised if this were the case. While I cannot speak for Highland City, I can say that American Fork's planning philosophy would be highly unlikely to call for the condemnation of the properties it services along 9600 North. For one thing, it's not necessary -- we're only talking about expansions of a few feet. For another, it's prohibitively expensive. Keep in mind that condemnation, otherwise known as eminent domain, requires that the City pay full market value for the property in question. In the words of our City planner Rod Despain, "We would have to be convinced that there were no other way to do it. There would be too much cost for too little value."
Q. Can Highland City condemn houses in American Fork without American Fork's consent?
A. No. Neither can it condemn houses in American Fork with American Fork's consent. Just as American Fork cannot vote on Highland City affairs, neither can Highland act for American Fork City.
Q. Is it true that American Fork supports this road because the City cut a deal with Meadows developers, promising the developers better access to the Meadows and receiving increased tax revenues in return?
A. No.
Q. Is it true that American Fork cut a deal with Highland such that American Fork would support the road in exchange for Highland City water rights?
A. No.
Q. Why can't Highland remember that it's a bedroom community?
A. It's true that Highland limits its commercial development, choosing instead to be a residential community. This philosophy is described in detail in the City's general plan. The City's general plan, however, does not prohibit property owners from selling and subdividing their land; nor does it place any limitations on family size; nor does it make any effort to make the community a less desirable place to live. So we shouldn't be surprised -- and residents at the August 22 hearing attested to this -- that increasing numbers of Highland's children are returning to Highland to raise their own children.
These same children will grow up and drive and shop at the Meadows -- they will have to, because Highland refuses most commercial development. The inevitable result is that, in order to accommodate its own growth, Highland will need bigger and better roads to American Fork.
Short of imposing Malthusian population controls, I don't see any way around this.
Q. Why aren't American Fork City officials listening to me and fighting this battle for me?
A. I'm listening. So is Councilmember Shirl LeBaron, who lives in the Hillcrest area and spoke out at the August 22 public hearing in Highland. Councilmembers Sherry Kramer and Dale Gunther are also listening and responding to the dozens of emails they're getting. Three of our City Council attended the August 22 hearing on the subject at Legacy Elementary. And Mayor Thompson, at last Tuesday's City Council meeting, allowed residents to speak well past their two-minute time limits, extending the twenty-minute public comment period to more than an hour. Few mayors have shown such patience.
But there's one thing we won't do, and that's vote on a Highland City general plan. Law forbids us.
As to the MAG study, to which Mayor Thompson consented, it's important to remember that this is only a study. Given the rapid growth of our area, American Fork would be foolish not to allow such a study. But the study will be purely advisory. Unless UDOT takes over, then no adoption or action or funding can take place without the ratifying vote of the City Council, and American Fork's City Council will never vote without first considering public input. Law forbids us.
Q. What is your position, Heidi Rodeback, on 9600 North as a major collector?
A. Residents will be disappointed to learn that I take no position on 9600 North, though I do have opinions.
On the question of widening the existing portion of 9600 North to 3 lanes, I can take no position because I have no vote. This is a Highland City issue. Widening 9600 North to add a turn lane will make the road look like American Fork's Pacific Drive. Clearly, this will impact the surrounding residents, including those living in American Fork's Hillcrest neighborhood. But the only thing I can do for this situation is to encourage concerned residents to join forces with their Highland neighbors and make their concerns known to the Highland City Council.
Nevertheless, I do have an opinion. My opinion is that the Hillcrest area is one of our City's most beautiful, most established neighborhoods, and I will do whatever I can to protect the quality of life in this neighborhood.
On the question of extending the collector to Cedar Hills, I can take no position until the study is complete. To close my mind before the facts are known would be to perform a disservice to the residents of American Fork. It is a part of my sworn duty to listen openly to all parties and to be sure all relevant facts have been brought to light before casting an informed vote.
Nevertheless, I do have an opinion. At present, I am not convinced of the need for major connectivity from Cedar Hills to American Fork across the Fox Hollow area, and I do not feel that the value of connectivity is worth jeopardizing the natural beauty of the hollow.
To all appearances, Cedar Hills was built as a suburb of Pleasant Grove; thus its traffic flows in that direction. If Pleasant Grove continues its plans for economic development, it will eventually be able to service more of Cedar Hills' shopping needs. In the meantime, I suspect Cedar Hills residents are content living off the beaten track. I suspect that's the very reason they chose to live there.
Highland, on the other hand, is a suburb of American Fork. Its traffic flows in our direction. It makes more sense to me to upgrade the north-south collectors such as Highland's 6800 West (American Fork's 900 West) and Highland's 7200 West (Lehi's 1200 East).
Nevertheless, I cannot deny the effects of growth. So I'll listen if MAG's engineers want to tell me that creating an east-west connector at 9600 North is necessary to prevent gridlock. Especially if they tell me that they can build without disrupting the natural beauty of the hollow. And I'll listen to the cities involved if they will commit to mitigate the impact to surrounding neighborhoods -- whether through speed limits, speed bumps, walking trails, mass transit, or multiple collectors.
I'll listen. THEN I'll decide.
posted by Heidi Rodeback at 3:25 PM
6 Comments:
August 28, 2007
Dear Ms. Rodeback,
I read your BLOG comments on the 9600 N.proposal. Thank you for providing some much needed clarification on 9600 N. issue. I have been trying to get such clarification out of Highland City leaders since I found out about the 9600 N. proposal. on or about Aug. 4, 2007.
In your BLOG, Q&A section, 1, you address the five lane 50 mph issue. I do not agree with your answer. In Highland Ciy’s General Plan Update, 9600 N. is listed as a (3-lane major collector), please see Highland City’s General Plan Update, see page 3-19, and Figure 3-12 on page 3-15.
Figure 3-12 indicates five distinct lanes for this three lane major collector. Tooele County describes a collector, as follows:
45 mph limit
ROW – 80 feet
While Highland City did not specifically indicate the speed limited on their proposed 9600 major collector, I would assume that speeds would be at least 45 mph or greater. I will check on Utah County's definition of a major collector road and let you know.
Please look again at Highland City’s General Plan Update, page 3-14, 3-15, and 3-19 and if you agree, please correct the Q&A, 1st question section of your BLOG.
Thanks again for your information.
Elizabeth Neibaur
Thanks for the questions. Engineering schematics can be difficult to follow. I hope this will help to clarify.
Highland is proposing a three-lane major collector, as stated in the excerpt you cite on page 3-19:
9600 North (3-Lane Major Collector) provides important east/west access on
the south side of Highland City and is intended to serve as the primary corridor to
destinations such as The Meadows commercial development in American Fork.
East of Alpine Highway, it provides a much-needed connection to 4800 West. An
issue of concern to Highland City residents is that south of 11000 North, there are
no east-west streets connecting these two major roads. This greatly inhibits east/west
movement in this region. A link between these two roads is needed, as the
only other connection other than 11000 North is several miles south in American
Fork. Highland City plans for 74 feet of right-of-way, the standard cross-section
for a 3-lane major collector street.
Figure 3-12 on page 3-15 describes the cross section at the intersection, where shoulders are replaced by turn lanes. This design feature makes good sense, because parking is not allowed at an intersection. Nothing has been added to the width of the road; the total stays the same at 74 feet.
If you back up one page to figure 3-11 on page 3-14, you will see that the cross section between intersections shows three lanes and two shoulders.
It’s important not to confuse Highland’s standards with Tooele’s. Tooele’s engineering standards have no bearing in Highland. Neither do American Fork’s, which is why, when you and your neighbors came to American Fork’s City Council meeting, we were unable to answer questions about Highland road widths, not having access at that location to the Highland City general plan.
For this reason, further questions as to Highland City design standards or speed limits are best directed to the Highland City government.
Correction.
I stated in the post that the most direct alignment of the link to Cedar Hills would take 9600 North through the golf course.
Mayor Thompson told me last night that he understands the proposed alignment to run immediately north of the golf course, just skirting its perimeter.
I agree that 900 West needs major attention. At busy times of the day, turning from 700 N is a real mess.
I had another question. A few years ago the city was very interested in buying the Bingham property and connecting 700 N down the hill from 100 E to 200 East, but nothing happened. Is the city still pursuing that?
Punching 700 North through to 100 East is still shown on the transportation element of the general plan, but the issue is dormant. There's not enough demand on the road for this connection to rank high on the priority list, and the Binghams appear to have no interest in selling or developing their property.
The future is difficult to predict.
At some point in the indeterminate future, demand on 700 North could increase to the point where the City would need to purchase this land for the connection.
Or the Binghams may choose to develop their property, in which case the City would require footage for roadway as a condition of development. The City would then finance construction through impact fees.
But nothing, repeat, nothing is in the works at this time.
Heidi,
I am so concerned that the attention on 9600 North has now shifted to 1120 North in American Fork. I have some specific thoughts about that:
1) We are a very residential section of American Fork. I don't want our area to become an Orem -- where major connectors criss-cross and divide our community. Major roads bring crime, pollution and pedestrian danger to our neighborhoods. Making 1120 North a major east/west connector will only hurt our citizens (citizens that chose their homes based on the quiet, slow traffic that already exists).
2) I think American Fork should NOT have to find the transportation solutions for Highland & Cedar Hills. We are primarily obligated to ourselves and our people. Highland should find their own routes through their own city.
3) An 1120 N. collector would have very little benefit for the people of American Fork. It is the northern most section of the city. Most of our citizens live south of 1120 N. So, the majority of our residents would not even use this road for shopping (why would they go north only to head south again?). Again, we would mainly be benefiting Highland and Cedar Hills. I don't think we have an obligation or responsibility to solve their traffic problems. I think you do, however, have an obligation to consider your own citizens first!
4) This is huge moment to decide what kind of a community that we will have in the future. Most citizens have chosen to live here because it's a wonderful city! We like the slow traffic. We like the residential sections of our town. We like the feel of our city. It does take a few extra minutes to get to the stores -- but that's okay! I think most citizens are willing to spend an few extra minutes every day to keep our residential sections free from major roads. It's nice that roads don't always connect here -- it keeps speed limits down. It keeps the feel of American Fork. I'm not suggesting that we resist progress -- but I am suggesting that we choose to control progress on our own terms.
5) In the recent AF city poll, citizens expressed a concern about traffic. I, too, am concerned about traffic -- but not the traffic right here in our city. I'm concerned mostly about I-15 and the constant backups that are occurring there. I think if citizens were asked again, most would say that their concerns, as well, were with I-15 -- NOT as much with traffic in our own neighborhoods.
6) I heard a statistic (not sure this is correct) that 3000 people use 1120 North everyday. Since I live right near 1120 north, I can tell you that we do NOT have that kind of traffic here. Do those numbers come primarily from those going to and returning from the Junior High? If so, that would artificially inflate those numbers (and prematurely suggest that we need 1120 N. improved as a collector now).
7) You may not have a vote on 9600 North -- but you do have a vote on 1120 North. I understand the need for a water line between 1120 North and 900 West. I'm not against that. I would encourage you, however, to explore other options for accessing water. Putting 1120 N. through to the west will likely bring Highland traffic onto our road anyway. I can see Highland residents choosing an improved road with a light/turn-lane over travel on their own semi-improved 9600 N. If we could delay connecting 1120 N. to 900 W. until Highland improves it's own roads, we might detour some potential traffic volume and habits.
8) I did not realize that pushing 1120 N. through to the east (all the way to the temple) is in fact in the master plan. I especially urge you to do everything you can to stop any eastern extensions or widening of 1120 North. We don't need a full east-west collector there. (Highland may think that they do -- but they can solve that problem for themselves).
I would encourage you to change the current master plan to eliminate this east extension. Not only will it channel Highland/Cedar Hill's traffic through AF's neighborhoods, but it will scar one of the nicest parks/areas that we already have (Art Dye).
This all feels wrong to me. I was very careful when we bought our home to research the master transportation plan for our area. I knew exactly what was intended for 1120 north in my area. What you choose to do now will affect my quality of life and my property values and my city! I object to 1120 N. being THE road of "major regional significance" (and channeling all of Highland's/Cedar Hill's traffic). Please leave it as is and don't extend it!
Thank you,
Wendy Hickman
Post a Comment
<< Home