900 West
Note: Apologies to my readers for my month-long absence from the blog, an absence rooted in a personal matter which I may choose to explain at a later date. Suffice it to say that I have begun to wonder whether "blog" is short for "back log," and that I am pleased finally for this opportunity to account for a controversial vote I cast in August.
===============
Those who so vigilantly fought the rezoning of the Carson property in 2006 surely read with interest the Herald's report of the August 26 City Council vote to rezone. Solomon-style, the vote split the baby into three pieces, placing one each into the professional office, design commercial, and low density residential zones.
BackgroundThe controversial Carson property sits across the street from Costco on 900 West. Pristine rural land until the Meadows opened in 2004, the property has now become a highly desirable commercial opportunity. To the east of the Carson property, however, sits the Spring Hollow neighborhood, one of American Fork's quieter single-family neighborhoods, a neighborhood with a park, an LDS chapel, a walking route to Shelley Elementary School, and many, many school children.
Understanding the property's location between American Fork's hottest commercial district and one of the City's most beatific neighborhoods, readers will not need me to explain the tensions that played out when the Carson family applied to have the property rezoned from the low density residential to the commercial designation.
Position
When I campaigned for office in 2006, I fielded many questions about this parcel. I articulated a two-fold position: First, that whatever happened, the safety and serenity of the neighborhood must be protected. Second, I said I would listen to the residents who live in the area and represent their point of view.
Three proposals for the zone change
Fall 2006. Debate surrounding this proposal was easily the most heated I have ever seen. Residents packed the Council room, voicing arguments both for and against the zone change. The plan itself had many flaws which would have devastated the Spring Hollow neighborhood. It showed big-box commercial development occupying most of the property, with very little to buffer the neighborhood from commercial light and noise. Worst of all, it threatened to open 500 North onto 900 West, a situation which would have sent large volumes of Costco traffic to Shelley Elementary. The Council, acting largely out of concern for the neighborhood, voted 4-0 to deny the zone change (with one abstention).
June 2008. The 2008 plan was more favorable to the neighborhood. Plans showed a retail component to the south, with proposed office buildings to the north serving to buffer the development from homes along 700 North. The east side showed 500 North connecting in a horseshoe to 600 North, with a row of new homes built east of the new portion of road. This guaranteed that 500 West would remain closed to 900 West, and that commercial traffic would not have direct access to the neighborhood. The new homes served to buffer the existing homes from the commercial property, while residents of the new homes would purchase knowing what they were getting into.
This plan had almost everything I needed to see -- a smaller retail component, buffering to the north and east with either professional office or new homes put up against existing homes, and 500 North forever closed to 900 West.
However, two conditions prevented me from voting for this plan. First was the developer's request for the design commercial zone. This zone allows for professional offices as well as for commercial retail; however, it cannot require offices but only permits them. Under this zone, the developer could change his mind at any time and put retail right up against the homes on 700 North. I wanted the professional office zone along the north so that I could guarantee the neighbors that offices would be built there. Offices are not only good neighbors, but they are also a strong deterrent to future commercial applications above 700 North.
The second problem was my concern for the traffic on 900 West -- a corridor which has proven woefully inadequate since Costco opened. Giving 900 West additional width (in accordance with the recommendations of the Hales traffic study performed earlier this year) was the second condition for my vote. I voted with the 3-1 majority against this proposal.
August 2008. In August, the plans came back looking the same as they did in June, but this time the two problems had been fixed. The developer had granted additional width for 900 West, and a line had been drawn from east to west through the commercial portion of the project, showing the professional office zone to the north and the design commercial zone to the south.
I now felt satisfied that the neighborhood would be protected, and found myself able to vote for the zone change. The Council voted 2-2, with the mayor breaking the tie by voting in favor.
Looking back
I would strongly have preferred for this parcel to remain in the low-density residential zone. Homes built here could have been accessed through the Spring Hollow neighborhood, not from 900 West, and an attractively stamped and landscaped eight-foot concrete wall along 900 West would have adequately buffered them against commercial traffic.
Unfortunately, while this vision was shared by many of the neighbors, it was not caught by the developers. Ivory Homes dropped its contract on the land, and no other residential offers were forthcoming. As I walked the area in the early mornings, I could see why. There's an old zoning truism which states that development on one side of the street will mirror development on the other side of the street. On the Lehi side, developments surrounding Costco are primarily commercial, professional office, and high-density residential. There is no single-family residential south of AF's 700 North.
In short, commercial pressure made the property highly unstable. I came to realize that if the City Council held out for residential, the Carsons would hold out for a new council. The only way to protect the neighborhood was through compromise, and this compromise, I still feel, was the best way to protect the neighborhood from traffic, from noise and light pollution, and from the problem of commercial creep.
4 Comments:
Thank you for explaining both the history and the reasoning. It sounds like a reasonable compromise, but I'm not very familiar with the other viewpoints.
I'm glad 900 W will be widened--it's needed with the extra traffic. Does it include a signal at 700 N? Or is the hope that the new extension to 1120 N will route most of the 700 N traffic up to 1120 reducing the need for a signal at 700? Turning left from 700 N to 900 W is already getting problematic, especially during peak hours.
It seemed like a reasonable compromise to me, but it would also be fair to say there were other valid viewpoints. If you'd like to know more, send me an email and I'll put you in contact with members of the group that organized in 2006, calling themselves the Concerned Northwest Neighbors. I have never seen a lobbying campaign more thorough, well-organized, well-researched, or well-reasoned than theirs.
As for 900 West, the developer can only grant the City additional width along the property he acquires. This property stops short of 700 North.
The City is putting a bond before the voters this November asking for funds to purchase the property at the northeast corner of the 700 North/900 West intersection. This would enable the addition of turn lanes onto 700 North and 900 West.
It would not add a traffic signal. This, in my opinion, is one of the weaknesses of the bond.
The same bond, if passed, would extend 1120 North through to 900 West. It would not, however, widen 900 West between 700 North and 1120 North.
This, in my opinion, is another of the bond's weaknesses.
1120 North and 700 North, according to the City's transportation plan, are supposed to share the east-west traffic in the area, each reducing the stress on the other. Whether or not this would reduce the peak demand on 700 North -- I don't know.
Actually, the August 10, 2006, vote was 3-to-1, with you and Councilmen Storrs and Gunther voting nay, Councilman LeBaron voting aye, and Councilman Cates abstaining.
I stand corrected.
Post a Comment
<< Home