Page 16 A proposed map of future land use is identified as the collaborative effort of City staff and the “resident-led Technical Advisory Committee.”
1. Is the Advisory Committee listed at the beginning of the Northeast Neighborhoods Plan document the same as the “resident-led Technical Advisory Committee”? If not, who are the members of the “resident-led Technical Advisory Committee”?
2. Four City staff are listed at the beginning of the Northeast Neighborhoods Plan - Bill Peperone; Aaron Aardmore; Jessica Dahneke; and Mary Barnes. Were any other City staff involved in the effort to create the proposed map of future land use?
Page 18 Reference is made to RA land use identified as a light green color in Figure 3.1. There is no light green areas in Figure 3.1. Perhaps Figure 3.3 is the targeted figure?
“The areas shown in yellow on the map are proposed to be R1 or detached single-family residential.” I believe Figure 3.3 is the map and should be directly referenced.
“ADUs can help to add housing supply and density into the area while still preserving the detached single-family zoning. All ADUs must be in conjunction with an owner-occupied, single-family home.” Owner occupancy is an admirable goal for homes in which an ADU is established. Until Provo City Code Enforcement can demonstrate the ability to ensure owner occupancy and limit over occupancy in existing areas where ADU’s are permitted, the Northeast Neighborhoods should not entertain the establishment of hodge-podge located ADU homes. Demonstration of code enforcement ability should be clear about the minimum and maximum timeline to achieve compliance. In addition, code enforcement ability should show the number of complaints associated with homes with ADU’s and the resolutions achieved.
Page 28 “Requiring a park strip: Some areas along 3700 North have a park strip, and others do not. Requiring a park strip for all properties along 3700 North will create a cohesive corridor and add to the greenspace.” The properties at 242 W 3700 N, 150 W 3700 N, 124 W 3700 N, and, 3724 N 300 W do not have any ability to accommodate a park strip, and, maintain the minimum required distance between sidewalks, front doors and/or home structure. This difficulty was created when 3700 N was widened. The south side of 3700 N between Provo River and University Avenue has a park strip. The north side of 3700 N between Provo River and University Avenue has a park strip only in the latest subdivision created from vacant land and a church property that is between 500 W and 450 W. Developable property on the north side of 3700 N can be required to establish a park strip, but, the existing homes on the north side must be definitively exempted from a requirement to establish a parking strip when a home remodel building permit is requested. If the entire home is to razed and a new home raised, then, a requirement for parking strip on properties on the north side of 3700 N would be reasonable.
A few thoughts as a property owner in the unannexed northeast neighborhood. The proposed Northeast Neighborhood plan appears to be a bit shortsighted as it pertains to future land use, annexation, and trail access.
- Limiting future land use to RA or A1 limits the growth and expansion of the city. HDR is probably not the best fit but a mix of residential densities from RA to LDR strategically placed through this area would appear to better serve the needs of the city and residents.
-Inaccurately portrays the desires of property owners within the unannexed area. I have had conversations and meetings with actual property owners (neighboring properties) with total land ownership of 170+ acres in the unannexed area that feel the RA/A1 zoning is misguided. Possibly a limited effort has been given to contacting actual property owners in the unannexed area. I believe I received a letter at some point asking about desires regarding annexation. The letter did not include a return envelope, website link, or QR code for providing online feedback. I figured they must not want feedback very badly due to limited ways to respond and never responded. I assume some of my neighbors did the same.
- Provides little incentive for unannexed property owners to annex into the city. When a property owner desires to annex, they are typically (but not always) seeking a change in land use or want to do something not possible within the county. Much of the existing unannexed land in this area is agricultural. If the city's annexation plan is to only bring existing agricultural land in as agricultural but the landowner prefers something different, why would the landowner want to join the city if they received the same land use.
- Limits the diversity and equality of housing. Development in A1/RA zoning would result in properties that only those in the wealthiest demographic could afford. Mixed lower density residential zones would still result in fairly high-cost properties but may open the door to additional demographics.
- Proposed future zoning discourages development which limits additional trail access. Current legal public access to trails in this area is limited to the Indian Road Trail head (IRT) and the BST access near East Lawn cemetery, with the IRT being the primary access point with parking, etc. Both access points are great but fairly limiting due to: limited trail options, significant elevation gain, steep grades, and long distances before reaching other trail options. I served on the Utah Valley Trails association committee that assisted with the development of the Provo Foothills Trail Master Plan. Most of the current and future trails on the trail master plan are in the Kyhv Peak Road area. Development in the northeast area can provide additional legal trail access points. These access points could be at higher elevations than current access points, which will provide less elevation gain, shorter distances to additional trails in the Kyhv Peak Road Area, as well as the possibility for additional trails that would accommodate a wider demographic. These opportunities are much easier obtained by additional development in the Northeast area.
- Some of the maps included in the plan are small and somewhat difficult to determine where boundaries lie as it relates to specific parcels and areas. They also appear to be somewhat inaccurate and misleading as they pertain to developable land within the unannexed area. There is considerable development land some that presents difficulties while some that doesn’t, but it all seems to be lumped together. This can lead to confusion and misunderstanding.
Thank you