Click this link to optimize Open City Hall for screen readers Skip to Content
Open City Hall

Lakewood Neighborhood - What do you think about the proposed zone change for Osprey Townhomes?

Sort by:

27 registered statements

I like the proposed development. If I could change one thing it would be to add another entrance/exit. The lot in front of 570 W is vacant and coming up for sale. So it could be an option. Even if it wasn't an option I would still approve of the development. Can this please be single family homes instead? 210 units for this parcel will likely become a high-turnover neighborhood with 500-700 residents at any given time, and this will significantly burden the infrastructure as well as the existing neighborhood community. I live on 1820 South directly next to this lot where these townhomes will be. 210 units (which will add a ballpark of 600 people or more in such a small space) with only 2 access roads... that is not enough, and there will be constant traffic in front of the houses on 1820 South unless there is another access road. While the access off 500 West just north of Lakeview Parkway will be great, I chose my home location specifically to avoid feeling like I live on a collector street (where there are no stop signs or speed bumps, and cars often drive 35-45mph) and I’m very upset at the idea of the traffic on 1820 South or 730 West being burdened by this addition. I suggest getting approval for an access road directly off of Lakeview Parkway (at perhaps 700 West, not a straight shot from 730W making it feel like a collector street) to accommodate the 300-450 cars that will enter and exit this subdivision every single day. 1820 South and 730 West should also have speed bumps installed where it will connect with this new subdivision to prevent them becoming a collector street like 1560 South, as well as at least one additional stop sign or speed bump at the 620 West and 1720 South intersections to preserve the quiet peace of this street if it will be connected to the new subdivision. I think this subdivision needs a entrance from Lakeview parkway. I do not like that one of the two ways to get in to the townhomes is through a neighborhood street. I live on that road and I do not like the idea of a lot more cars making my road busy. I moved to this neighborhood to get away from busy streets so my kids can play safely outside. I think making a way for cars to get in from Lakeview parkway since it is already a main road is a good idea. I live north of the berm that will be the south boundary of the new town home subdivision. Just like our current division of Osprey Point, there are three main roads coming into our development off 5th West. I believe the town home project should have access off 5th West, 1100 West and an additional entrance from Lakeview Parkway, allowing the new subdivision to have unlimited access to the main streets in the area. If they are only allowed access through Osprey Point, it will burden the streets too heavily and make for unsafe walking, bike riding, kids on skateboards, etc. Thank you for considering adding additional streets to the new development. I am very concerned that there is insufficient vehicle access for the proposed population of the development. The entrance on 500 West is on a sloping curve with limited visibility. 300 cars trying to exit the property each morning through that one bottleneck will be a nightmare. The residents' other option will be to exit via 730 West. That will send them into a quiet residential neighborhood where small children play in open front yards. 730 is NOT designed to support morning and afternoon rush hour traffic. There will need to be stop signs, perhaps speed reduction pads, etc. The only reasonable alternative is to find a way to let people enter and exit via Lakeview Parkway somehow. That gets people into the traffic flow without turning a residential neighborhood into an on-ramp. Given the access limitations, I believe the zoning should be single family residential, similar to the adjacent Osprey Point subdivision to the north. The developer should still be able to realize a tidy profit and the development would impose less of a burden on infrastructure. Access is not the only problem in that area. Sewer, schools and other infrastructure elements are at or above capacity. I am not in favor of this high density townhomes project. I live in Osprey Point and the layout seems like the builder is trying to stack as many people into this area as possible. Why can't this be a continuation of the Osprey Point single family homes or at least reduce the density of this subdivision to duplexes? I would prefer this property stay agricultural land. I think this proposed design will greatly lower the property values in Osprey Point and make it a less desirable location...especially with the significant addition of traffic through our peaceful neighborhood. We have already seen increased traffic on 1560 S and 500 W. It seems like there would be a way to safely create a right-turn only exit to the south or southwest portion of this subdivision onto Lakeview Parkway. The proposed plan does not have enough visitor parking or green space. If one looks at the big picture with all of the other surrounding housing, this kind of housing seems out of place. I think the builder will be much more successful putting in custom homes on 1/4 acre lots that are $500K+. Also, isn't this land in a floodplain? How will that issue be addressed with townhomes? What are the proposed values of these townhomes? I would like to see a lot more research and discussion regarding this decision. I don't necessarily disagree with the townhomes being built, however I do disagree with changing the existing roads to accommodate them. I currently live on 730 W, and there is talk of opening up 730 W to the parkway, which I WILL fight. I moved to 730 W from 500 W, which was a terrible road to live on after they extended it out to Lakeview Parkway. I refuse to once again see the road I've bought a home on turned into a major throughway. Osprey point has a lot of kids and the increase in traffic would make it far less safe, the proposed exits are on bends which is also unsafe. I support town homes in that space - but 210? the plan shows hardly any parking, and assuming a bunch of them will be rentals there will be 2-4 cars per unit. The park also looks as if it's small to make room for more housing. I would be incredibly disappointed if an access to the townhomes was made along 570 W. We bought our house with DR Horton assuring us that a home would go at the end of the street and that it wouldn't be a through street. There are so many children on this road and I would hate to see more traffic along it. I would much prefer access in and out of the townhomes being along Lakeview Parkway. I also agree with Jordan Tompkinson that speed bumps would be necessary if access is on 730 W. This is a family filled area and having more traffic would be dangerous and detract from the value of the neighborhood. My concern is similar to the concerns of a lot of the residents who shared about safety for our children in regards to the increased traffic that the current proposal would bring. We have a lot of families with small children in this neighborhood and they love being outside with their neighborhood friends. Having an entrance right off Lakeview Parkway and 500 west and NOT through the neighborhood for the residents in the townhomes just seems like an obvious logical choice to help relieve the traffic coming in and out for the residents that will be living in that area. Honestly, I’m not in favor of the townhomes going up at all. But if that street does go through, then several speed bumps and traffic signs need to be in place on our neighborhood street, please. Definitely don’t agree with any roads through our neighborhood going into any town homes, the thought of town Homes is Blah! If a road were to be put through our neighborhood I’m saying this now, our neighborhood will give the biggest fight because of how many kids there are that enjoy riding their bikes, scooters and even family walks. I know there was talk to the lot next to the Havea’ s that the entrance would be there as well, TERRIBLE IDEA also! I think changing the zone to low density housing is a good move, though I would prefer to see detached single family dwellings instead of townhomes going in here. This community seems to be lacking visitor parking spaces and green space. One small park for this many residents doesn’t seem adequate. Please post two maps: 1. Provo City with location of parcel. 2. Provo City west of I-15 with location of parcel. I need to see the bigger picture. Thanks. I’m not opposed to more housing going in but there needs to be better planning on parking, vehicular access, and green space. Only two ways in and out for 210 units (on average each unit is expected to have a minimum of two vehicles) is woefully inadequate and will create congestion not only for the new housing but also for the rest of the Lakewood neighborhood. Also, having one of the access points go through a neighborhood street will decrease the neighborly atmosphere and drive people out. The houses on that road will begin to mimic other houses on busy streets and the overall visual quality of the neighborhood will decrease (I cite center street south of 500 W and 500 W as visuals for this). Not enough parking units will recreate the disaster that is the Startup apartments on freedom blvd. Cars line the streets over there because there’s nowhere else to park, it’s not only an eye sore, it’s unsafe for pedestrians, bikers, and drivers. Green spaces help our environment and create appeal and a positive living atmosphere that encourage residents to take care of where they live—that is an overall boon for the city. I definitely prefer the zone change to be changed to more single family residential homes as opposed to low-density town homes. I have concerns about adding too many homes/traffic for the space available, and causing bigger problems with traffic safety, safety for families/kids riding bikes walking, and taking away from the more peaceful family neighborhood feeling. If it is changed and town homes go in, I agree with a lot of the other comments that the best access to the townhomes (for the osprey point neighborhood already here and those of a future town home neighborhood) that access to it would be best off of Lakeview Parkway, NOT through the neighborhood. There are lots of families and kids in the neighborhood and adding that amount of traffic on the roads would really take away from the safe, family friendly neighborhood that is in place. I support low density housing in this area, although I would like to see the number of units reduced by 20-22 (or more). 210 is too many for this spot. I would like to see a larger green space in the center section (where the walkway is)--with the Bryn/Devon units reduced by 12 to accomodate it, and a second, larger, green space in the upper right corner (cutting out all 8 units there). I think 2 -5 more units in the lower right should be cut to make room for a second access road on 500 W. I don't live in the neighborhood but very much sympathize with neighborhood residents who have expressed their concern about the increased traffic and safety concerns in adjoining neighborhoods that would come with an access point on 730 W. I would suggest that there be instead two access points on 500 W. It seems too dangerous to have an access point on the curved portion of Lakeside. Moreover, having spent a semester recently in Virginia, where we lived in a townhome development, I really really liked that our development had access points only on one street. It made for a much much safer neighborhood and it directed all traffic to a street that could easily absorb it. I am in agreement with many of the other community members here. Our neighborhood is currently a family neighborhood with many, many children outside playing and riding bikes, scooters, etc. It would not be a good idea to put an access road through any part of our neighborhood nor do I want a zone change to put town homes in. I would ask that all factors be taken into consideration here when deciding on a zone change. The biggest could be that it will bring in many families and if they have children, that will put a huge strain on our local schools. I feel that there are many other options for use of this land and that we can work together to get a zone change for something other than more high-density housing and that will benefit and protect our children. I am not okay with the proposed zone change. I understand the need for different housing structures in the city. I would prefer that this were zoned for R17 or R18, but if the decision is made to make this LDR then I have the following suggestions. - Don't add any access roads into Osprey Point's single family residential neighborhood. There are a lot of small kids in this neighborhood who ride bikes, play basketball in the road, etc. - Add two access roads on 500 West. - Add an inlet for westbound traffic off of Lakeview Parkway - Reduce the number of units. - Add additional parking. - Add a walking path to the Osprey Point single family homes at 730 West I feel it’s very important for residents/those with an interest in the zone change to note that IF the zoning is changed to become the “Low Density Residential” zone, this will allow the builder to build the maximum number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning, in large part regardless of the wishes expressed by those in the neighboring communities and irrespective of what the builder “says” they will/won’t do in “proposals”. The Low Density Residential zone permits a maximum of 15 dwelling units per gross acre. The minimum twin home/duplex lot size is 8,000 sq ft (which is 4,000 sq ft per dwelling unit, or .09 acres - more than doubling the density of dwelling units in a given acre when compared with the neighboring Osprey Point neighborhood).,, I strongly oppose changing the zoning of the land into anything that would allow dwelling units to be more densely packed than the adjacent R1.8 zoning (8000/sqft/.18 acre minimum lot size). The proposed higher density zone (even though it’s named “Low Density”) would introduce a significant increase on the already-present strain on local resources - sewer, schools, roads, etc. I and my family moved to the neighborhood adjacent to the parcel of land in question to get away from the higher density housing present in other parts of Provo and the problems that come with such proximity - increased danger for pedestrians, pets, children; higher crime rates; lower overall sense of community; a “transient” feeling among the residents; increased vehicle traffic (and the noise associated with such traffic); etc. Introducing higher density housing right next to a single-family neighborhood, will decrease the overall value of the neighborhood as some of the perceived “transient” feelings associated with higher density housing bleed into the existing neighborhood. Provo, and our neighborhood specifically, should be a place that people want to make a home and live, not a place full of transient dwellings, where people are constantly looking to the moment when they can finally “move on” to bigger and better things. Additionally, though anecdotally to the main issue - regardless of the change in zoning, having the ingress/egress points for the new neighborhood be within the Osprey Point neighborhood is annoying at best, and dangerous at worst. Such a proposal is painful to even consider, given the fact that other, better, options (500 W, Lakeview Parkway) for the ingress/egress points exist. Consider for a moment one of the more positive outcomes of the zone change where the zoning is changed to match that of the neighboring area. The new land would provide space for approximately 72 more dwelling units. If each unit had on average 2 vehicles, this would be 144 additional vehicles using the Osprey Point roads - roads which are frequently used by pedestrians, children, pets, and others. If each car leaves and comes back once a day (which is probably low) that’s 288 more opportunities for our children, spouses, pets, friends and relatives to be involved in car accidents (accidents which generally prove harmful/fatal for those not protected by one of the vehicles). If the vehicles leave and return once a day (again probably low) that’s an average of an additional car potentially striking a loved one along a neighborhood road every 5 minutes (and that’s averaged over the whole 24 hour period in the day, 2.5 minutes if the evening/nighttime hours are excluded). Even if none of those drivers were ever distracted, intoxicated, rushed, tired, etc, the odds of literally or figuratively running in to one of these vehicles greatly increase. Now, consider if the zoning was changed to “Low” density residential - more than doubling the number of dwelling units. In the outlined proposal (210 units), if each unit had 3 cars on average (not unlikely given that higher density housing is generally rented to more than “single families”, legally or otherwise), there would be 630 more cars. That’s nearly one car per minute, if averaged over daytime hours. Certainly not a neighborhood I’d feel safe letting my kids play in the front yard in (and that’s only considering the probability of being struck by a car - not the other considerations that come with strangers driving by in cars). To conclude, if anyone is in favor of changing the zoning to the so-called “low density” housing, please realize that this doesn’t mean the builder will abide by anyone’s wish to have fewer units on the land than the builder has proposed - it likely means that they’ll pack the maximum number of units onto the land as allowed by law (take a look at the Osprey Point neighborhood which was built by DR Horton, where houses are mere inches within the legal setback requirements). I am in favor of whoever owns the land being able to build on the land; however, changing the zoning to allow dwelling units more densely packed than the neighboring zones is tantamount to stealing from landowners in neighboring zones by detracting from the value of property in the neighboring zones. Additionally, more homes (whether single family residential, or “low density” residential) introduce a myriad of infrastructure and safety issues that should be concretely addressed before anything “final” is done - let’s fix problems we have now, before creating new ones. On the zone change: The zone requested meets the South West Area Plan in having a Low Density Residential zone. However, the written portion of this plan has yet to be completed. I have heard from members on this committee that the written portion should include 3 different housing types in each LDR node. It will also include things like limited access to the Lakeview Parkway. I think it is important to have this document in place before any zone change is allowed. Currently, we have had no contact with the developer for a neighborhood meeting. I feel this is really important where there are several concerns from the neighbors. Some have expressed them here, while others have not. I have had concerns from residents that live along the dike in the 1970-80 built homes that are very concerned with what will happen to the property behind their homes where and how high those dwellings will be and what this all means for them. I feel like having a conversation with the developer and hammering some of those things out will help with future neighborhood relationships. As a chair, I have had concerns brought up about only 2 egress/ingress points on the plan. Some have suggested another egress at 570 west and some have suggested an egress at the Lakeview Parkway. In discussing things with staff. We looked at 500 west...where one egress resides on this concept plan....anything closer to the Parkway would be a safety hazard. Provo City would allow an egress at the Lakeview Parkway; however, if the state took control over the Lakeview Parkway...they would NOT allow the egress. Personally, I look at this development as 1. According to staff, fill needs to be brought into this project to bring it out of the FEMA flood plane. This is almost to the top of the dike on the northern boarder of this parcel. The dike is still needed to protect properties along it. So I appreciate the fact that the developer has made the dike into a trail system. However, this was the case with the Osprey Development and because there was no development agreement at the time of the zone change, that trail system never happened. I would like to see a development agreement made for the trail system so that it will both insure the dike's survival and give the community something they can use other than a big berm eyesore. Making the dike system function for something other than keeping the homes from flooding, I feel will be a great asset to the development. 2. While I do see the need for another egress point, if a trail system is on the dike, I do not see it as smart to add another egress at 570 west. From what I understand, the less traffic to cross a trail system, the better. 3. If we look at the future of the west side, I understand the need to keep the Lakeview Parkway with limited access points. I am hearing that we do not want to have another Geneva Road. If the goal is truly to have the state take over the Lakeview Parkway, then we do need to follow how they would plan it and make it limited. Truly limited. a 45 mile/hour road with limited stopping points is and will be a great asset to our city in the future. Especially knowing this will be a dominate way to access both the airport and the sports park and the I-15 freeway. 4. I love the vision of the west side planning committee in promoting different housing types within an LDR development. If I am not mistaken, I think this was the vision in creating the zone, something that would be more flexible to builders where they could create more than one product. I understand that some builders only create one type of housing; however, Horton does create different types. I would like this to truly show the vision that the committee had and mix things up a little more in this parcel. Thank you for your time and understanding. The issue of density is not what is important to me. It seems like a good spot for some higher density, being close to the highway and stores in South Provo. What does concern me is that it appears to completely turn its back to Lakeview Pkwy - contributing nothing to its street design or feel. Nor does the development create more connectivity for 730 west and anyone who might be trying to access Lakeview Pkwy from it on foot or bike. I am very much in favor of building new row homes, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments along the South 500 West and Lakeview Parkway corridors especially east of 1600 West. As you're aware, Provo is in desperate need of more housing, and low-priced housing is extraordinarily rare. If we do not build more high-density housing in Provo, we will drive most young families and professionals into neighboring communities. This is causing Provo's own residents to lose having their children and grandchildren live nearby. Please approve these changes. Density in sensible places is needed in order to add housing supply to our area. Being right by the freeway and a major arterial road (Lakeview Parkway), I believe this is an extremely sensible location to add density. This will help with affordability and help preserve the neighborhoods where people enjoy and want to maintain their single-family housing. This seems like a reasonable way to bring higher density homes to the west side of town where there are few current options. It's also in an area that is prime for additional development and the increase in population in this area may encourage developing of sorely needed amenities like a west side grocery store. My biggest concern is about the lack of robust transit options. I prefer to see high density developments installed year transit corridors. I'm also not sure how how much excess capacity center street has available to absorb the increased commuting load from large scale west side development. To whom it may concern, I write regarding the September 10th. 7:00 PM Neighborhood Meeting Osprey Townhome Presentation I would like to introduce myself for a quick second. I am a licensed CPA who now works as a Property Manager for 57 residential rental properties including single family homes, condominiums and apartments in the States of Nevada, California and Arizona. I have owned several homes in CA and UT over the past 20 years and currently reside in Provo. Traveling to the various homes I have seen well done developments and ones that are a problem. With this email here are some of my concerns. LDR: I am a bit confused as the Master Plan appears to show the property as Low Density Residential (“LDR”). The definition I found on this is as follows: “Low density residential zones are locations intended for housing that include a lot of open space. These zones are meant for a small number of residential homes, and exclude large industries, apartment complexes, and other large structures”. Multifamily houses such as condominiums, apartments are usually not permitted and LDR neighborhoods are typically quiet and private with little traffic, perfect for kids. This development fails in this regard as it is being pushed by a developer who wants to simply pack the units in to generate high returns. As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune Higher density means higher profits for developers and builders. They can minimize the amount they invest in development costs and fees while maximizing the units and square footage they can sell. The map I have seen on this project looks more like a High Density Residential development with packed in townhomes and not in line with the Provo General Plan. It was reported that in Holladay, residents resisted a high density development proposed for the Cottonwood Mall indicating it would detract from the town’s village-like atmosphere. In Herriman, residents also helped derail a development which was there times more dense than neighboring neighborhoods. The closest neighborhood to this DR Townhome project I believe has 4 homes per acre while this proposed project proposes approximately 11 homes per acre. Perhaps a mix of housing types, single family, duplexes, townhomes would be a much better option with less number of homes. Why the rush to re-zone?: In the current state of the economy (Covid-19) a development of this size should be set aside until a better understanding of where Provo and State of Utah are at in the next 12-18 months. What if this developer simply sits on the property for years? My concern is they begin to develop and simply quit mid process leaving vacant land with half finished-basements, lots, etc. which would be a significant liability for the City. Many builders came and left during the last crisis situation. It has been heard that the developer lobbied hard for their project, this is understandable they wish to gain significantly but should that be at the expense of the other areas in the vicinity? Time spent and lobbying efforts should not supersede what is best for Provo and surrounding communities. When this developer acquired the property I’m sure they were well of the current zoning. Some of us who purchased homes near this property were aware of the current zoning which impacted our purchase decision. Many are concerned about the sewer, water and losing of farmlands. The City needs to be careful as lawsuits can be brought if the zoning policy is simply changed which negatively may impact many homeowners for the benefit of a large developer. Safety: Safety should be a big concern for all. All of my children are adults but we are concerned for those who have small children in particular who live on 730 West where several large families live with many, many young children. Each day you can see several SunRoc Trucks speeding down Lakeview Parkway, would 730 W be any different? Having construction vehicles go down 730 West each day is a recipe for a disaster. If this project is approved I would suggest that all involved in the construction enter from Lakeview go slightly North on 500 and enter from that access street in that area there are no homes. VRBO/AirBNB: Townhomes close to the expanding airport would be ripe for VRBO/AirBNB investors creating short term rentals which would likely increase crime and make this a more transient neighborhood. This situation impacts the Cities hotels, restaurants, trash services, taxes, etc. Emergencies/Traffic: Another big concern should be traffic with about 210 new homes my guess is there will be another 420-630 cars driving onto 500 West or 730 West each day. As we know 500 West is already getting busy and in emergency situations it will be really tough to get in or out with only two exit points. Why not consider a access point at Lakeview Parkway? Perhaps where the Volleyball court is planned? An access point there might slow traffic on the Parkway currently cars and construction vehicles are speeding along the Parkway at dangerous speeds. As other cities have experienced fires can wipe out entire areas quickly. From a KSL article in October 2018 Utah wildfires burned 485,989 acres in 2018 more than double the amount 220,000 of 2017. In August 2018 Deseret News reported that Utah fires as of August 2018 had seen the greatest loss of property in 15 years. Packed in housing can be catastrophic take California for example in 2018 there were 8,527 fires which caused more than $3.5 billion in damages. Another concern should be flooding and rising water, this year for example directly across the street on the other side of Lakeview Parkway water levels were very high. The Development Itself/Parking: I believe that the parking will ultimately be a problem as the guest parking is likely planned to be the minimum required. Simply look at the last Townhome project built by DR Horton in the area in Orem off Sandhill Road you will see cars lining the side streets. A big concern is that traffic and parking issues will spill into the surrounding neighborhood. The plan does not provide nearly enough open space. Further, this is different in concept from the existing nearby neighborhood a mix of housing types would be much better. The revised map of the development has several Private Streets, are these going to be one-way streets? gated? Further, there was just recently a new map of the homes it appears the open space has decreased from 5.5 AC to 3.61 AC, the pool and clubhouse were also removed. (FYI: The Open City Hall City of Provo Website still shows the Old map) Schools: What consideration has been given to our local schools I assume those buying will or already have children who will need to attend schools in the area. Are the schools ready for the large number of new students? Is Provo trying to build to rapidly to satisfy safety, water, sewer, education and other needs? And if the economy does falter it will be really rough. Is the City ready to handle all this? Inspections, security concerns, sewer and water, crime, etc. Water Supply/Sewer Capacity: Water and Sewer are other concerns as shortages of water will become a concern in the future that should not be ignored. Is the developer considering recycled water for any of the landscaped area? I have also heard of the high priority sewer issue needs dealt with and is very important. I don’t have great knowledge on this but from what I read Provo has an aging wastewater plant and has only a few years to get into compliance and Provo’s system is at capacity.. I might be wrong but this to me is a huge concern. To sum it up here are my concerns: Number of homes LDR Need to evaluate the Covid-19 impact on Provo Safety VRBO/AirBNB Emergencies/Traffic The Development/Parking Schools Water Supply/Sewer Capacity Thank you for your time. Tom S. Provo Resident My feeling about this item is that the designation of low density housing does not meet the design for this project. This has high density housing with very little green space. Either change the zoning to accommodate this project or change the density of the housing in the project. I would like to see lower density and more amenities for the area included. Perhaps a grocery store included here.

Bill Peterson ½ to 1 mile

October 1, 2020, 7:15 PM

Tom Scheidt within ¼ mile

September 8, 2020, 12:06 PM

Matt Peterson more than 2 miles

June 24, 2020, 8:46 PM

Adam Carmack more than 2 miles

June 24, 2020, 9:09 AM

David Bailey within ¼ mile

June 24, 2020, 8:57 AM

Miles Miller more than 2 miles

May 5, 2020, 11:12 AM

Becky Bogdin within ¼ mile

April 26, 2020, 5:29 PM

Colby Clark within ¼ mile

April 26, 2020, 2:28 PM

James Speirs ¼ to ½ mile

April 24, 2020, 11:39 AM

Michele Sekaquaptewa within ¼ mile

April 24, 2020, 6:17 AM

Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.