guest
Minutes of the Meeting with Van Turner, City Council Person 04-17-2000
Discussion: development of Utah Street
Van Turner, our city council person came for the common dinner and then had a discussion with us.
Van Turner, our city council person, came for the common dinner and then had a discussion with us. The developer Duane Iverson and Margaret Pahl could not make it, Mike is trying to invite them as soon as possible.
Mike's opening statements: Development is currently zoned as R-17000. Duane proposes to drop it to R-15000. With R-17000 only 31 homes would have room on the triangle. Our issues: the developer is building starter homes with low values, do not want to open high street, children will come over to our property and play because there is no room for them in the triangle, we prefer mixed use mixed value, cohousing or new urban development keeping large trees. If single homes is what the city wants, we think it should remain zoned R 17000, with well built units and usable safe park and play areas.
Van Turner: There are many things to address. When you wanted to develop your own property many thought you were a bunch of polygamists. You should be complemented for the great job. Yours are the highest price homes in the area. Nobody in their right mind would build $200,000 homes in this area, but you guys did. And you are doing everything you said you did.
Ground in the triangular lot is not easy to build. Everything is challenging.
You have legitimate concerns but these concerns are not shared in the neighborhood. Their general feeling is: they don't care, they are glad something is going on and somebody is building in these fields.
The map which the developer has drawn is not accurate. He does not have the bend in California, and he is using part of the right of way of Utah street and of the surplus canal. I think 1 acre of ground is not there. Another survey has to be run. Originally 41, now it is 33. Duane has to do something with berm levee, fence along the top.
The little park at the tip of the triangle needs to be more in the center, it is too far away, unusable ground. A street from California avenue down the middle, come out at Noorda end would make fewer houses and bigger lots.
Someone from Wasatch Commons: What the neighorhood forced us to do here, we want to see others do as well.
Van: Duane says he needs to build 33 houses. If we can do this fine, if not he will walk.
If worst comes to worst, we will have bigger houses face our side, smaller lots the others.
There is a car wash at the corner, Rosenhall car wash, nice brick car wash. He has to use Golightly's street, something with the water line, there is another dilemma.
Wasatch: We have not enough parking for commercial use. Ground is so narrow.
Hugh: North of California is allowing small lots. From a city planning standpoint there should be a tradeoff allowing small lots in one area, in order to have bigger lots in another area.
Van: Golightly is getting 175,000 for his 2 acres. You buy the ground, you have the house free. The white house has another 2 1/2 acres, and the county has 80,000 (square feet?). Extra building costs with canal etc. it is going to be prohibitive pretty soon.
Scott: we want homes in our neighborhood people want to stay in, we don't want children to come over here because there is no playground. There are definite problems to develop it, but we need a different choice.
Van: He is trying to make them better quality. Instead of vinyl it would have brick and stucco? Twoplexes and triplexes? No.
Scott: We worked really hard trying to clean up Utah Street. Cutting a street in the middle of the triangular lot will save the trees. Will increase value of each lot, with mature trees.
Van: If he re-surveys it, it may be less ground. With the high ground cost it is easier to develop something like you have.
Hans: We have our own low-income solution in our property: CROWN homes. Mixed income, not stigmatize against low income. If we do this and the city allows a conventional low-income project right next door, this will cancel out our efforts.
Naomi's letter (read by Paul): As a philosophical base, I would assert that Wasatch Commons is a housing project that has 'elevated the neighborhood'. It features low density, preservation of green space, good design, strong environmental features in its construction. It would be unfortunate for these concepts to have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The project originally drawn for the "triangle" between Utah Stret and the Surplus Canal would build 41 single family units on 3.1 acres. This is a much greater density of construction than any in the adjacent areas: Triangle lots would average 1200 sq. ft. per unit. Area South of WC, modest homes, has lots about 6000 sq. ft. WC units occupy about 2000 sq. ft., with no garage and no 'private garden'.
The lots and a center street occupy the entire property, except for a tiny park. Lots extend out to Utah St. and to California Ave. There would be no saving of the valuable trees that exist on the property.
The plan shows no space-saving innovations, such as group parking, duplex/triplex arrangement of units.
I think that we of WC should be entitled to insist that housing on the Ttriangle meet certain standards of housing and land-use value. There should be a substantial set-back from Utah Street, with preservation of trees existing in that set-back. Utah Street must NOT be connected through to High Street: residents on High Street do not want that connection either. The houses should be built to a certain value, adding to the value that WC has put into the neighborhood. More inteligent design could provide a better use of the space available.
Scott: our prices are not so much above market.
Linda: our open space will be their playground, it is not fair that they force the children out on our area.
Is there some place a park can be built?
Bonnie: is the developer interested in working with us on these issues?
North of California he has 80 units, it does have some open space.
There needs to be something over here too besides our back yard.
Kris: Do you know what is the story with the 2 acres north of us?
Van: Iverson wants to develop this next.
Scott: we do not want to have a gated community. The kids will go through our property to Mountain View [School].
Van: We will get two new schools within 2 or 3 years. They will be south of the existing schools, so the kids will want to use your property as a shortcut even more.
Hugh: we have tried to upgrade the community. It is slap in the face to allow the more dense development.
Paul: we presented it as a uniquwe showplace for the future. We are getting sabotaged.
Kris: (similar to Paul, Naomi).
Scott: could we do it as a nonprofit organization?
Kris: what is the next thing?
Van: This development is in the wrong spot.
Hans: What leverage do we have to insist on R-17000?
Van: our neighbors do not care. He is not the guy to do what is necessary. If we limit that to 7000 he is going not to build There is another development on Montgomery street. The builder must put a 25-ft high berm to hide the tracks (for sound reasons).
Hans: at a later point we may be able to develop it ourselves.
Van: The Golightlys want to sell right now.
Linda: Is there an urgency not to have him walk?
Scott: He is not thinking year 2000, he is thinking 1952. We want people who want to stay. We are happy to share our resources if we are not flooded.
Van: Shopping center needs more people, we need more growth. Churches are closing down. because we don't have the population to carry it.
Scott: wE think we could support a 7-11, we have a softer impact. How do you want to make it a community where people want to stay here. City Council should consider this.
Van: Good point.
Mike: When you talk to Duane, tell him we want to stay R 7000. We expect you to support us, we live here, he does not. We will insist on R 7000.
Our next step as a group is to meet with Margaret and Duane.
Deedre Seed has 3 1/2 milllion which could help us.
Hans: His playground at the tip is useless.
Someone: In and out of California would be our best bet. He could save money not curb and guttering his side of Utah street.
Pedestrian traffic through our land to school. City should make it a requirement of development to create a pedestrian passage through to High Street.
City is interested in overall improving the community. This kind of development would detract from the community, instead of following our precedent.
We should put our arguments in writing so that we are clear in our minds and able to argue in the planning commission. These are the things Glendale should be concerned about. This is a step backwards in face of what we wanted to achieve right next door.
Planning documents talk about the good impact we have. Is it possible to get a hold of the minutes when we went before the planning commission?
Bonnie: The reason we cannot get service in this area is not that there are not enough people. We need more people with more resources, not attract people who have less to offer.
The residents here want more people so that they can get a Walmart.
Do we have credibility and goodwill at the planning council meeting, will people say that we came through with our project?
Mike: the mayor likes our project generally.
We want to see smart development, in the long-term best interest of our community. Doing something that is smarter, get a sense of place. Affordability will be a big argument. Home builders association says: we are building affordable homes. We want real affordability, mixed income development. Walkable communities, mom and pop stores.
Is there overcrowding in the schools? Unlikely that the newly built schools will be overcrowded from the start.
If Duane sticks with R 17000 then we will have little impact.
April 25, 2020