Lakewood Neighborhood - What do you think about the proposed zone change for Osprey Townhomes?
Connected Statements
Users who supported this statement...
...also supported these 9 statements
Karen Phair within ¼ mile
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.
Rebecca de Schweinitz more than 2 miles
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.
Jessica Chord ¼ to ½ mile
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.
Carma Woolstenhulme within ¼ mile
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.
Stephen Woolstenhulme within ¼ mile
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.
James Speirs ¼ to ½ mile
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
Suzy Hale ¼ to ½ mile
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.
Michele Sekaquaptewa within ¼ mile
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.
Colby Clark within ¼ mile
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). https://maps.provo.org/home/, https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/14.10.020, https://provo.municipal.codes/Code/14.14A.020
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.
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.