This is how "urban planning" is done in Utah. Open Space is a dirty word. Urban Sprawl, Profits and Property Taxes are what cities and their developer buddies want.

This is not sprawl at all. They are increasing the density on portions of the property and leaving some as open space. Perhaps you should actually look at a proposed plan before you bash it.

With the real estate market where it is currently why would anyone with half a brain start a development?

Have you people ever heard of property rights. If you don't like what they are doing with the land then buy it and take care of it if not move on.

the roads in that neighborhood can't handle the increased traffic. Its bad as it is...the developers in this situation are not being concientious of the neighborhood roads at all. If I were on the planning committee, I would ok the deal if they paid for a sufficient road infrastructure of 1600 west to 600 south and out to the other side of the ballpark. Otherwise they need to keep the density to fit the neighborhood somewhat. But I also agree with the comment above...buy the land yourself and keep those greasy developers away.

and yes, I read the proposal.

Nathanial Ashby

So these people want there neighbor to maintain land in a natural setting and pay taxes on it, to benefit there peaceful wishes. What about the younger generations who needs affordable housing. And you are not going to make housing affordable if you limit development. If you want to live next to open space, I have no problem. Just pay for it yourself.

This is typical of homeowners in many neighborhoods---"I moved here first, but I am not willing to buy the open property to keep it in the pristine state I want, so I will complain to prevent other rightful owners from building what our appointed city officials have approved." Whine Whine Whine

If there is open space in the neighborhood you move into, dont you realize it can be developed? Duh!

Neighbors, Buy it up yourself, and stop Whining!

The Provo planning commission is a joke. In my civil engineering class in college, we use Provo as our prime example of how not to plan out a city.

I completely understand why residents aren't happy.

Some of you have put your finger on it. Someone who has farmland is virtually forced to sell it to developers because of tax policy.

classic case of NIMBY. lucky for the neighbors that there wasn't anyone there to oppose the development that created their neighborhood. what's that? my neighborhood was a development developed by a developer? no way. i thought it was like this when the pioneers came! i'm shocked.

NIMBY isn't all bad. Maybe poor urban planning hasn't included enough open space and the neighbors realize this when one more high density monstrousity goes in. Maybe it's a modest neighborhood where monster homes come in cutting off the sun to their neighbors. To take your nimby argument to the opposite of your extreme, I hope you won't object to the rendering plant I'm planning right on the other side of your fence.

A study was done a few months ago and it was estimated that without building a single new home utah would have enough to house people and not need to build anymore until 2011 so why exaclty are they looking to build so many and why when the market is still priced way to high and no one is buying? I am not opposed but confused?

I live on this block – we all know someday development will come. What we are asking is that the city slow it down until the roads and infrastructure can handle the increased density. It was amazing how the Planning Commission could vote FOR Item 4

“No development (including annexation, preliminary plan approval, rezoning etc.) should occur in areas where development will place a burden upon Provo City and the ability to service the areas, and the City should process requests for additional development west of I-15 only after the City Public Works Department confirms that the street and public utility systems can comfortably absorb the additional development.

Then approve Item 5 which is more development in an area with out the necessary infrastructure. Children in the proposed subdivision would have one option for walking to school - narrow roads without sidewalks. Porter and Phillips were the only ones that “got it.”

The meeting was a joke and most committee members had their minds made up before it even began. I would bet most on the committee have never driven through the area.

carl,

Whine Whine Whine Huh?

The Utah Homebuilders are WHINING that they don't want to set aside money to guarantee the improvements like sidewalks etc.

The McMansion crowd is WHINING that they were not included in the raising of load limits.

What about the rights of the current land owners have to sell their property? Some people have farmed their land long enough and want to retire!! This is also not a high density development, a few 6-plexes are not bad!!

the people who are looking for a nice community with parks to begin their family? Wouldn't this bee a great place?

Not all developers are greasy money grubbers. Some spend a lot of money and time listening to residents and making adjustments accordingly. I understand this is how it has been done for this development as well.

These residents have a problem with the current infrastructure problems that Provo has neglected. If this development deals with those issues and corrects what is necessary, then why are they complaining?

This land has been for sale for a long time, and these neighbors who love someone else's land have never stepped up and purchased it.

Good luck.

I was at the planning commission meeting.

Why do people keep referring to this development as "high density"? The developers reported that it would be 4.6 units per acre, and the planning commission required that to be reduced (probably to 4.4 units per acre).

High density developments (like the boulders nearby) are zoned R3PD and can have over 15 single family units per acre.

It is humorous to me that the neighbors are comparing this development to the boulders that has FOUR times the density, and is also government subsidized housing. It is no comparison at all.

4.4 units per acre is not high density.

Maybe the neighborhood would rather have Provo re-locate Kuhni's there. I understand they want to relocate them away from East-bay. The smell is a little putrid, but probably no more than that created by the Provo River as it dumps to the lake.

Kunhi's has been relocated for years.

We live on a two-acre piece of property in the area in question. There are currently no subdivisions on our block. (Block in this case refers to an area of land with a two-mile circumference.) With the exception of a few houses, everyone on the block owns acreage. If we had the millions it would take to buy up the property in question we would. Except for one, the property owners of the proposed development do not reside in the area so it's not going impact them like it will the rest of us.

We moved to the area because of the rural feel. High density housing would definitely take that away. And what about our animal rights? Are the rural smells that go with that going to cause those rights to be taken away? And what about our right as home owners not to have urban sprawl literally in our backyard?

As for the comments about whiners, they obviously come from people who don't live on this block. Perhaps if they did, they would have the guts to state who they really are.

Your animal rights will not change with any development that does not affect you property, that is just common sense!! If you would take the time to look at the plan you will see that it is not an "urban sprawl". Move to Genola if you don't like any development.

"Move to Genola" is a simplistic response to a complex problem. Most of us who own property on this block were required to have at least an acre before we could build here. A lot of the land owners have animals on their property. If the new property owners do not like the smells, they will complain, and we will be asked to discontinue. If you don't have animals on your property for a certain length of time, those rights can definitely be suspended. Some of us have responsiblities and family situations that will keep us here, even if we would like to go elsewhere. We realize that change will come, but we would appreciate it if the changed were compatable to what we've already been required to conform to.