Monday, May 7, 2018

Notes from the Mayor: Patterson Property/Longhorn Field aka The Groves at Highland

2018-04 Groves Birds Eye View

This Tuesday night the city council and planning commission will be holding a joint work session to review the development plan for the Patterson property which is being named The Groves at Highland. The purpose of the session is to gather information. This is an open meeting which will be held in the city council room. Work session agendas do not include a period of time for public comment. Once the project has been presented and the council and planning commission has finished asking questions I will invite residents to ask questions if there are any they felt haven’t been asked which would provide additional insights.

A planning commission meeting will be held on May 22nd which will include a public hearing on the Patterson plan. This will be a time for sharing your point of view on the project. I would recommend that you contact planning commission members and council members before the meetings to share your thoughts on this matter. A couple of years ago I wrote a post on called, “Tips on Influencing Local Government” that you may want to read.

This Wednesday night (May 9th) a neighborhood meeting with Patterson will be held at city hall at 7 PM. I recommend that anyone with questions or comments on the project attend this meeting as resident input is recorded and shared with them city. I would also encourage attendees to use two of Steven Covey’s key habits from his book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

  • Seek first to understand, then to be understood
  • Think Win/Win

If I were an advocate or opponent of the project I would learn as much about the project as I could, try to understand the other side’s point of view, and then formulate my arguments.

Below is a summary of the project information the city received (click here for a link to the current plan).

Overview

  • 103 Cottage Homes with 1,750 to 2,800 sq. ft. on the main level plus a basement.
  • 11 Executive homes on larger lots will be located on the on the north end.
  • SR-92 Frontage from west to east includes executive offices, assisted living, senior condominiums, and retail.

    2018-04 Groves Site Map
    2018-04 Groves Site Roads and Trails

Retail

  • Total floor space 97,000 sq. ft.
  • 9.5 acres with 1.6 acres of open space
  • 1 story buildings

    2018-04 Groves Retail

Professional Office

  • 2 story buildings (max height 35 ft.
  • Each building 3,000 to 14,000 sq. ft.
  • 95,000 sq. ft.
  • 10.2 acres

Senior Community

  • 7.6 acres (3.5 acres of landscape)
  • Building 1: 3 story luxury condominium, 55+, owner occupied, unit minimum 1,400 sq. ft., total sq. ft. 85,000, underground and outside parking, 44 ft. high, 3.52 acres,48 units, density 13.6 units per acre.

    2018-04 Groves Senior Condominiums

  • Assisted Living Building: 110 residents, 2 stories, 82,000 sq. ft.

    2018-04 Groves Assisted Living

Residential Area

  • 50.59 acres
  • 13+ acres linear park with 1.5 mile trail
    2018-04 Groves Linear Park

  • 114 homes (density 2.25 unit per acre) 4 more than R-1-20 would allow.
    2018-04 Groves Cottage Home Sm
    2018-04 Groves Cottage Home Lg

  • Cottage Homes
    • 103 units
    • Most lots will be 7,100 sq. ft. with 2 car garage
    • Lots across from the executive homes will be 10,000 sq. ft. with 3 car garage
  • Executive Homes
    • 11 units
    • Lot sizes 0.5 to 1.0 acres
    • 3 car garages
    • main level 2,800 sq. ft. min for Rambles
    • about ground 3,800 sq. ft. min for 2-story
  • Recreation Area
    • 6,000 sq. ft. club house
    • Pool
    • Tennis Court with basketball goals
    • Indoor golf simulator
    • Exercise equipment room
    • Pocket park with play ground equipment

Traffic

The following is a summary from the traffic section of the Patterson report.

  • Hales Engineering performed at traffic impact study which was completed in 2016 (click here to view the study).
  • According the the study the biggest rush hour traffic concern is at the intersection of 6000 W and SR92.  The model shows issues in 2040 with or without The Groves.
  • Patterson will widen the entrance at 6200 W to provide dedicated turning lanes and mitigate a concern with traffic flow at that intersection.

Quotes from the study:

  • Future (2020) Background Conditions Analysis [Without The Groves]
    As shown in Table ES-1, all study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service during the evening peak hour. The 95th percentile queues on the eastbound approach to the 6000 West / 11000 South (SR-92) intersection is anticipated to extend for several hundred feet during the evening peak hour. No additional significant queuing is anticipated during the evening peak hour.
  • Future (2020) Plus Project Conditions Analysis [With The Groves]
    As shown in Table ES-1, all project intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable levels of service during the evening peak hour, with the exception of the 6200 West / 11000 North (SR-92) access. The 95th percentile queues on the eastbound approach to the 6000
    West / 11000 North (SR-92) intersection are anticipated to be excessive, interfering with operations at upstream intersections. No additional significant queuing is anticipated during the evening peak hour.
  • Future (2040) Background Conditions Analysis [Without The Groves]
    As shown in Table ES-1, the 6000 West / 11000 North (SR-92) intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS F during the evening peak hour. All other study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service. The 95th percentile queue on the eastbound approach to the 6000 West / 11000 North (SR-92) intersection is anticipated to extend for approximately 460 feet during the evening peak hour, while the queues on the westbound approach are anticipated to extend for several hundred. No other significant queuing is anticipated.
  • Future (2040) Plus Project Conditions Analysis [With The Groves]
    As shown in Table ES-1, the 6000 West / 11000 North (SR-92), 6200 West / 11000 South (SR-92), and East Retail Access / 6000 West intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS [Level of Service] F with project traffic added. All other project intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable level of service during the evening peak hour. The 95th percentile queues at the 6000 West / 11000 North (SR-92) intersection are anticipated to extend for several hundred feet on all approaches during the evening peak hour. No additional significant queuing is anticipated.
    2018-04 Groves Taffic Impact Table 1
    SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
    The following is a summary of key findings and recommendations:

    6000 West / 11000 North (SR-92)
    • This intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service.
    • Queuing on the eastbound approach is anticipated to interfere with operations at the 6200 East / 11000 North (SR-92) access with 2020 traffic conditions. And queues on the southbound approach are anticipated to interfere with operations at the East Retail Access.
    • It is likely that UDOT criteria will be met for the implementation of
      permissive/protected left-turn phasing on the eastbound approach by 2020.
    • It is also possible that the UDOT criteria for dual left-turn lanes will be met on the eastbound approach by 2040.
    • It is likely that the southbound approach will need to be widened by 2040 to separate left-, thru, and right-turn lanes to mitigate queuing and reduce delay.
    6400 West / 11000 North (SR-92)
    • This intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service, and is anticipated to continue to do so through 2040.
    11140 North / 6000 West
    • This intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service, and is anticipated to continue to do so through 2040
    11250 North / 6000 West
    • The west leg of this intersection will be constructed as a part of the proposed project, serving as an access for the residential portion of the site.
    • This intersection is currently operating at an acceptable level of service, and is anticipated to continue to do so through 2040.
    6200 West / 11000 North (SR-92)
    • 6200 West will be constructed as part of the proposed project as a full movement access.
    • According to UDOT Administrative Rule R930-6, a right-turn deceleration lane may be required at this access.
    • This intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS C in 2016, but deteriorate to LOS F by 2020.
    • It is recommended that 6200 West be constructed with separate right- and left turn egress lanes.
    • No mitigation measures are recommended. It is anticipated that drivers will elect to reroute to nearby signalized intersections when delays become great.
    South Retail Access / 11000 North (SR-92)
    • This is proposed to be constructed as a right-in right-out access, serving the retail portion of the site.
    • This access is anticipated to operate an acceptable level of service through 2040.
    East Retail Access / 6000 West
    • This is proposed to be constructed as a full-movement access.
    • This access is anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS, until the LOS degrades with projected 2040 traffic conditions.
    • The poor LOS in 2040 is attributed to queuing at the adjacent intersection to the south.

Additional Research

I did some additional research on density and lot sizes. Listed below are several existing and planned or under construction developments with average lot sizes (acreage) and density (lots per acre). The Cottages in The Groves development is listed last.

SubdivisionZone# of LotsAvg. Lot SizeDensity
Dry Creek Bench Open Space 72 0.30 acres 1.78 per acre
Highland Oaks R-1-20 60 0.47 acres 1.64 per acre
Oak Ridge Estates R-1-30 37 0.60 acres 1.30 per acre
Sky Ridge Estates R-1-30 28 0.55 acres 1.42 per acre
Cobble Creek Non-conforming 19 0.42 acres 1.99 per acre
Pebblewood Non-conforming 74 0.44 acres 1.86 per acre
View Point Open Space 103 0.21 acres 2.17 per acre
Highland Hills Open Space 117 0.20 acres 1.91 per acre
Highland City all zones 4,431 0.56 acres
Groves Cottages PD 114 0.22 acres 2.25 per acre

Note, parks and other open spaces areas are factored in to the density for open space developments.

Links

9 comments:

  1. Please, no more open spaces developments. And, please don't give in on tiny lots.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A little miss leading with the cottages home average at .22. It really is .16 of an acre. Adding in the 11 executive homes bumps it up to .22, but the majority of the homes, cottage 103, would be on .16 of an acre

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jen, my intent is never to mislead, which I why I try to put links to source data.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this great post and for listening to constituents about this very important development at the gateway into Highland. In the spirit of transparency, citizens would like to have disclosures on any possible conflicts among members of the council and planning commission. Specifically: 1) any campaign contributions from the developer or affiliates, 2) any business relationship (or proposed business relationship) with developer, 3) any familial relationship with developer. Is that a reasonable request?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris here are my responses to your questions:

      1. Each candidate for office is required to file financial reports. The reports for the 2017 campaign can be found at www.highlandcity.org/index.aspx?nid=431.

      2. Utah State Code 10-2-1305 (le.utah.gov/xcode/Title10/Chapter3/10-3-S1305.html) states:
      "it is an offense for an elected officer, or an appointed officer, who is a member of a public body to receive or agree to receive compensation for assisting any person or business entity in any transaction involving the municipality in which the member is an officer unless the member:
      (a) files with the mayor a sworn statement giving the information required by this section; and
      (b) discloses the information required by Subsection (5) in an open meeting to the members of the body of which the officer is a member immediately before the discussion."
      Basically, although there is a requirement to disclose there is no requirement to recuse (i.e. not vote on an issue). Note, as far as I know, no one on the council has any financial relationship with Patterson.

      3. I don't believe anyone on the council has any familial relationship with the developer. I don't think a inquiry by you to the council on this matter would be a bad thing.

      Delete
  5. When the city held the master plan charrettes in the late 1990s and early 2000s a major emphasis was to make Highland walkable community. We wanted a Town Center, a community that fostered families and our own slice of Americana. The planners, with the help of a nationally known and well respected city planner, made a plan for a beautiful town center and trails that connected neighborhoods and parks. The businesses were laid out such that people would walk through them rather than drive. It has been diluted over the years. Signage has been enlarged and plans discarded. Particularly the last 10 years. That is disappointing. Another main emphasis was that Highland would have a different feel. As soon as people entered the city they would know they were in Highland. Clustered homes and businesses would be in the town center. Open spaces and large lots would be on the perimeter. This is the main gateway into our city. It should reflect the openness and sense of community we all came here for. I don't think anyone in Highland wants sprawling strip malls spread around the city. It should be kept in the town center.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I appreciate the communications I've received concerning this.
    Is this process for a zone change or to approve this particular development plan. My concern is that the planning commission will approve a zone change based on a plan presented assuming that is the plan that will be put before them for final approval. Perhaps the developer and citizens plan a development that everyone agrees on. But the developer has a change of heart, sells the property and another developer submits a less desirable plan. Even a poor plan. However, it meets the regulations and has to be approved. In my opinion, both the zoning and development plan need to be pretty tight to protect Highland citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Jan, that is a legitimate concern. One of the advantages of approving a PD district instead of using a standard zone is that the city council can be very proscriptive with respect to what is developed. https://mannkindperspectives.blogspot.com/logout?d=https://www.blogger.com/logout-redirect.g?blogID%3D696817881234121652%26postID%3D8120507278906023840

      Delete

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding this post.