Save Our Providence Neighborhoods
saveourprovidenceneighborhoods.com
Someone has begun an online petition against the rezoning of 79 acres at the foothills of Providence.
We, the undersigned, call on the Providence City UT Mayor and City Council to vote against the LCR rezone of the 79 acres at the foothills of Providence.
For more information and/or to sign the petition, please click or tap here.
The following is from another group of concerned residents:
We need your help to grow smarter. Join “Envision Providence” on Facebook.
LCR (Life Cycle Residential) zoning was recently passed by the Providence City Council and is Mayor Drew’s signature legislation. It is meant to allow developers to build medium and high- density housing, mixed with single family homes and integrated green-space in Providence. It’s more complicated than this, so we encourage you to read the full zoning ordinance on Providence City’s website.
Many residents’ are not opposed to the concept of LCR but find its application very problematic. Because it’s broadly written, LCR allows land developers great discretion on the amount and type of green space required and the density of housing they build (4-12 units per acre, including apartments and townhomes/condos). Early plans for the city show that LCR zoning may be available anywhere in the city. Currently the city is considering an application to rezone 79 acres on Providence’s bench, allowing the developer to build high-density housing in this area.
We’ve asked the Mayor, City Council, city employees, and the developer – nobody can tell us. Because of the zoning we can safely say it will be at least twice the number of residences and potentially 400-500% as many. It will also include condos or apartments, likely both.
Yes, your presence at city meetings says a lot! You are Providence’s closest neighbors and we should make decisions like this together. If you were our next door neighbor, we wouldn’t put up a fence without consulting you. You get it.
No. This is one of the main reasons we are speaking out. No developer should be given the amount of control that LCR currently provides.
City officials need to be accountable to their residents and represent their views. We believe city officials will listen to our voices; if not, we intend to take this rezoning to referendum.
Yes, however previous interactions with this developer and others have shown that areas designated as green space are typically less desirable (utility easements under power lines, high water table areas, steep grades, etc.).
Yes, the state is requiring municipalities over 5,000 people to build moderate income housing into their general plans. They are requiring cities to share these plans with their residents. Providence’s plan was last updated in 2000. We think it’s prudent to finish the plan before rezoning large swaths of undeveloped land.
Modern smart growth hinges on the principle of the urban-to-rural transect (you can look it up). This LCR rezoning places denser populations away from major corridors and city transit, ignoring smart development fundamentals. It not only breaks up the continuity of existing neighborhoods, it adds unnecessary traffic and constructs denser populations away from required city services.
We have lots of ideas and many intelligent people that want to help address housing needs (builders, business experts, and economists). We also believe that residents should define the community in which they live.
We don’t know, but we’re skeptical. We would like more information on road access, traffic studies for various densities, road steepness, the impact of an earthquake, threat of wildfires, silty soil, and more.
These new residents will be traveling through your neighborhood. LCR rezoning is likely coming to your neighborhood soon too.
Mayor’s Town Hall – Sat. December 8, 8 – 10 am
Planning & Zoning – Wed. December 12, 6:30 pm
City Council Mtg.* – Tue. January 8, 6:30 pm
Please note, these dates may change. Please join our Envision Providence Facebook group to stay up to date.
We are very concerned at what we have been hearing from Steve Simmons, Susan Packer and Howard Creed about the tentative revision of the original Dan Cox subdivision agreement which was voided by the Judge Willmore decision last year in favor of Simmons and his neighbors.
[ Steve Simmons’ letter concerning this issue, Providence City vs. Private Property Rights, can be found by clicking the link. ]
Here is the story so far, to the best of our understanding:
2011
Providence City annexed the private driveway called 2100 South (not in Providence at the time) in error, believing the Cache County plat map was correct in showing that driveway was a public right-of-way. The driveway in question, built by the current owner’s father Don Simmons in 1991, does not appear on any official Cache County road map past or present . It was only on a plat map. Utah law clearly states a plat map is not legal proof of a road’s ownership by government.
None of the owners of adjacent land were informed of the annexation of the “2100 South” private driveway, although the Utah State Code requires them to be informed in writing by the county and/ or city in question. Not having been informed of the annexation, property owners with adjacent land missed the deadline for protesting the annexation.
2012
Steve Simmons, owner of the “2100 South” private driveway, learned of the annexation of his driveway nine months after the fact.
Steve Simmons filed a petition to Cache County to vacate its right-of-way claim on his property, but received no reply.
Failing to reach a negotiated settlement with the developer, Cache County and Providence City, Simmons and six neighbors (all of whom live on the private driveway deceptively labeled “2100 South”) filed suit in District Court against Cache County, Providence City and developer Dan Cox requesting they vacate their claim to a right-of-way on Simmons’ private property.
At the opening of the case presentation in District Court, the Cache County Attorney testified that Cache County had no proof of a legal right-of-way on the driveway called 2100 South and bowed out of the case.
Providence City and the developer gave Simmons et al. the impression that they wanted to continue to fight the law suit anyway for two more years. We also learned from Mr. Simmons that during that period the developer boasted he could afford to bury the plaintiffs in legal costs.
2017
MARCH
3/13 Judge Thomas Willmore decided in favor of the six “2100 South” plaintiffs. (Case # 150100236) Mr.Cox had removed Simmons’ fence and some trees while the law suit was still ongoing when Cox believed he owned the fence line (due to a faulty survey). Cox also installed a sewer line in an irrigation ditch which he believed was on his property but was shown by Willmore’s decision not to be on Cox’s property. Judge Willmore’s decision included orders for Cox to restore the fence and repair any damage he had done. It took Cox eight months and two additional hearings (and paying some of plaintiffs’ legal expenses) to remove the sewer line, rebuild the irrigation ditch and restore the fence.
2018
MARCH
3/13 Simmons’ written requests to Providence City, Cache County and the State of Utah to correct their error on the Cache County street map (which showed erroneously that his driveway was a public right of way) were not answered.
3/18 Mayor John Drew sent his “memo” listing possible options for the completion of the Dan Cox subdivision. One of these options was “Eminent Domain, may not be legal”. The memo was reviewed at a Providence City Council meeting where Mayor Drew and City Administrator Bankhead reiterated their concern that they “follow the Master Plan”. (Simmons observed that a planned major east-west road at the location of his private driveway appeared on the Providence Master Plan’s Transportation Plan map publicly only starting May of 2018.)
APRIL
4/18 Simmons addressed Providence City in writing with a request that they correct the Cache County map error showing his driveway erroneously as a public right of way.
4/18 Dan Cox submitted a proposal to Providence City for a new Subdivision permit with his new development plan.
MAY
5/8 Providence Mayor John Drew stated in a public City Council meeting his preference for Dan Cox to avoid losing two lots by installing an isolated east-west length of “road” narrower than what is permitted by Providence ordinances. Originally Cox had planned to have a cul-de-sac on that boundary of his property, but did not want to install a cross street sufficiently close to the cul-de-sac as required by Providence Ordinances.
5/25 Simmons and neighbors met with Mayor Drew and City Administrator Bankhead to discuss the issues. The city officials informed Mr. SImmons et al. that requiring Mr. Cox to build a short section of one-half of a non-existent road would not violate the City code as it will be labeled an “unfinished” or “incomplete road.” (?) The city officials insisted that all of the land south of the Cox road is going to be subdivided and developed and that will solve the road problem “someday”. (?) The mayor confidently but mysteriously predicted that no one would buy a city lot with a road in the front and a 10 foot driveway in the back. (?) Mayor Drew also opined that Mr. Simmons’ trees and irrigation ditch didn’t matter, which would mean they had no value as real estate or as improvements. The fact that the developer felt he could sell lots on a cul-de-sac with the back of the lot to the Simmons property didn’t matter to Mayor Drew and Ms. Bankhead. It seemed to Mr. Simmons that the City officials were somehow obsessed with the notion of taking his driveway, in spite of Judge Wilmore’s Decision that they had no right to do so. Seven years and an expensive and lost lawsuit had not changed the minds of these two City officials.
Mayor Drew and Ms. Bankhead also provided Mr. Simmons with an instruction kit as to how he could correct the annexation map error at his expense (the Cache County fee is $150).
JUNE
6/2 Simmons wrote an email to the City Council members requesting that the issue be solved now, this month. He requested the City either build the complete road they so ardently desire somewhere else or offer to buy the land they want. Mr. Simmons and his neighbors find it very frustrating that Mayor Drew continues to deny any plans for using Eminent Domain action on Simmons’ property while trying to prepare a subdivision plan that will make it extremely likely in the vague future.
The Utah State Code governing a public taking of private property requires that the planned use for such property be a legal use, that the taking be necessary for the implementation of that legal use, that construction toward such a legal use commence promptly following such a taking and that the proposed new use must be an improvement over the previous use of the property.
The Providence City code only allows two road width options for new roads: with paving sections of 37 feet and 56 feet. There is no legal 25-feet- wide road option for a new road. Currently Providence Mayor Drew has informed Simmons officially that his preference will be to require Cox to build a short stretch of half of a 56-feet-wide road on the south border of Cox’s property, with the plan that eventually (no date proposed) Providence City will take Simmons’ driveway and part of his yard via Eminent Domain for a road which cannot proceed all the way to Highway 89 anyway because USU has a big piece of property in the way of such a path–and the USU property is not subject to municipal Eminent Domain. The location of the USU property suggests that another location would be best for a wide thoroughfare, not the “2100 South” driveway.
The story so far, then, is that Providence City erred in annexing what turned out to not be a public right of way, failed to inform adjacent landowners of the annexation (as required by state law), lost in District Court when it was revealed that there was no such public right-of-way to take, failed to answer written correspondence asking the City to correct the error on the County map, now instructs Simmons to pay Cache County’s $150 fee as part of his application to the County to correct their map, and plans to (illegally) require Dan Cox to install a tiny section of one-half of a legal road– with the supposed plan of using Eminent Domain at some unspecified future date to seize the remainder of their required road width from Simmons by seizing his driveway and part of his front yard (already declared officially in District Court not to be a public right-of-way). In the alternative, they plan to await the appearance of a developer who will buy buy the Simmons parcel of 1.35 acres, tear down the house, built the other half of the city’s road, install a cul-de-sac on the west end at the USU property and subdivide the remaining land into ¼ acres lots.
An obvious major problem with this plan is that there is nothing in the Providence City Ordinances that requires an applicant to install a section of a road which does not exist, so Cox cannot legally be required to install such a section of a non-existent road. There is nothing in the Ordinances allowing one-half of a section of road to be built in such a location that its completion will require the use of Eminent Domain. It is not feasible for the current City Council to make decisions which would require future City Councils to enact an Eminent Domain action. Also, the most reasonable place for an east-west major street rather than the private drive (“2100 South”) would be along the 600 South. If Mr. Cox is required to place the back sides of two lots up against half of a short stretch of a non-existent road, with the expectation that the houses built on those lots will eventually look out on a major thoroughfare, that would seem be very poor planning–almost the opposite of planning.
[ A Chronology of Providence City’s Continued Attempts to Annex Private Property can be found by licking the link. ]
Some questions for the citizens of Providence, Utah:
If the city administrator, mayor, and city council members are honest people? Then why do they make written and verbal statements that they aren’t going to invoke eminent domain to take the Simmons and Creed land, then in private they ask the developer to build a narrow 24 foot wide road next to the Simmons and Creed property? They have stated that they want a 66 foot wide road. The city’s own codes require a 66 foot wide road. Where are they planning to get the rest of the road width if not by eminent domain against the Simmons and Creed property? Are they suddenly going to settle for a 24 foot wide road in violation of their own city code instead of a 66 foot wide road? If they are so honest and if there is nothing wrong with their behavior, why do they seek to hide it from the public? Why not openly admit they want the land and make an open and fair offer for it? Simmons and Creed both say that in the seven years this issue has lasted so far; neither the developer nor the city have ever offered to buy the land they want in the open and honest way normal people do when they want some land.
Why does the city council seem determined to solve the housing crisis along the Wasatch front of Utah by themselves? Were they elected by the developers? Or did the people who might want to move to Cache valley elect them? Why are they not more responsive to the desires of the people who already live in Providence? Why are they fixated on more and bigger roads instead of bike-paths, walking paths or even equestrian paths? Why are there not more city parks?* Why don’t they focus on improving the quality of life for the citizens of Providence instead of so much focus on future growth? Growth happens, so where is the focus on preserving a green belt and future city park lands to maintain the current semi-rural quality of life for the current voting citizens? They make a master plan for roads on land they don’t own or control, do they have future parks and bike paths set aside? The master plan map of future roads has been on the wall of the city administrator for years but only on the city website for a month or two. Where is the map of future city parks, bike paths, walking paths, horse trails?
They say they focus on future growth, do they have plans for a future pedestrian overpass from the north side of 1st north to the school on the south side or must the children of city voters risk life and limb to cross as the traffic they forecast from new development increases?
Honest and fair minded people don’t have to find ways to hide their actions from the public. In fact they look for ways to inform the public.
Steve Simmons
* One of Mayor John Drews campaign complaints with the previous mayor’s administration was “ignoring” lack of enough parkland acreage in Providence. Now is a perfect, if fleeting, chance to increase all property values in Providence by adding parkland and equestrian trails while procuring a greenbelt at the same time. (ed.)
Hello Watchdogs…
Below please see excerpted minutes from River Heights City Council, April 24th, 2018 concerning the Chugg property. Please see the part about Mayor John Drew.
Now this developer, whom many on Providence City Council think is just marvelous to know, is no longer willing to pay the cost of one of the two bridges which would be needed in order for his proposed town home subdivision to go up near the bench between the two towns.
The supreme irony of this is that it was his willingness to pay for the bridge and build it which first delighted various Providence City Council members (all but the late Jeff Baldwin, who remained rational throughout). An additional irony is the fact that they have approved the repugnant Life Cycle Residential zone and now have
NO PLACE TO PUT IT.
Having been romanced into passing a new zone, specially designed to rezone and invade established neighborhoods with transient residents and loud, heavy traffic, the Council members and the Mayor must now face up to being left dangling by a developer who was just kidding about what he intended to offer.
At the same time, days after the addition of this new repugnant zone to our Ordinances, the City has an application to build town homes on a 2-acre SFT (single family traditional zone) residential parcel from an applicant whop apparently thinks the parcel is already zoned LCR and wants to change it to MFM (multi-family medium density zone). I doubt anyone thought of this as a potential bad outcome when they approved the new zone, but here is an applicant trying to use the fictional application of the new zone as a way-station to justify asking for high-density zoning (none of that planned community stuff) in a single family neighborhood.
Recently I was thinking it might be feasible to refer to the voters the application of the new zone to the Chugg property. but now they are sidelined on that anyway.
Now I am thinking instead that not only did we not NEED the new zone, not only did many people sincerely oppose it for good reasons, but also it is really a liability looking for a place to happen (since it is described as a “rezone” by definition). Maybe the best think overall would be to refer to the voters the notion of getting rid of this zone as it is not needed here and seems likely to cause a lot of harm.
Laura
James Brackner will be finished working for the City by April 30. Mayor Rasmussen expressed his appreciation for all the help he has given him.
He has talked to Providence Mayor Drew and was informed the Army Corp of Engineers has gotten involved with the bridge on the Chugg property, which is causing the project to cost more than initially thought. The developer is now saying he didn’t say he would pay for the installation and asked for their annexation petition to be tabled while he looks into some things. Mayor Rasmussen told Mayor Drew that River Heights didn’t protest the annexation because it was understood that Providence would make sure the bridge was installed so they could take the traffic through Providence. And, if the developers come back to River Heights, Providence (or the developer) would still be required to put in the bridge. Some of the Providence residents are very against development on the Chugg property.
He is working with the city attorney to figure out the process for bringing non-compliant residents into compliance. Attorney Jenkins said non-compliance is a Class B misdemeanor and suggested a friendly letter at first. A second letter would be from the attorney, which would act as a citation. If the infraction is immediately remedied, the City will drop the charges. If it continues there will be fines, jail time, etc. Infractions, which will be looked at, will include all things that are non-compliant with the City’s code. Mr. Rasmussen suggested having a flyer delivered to each home, giving a heads up on the City’s plan before sending the first round of letters.
Providence resident Brian Craig shared his views in letters to the editor of the Herald Journal published October 18, 2017 and March 24, 2018.
Oct 18, 2017
To the editor:
The proposed Ridgeview Park Subdivision in River Heights creates a host of questions and concerns. The proposed subdivision, with 56 single-family lots, 52 active adult single family lots and 68 town homes, is located right next to River Heights Elementary School. After reviewing the proposed subdivision, I have a number of concerns. Specifically, I have traffic and safety, educational, environmental, green space, and flooding concerns.
Traffic and safety concerns: The proposed subdivision will increase traffic and safety concerns, especially around River Heights Elementary School. Traffic is already a concern, especially around the elementary school. Adding more homes, including more densely populated town homes, will impact traffic and safety in the area. Multi-dwelling units often bring in a more transient population than single family homes.
Educational concerns: The proposed subdivision will have a negative impact on learning at River Heights Elementary School. My son attends River Heights Elementary and I am concerned that the noise will affect learning at the school. I also wonder about class size since the school is already near capacity using more portable units.
Environmental concerns: The planning commission should require an environmental impact study before approving the proposed subdivision. The planned subdivision is located right next to Spring Creek which is home to major native plants, birds, and animals.
Green space concerns: The planning commission should require more green space and the addition of a city park with the proposed subdivision. Currently, River Heights has very few multi-family units. The city or planning commission should require more green space and consider building a city park within the proposed subdivision.
Flooding concerns: The proposed subdivision is located in an area that has been subject to flooding, including this past winter. Building news homes in an area which has been prone to flooding in the past, including a high0water table, raises some questions.
The River Heights City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 26, at 7 p.m. at River Heights Elementary to discuss and hear comments regarding the proposed subdivision. Those interested should attend this meeting and voice their opinion. This issue affects the people of River Heights and Providence since the proposed new subdivision includes access roads through Providence.
Brian Craig
Providence
Mar 24, 2018
To the editor:
I am expressing my opposition to the proposed annexation by the city of Providence of the so-called Chugg Property located south of River Heights Elementary School for a housing development. After the residents of River Heights banded together to oppose multi-family homes, the developer is now looking to the city of Providence for annexation. The property is currently unincorporated Cache County land and serves as hay field. The developer wants to build townhomes on the property which will add more traffic and crime to the area. This will also reduce property values in Providence and River Heights and take away even more green space. The elementary schools in Providence and River Heights are already exceeding capacity. I am not against all new home construction, but let’s leave the Chugg Property located south of River Heights Elementary School as agricultural property. At this rate, we won’t have any more hay fields left in Cache Valley.
Brian Craig
Providence
On April 24, 2018 the Providence City Council approved a new zone to be added to the Providence Code: the “Life Cycle Residential” zone. This zone is defined as a planned district which may include single family detached houses, single-family attached houses (i.e., town homes), “active adult” twin homes and apartments. This new zone is defined as a “rezone” which may be superimposed upon any already existing zone in Providence, such as the single-family residential zone. This means that an already existing neighborhood which is clearly specified on the zoning map as being in a single-family residential zone can be rezoned to the new Life Cycle Residential zone for the purpose of introducing high-density zoning into an already developed single-family neighborhood.
Concurrently, a real estate development company has requested annexation into Providence City of a 19-acre parcel which is presently zoned “Agricultural”. This parcel lies between the north boundary of Providence City and the south boundary of River Heights, with an east boundary of 300 East in Providence ( =1000 East in River Heights). The parcel lies between two established single-family neighborhoods: one in Providence and the other in River Heights.
It is clear that the Constitutionally protected right to the use and enjoyment of a citizen’s private property will be challenged very directly if this new Life Cycle Residential zone is chosen for the annexation parcel’s development. These Constitutional rights will be ignored by any decision which imposes high-density zoning on single-family neighborhoods. Additionally, as is true of any addition of residential expansion to a town, it will cost the taxpayers considerable money by definition, due to the taxpayers’ obligation to provide services such as water, sewer, snow removal, street maintenance, police protection and fire protection. The added traffic which will result from the application of this new zone to that property will bring markedly increased traffic, traffic gridlock and street parking problems to the surrounding residential areas in both towns and to Providence generally. School crowding also will be an unavoidable result to both River Heights and Providence schools– which are both already in need of more classrooms for the existing school enrollment. No increased road infrastructure will likely precede such a decision to apply the new zone because there seems to be a great deal os haste involved. Two bridges are needed at either end of Spring Creek Parkway for any such development, and the taxpayers will be expected to pay for these bridges.
Mayor John Drew: johnd@providence.utah.gov
Council Member Dennis Giles: dennisg@providence.utah.gov
Council Member Kirk Allen: kirka@providence.utah.gov
Council Member Kristina Eck: kristinae@providence.utah.gov
Council Member Roy Sneddon: roys@providence.utah.gov
When this developer was approaching the city of River Heights with Phase 1 of his proposed development, Elegant Acres, the following Geotechnical Investigation from July 12, 2017 was completed and addressed to Mr. Randy Eck of Ironwood Development. Mr. Eck is the spouse of Providence City council member Kristina Eck.
The full report can been seen by clicking or tapping here.
It should also be noted that council member Eck’s only campaign contributions came from realtors.
Dear John, Jeff, Kirk and Roy,
Our existing Planned District (Providence Ordinances 10-4-3) includes the Planned District which would satisfy all of the applicant’s wishes except for the inclusion of town homes, which is the only thing citizens have strongly opposed, It follows, therefore, that this is a zone proposal aimed specifically at the placement of town homes in a single family district.
The text of the Planned District emphasizes protection of adjacent or nearby zones as follows:
The Planned District’s minimum is 10 acres, not the 2 acres of the Life Cycle Residential zone. The Planned District requires “That each individual unit of development… can exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained desirability and stability or that adequate assurance will be provided that such objective will be attained; and that the uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but will have a beneficial effect which could not be achieved under other zoning districts; that the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the street network outside the Planned District; … that the area surrounding said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with the proposed development; that any exception form standard ordinance requirements is warranted by the design and amenities incorporated into the general development plan …. , that the Planned District is in conformance with the Master Plan, and that existing or proposed utility services are adequate for the population and use densities proposed.”
Here is a partial list of negative aspects of Life Cycle Residential zone:
Laura Fisher and Bob Bissland