The 355-unit Fitzgerald Annexation within the Jordanelle Ridge subdivision planned for recently annexed northern parts of Heber City caught lots of criticism but ultimately City Council approval, however grumpily.
Planning Consultant Aubrey Larsen gave councilors a rundown of the project Tuesday in which she clarified there wasn’t any planned open space and that 18 of the units were to be affordably priced, 303 of the dwellings will be townhomes, and 52 will be single, detached homes.
“There’s a few things I remember talking about at annexation, and I’m not sure that they’ve been addressed,” Councilor Mike Johnston said.
He asked where townhome visitors are supposed to park.
Project developer Mike Bradshaw said each unit will have provided parking spaces, but Johnston wasn’t thrilled with his answer.
The roads, Johnston said, are too narrow for people to park and he didn’t see any guest stalls on the plan.
“I’ve tried to go up to what you’ve just built, which I think is great,” he said. “Except there’s no way to get to park and there’s no way to get to a front door on many of these units.”
He was worried about too many units with too little parking.
Bradshaw said it had been a challenge “not creating all these big additional parking fields.”
“Our concern is to make it pedestrian-friendly,” he said. “The guest parking stalls in the existing subdivision, frankly, are constantly being used by the existing residents, not people visiting. So it’s that constant challenge of people not using their garage for what their garage is intended for.”
Councilor Aaron Cheatwood and Mayor Heidi Franco agreed with Johnston’s concerns, saying that if people resort to parking on the narrow, private roads, snow removal would become difficult.
Moreover, the mayor added, if the townhomes are priced near the $800,000 mark like similar townhomes in the vicinity, they will likely be bought by residents who can afford not only commuting vehicles but side-by-sides and other fun toys.
“We granted density for this,” Johnston said. “The expectation is we’re going to give you density, but what turns out has got to be really good. … There are places where you ought to take out a unit and put in a couple of public parking stalls, just because that’s the right thing to do.”
Bradshaw maintained that no matter how many more stalls are put in, they will all be filled. Johnston told him it’s a homeowner association’s job to regulate that.
Johnston also wasn’t entirely impressed with the amenities offered by the community.
“You very much assured me that you would fit into here play yards, playgrounds, tot lots,” Johnston said. “You assured me at annexation, and we didn’t put it in an agreement because you assured me you would make room for that.”
While he saw some such places on one side of the community’s planning map, he found the half side relatively barren.
“It’s not fair to ask people to take their 2-year-old down to the city park every time the 2-year-old wants to go outside,” Johnston said. “These people don’t have yards. This is important to me and you assured me that would happen at annexation.”
Bradshaw assured him he understood.
Johnston continued to make sure certain trails were correctly in place and neighboring plat owners would be able to own certain public roads.
Councilor Sid Ostergaard agreed the plans could use more parking and parks for people to enjoy the community.
“I like the pedestrian access,” he added. “We need more of this.”
Despite the illicit parking that he thought would likely take place, he said he was a fan of the small streets and supported the pedestrian-friendly outlook.
Cheatwood largely agreed with criticisms from Johnston, though he was “slightly more blunt.”
“When I look at it, it looks like what happens at the end of loading a moving truck,” he said. “You have 10 boxes left and you’ve got to figure out some way to fit them in there. And you made it happen, but dang if there’s not any space at all left.”
He said he’s not anti-density, but an advocate for responsible density.
Bradshaw said that the subdivision’s master development agreement with the city would allow them to shift homes around to provide space for parks.
“In the end of the day, as we go to the final, we’ll tweak through this and we’ll address these comments,” he said. “It’s probably going to cause us to reduce a few units.”
Cheatwood also commented on how the affordable units were “significantly skinnier.”
To provide housing for individuals who make 60% of the community’s area median income, Bradshaw explained, they had to cut the size down to 1,100 square feet.
“It will be noticeable,” he said.
Cheatwood said he’d prefer affordable housing to be built in a way that would allow someone who moves into an affordable unit with the same square footage as their neighbors, a way that could cost the developer profit and not reduce the actual value of a home.
Still, he expressed appreciation for the plans that were presented.
In order to make the units catered to individuals at 60% AMI an equal size, City Planner Matt Brower chimed in, they would need to renegotiate the affordable housing agreement with the developer and would likely end up with fewer affordable units overall.
“There’s still a cost, the cost to build it,” Bradshaw said. “We’ve at least demonstrated to you that we can apply.”
Each council member in attendance — Cheatwood, Johnston and Ostergaard — voted in favor of approving the plans with their mentioned stipulations.