Approval of the change was first recommended by the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-1, after discussion and minimal public input. Perhaps some residents had missed the legal notice in the Deseret News.
The Council then approved the measure with a few changes, which further increased the allowable density. Approval was by a vote of 4-3, with Bangerter, Price, Draper and Farrell voting in favor and Anderton, Crittenden and Kohler voicing opposition.
Current number of houses existing in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) = 625
- potential houses under current law ca. 4700
- potential houses under new law ca. 6250
- A potential 33% INCREASE in an area with a current approval of about 1500 houses
Below is an analysis of the potential effects on the EPA(Center and Lake Creek area) from Wasatch County GIS data.
ASSUMPTIONS:
below 5.0 acres maximum houses acres/1.3 minus one for the current house
5.0 to 15 acres: maximum houses = acres - current houses
empty parcels will more likely approach the max allowable
parcels with current houses may be less likely to subdivide
current law: 0.75 houses per acre
Comments:
A few lots are P160
Timber Lakes development NOT included
For reference, Red Ledges development proposal was for a total of 1400 houses. In 2004, Wasatch County had 7,853 housing units.
This analysis does not include P160 and M Zone
This analysis covers ONLY the EPA and does not include other areas of Wasatch County, including Jordanelle (which may have a build out of 15,000 houses).
The primary cause of the increase under the new law results from now allowing credit for area used by roads in the computation of density. This has historical never been done. Under the current law, recently under moratorium, 25% of the area was removed for roads yielding a maximum density of one lot per acre for 75% of the buildable land in a parcel. (40 acres allowed 30 houses)
No solution was offered to the Transportation Plan for the area to accommodate this future growth. The recent citizens' General Plan review of the EPA was not presented or apparently considered.
acreage | <1.0 | 1.1-5.0 | 5.1-10 | 10.1-15 | 15-20 | 20-30 | 30-40 | 40-50 | 50+ | |
RA 1 No Houses Built | 547 | 372 | 147 | 68 | 21 | 16 | 10 | 6 | 14 | 1201 |
total acres buildable | ? | 845 | 1042 | 728 | 372 | 413 | 314 | 264 | 1244 | |
avg lot size | ? | 2.27 | 7.09 | 10.71 | 17.71 | 25.81 | 31.40 | 44.00 | 88.86 | |
maximum added houses | ? | 650 | 1042 | 728 | 372 | 413 | 314 | 264 | 1244 | 5027 |
under current law | ? | 488 | 782 | 546 | 279 | 310 | 236 | 198 | 933 | 3770 |
likely new houses ?? | ? | 300 | 600 | 500 | 350 | 400 | 300 | 250 | 1200 | 3900 |
RA 1 with a House | 183 | 333 | 78 | 15 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 625 |
total acres buildable | 134 | 771 | 468 | 177 | 137 | 52 | 65 | 91 | 195 | 1956 |
avg lot size | 0.73 | 2.32 | 6.00 | 11.80 | 17.13 | 26.00 | 32.50 | 45.50 | 97.50 | |
maximum added houses | 0 | 260 | 282 | 162 | 129 | 50 | 63 | 89 | 193 | 1228 |
under current law | 0 | 195 | 212 | 122 | 97 | 38 | 47 | 67 | 145 | 921 |
likely new houses ?? | 0 | 100 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 100 | 490 |
Total Parcels | 730 | 705 | 225 | 83 | 29 | 18 | 12 | 8 | 16 | 391 |
No comments:
Post a Comment