-- MIDGE JOHNSON'S CONTRADICTORY VOTE

Last night, at City Council, Midge Johnson voted to deny the application of Anderson Development to amend the General Plan on 34 acres in west Provo, from Agricultural to Residential. The developer was proposing to build 72 homes on 34 acres of farmland and wetland. Mrs. Johnson argued aggressively to stop the motion.

This is the second time that Anderson Development has applied to amend the General Plan so that they could rezone and build on the property. Three other previous developers have tried to do the same thing, starting in 1998. Each time the Council has said "no."

Their reasons are always the same. The infrastructure cannot bear any more development-- the road is insufficiently improved, the traffic is over the limit, the groundwater is too high, and the sewer and storm drain systems are inadequate.

These same concerns were present in June,2005, the last time this developer tried for a Plan change. Except that in 2005, they wanted to build 117 houses on the same land. And in 2005, Mrs. Johnson was IN FAVOR of the proposal.

From the minutes of that meeting:

Ms. Johnson, Land Use Chair, said the Land Use Committee concurs with the Planning Commission and believes the amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals and noted the need for traffic issues to be addressed when the property develops and a Development Agreement is presented.

There was no response to the invitation for public comment. Councilmember Johnson moved to approve the amendment to the General Plan Map and text, an action seconded by Councilmember Warner.

Ms. Johnson said the applicant and neighborhood have addressed traffic mitigation. However, when the project comes for rezone, Engineering may have additional things to add/change. She supports the Planning Commission and the neighborhood recommendation for approval. This is a chance to help the neighborhood by providing larger homes to area residents.

Ms. Johnson reminded the Council that it was a last moment decision in the General Plan process to move this property back to the agricultural designation from residential. Ms. Richards said the General Plan language said the neighborhood supported a change based on the applicant and, if that applicant could not perform, the neighborhood wanted the property reverted back to agricultural. The General Plan honored that agreement.

The vote on the motion to approve the proposed General Plan amendment was 3:4 with
Councilmembers Johnson, Turley and Warner in favor and Councilmembers Dayton, Knecht, Richards and Sandstrom opposed.

For the complete staff report and meeting minutes go to :

http://www.provo.org/downloads/comdev/pc_staff_report_october_26_2005_item_4_web.pdf