Logan City Council continues controversial Ellis neighborhood rezone

LOGAN – The Logan City Council has continued consideration of an ordinance that would have rezoned 31 acres of land in the Ellis neighborhood to allow high density housing. The issue will be discussed again at the council’s next meeting on June 7.

A proposal to develop a 31-acre parcel of land at 1000 West 200 South in Logan is being debated in the Logan City Council. Image from Google Maps

The purpose of that delay is to allow the developer to work with city officials and the neighborhood residents to define a right formula for mixed-use housing.

Council members got an earful of negative reaction during a public hearing on the project at their regular gathering on Tuesday, one day after a meeting with Ellis Neighborhood Council to discuss that issue.

It’s a very hot topic,” council chair Jeanne F. Simmonds acknowledged

Local residents were reacting to the possibility of seeing 941 one- and two-bedroom apartments constructed on the site at 1000 West and 200 South.

Project proponent Michael Jewell called that density a “worst case scenario.”

“We committed to building a mixed-use project with 60,000 to 80,000 feet of commercial space, 300 apartments and 100 town homes,” he added.

Jewell repeatedly said that he and his partners want to construct a project that would be a model for mixed-use developments under a plan issued by Envision Utah.

That plans calls for the development of communities that would be accessible and walkable to reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

The Envision Utah plan also calls for a mixture of residential housing with nearby amenities like restaurants, shops and grocery stores.

If their rezone request gets approved, Jewell said that their plan for the proposed development is for a maximum of only 14 units per acre.

“Mixed-use sounds like a good idea,” countered Ellis resident Christine Christensen. “But as soon as you say ‘Yes,’ you lose control.”

The lessons-learned from the nearby Meadows at Homestead apartment complex are not lost on Ellis residents.

Council chair Jeanne Simmonds agreed with Christensen, saying the development at 600 West and 200 North is not accessible, not walkable and has no community feel.

Lyle Lundberg said that Ellis residents are already feeling the negative effects of that development.

“I know people who are selling their homes,” he said, “because they don’t want to live with the instability that development will create.”

Council member Amy Z. Anderson admitted to being “a little gun shy” about approving Jewell’s request in the wake of what happened at the Meadows of Homestead project.

Jewell and his partners originally requested to rezone 31.39 acres from Commercial Services and Commercial purposes to mixed-use to create “a multi-faceted development that will include town homes, apartments, commercial and retail space.”

The land is currently vacant and has been used for agricultural purposes, according to city planner Russ Holly.

The surrounding area currently has a wide range of commercial and industrial uses such as restaurants, offices, light manufacturers and storage.

The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the project after hearing from Jewell that the plan by Urban Design Associates is to create a development that “makes the neighborhood better.”

Jewell said that his partners want a walkable community that includes residential, retail, restaurants, grocery stores, offices, parks and open space.

As an architect, council member Thomas C. Jensen said that he sympathized with Jewell’s predicament. He added a large comprehensive project on this site could be designed in a better manner than smaller projects elsewhere in the city.

He urged council members to reconsider the project that could result in improved layout and traffic circulation; consolidated open space; and, strategic commercial/residential interfacing.

After some additional debate, Simmonds moved that the rezone request be continued until the council’s next meeting to give the developers time to explain their plans to Ellis residents and to city officials.

That motion was unanimously approved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

3 Comments

  • Michael Morrill May 18, 2022 at 11:43 pm Reply

    Letter to Editor
    5-18-2022
    Abortion advocates will chant, “My body. My choice,” but apart from non-consensual sex (rape and incest), the choice is made prior to conception.
    That choice involves two bodies. A man and a woman. They bear equal responsibility for that choice. That choice produces a third, separate body with a unique combination of DNA from both parents.
    The fetus commonly referred to by expecting parents as our baby is not the body of the mother. A feeding tube connects it to the mother. This umbilical cord does not alter the fact that the mother and the fetus are two separate bodies.
    The proponents of abortion ignore these facts as they advocate the murder of a separate living being with unique DNA from the moment of conception from the father and mother.
    The Supreme Court appears to be ready to overturn Roe and send the matter to individual states where citizens may elect representatives to enact laws governing this issue. This is the right thing to do. It is the Constitutional thing to do. Constitutionally honest pro-abortion legal scholars have long concluded that Roe was poorly decided and ought to be overturned.
    Since Roe, fifty years ago, pro-abortion advocates have become militant, engaging in despicable behavior in opposition to any effort to limit or reduce the growing millions of babies killed, most often in the name of convenience. This has created a counter-effort from extremists on the other side of the argument. This is what happens when you try to nationalize an issue of law and morality that the framers knew was better left to individual states.

    Most states currently limit abortion in some way and despite Roe, the Supreme Court has allowed this. States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.
    Only two other countries in the world allow unrestricted late-term abortions. China and North Korea. Every other country on the planet finds this practice morally repugnant. So should we all, but if the citizens of those states do not elect representatives who see it that way, that is their right, until we adopt a Constitutional Amendment to protect the lives of the unborn.
    Can exceptions be made? Ethics dictate that exceptions to all moral questions can be made. If a pregnant woman did not consent to sexual intercourse, she must be given the opportunity to make the choice after the fact. If qualified medical practitioners determine that the mother has an extraordinary risk to her life in carrying the child to term, clearly the mother must be allowed to choose whether to take that risk.
    All life carries risk. The original choice to have sex accepts certain risks inherently. Your body? Fine. You wanted a body. Now you must take responsibility for its use, including and especially procreation. That was the deal we all made.
    But once you create another life, you must not be so sure that it is your right to take that life with impunity, for if you do, you will be held responsible by others who hold life to be precious, sooner or later. You cannot escape the consequences of such a choice.

  • Deb May 19, 2022 at 10:14 am Reply

    Why is this letter, which has nothing to do with the article, in the comments here?

    • skeetr May 24, 2022 at 9:26 am Reply

      drugs

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.