Coombs' Corner 2 Lot Subdivision

Share Coombs' Corner 2 Lot Subdivision on Facebook Share Coombs' Corner 2 Lot Subdivision on X (formerly Twitter) Share Coombs' Corner 2 Lot Subdivision on Linkedin Email Coombs' Corner 2 Lot Subdivision link

Consultation has concluded

The applicant requests review and recommendation of the proposed Coombs Corner Preliminary and Final Subdivision, a 2-lot residential subdivision located approximately 1765 North 1100 West in a R-1-Flex zone.

The proposal will divide an undeveloped lot into two lots with a road connection through the middle that stubs into the property to the south. The property is approximately 0.693 acres which results in a density of 2.9 units per acre. The proposed lots both exceed the 8,000 square foot lot minimum and meet the lot frontage requirements for the zone. The proposed lots are similar in size to the surrounding subdivision lots.

The applicant requests review and recommendation of the proposed Coombs Corner Preliminary and Final Subdivision, a 2-lot residential subdivision located approximately 1765 North 1100 West in a R-1-Flex zone.

The proposal will divide an undeveloped lot into two lots with a road connection through the middle that stubs into the property to the south. The property is approximately 0.693 acres which results in a density of 2.9 units per acre. The proposed lots both exceed the 8,000 square foot lot minimum and meet the lot frontage requirements for the zone. The proposed lots are similar in size to the surrounding subdivision lots.

Consultation has concluded

Ask a question to staff. You can submit a question here or call staff directly with the information provided on the right side bar.

  • Share Questions: 1. Do the neighboring property owners, Sunderland, Blanchard, and Gause, have concerns with this proposal? 2. Is the city held responsible for the creation of the road going through this property and will taxpayers be contributers? Land developers should pay for this improvement, not city taxes. 3. Will Ms. Sunderland's or current occupant's property, noting large garden next to the proposed construction, be protected? Candace Jones, candancejones@gmail.com on Facebook Share Questions: 1. Do the neighboring property owners, Sunderland, Blanchard, and Gause, have concerns with this proposal? 2. Is the city held responsible for the creation of the road going through this property and will taxpayers be contributers? Land developers should pay for this improvement, not city taxes. 3. Will Ms. Sunderland's or current occupant's property, noting large garden next to the proposed construction, be protected? Candace Jones, candancejones@gmail.com on X (formerly Twitter) Share Questions: 1. Do the neighboring property owners, Sunderland, Blanchard, and Gause, have concerns with this proposal? 2. Is the city held responsible for the creation of the road going through this property and will taxpayers be contributers? Land developers should pay for this improvement, not city taxes. 3. Will Ms. Sunderland's or current occupant's property, noting large garden next to the proposed construction, be protected? Candace Jones, candancejones@gmail.com on Linkedin Email Questions: 1. Do the neighboring property owners, Sunderland, Blanchard, and Gause, have concerns with this proposal? 2. Is the city held responsible for the creation of the road going through this property and will taxpayers be contributers? Land developers should pay for this improvement, not city taxes. 3. Will Ms. Sunderland's or current occupant's property, noting large garden next to the proposed construction, be protected? Candace Jones, candancejones@gmail.com link

    Questions: 1. Do the neighboring property owners, Sunderland, Blanchard, and Gause, have concerns with this proposal? 2. Is the city held responsible for the creation of the road going through this property and will taxpayers be contributers? Land developers should pay for this improvement, not city taxes. 3. Will Ms. Sunderland's or current occupant's property, noting large garden next to the proposed construction, be protected? Candace Jones, candancejones@gmail.com

    CJones asked over 3 years ago

    Thank you for asking these questions. The first most important thing to realize is that this proposal meets all of the zoning and Development Code requirements which means it will be approved. The Utah State Constitution states that all Development Laws are interpreted in favor of the property owner. If they meet the requirements they get to build, even if all of the neighbors are opposed.

    Yes , all neighbors within 300 feet were notified by mail about this proposal. And they will be able to leave an online comment or speak at the public hearing on Thursday. Again, they cannot simply oppose this development and get it denied. They can share concerns and the applicant can choose to incorporate in any suggestions (but they do not have to). If anything is pointed out where they have not met the Development Code requirements, the Planning Commission could require those things be done for approval.

    The applicant will pay for the roadway and other improvements. Developers always pay for the needed infrastructure for their development. If they build a road wider than what is usually required, then the City reimburses for the extra width. Same if they put in a larger water pipe or sewer. This is because the larger size provides service for other parts of the City, not just their development. That is not the case with this development. None of the improvements will be reimbursed by the City.

    The applicant will be required to mitigate against impact to neighbors during the construction process. That being said their will be noise, dust and other annoyances that come with construction. Those may impact Mr. Sunderlands garden to some extent but should not cause any harm greater then the usual inconveniences caused by living next to construction.