Commission moves forward on new housing project
Members of the Logan City Planning Commission read a motion Thursday night to approve a new housing development at 1000 N. and 600 East, but only on the condition that multiple changes be made.
This is the third time the commission has discussed the development, called “Independence Student Living,” and the seventh time changes have been made to the plans, said John Brandley, owner of the project.
According to the motion, read by Planning Commissioner Amanda Davis, conditions of approval include: three parking stalls must be clearly provided for each apartment, exposed concrete be covered with vegetation and a better height transition must be made between the concrete facade and the surrounding residential houses.
The new development, if approval is finalized, will be a high-density student living area, approximately 55,000 square feet in size and will have two levels of parking.
“What we’ll do is provide high-end housing for students,” Brandley said.
However, many Logan residents and some on the commission remain opposed to the idea.
“This is people’s neighborhoods,” said Allison Hale, Planning commissioner. “Would you like to look out your window while driving your child to Joy School and see this cold concrete structure?”
Davis said she strongly disliked the amount of concrete in the project.
“We live a block away, and I think it is a monstrous atrocity,” said Natalee Champlin, a Logan resident. “I do not support it at all.”
Champlin said residents were not informed about the zoning change, and there was no chance for anyone in the neighborhood to appeal to the city. She said she considers the entire project unethical.
“It’s just too big for such a small space,” Champlin said. “Although, it’s true, the existing homes there aren’t pretty either.”
Champlin said since discussion of the development began, neighborhood residents have become much more involved in the planning process, and the conference room in the city hall was completely full Thursday night. Many members of the crowd were vocal opponents of the apartment structure.
However, neither the commission nor the citizens have the legal basis to interfere with the building design, Brandley said. “The commission is only supposed to read the code and make sure we comply with the code, not redesign the whole project,” Bradley added.
John Kerr, Planning commissioner, agreed, but commissioners Davis and Hale disagreed.
“I’m no contractor,” Davis said, “but I don’t think this height transition here is what we want.” Hale said she does not think the building will look good, particularly during the winter after the trees have lost their leaves.
Brandley said he wished people would listen to Kerr, who has been on the commission for more than 12 years, rather than Davis and Hale.
“I had the best architect in the state of Utah design this building,” Brandley said. “And we have these two girls arbitrarily throwing out numbers and redesigning my project, and they don’t know what they are talking about.”
Davis said she was unsure if the conditions they were placing on Brandley and the other developers were legal and asked the city attorney his opinion.
“I will defend the decision of the planning commission,” said Kymber Housley, city attorney, “but it’s going to be hard to defend if we are going to listen to the parts of the code we like but not the parts we don’t like.”
Brandley said the commission was being fickle in not allowing the project to go forward and had overstepped its bounds by doing anything but making sure the builders followed the building code.
– evan.millsap@aggiemail.usu.edu