Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Disposition West Jordan Elementary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge board to halt or alter West Jordan Elementary land deal, cite density and drainage concerns
Summary
Residents and neighborhood advocates asked trustees to withdraw or renegotiate a land agreement for the former West Jordan Elementary site, saying Ivory Homes’ current plan for cottage/townhome lots does not “blend” with the neighborhood and warning about stormwater/retention basin conditions on the former playground.
Several neighbors near the former West Jordan Elementary school addressed trustees to object to a pending agreement to transfer the district parcel to a private developer, saying they had not been contacted and that the planned housing — described by residents as dense cottage/townhome lots — would not fit an existing single‑family neighborhood.
Multiple residents said they discovered development plans only after the board’s discussions and expressed frustration with the timing and notification. At least one speaker, Colleen (spelled “Kaleen” in the sign‑in), read excerpts of prior board remarks in which a district negotiator said Ivory Homes intended patio or “cottage” homes, then told the board that the neighborhood considered 4,000–5,000 sq ft cottage/townhome lots to be “pretty close to high density.” She asked the board to withdraw from the contract or to influence the developer to change plans.
Another resident, Eric Smith, told the board a portion of the former playground acts as a retention basin and can be soggy or hold up to a foot of standing water in some years; he urged that any developer be made aware of potential drainage and flood‑control work for the site.
Speakers also said they believed West Jordan City officials should have had an option to purchase the land or that the district should have publicly marketed the parcel. Community members said they moved to the neighborhood to be within walking distance of a single‑family elementary school and asked the board to preserve the character of the area. Staff responses at the meeting acknowledged residents’ frustration and noted the district is within a 60‑day due‑diligence period that runs into late October; staff said they would follow up and that residents had an opportunity to pursue local input channels as planning continued.
No vote or final land‑transfer action occurred at the meeting; residents said they intend to pursue conversations with the district and the city and, if necessary, community advocacy to influence the development plan.
