Lindon council keeps 1200 East on general-plan map after heated public hearing

The Lindon City Council voted 3–2 on March 3 to deny an application to remove a segment of 1200 East from the city's general-plan street master plan, keeping the collector corridor on the official map.

The decision followed a public hearing and extensive presentations from staff, the applicant and more than two dozen residents. City staff said the road is shown on Linden's general plan and street master plan (adopted portions cited in staff materials back to 1968 and most recently updated in the 2023 general plan), and described engineering, utility and funding constraints if the corridor were removed.

Why it mattered: The proposed removal was filed by a property owner whose lot and several neighbors carry recorded slope and construction easements tied to the corridor. The applicant, Dave Gardner, and nearby residents asked the council to remove the alignment to eliminate the easements and avoid potential future impacts to back yards and house foundations. Opponents — including other residents and some council members — argued that keeping the corridor preserves a north-south collector that would help regional circulation as growth continues in Pleasant Grove and Orem.

Staff presentation and technical evidence: Community Development Director Mike Florence reviewed the planning history and the location of the corridor along the northwest part of the city boundary, noting that most of the northern alignment lies inside Pleasant Grove and that Linden owns only small portions of the right-of-way in the immediate area. City Engineer Noah Gordon summarized a travel-demand study the city commissioned from Hales Engineering using the Wasatch Front regional travel model. Key findings staff emphasized:

- If the dashed (unbuilt) portion of 1200 East were constructed as a major collector (66-foot right-of-way, with 50 feet of pavement and bike lanes), modelled daily traffic for that new segment would be about 5,000 vehicles per day; the existing portion would carry roughly 7,100 vehicles per day. - The consultant estimated roughly 75% of trips on the new linkage would be through-traffic between neighboring cities (not originating or ending in Linden). - From a level-of-service (LOS) perspective, both 400 East and 1200 East would remain below commonly used congestion thresholds (LOS D) in the model's 2050 build-out scenario. In short, the traffic study concluded 1200 East is not required to preserve an acceptable LOS on 400 East, though it would redistribute traffic and reduce volumes on 400 East by about 2,000–3,000 trips/day if constructed.

Constraints and costs staff outlined: Florence and the applicant both reviewed practical constraints that limit when (or whether) the corridor could be built. Those constraints include complex topography that requires split cross-sections and substantial cuts/fills; the presence of the Murdoch Canal and the Salt Lake City-Sandy aqueduct corridor; private parcels (including a large parcel north of the Linden boundary owned by a private landowner that would need coordination with Pleasant Grove); slope and construction easements recorded on multiple lots; and prior grant/loan reimbursements tied to land purchases. Staff and the applicant repeatedly cited a rough constructability cost range of $15'$40 million for the full corridor (city estimate), and staff noted Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) corridor-preservation and MAG/TIP funding priorities generally focus on arterial-level routes or regional projects, which reduces the corridor's near-term funding prospects.

Public testimony and neighbor concerns: More than two dozen people spoke during the public comment period. Neighbors near Queens/Highlands developments described recorded slope and construction easements that cross private yards and in several cases reach close to or into existing home footprints; they said those easements have constrained landscaping and other home-improvement options for years. The applicant and several neighbors urged removal or re-alignment to avoid future construction impacts to private property, and they argued the corridor as shown is infeasible and unlikely to be built given federal and utility constraints on the hillside.

Other residents, former local officials and multiple council members urged retention of the corridor on the map as an option for the future. Speakers who favored preserving the alignment emphasized regional circulation, the long-term uncertainty of growth patterns, and the difficulty of adding north-south capacity later if it is removed from the plan.

Council action: A motion to deny the requested general-plan amendment (that is, to refuse to remove the 1200 East segment from the master plan) passed on a 3'2 vote (motion moved by Councilmember Van Broderick, seconded by Councilmember Lincoln Jacobs). The minutes show the motion carried; the result keeps the corridor on Lindon's street master plan.

Follow-up direction: Council members said they heard residents' concerns and asked staff to pursue design and mitigation steps if the corridor remains on the plan. Items the council asked staff to pursue included: evaluating narrower cross-sections and alternate design treatments to reduce property impacts (for example, reduced asphalt/pavement width, retaining-wall designs instead of broad slope easements), investigating opportunities and timelines to coordinate with Pleasant Grove for a possible northward shift of alignment, clarifying the exact legal and financial obligations tied to previously reimbursed land purchases, and exploring staged implementation strategies and funding options. Council members also requested further work on communications and outreach to affected property owners.

Ending: With that direction the council closed the hearing and moved on to other business. The vote preserves the city's long-standing planning option while creating a clear next step: staff will return with engineering, funding and coordination options intended to reduce impacts on private property and to clarify whether a different alignment or narrower cross section can meet public-safety and mobility goals without the current degree of intrusion on adjacent lots.