Residents press Lindon City Council over long‑planned east‑foothills roadway; council offers information session

Dozens of residents urged Lindon City Council on Dec. 2 to halt or explain a long‑standing transportation plan that shows a collector/arterial roadway up the city’s east foothills and adjacent to several backyards.

At a public‑comment period that ran more than an hour, neighbors described surprise at recent notices, said right‑of‑way and slope easements already cut into private yards, and raised concerns about noise, traffic and impacts on children and wildlife. Speaker Dave Gardner, who said his home is seven houses from the affected zoning, told the council he and other residents felt “not being heard” and asked why the city still carries the roadway on its master plan despite funding and engineering hurdles.

The council and staff responded with a detailed explanation of city planning history. Adam (city administrator) and staff showed maps noting the roadway appears on Lindon’s general plan and street master plan in some form since 1968, with updates through 2015 and 2023. Staff said parts of the alignment moved over the years as private subdivisions developed, and that the city purchased or accepted dedication of some rights‑of‑way decades ago. Attorney Brian Hawes and staff emphasized the distinction between a planning map (which shows a future circulation vision) and an approved, funded construction project.

Staff and the mayor acknowledged the emotional strain for affected homeowners but said several practical obstacles make imminent construction unlikely: lack of funding, competing projects across Utah County that rank far higher for transportation grants, utility and canal relocation needs (including the Murdoch Canal), and federal land ownership on parts of the foothill alignment that would require congressional action to swap or acquire. Staff also said some of the parcels on the map are city‑owned; those were included in the public‑facilities zoning map for consistency, not because the council has an active plan to build a road now.

Residents countered that city actions — including past purchases, right‑of‑way dedications and recent map updates — make it appear the city is advancing the project incrementally. Dave Gardner and other speakers noted FEMA and MAG funding denials for portions of the proposed connection and asked what would happen to existing easements if the city did try to proceed. Staff answered that easements remain recorded on plats and would not be changed by the public‑facilities ordinance adopted later in the meeting, and that any sale or disposal of significant city property would require public notice and a council vote.

After hearing public comment, Mayor Carolyn Lundberg and council members said they had heard residents’ concerns and proposed next steps: staff will arrange an informational public meeting in the first two weeks of January so residents can review the history, maps and engineering constraints together with city staff. Council members encouraged residents who want a formal change to the master‑street plan to file a general‑plan amendment application (there is an established application process and fee).

The city emphasized that, as of Dec. 2, there is no funded construction project and no council vote to build the roadway. Council members also said they were open to reviewing the master plan if community members pursue a formal amendment.

Ending: The council closed public comment after scheduling the January public information meeting; staff said they will contact community organizers and interested residents about timing and materials.