I appreciate the input the Garden City community came to give at the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission on Wednesday, May 5th. Input is good, helpful, and necessary especially when it brings unknown facts and ideas to light. I have read every letter sent to the town and have tried to read every comment on Facebook about the proposed Sun Communities Development As a member of the Planning Commission I again would welcome any other thoughts you may continue to have on any projects that come before the Planning Commission.
I do feel that there is a lot of misinformation that is
being promulgated about the proposed large RV park and unfortunately due to
time constraints were not discussed at the Public Hearing. I will try to be as
quick and succinct as I can and talk about some of these. These are my thoughts
and beliefs based on my own personal knowledge and do not represent anyone
else’s thoughts.
First I wanted to quickly say that in my opinion when it comes to the proper role of government (especially in my role as a planning commissioner) I feel the primary role of the government is to protect and maintain the people’s freedoms. Government ought to only intercede for true public safety reasons or if someone is directly harmed or a strong negative externality affects someone greatly enough that government action is required, but it is always better to try to educate the person(s) causing the harm before applying force to correct the action. These are the principles I try to base my actions on as a member of the commission.
1. CLAIM – The RV Park application lacked the signatures of the current land owners which is required for zone changes.
RESPONSE – I am unsure why the application that was made available to the public did not have the signatures, but the copy at the town offices has the required owner signatures and to my knowledge the owners are aware and agreed to the proposed zone change.
2. CLAIM – The current density of the zones don’t allow for this project.
RESPONSE – This is tricky and gray, but very important and needs to be studied out. The Planning Commission has asked Sun Corporation to do a “density study” before we would consider a PUD Rezone to see if the density would be dramatically changed from the current proposed uses.
Density can be thought of in at least three ways: 1.) Lack of Open Space due to the space that buildings take up on a parcel. 2.) The sheer number of “buildings” on a parcel. 3.) The number of people that would be using the parcel.
1.) There won’t be many permanent buildings on the parcel and even if we count all the temporary RVs on RV Pads, the yurts, the park model homes and the commercial buildings, there will still be a lot of “open space” meaning places without any kind of structure on it. In this sense the density of the land is less than it would be with most other allowed uses on the land, such as a residential subdivision. A PUD is required to have 70% open space, while a subdivision requires no open space, only that setbacks be met.
2.) If we look at the number of “buildings” on the parcel, and I would include temporary RVs in this number, then the density is dramatically higher than it would be with most other allowed uses on the land.
3.) Examining the amount of people that could use the land as an RV Park versus other allowed uses, such as a residential subdivision, I am not sure what the results would be. It is possible that the amount of people would be the same. I am expecting a density study will provide more information to help us examine this point of view of density.
My conclusion is that we do not have enough information to conclude if the density of the zones would change dramatically, so further research is imperative.
3. CLAIM – The application did not have a legal description or development schedule on the application which is required.
RESPONSE – This information was sent to the town with the application. Again, not sure why it wasn’t provided to the public, but I don’t believe it is necessary for it to be given to the public to meet this requirement. Anyone can go view it at the town offices if they so desire.
4. CLAIM – The sewer, water, and electrical services can’t handle this project
RESPONSE -
Sewer: As of May 3rd, no one from the public had called the sewer district to discuss this project. I spoke to them and they said they will be able to service this project and it should not make the sewer service any worse for anyone else.
Water: No one from the Town Public Works raised any concerns about providing water to the project.
Electricity: A representative from Rocky Mountain Power is aware of this project and had no objections or concerns about providing power. She said there are some upgrades they may have to do to their systems, but they can handle this project.
5. CLAIM – RV Parks aren’t allowed in the 3 of the 4 zones
RESPONSE – 11F-102-A-3 says “Any use listed as a permitted or conditional use in the Garden City land use ordinances may be approved in any Planned Unit Development Zone if such use by location, characteristic or design is deemed compatible with the character of the area in which the development is proposed and is consistent with the policies and goals set forth in the Town’s General Plan.”
RV Parks can be considered in a PUD, but only if deemed compatible. The planning commission has yet to decide if this project is compatible with the area. This is not as black and white as some believe but is a gray area and must be examined. There are good arguments both ‘for’ and ‘against’ this area being used for an RV Park. I feel some parts of this land are compatible and some parts may not be compatible, or would only be compatible with appropriate buffers and screenings put in place and this will be a big part of the discussion (see also response #2 about density).
There are 4 zones within the proposed land:
1.) Commercial-3 Zone: This zone does allow for RV Parks with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Even without rezoning to a PUD they could put an RV Park in this zone with a CUP.
2.) Single Family Residential Zone: This zone does not list any similar uses to an RV Park and I am hesitant to allow an RV Park in this area unless it is shown the density would not be much different versus a residential subdivision and that screening and buffers are put in place to mitigate issues with neighboring landowners.
3.) Hillside Estates Zone: With a CUP this zone allows for Cluster developments. In the recent past a yurt village (Spuhlers) has been approved in this zone. The proposal from Sun Communities is for some yurts and glamping type structures in this area. Even without rezoning to a PUD they could put these structures in this zone with a CUP.
4.) Recreational Residential Zone: With a CUP this zone allows for Cluster developments. Even without rezoning to a PUD they could put cluster development like structures in this zone with a CUP.
6. CLAIM – PUDs are for mixed uses and this is not mixed use because it does not include residential living.
RESPONSE – The proposal includes recreation areas, commercial buildings (with possible restaurants & retail), yurts, park model homes, and RV Camping spaces which I heard Sun Communities is for temporary living anywhere from nightly to all summer long. I do not believe a PUD is required to include “residential living” as the ordinance does not use language such as “a PUD SHALL include residential living, commercial ventures…” etc., but instead only list possible types of uses. In the past the following PUDs have been approved with the following circumstances:
Legacy Beach PUD – This was 3 zones (Single Family Residential, Commerical-3, and Beach Development Zone). It was rezoned a PUD and approved for variety of different residential buildings, notably it includes townhome buildings on what used to be a Single Family Residential Zone which would not have allowed townhomes without the PUD rezone. No commercial ventures were included. I feel this PUD has fit into the community and is a successful PUD in my opinion.
Bear Lake Escape PUD – This was 2 zones (Commercial-1 & Commercial-3) and was approved for several townhome buildings and had no commercial ventures.
My point isn’t that this is how it should be, only that it isn’t unusual. I do feel the town council and planning commission ought to examine the PUD ordinance and process and make some decisions about how they ought to be used and what the best practice should be. In some ways a PUD is “good” for the city because it requires a lot more open space and it makes many items negotiable that wouldn’t be otherwise. PUDs in general can make it win-win for the developer and also the town.
7. CLAIM – There will be no buffer between this project and current homes.
RESPONSE – The commission has the ability to ask for buffers to be put in place and I would highly recommend this be required to mitigate the potential negative externality on adjacent homeowners, however, the commission only has this ability if it is zoned as a PUD, otherwise the developer only has to meet the setbacks. This will surely be discussed.
8. CLAIM – This process is going too fast and should be slowed down.
RESPONSE – I agree that a project of this size needs to be carefully considered and I don’t think anyone on the planning commission or town council is okay with this being rushed.
9. CONCERN – Traffic congestion will become worse with this project. The entrance & exits need to be thoroughly thought through.
RESPONSE – The biggest need our town has related to roads is another street that goes North and South. The proposed Paradise Parkway is the road planned to fill this need. If this project were to happen it will help enable Paradise Parkway to be completed sooner than it would otherwise. Sun Communities would be turning several acres of land over to the town for this Public Road.
I too am concerned about the traffic issues that could come from entering and exiting this project. The commission is requiring a UDOT study to be done to see how these issues could be mitigated or if it is even possible. These studies have traditionally been very thorough and helpful in making decision.
10. CONCERN – This will bring too many people too fast. We need to slow the growth so the various services in the area are able to deal with the increase of people.
RESPONSE – I share this concern especially as my role as a first responder (I am a local fire fighter, AEMT, and work at the Sheriff’s office). I have been concerned about this with every PUD the town have approved (i.e. Waters Edge, Legacy Beach, Water Dance, Paradise Parkways Townhomes, Bear Lake Escape). However, I have come to the conclusion that the better solution is for the services that will be strained by growth ought to be proactive in being prepared for the growth instead of reactive. I realize this is easier said than done especially with volunteer organizations, but I know that there is more that can be done.
11. CONCERN – This will put a burden on emergency services such as the Fire District, Ambulance services, law enforcement.
RESPONSE – See response #10
12. CONCERN – This project will be an eyesore.
RESPONSE – The government should encourage beauty but should not force it with the exception of when the lack of beauty creates a strong enough negative externality that intervention is needed. Also, a capitalistic system usually helps to ensure that projects such as this are done in a good-looking manner. It is in the best interest of the RV Park management to keep things look nice. Lastly, the Planning Commission will recommend trees and things to encourage it be pleasant to look at but those kinds of things are only negotiable in a PUD.
13. CLAIM – There has been no transparency in the project approval process.
RESPONSE – Nothing out of the ordinary or special was done for Sun Communities.
Like many other projects they requested to present a concept for an RV Park at an AEG (Affected Entity Group) meeting in Feb 2021. AEG meetings are usually attended by a member of the town council, 2 members of the planning commission, the head of Public Works, the Fire Chief, a Rep from Rocky Mountain Power, a Rep from the Sewer District, and a few others. The purpose of the meeting is to explore whether or not any of the affected entities have any major concerns about a potential project. Some feedback was given from the different entities. No public notice is required for these meetings as there is no voting or other actions taken. It is just a very conceptual discussion.
Sun Communities then filed an application for a PUD zone change which must be accompanied by a conceptual plan for the land. A public hearing was scheduled and notification to all landowners within 300 feet of the project were mailed using the county records. If a notice wasn’t received by one of the neighbors it is because the address on the county records were out-of-date or incorrect. Notices of the planning hearing were also posted as required. And the conceptual information was mailed to all planning commission members.
This is the normal process and I feel is transparent and allows for public input before any actions take place. The information about the project is available to anyone by going to the town offices or attending the public hearing. The information was also given in the public Planning Commission meeting. I am personally willing to share any information I have with anyone who would like to talk to me.
In closing I want to say that as a planning commissioner member I want to balance the interest of the residents of Garden City with the desires of the land owners or developers. I want to protect the constitutional rights of property owners, but also work to ensure public safety. I want to help find compromises in the different opinions and work together for the good of all. Decisions are best made on complete information and it is vital that information be freely shared and available. Thanks for listening and I look forward to listening to future discussions on any planning commission topic.
-Joey Stocking
7 comments:
There are a few things I want to say, first both garden city and the Utah coffee require all parties affected within 300 feet to be notified at least 10 days before a public hearing. There were many people myself included who were not notified and we are definitely within 300 feet.
As to a 500+ RV park being open space because the RVs come and go, that's ridiculous, there are still RV pads and hookups and sun wants the park full on order to make money so it can't be considered open space.
And paradise parkway can't happen because the land isn't owned by the city regardless of the RV resort and unless they city plans to force the landowners to give it up, they have said they won't sell.
The congestion that will happen with the main entrance to the RV resort bring on Hodges canyon will be backed up during the summer in all directions and will not allow anyone to get in or out on that road because there will be nonstop rv's pulling boats and off road vehicles trying to turn on on a road that is barely wide enough for 2 lanes now.
And how will you get the thousands of people from the RV resort across bear lake boulevard to the lake?
I feel these concerns are valid and should not be dismissed so easily
Julie fraughton
I just want to address one aspect. Traffic. It seems to me this project is putting a lot of hope on the proposed Paradise Parkway. After the meeting I talked to the city engineer about what a realistic timeline for the proposed road was. His response was, "Five years, if at all." This brought to mind a news story on one of the local stations about Layton bonding for a new firehouse because development had spread to the west side of the freeway and the original firehouse could no longer meet the required response times. The fire chief's commet when asked about the need to bond to correct the problem was on point. "Well Developers have a lot more money than cities." The point is, the local citizens may well end up paying for the infrastructure to support it.
I would like to suggest that the author, Mr. Stocking, may have a conflict of interest that should be looked into. During a break in the hearing I believe I saw him slip outside to discuss the proceedings privately with one of the developers. That is very inappropriate and indicative of a conflict of interest and violation of the open meeting laws. The tone of his article is very defensive and appears to belittle the legitimate concerns of those attending the hearing in a very condescending tone, and does not address the issues in an unbiased manner. There may be a need to demand that Mr. Stocking recuse himself from this discussion due to his very apparent conflict of interest.
I fully agree with former Mayor Spuhler, that the commission members need to take training offered by the state regarding their legal responsibilities, as that deficiency was clearly evidenced in the hearing, and in particular by Mr. Stocking. For those interested in what this entails, a link to the manual that attends this training is https://site.utah.gov/lua/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2016/01/Land-Use-Authority-Handbook-2016.pdf
The first thing Mr. Stocking dismisses is the purpose of a master plan, which is intended to guide the development of a community and is not subject to arbitrary modifications without extensive public hearings and input from a variety of profession experts and entities. To not do so trivializes the whole concept of a well commissioned master plan. Garden City is no longer a backwoods rural community, now with scores of million dollar homes and a large cosmopolitan part time population who highly value the character of the city where they have so much invested. A very large RV park is antithetical and contrary to that master planned vision. No one wants their property devalued to enrich a corporate client and those others (developers, realtors, land owners) who would personally benefit to the detriment of the overall community.
The concerns about traffic, open space, density and character of our community should not be trivialized, and I would hope that the huge outcry of the citizenry in this hearing is clear and evident to the Planning Commission that the community does not want this change in the master plan nor this RV development. If the planning commission cannot comprehend that, then perhaps they should all be replaced with a commission trained in the responsibilities of a professional planning commission and appropriately in tune with the part time and full time residents of Garden City and how they feel about preserving the pure and noble character of our community. The developers do not have a constitutional right to develop property contrary to the master plan of a community. If that were allowed then anyone could build whatever they wanted wherever they wanted, including putting functions such as an industrial plant, wrecking yard, slaughterhouse, or gravel put in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and so on. If Mr. Stocking does not understand the laws and regulations and responsibilities of a planning commission it is imperative that he avail himself of the offered legal training necessary to perform his function, and recuse himself from these decisions if he cannot in all honesty declare he has no ulterior motive, bias, or allegiance.
Well written article. We have a process in our government to take a look at and analyze these applications. For people to jump to quick conclusions, often based on misinformation, is not how it works. I personally have not formed any opinion because I don't know all the facts, and haven't heard all the facts. For people to say there's not enough water and sewer without even talking to the water and sewer districts is the perfect case in point. Fear does not create fact. And claims of not being notified about the meeting while having property within 300 feet is not to blame on the P&Z, it's either a mistake in the property records or some other issue. No official action was taken in the last meeting, therefore no harm and no foul. When I first heard about this large proposal, sure I had my thoughts and concerns, but I didn't immediately condemn the whole proposal, especially without having the facts. Just wait until it's your turn in line to present a proposal...what if you were immediately rejected without say and people tried to silence you? There's a process for a reason.
This is a great write up.
It appears that much conscientious effort and care was put into this.
I send appreciation to the effort and thought and balance and freedom of our great county to iron things out.
We all agree that the Bear Lake area is a great treasure that we love and want to care for.
There needs to be more input from the community regarding who represents them. Don't leave the fox to watch the hen house.
I Challenge "Been There Done That" to provide evidence of their claim that Joey has a conflict with the developer that needs investigated. I also challenge them to apologize for falsely impugning his character. That was quite the leap of logic and reflects more on the writer than on Joey.
Disagree on the facts. Vehemently disagree about the zoning changes. That is your right and the backbone of our civic process, but please leave personal attacks, especially baseless accusations out of the process.
Post a Comment