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
It’s been a crazy adventure this week. I’m pretty excited right
now.