Response to “Feedback and Concerns about proposed Sun
Communities Development by Brad Davis
I have read the above titled piece submitted to the Rich
County Civic Times by Joey Stocking. I appreciate that a member of Garden City
government has taken the time to share his thoughts with the community. There
are, however, some parts of the piece that I think miss the mark.
As residents we are concerned that this development
represents a significant safety risk as a result of the increased and complex
traffic which will be generated by an RV Park of this size; we are concerned
that those of use whose residences directly adjoin the proposed park will
suffer direct harm as a result of a gargantuan commercial development in an
area zoned and set aside for low density single-family housing; and that we
believe that this type of development represents a significant net negative for
the community at large.
Now let’s get specific:
1.
The RV Park application lacked the signatures of
the current land owners, which is required for zone changes
a.
Mr. Stocking admits that the plan as released to
the public was improperly executed. In the next breath, however he states that
the copy at the town office contains the proper signatures. The plan we received did indeed lack the
proper signatures, making the application invalid. Dan Kurek, the Planning
board president stated that the town had possession of an additional
document that he purported was permission given by the current landowners
to submit the plan. Even if true, this doesn’t change the fact that the signer
was not an owner of record, and the application remains invalid.
b.
Unfortunately, this issue may be moot, as the
board allowed a hearing despite an invalid application.
2.
The current density of the zones doesn’t
allow for this project.
a.
The plan states that the total area affected will be 110 acres. Of
that, my math says that more than 85% is currently zoned R-1, RR or HE. Mr.
Stocking says that the above zone descriptions are “tricky and gray”, and
require further study. I respectfully disagree. In fact, this is the exact
reason that Sun Communities wants the town to designate this project as a PUD
(Planned Unit Development).
b.
Let’s look at the Garden City ordinances and
see if we can add some clarity.
i.
R-1 Single Family Residential Zone – from the
Garden City Town Ordinance: “11C-1201 Purpose. To provide appropriate locations where low
density residential neighborhood may be established, maintained and
protected, the regulations also permit the establishment of, with proper
controls, the public and semi-public uses such as churches, schools, libraries,
parks and playgrounds, which serve the requirements of the families. The
regulations are intended to prohibit those uses that would be harmful to a
single-family neighborhood“ (emphasis
mine).
ii.
RR Recreational Residential Zone – from the Garden City Ordinance”11C-
1401 Purpose. To provide appropriate areas for recreational residential
developments and related services and activities. Certain
retail and service activities which are in harmony with the intent of
this chapter are allowed subject to controls and approvals” (emphasis
mine). To be fair, this zone has more leeway than the R-1 zone. However, in
reading the totality of the description of permitted and conditional uses, it
becomes obvious that a 513-unit commercial RV Park in no way adheres to the
requirements of this zone. I encourage everyone to read the zone descriptions
carefully for themselves. An RV Park does not fit into the requirements of the
RR zone.
iii.
HE Hillside Estates – from the Garden City Ordinance: “11C – 1451
Purpose. To provide appropriate locations above the Garden City canal,
where low density residential neighborhoods may be
established and maintained to protect the natural beauty and wildlife.
Encourage parks and playgrounds, which serve the requirements of the
families. The regulations are intended to prohibit those uses
that would be harmful to a single-family neighborhood” (emphasis mine).
c.
It’s very clear that this project is not allowed under the current
zoning. Claiming otherwise makes reason stare.
3.
The application did not have a legal description or development
schedule on the application which is required.
a.
The simple question to ask here is why wasn’t the complete application
sent to residents who were legally entitled to proper notice? Mr. Stocking also
misinforms the reader, as it is NOT possible for go and view it at the town
offices. I know, as I did just that and was turned away. I was required, via an
order from mayor Mike Leonhardt, to submit a formal GRAMA request in writing
prior to being allowed access to the documents in question.
4.
The sewer, water and electrical services
can’t handle this project.
a. I
share the concerns of many of the residents that our municipal systems are
already running at or near capacity in the summer. However, for the present I
will take Mr. Stocking at his word.
5.
RV Parks aren’t allowed in 3 of the 4
zones.
a.
Mr. Stocking’s response here is a
non-sequitur. The objection is that the current zoning does not allow RV
Parks in R-1, RR or HE zones. This is true, as I showed in my answer 2
above. The specific wording of the allowed activities in residential zones prohibits
uses that negatively affect a single-family neighborhood.
b.
Mr. Stocking hijacks the argument by
using the PUD zoning ordinance and claims that it permits an RV Park. It does
no such thing.
c.
Mr. Stocking is correct that the C3 zone
allows for RV Parks with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
d.
He then agrees that an RV Park does not
fit into the description for the SFR zone, but immediately puts forth another
non-sequitur argument - that maybe it would fit if the “density” was
comparable, and “screening and buffers” were put in place. What part of “[t]he regulations are intended to prohibit those
uses that would be harmful to a single-family neighborhood” is unclear? The
placement of a commercial RV Park, containing a commercial ‘Main Street’ is
anathema to the concept of a single-family neighborhood.
e.
Regarding the Hillside Estates zone, Mr. Stocking claims that the
glamping operation is nothing more than a cluster development. He uses Mr.
Spuhler’s Yurt PUD as his argument. Finally, he claims that this cluster
development is permitted in the HE zone even without a PUD change.
i.
From the Garden City Ordinance: 11A-200-22.
Cluster Development. A grouping of residential
properties on a development site in order to use the extra land as open
space and preserve natural habitat. Open space must be a minimum of 70% of
the development. All roads within the cluster development, including
ingress and egress must be no greater than 8% grade” (emphasis mine).
ii.
Mr. Spuhler’s Yurt PUD sits at the top of
a pre-existing residential subdivision. It is essentially a short term
residential rental cluster. From my reading of the ordinance this would be
permissible.
iii.
Sun’s glamping operation will sit at the top
of a public commercial RV Park, and will be operated as part of that
commercial operation. Despite Mr. Stocking’s claims that the RV Park fits a
residential definition, Garden City’s own ordinance defines it as a “Commercial
Recreational Vehicle Park”. From the Garden City Ordinance: 11A-200-23
Commercial Recreational RV Park. This type of park has unified for the
purpose of providing rental space to the general public for recreational
vehicles. Neither the HE or PUD zones are intended to be primarily commercial.
iv.
Regardless of whether Sun Resorts intends to
provide some form of residential occupancy, the basic form of the operation as
set out by Sun Resorts themselves in their presentation was that of a
commercial recreational vehicle park.
f.
Mr. Stocking makes this same claim for the RR
zone. The counterargument is exactly the same.
6.
PUDs are for mixed uses, and this is not mixed
use because it does not include residential living.
a.
Mr. Stocking here states only part of the
argument against allowing this plan to go forward as a PUD. Currently, the
argument is accurate. The plan does not currently contain any true residential
real estate. Even if it eventually does contain some residential space, it is
still a commercial public RV Park under the ordinance.
b. When the Sun representatives at the planning
meeting were asked about residential spaces, their answer was somewhat vague
and evasive.
c. Mr.
Stocking states that he doesn’t believe that the PUD ordinance requires
residential space. From the Garden City Ordinance: 11F-101 Intent. A. A Planned Unit
development (PUD) is a development of a discrete tract of land for mixed
uses which provides for residential living, commercial
ventures, accentuating useable open space, recreational uses and
public easements. This wording indicates that a PUD must encompass all
of these things. “Provides for” means must have. Note the “and” in the final
clause. This means that the list is not a list of choices, it’s a list of
requirements.
d. Mr.
Stocking argues that other PUDs have been authorized by the town. He cites
Legacy Beach and Bear Lake Escape.
i.
Legacy Beach – Rezoned from SFR, C3 and
Beach Development. The claim here is that the PUD was allowed despite no
commercial ventures. According to my reading of the ordinance, this was an
improper re-zone. This development should have been re-zoned as a PRUD. From
the Garden City Ordinance: 11F-101 Intent. B. A Planned Residential Unit development
(PRUD) is a development of a discrete tract of land which provides for
residential living, accentuating useable open space, recreational uses and
public easements.
ii.
Bear Lake Escape – Rezoned from Commercial. This
is a townhomes development without commercial ventures. As above, this should
have been designated as a PRUD.
iii.
Mr. Stocking appears to be advancing two improperly
zoned examples as a rationale to make an even more egregiously improper rezone.
Again, this makes reason stare.
e. Mixed
use is not the only (nor the strongest) argument against allowing this project
as a PUD. Here are a few that should be compelling:
i.
The PUD ordinance has some rather specific
requirements. From the Garden City Ordinance: 11F-101. All
PUD’s and PRUD’s must be in conformance with and promote the purposes and
goals of the General Plan and other applicable ordinances of the Town and not
be in conflict with the public interest emphasis mine). Note the language – this is not a suggestion.
A PUD must be in conformance with both the General Plan, and not
be in conflict with the public interest.
ii.
The PUD ordinance is at heart a quid pro quo
arrangement between the town and the developer. The developer gains the ability
to create higher density residential occupancy mixed with commercial ventures.
Both of these produce higher income to the developer. The town gains open
space, additional recreational space and public easements. That last
piece is pivotal.
iii.
During the planning meeting, Sun Communities was
asked about public access to the Resort. Their response was to state that yes,
the public could purchase a day pass to access the commercial and recreational
attractions offered at the resort. Is there another example Mr. Stocking can
cite where a PUD was allowed to exclude the public from commercial ventures
unless they paid an additional fee? What public easements are going to be
available via the resort?
7.
There
will be no buffer between this project and current homes.
a.
No objection. Mr. Stocking is right on the money
here. The ordinance gives the town wide latitude with respect to establishing boundaries
and borders.
8.
This process Is going too fast, and should be
slowed down.
a.
No objection. Mr. Stocking makes a cogent point.
9.
Traffic congestion will become worse with this
project. The entrances and exits need to be thoroughly thought through.
a.
Mr. Stocking raises the question of Paradise
Parkway. Interestingly, he doesn’t directly offer the argument that the parkway
will reduce or eliminate the traffic problem that the resort will cause.
Instead, he states that if the project is allowed, the town will gain acreage
to complete the parkway and enable it to be completed earlier than anticipated.
This raises a thorny question of quid pro quo. That discussion is beyond
the scope of this piece, but a quote like this coming from a town official
involved in the approval process is very concerning. If the land donation is
contingent upon approval, then it may well be illegal.
b.
As he seems to be implying that the parkway will
have an effect on the traffic, I think it’s worth noting a few things:
i.
As Paradise Parkway has no ingress or egress to
or from the proposed RV Park, the Parkway’s effect on traffic will be limited
to re-routing a portion of Logan Canyon traffic from Highway 30. However, that
will aggravate the admittedly more severe traffic problem on Hodges Canyon
Road. Additionally, it will route that traffic through a residential
subdivision.
c.
Mr. Stocking does acknowledge the traffic issue,
and states that the commission is requiring a UDOT traffic study, which is
commendable. However, of this date, UDOT has received no request for, and has
no plans to perform such a study (personal phone conversation with UDOT Senior
Communications Official).
10.
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.
a.
No objection, Mr. Stocking makes another cogent
point.
11.
See #10
12.
This project will be an eyesore.
a.
Mr. Stocking’s response is to point out that he
believes that the city should not force an aesthetic standard. The town ordinance
states exactly the opposite. I fact, many of Mr. Stocking’s arguments are
contradicted by Chapter 11A of the Garden City Ordinance (General Land
Use Provisions). It is worth reading for everyone who has an interest in this
or any other land use matter in the town. I’ll just extract two instances from
the ordinances that are specific to this argument:
i.
From the Garden City Ordinance: 11A-102
Purpose. G. To protect and conserve wildlife,
streams, natural topography, and other desirable natural features by providing
for maximum retention of natural topographic features and qualities such as,
but not limited to, skyline and ridge tops, knoll ridges, established trees and
shrub masses, top soil, stream beds and banks, drainage swales, and preventing
damage to the natural environment or scenic beauty; (emphasis mine).
ii.
The second quotation is very specific to
the zoning matter at hand. From the Garden City Ordinance concerning the
Hillside Estates zone: 11C-1451 Purpose: To provide appropriate
locations above the Garden City canal, where low density residential
neighborhoods may be established and maintained to protect the natural beauty
and wildlife. Encourage parks and playgrounds, which serve the requirements
of the families. The regulations are intended to prohibit those uses that would
be harmful to a single-family neighborhood.
b.
Contrary to Mr. Stocking’s belief, the
ordinance was drafted specifically to attempt to preserve what we all love
about Garden City and the Bear Lake Valley. To say that we should fail to
consider that in the development of the town is anathema to what allows us all
to be here.
13.
There has been no transparency in the project
approval process.
a.
The subject of governmental transparency is a
difficult one, and I believe that in part we the residents share some of the
blame. How that can be remedied is a discussion for another time. The
perception that town officials have been less than forthcoming stem from some
of their own actions however.
Finally, Mr. Stocking and others
have made accusations that residents opposed to this project have been, in Mr.
Stocking’s words, “promulgating misinformation”. I can’t speak for anyone else,
however my efforts are directed towards making sure that all the relevant
information is heard and considered. That’s why I’ve taken pains in this
response to cite the evidence underlying my concerns with the language of the
Garden City Ordinance.
In
summary, we the residents are being asked to live with a commercial RV Park in
the midst of an area zoned and set aside in the Garden City General Plan as a
low-density single-family residential area. Both the developer and some members
of the town government are attempting to allow this to happen under the guise
of this somehow being residential.
Personally,
I am very concerned that the current members of town government are even
willing to consider approving the re-zone of this area for this project. It
does not fit the zone. It does not fit the PUD requirements. It does not serve
the public interest. Lastly, it is not welcomed by the many residents, who did
not become landowners to see the character of their town and its surroundings
irrevocably diminished.
Brad
Davis
http://stopbearlakervresort.com
