OCR Text |
Show County master plan under examination By BRUCE LEE Record Asst. Editor "This is your policy guideline, the basis lor which you can make zoning and subdivision ordinance changes," Peter J. Van Alstyne, a community planner from the Center lor Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Utah, told the Iron County Planning Commission V)ct. 16. Van Alstyne was discussing the county master plan which the commission com-mission is currently revising in the first step of several in sorting out and updating up-dating the planning documents and processes in the county. The county has come under much criticism over the past couple of years concerning the planning and growth of the area. Developers have complained that the regulations weren't uniform or that they were too stringent. Many citizens have complained that the county has had no goals and plans in its growth and that it has resulted in haphazard and sprawling development, poorly planned subdivisions and lack of services in some outlying areas. Some of the problems were underlined un-derlined when County Building Inspector In-spector Gary Tharpe distributed copies of the most recent county zoning map, dated 1962. The map didn't reflect many of the changes that had occured in the past 18 years; nor did it anticipate an-ticipate future growth. ft also showed that more than half of the county is zoned 0-1, meaning that no local zoning ordinaces apply in that area. The current zoning plan says the land is "considered of such remote location or is otherwise situated so as to need substantially no zoning regulations of any kind. It then goes on to state that the only regulations in 0-1 areas concern auto wrecking and salvage yards, dumping grounds and explosive storage. Van Alstyne suggested that the planning commission make 51 amendments amend-ments to the present master plan. Many of the amendments were simply editorial changes, but others were substantive and required changes in the current growth plans of the county. Chief among the changes that he suggested was that the county adopt a policy of allowing new development to take place only in existing communities or contiguous to them; or, at the very least, that new developments be "directed towards'' these existing communities. One such amendment stated: "All land development should be restricted to existing communities or areas contiguous to existing communities." Other proposals expanded on this theme, adding that the reason for such a proposal is that it is very costly for the county to provide services to outlying areas. "Care must be taken to time the provision of residential land so that it can be developed so as to not promote sprawl which is costly to the county and communities. "Performance standards for new development should be used in the communities in order that the need for commercial land and various public facilities can be properly projected and related to need." Other proposed amendments explained ex-plained the thinking behind such requirements: "Residential growth of an urban nature should occur in a natural pattern through extension of existing residential areas so as to minimize the costs of providing additional ad-ditional schools, libraries, parks, highways, high-ways, police and fire protection, sewage, garbage collection, and other public facilities necessary to the health and safety of the public." "What you're concerned about is that your service costs aren't so high that your tax revenues won't cover it," said Van Alstyne. This concern has hit home recently when the county commission has heard complaints from residents of subdivisions sub-divisions approved years ago. The residents are now complaining that they don't have adequate services, such as roads and water. These services would cost the county money to provide, but, as the commissioners com-missioners have said in the past, there is at least some type of moral obligation to provide these citizens with these amenities. One other amendment suggested by Van Alstyne reflected this thought: "Isolated subdvision proposals for land development must provide for: access for vehicular traffic, culinary water, waste (sewage) and garbage disposal, lire protection, school transportation, and various other services identified with urban development. If the proposed land subdivision project in open land areas proves unable to provide for the necessary amenities and services needed by and associated with such development, the county should disallow any such land development. "There is no magical way to provide for the needs of human habitation of land. Either they are provided by the initial developer who develops the land or they are provided by the taxpayers of Iron County. To suggest that improvements im-provements are not necessary and to say that land development may be possible without providing for human needs is simply an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility from the individual in-dividual creating the development to the public at large who have no part in the development and have little or nothing to gain from such a project." The commissioners were quite happy with most of the proposed amendments, but no decisions will be made until they have had time to study them carefully. |