OCR Text |
Show Paw A14 Thursday, May 18, 1989 Park Record VEEWIPCDIOT We al I gave away the farm "We're mad as hell and we're just not going to take it anymore!" You remember the battle cry from the movie Network bellowed out building windows, generated by a pent-up feeling of helplessness. Well, we're mad as hell around here but we can't decide who we're angriest at Franklin Richards, the City Council or ourselves. Last Thursday the City Council voted to annex a portion of Richards' 38 acres in Thaynes Canyon and allow it to be developed for 11 homes and an office building. The land is part of the view corridor cor-ridor into Park City, and the new row of houses will mark the new edge of town. Richards' initial plan was met with sharp criticism last February at a public hearing which was cut short, largely to prevent "Richards bashing," as Mayor Hal Taylor called it. The developer subsequently was urged to go back to the drawing board, develop a master plan for all of his land andor consider annexing his entire acreage. With a minor alteration here and not too much adjusting there, Richards' came up with a plan just one lot short of his original proposal. But it was enough of a change to lead the council to approve ap-prove it last week, despite continued criticism from the neighbors of the proposed strip development. develop-ment. Looking back at the approval process, it's difficult dif-ficult to see how Park City is benefitting by this. It's also difficult to be convinced that the public hearing process works. The council members had asked Richards to consider annexing all 38 of his acres. He would not. They asked him to consider at least annexing ; his own estate into the city. He would not because ! his property taxes would increase. They asked ! him to create a master plan for all 38 acres. He ! did. But without annexing all the land at once the master plan became a moot point. Why didn't the council insist upon some compromises com-promises from this developer? The reasons are uncomfortable to address but necessary. Franklin Richards' property is currently in the county. In November, Richards was elected one of three county commissioners. Since that time he has worked well with the city on a number of issues, most notably Rails to Trails, a plan to turn abandoned railroad lines into multi-use bike paths in Summit County. The veiled threat that only council member Kristen Rogers (who voted against the annexation) annexa-tion) addressed was, that if we didn't annex this land Richards wouldn't use his political position MMnm5saIli and cooperate with Park City. There was also some concern by city officials that Richards would take his plans to the county and develop something ugly andor largely commercial. The fears of the city fathers regarding this proposal pro-posal were in line with public sentiment, but their actions were not. Just a few weeks ago under the direction of Public Affairs Director Myles Rademan, the city hosted an evening of mass meetings called Community Com-munity Vision. One result of that gathering was a clear mandate man-date that disciplined growth is the direction th majority of those 400-plus participants of the evening even-ing wanted to head toward. Most said the view corridor cor-ridor was important to protect, and most said open space was admittedly idealistic, but the hope was to keep as much green belt as possible. Most of us who participated came away feeling we were all connected and we needed to work together with a shared vision for the future. So what happened to allow this annexation to take place? Was the council afraid to ask Richards again to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more visually pleasing? pleas-ing? Was Richards just a smart businessman who counted the votes and saw the need to put some middle-priced lots on the market in Park City and then timed his move right? We're angry at the council for not demanding all 38 acres to be annexed and master-planned together. We're angry at Richards for ignoring his neighbors and public sentiment, and for playing politics. And we're angry at ourselves for not using us-ing this space before to urge council to not give away the farm. But now it's done. The questions are, will we continue to give away the view, piece by piecemeal? Why did the council back down on a tough political issue and is that the direction we can expect them to take in the future? Will Richards now with his front yard in the county and all those back yards in the city be a good neighbor and develop the rest of his land in accordance with the vision held by the majority of Snyderville basin residents? Can we speak up and out and still play on the same team and hold shared goals? One thing is for certain we're mad as hell that we held all the cards and let ourselves get dealt out of the game... Why did the city annex the ranch? by ALISON CHILD & PAULKIRWIN This article revolves around one simple question. ques-tion. Why did the city annex a small parcel of ground from Franklin Richards' ranch? Last week we asked the question of the city council because it involves the view corridor coming into Park City; an area the public has shown an overwhelming over-whelming interest in protecting. The only way to protect it is with good masterplanning. This requires re-quires the cooperation of developers to submit entire en-tire developments for annexation and masterplanning. masterplan-ning. We asked the question because this partial annexation joltingly breaks with tradition. We have required total annexation and master planning plann-ing from all developers in the past Deer Valley, Iron Canyon and recently, the Smith Ranch. So we asked the question and didn't get an answer. Let's go back. A couple of months ago, the city council held a public hearing on an annexation petition from county commissioner, Franklin Richards. Mr. Richards was asking to annex into Park City, a As I See It small silver of his 40-acre ranch at the entrance of town. The proposal included a row of 12-single family lots along Payday Drive and an office building on the corner of Payday Drive and the highway. At the public hearing, residents of Thaynes Canyon Ca-nyon attended in mass, protesting that the project violated some planning fundamentals such as: 1) a lack of a masterplan for the entire parcel; 2) giving the developer special treatment by allowing allow-ing him to annex only a small portion of the property; pro-perty; 3) placing the backyards of homes to the entrance of town; 4) allowing lots smaller than the Land Management Code stipulates; 5) allowing commercial spot zoning in a residential neighborhood. The citizens pleaded with the council coun-cil to demand a quality plan from Richards, to not sell Park City short by allowing this half-baked proposal to stand at the entrance of town. The council agreed. Well, sort of. They asked ,CrS--i-F ' ml Vi YOUR. OWN . jl) I Richards to annex the whole parcel and to supply a masterplan. Richards said no. He refused to annex an-nex the parcel on the grounds that he would have to pay city taxes on the undeveloped land. The council finally talked him into supplying a "masterplan" but at the same time said, "don't worry, we won't hold you to it." At that point, the "masterplan," became meaningless and everybody knew it. As a last grasp to try and get some show of good faith from Richards, the council coun-cil asked him to annex his personal estate into the city. Richards said no. At last week's city council meeting, they approved ap-proved the Richards' annexation as originally proposed. pro-posed. No realistic masterplan, no total annexation, annexa-tion, no annexation of the Richards' estate, no sensible sen-sible planning on the parcel that was annexed, no thinking about the implications on future annexation annexa-tion requests and absolutely no negotiation from Franklin Richards (Kristen Rogers was the sole vote against and she apologized profusely to Richards for her vote. ) We received some amazing reasons why the staff, planning commission and council were in favor of the project. One councilman's sole reason was that Richards would have to pay city taxes on the undeveloped override good planning and the best interest of an entire community? When Iron Canyon, Smith Ranch, Deer Valley and others came in for annexation, were they allowed tq,an,-, nex piece by piece? No. Long difficult negotiations were entered into, during which the developers gave and the city gave in order to assure quality developments. The planning staff and a council member said if the whole property was annexed now it would surely be developed in the next three years. They said it would be better to have it as open space as long as possible. So what's the option? A piecemeal, poorly planned development in five years that will stand for another hundred? What kind of long-term logic is that? We would much rather see planning for a quality project now, even if it means development now. One planning commissioner's position was if they said "no" then Richards would go to the county for development approvals. This is a statement state-ment made of fear and lack of confidence. Perhaps that's what's most distressing. Richards needs everything the city has to offer in order to develop a product people want to buy; city services ser-vices like water, snowplowing, police protection, plus a Park City address, recreational services and a right to vote on city issues. In addition, the county does not want to service a property flanked on all sides by property in the Park City limits. It is in the best interest of the county that the entire parcel be annexed into Park City. An "off the record" remark was made that if they denied the project, Richards might refuse to work with the city on entrance corridor issues in the county. How absurd. Why would Richards work with them on entry corridor issues when he refused to work with them when his own project was on the line? A project in his own front yard. Another "Planning 101" issue all parties ignored ig-nored was the spot zoning of a commercial office building in a residential neighborhood. Not only does this open the door for other commercial uses on the rest of the parcel and across the street, but it relates to absolutely nothing. Office buildings belong in commercial areas with other office buildings around them, not as a sole isolated use next to homes and certainly not in a piecemeal style along our entry corridor, especially when there's ample office space in Prospector. One council member said no one would want to live on that lot anyway, next to the highway. Tell that to the owner of the home across the street on the corner cor-ner of Payday and the highway. The reason it works there is because someone had the foresight to plan a large buffer strip between the highway and Thaynes. Something Richards' plan lacked altogether. Annexation and the proper masterplanning of property at the entrance to Park City is of critical importance. What the staff, planning commission i and cjty council have done is not only approve a single, poorly planned development, but sent the signal that our confidence has vanished. We are afraid to negotiate tough issues and fight for the best possible solution. We are sending the message that we no longer believe Park City has the power to negotiate with strength for the public good. We no longer believe we hold the power to direct our future. In short, we no longer believe. Instead, we make decisions out of fear. What a way to look to the future. Why did the planning staff, planning commission commis-sion and council take such a soft position? Why did Richards get everything he wanted, providing no concessions to the city? Why did the city clearly vote against the public's wishes? Why did the city approve the Franklin Richard's annexation? Paul Kirwin and Alison Child are co-owners of Kirwin Productions. Paul is a 10 year resident of Park City and Alison an eight year resident. Alison served as a planner for Park City during the boom years of 1981 to 1985. The couple reside at 17 Payday drive across the street from the Richards property. ff(DIP tfELKB ffiecBCDIPGn How do you maintain a healthy lifestyle? (This is "Live Healthy Week.") 4, 'V - V 4, "i I H A4 11 1111 "'"" " .' m wwimhihiiiiim .r -v. , ' "I -rk h A f ( f- I Gentry Gamble salon owner Everybody knows I'm going go-ing to be lying...I really don't know. I don't do anything to be healthy. Jeff Haughton furrier I just work out, ride a bike, play golf, don't worry and be happy. Paul Davin hairdresser I run, lift weights and I put a lot of stuff on my face because I'm almost 50. 1 eat well, no booze, no drugs. Wolf i Lewis locksmith I work out three or four times a week and smoke cigarettes. I do moderation in everything else. Everybody should have a few bad habits. Tim Snyder windsurfing specialist I drink beer, sail as much as possible and chase a two-year-old around. Hans Jakobovitz sales rep I live in Heber, stay out of the bars and smell all of the cow dung. |