OCR Text |
Show County planners give OK to Snyderville Master Basin Plan But critics noted recent court decisions ruled it is not legal to require compatibility. At a Jan. 29 hearing on the Basin Plan, Smith changed it to a Relative Policy. So why is it again a required policy? Smith said the courts threw out "required compatibility" if it meant that neighbors had the power to approve or reject the project. The revised Summit County Basin Plan, on the other hand, would give the planning commission the power to approve or reject on compatibility, Smith said. (Developers are required to contact neighbors and discuss possible problems with them. ) The change was commended by Park City Planning Director (and Snyderville resident) Bill Ligety. "It puts you (the commission) back in the driver's seat," he said. The panel will judge compatibility by a list of specific criteria in the plan. In other discussion, the meeting resolved two issues raised at the Snyderville hearing on Jan. 29. At that time, critics asked whether the plan could legally require subdivisions sub-divisions to hook up to the Snyderville Basin Sewer Improvement Improve-ment District. The answer is yes, according to . Assistant County Attorney Franklin Andersoi . Courts dave upheld requiring sewer hook-ups, he said, il it was reasonable and did not discriminate. Isn't it discriminatory, asked Kass Richins, if the provision tends to stop development far from sewer lines? "But it doesn't stop them permanently." said Anderson. Another issue has been how much open space should be required for a commercial development. Smith said he will propose a commercial project that can cover 65 percent of a site, but could go to as much as 85 percent coverage with a density bonus. Those were the figures supported by the commission, he said. The bonus points, said Smith, would be awarded for specific items related to landscaping, such as buffering. Rogers also said points should be given if the project is located near a commercial cluster area. Citizens at the meeting said the bonus would encourage good landscaping. land-scaping. Developer Richard Dudley said this plan is better than requiring a larger amount of open space. In the latter case, he said, the builder would just leave a minimal grassy area. However, Dave Krajeski wondered won-dered why the bonuses were needed. "Why not just give 'em 85 percent coverage and have them do a gow'. job?" If the builder doesn't want to provide good landscaping, he said, then he doesn't develop. The commission also received a letter from planning director Bill Ligety which contended the permit system will allow random high-density development that will create city-level demands for service. Ligety quoted the Utah Boundary Commission Act: "municipal boundaries boun-daries should be extended ... to include areas where a high quality of urban governmental services is needed ..." In response to a Record question, he said that it is not a veiled threat that Park City will annex in Snyderville. The letter notes that urbanized areas need services, he said, and the county doesn't realize yet what that will cost. Summit County should cluster development at certain points in the basin and create low density in the remainder, he said. Lisetv disagreed with the argument that this awkwardly mixes the old zoning guidelines with the permit system. ("I'm not convinced you can't do a hybrid system." he said.) He said two provisions are encouraging in the Basin Plan. One is the recent change that makes Compatibility an Absolute Policy. The second is a Relative Policy that discourages placing intense multi-family multi-family use more than a half mile from the intersection of major streets. ligety said the Basin Plan in general ain't properly plan density. In his letter, he said a developer could build more than 10 units an acre and with some effort, 30 units an acre. He contrasted this with Teton County, Colorado. In the most developable area there, he said, the base density is one unit per three acres. Jerry Smith disagreed, saying by his calculations the maximum density under the plan would be 16 units an acre, which now exists at Powderwood. Smith said the Tuesday revisions would be written up by the end of the week for review by planning commissioners. The county commission hearing on the plan is set for March 13 at 6 p.m.. in Coalville by Rick Brough The Summit County Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the Snyderville Snyder-ville Basin Master Plan to the county commission. But the commission was still making revisions to the plan at their Tuesday night meeting in the Coalville Courthouse. Commissioner Kristen Rogers suggested the panel should take another look at the entire Master Plan and its new permit system. She said it could allow developers to build projects that were highly incompatible with their surroundings. surround-ings. In response, the commission approved a revision that would change compatibility from a Relative Policy (encouraged) to an Absolute Policy (required). The policy would also include a set of specific standards, to be reviewed on a project by the planning commission. Rogers met resistance when she suggested the plan should also suggest areas where various densities den-sities are appropriate. Van Martin, a county resident and planner, said that approach would take the county back to its old zoning system. "If you do what you're saying, you should throw out the permit system," he said. The commission vote was preceded pre-ceded by a comment from commissioner commis-sioner Lamar Pace. He said the commission should take action on the plan (which has been under development over the last two years) even if questions are still raised about it. "We can just keep going round and round. Every night we come up with something different." (Tuesday's meeting was the fifth on the plan in the last two months. ) The commission said its approval was subject to revisions it approved that night. If planning commissioners commis-sioners have any further comment, they agreed they will speak at the county commission hearing on the plan, scheduled for March 13. The Basin Master Plan gives a permit to a project by judging it against Absolute Policies (elements required or prohibited) and Relative Policies (elements discouraged or encouraged. ) A developer could receive negative points or positive points for his performance on each of the Relative items. He cannot receive a permit if his total score is under 0. But if he acquires enough positive points, he will receive a bonus that allows greater density. In questioning the Basin Plan, commissioner Rogers said she took a hypothetical bad-case scenario a 100-unit hotel with a bowling alley across the street from a school and calculated how it would fare under the plan. She said that even though the project lost points for some items (including incompatibility) it could still earn enough positive points to pass, and even acquire the maximum bonus for density. The only way to stop such an instance, suggested commissioner Kass Richins, was to require compatibility. "There's gotta be something that has another name, but means the same as 'We just don't like it.' " Rogers suggested reconsidering the permit system. Recalling all the work that has gone into it, she added, "I know that's a terrible thing to say." She also said the moratorium on present construction permits should be lifted. The commission's solution to make Compatibility an Absolute Policy seemed to be a reversal from actions taken, only a week ago, that softened the requirements for compatibility. When submitted last December, the Basin Plan had a color-coded compatibility map that classified areas by use. But after critics said that was virtually the same as the old zoning method, Summit County Planning Director Jerry Smith dropped the map late last month. In the December version, Compatibility Com-patibility was an Absolute standard. |