LACKING FINESSE PLANNING COMMISSION PASSES THE BUCK TO COUNCIL MONEY TALKS AND BULLSH*T WALKS. TOP DEFINITION

GOOD POLITICIANS ARE THOSE THAT PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK THAT REALLY ACHIEVE RESULTS. THOSE THAT JUST TALK THE TALK ABOUT VARIOUS ISSUES, ALL TOO OFTEN TO MAKE THEMSELVES SOUND GOOD WITHOUT ACHIEVING ANYTHING. By Teddy B 12/24/09 Urban Dictionary

 WE ARE ABOUT TO FIND OUT WHAT OUR COUNCIL IS MADE OF

WHEN THEY TALK THE TALK ABOUT DIXIE SPIRIT – FAMILY VALUES – TRADITION – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS WHERE IS NURTURING SENSE OF COMMUNITY TO BE FOUND?

City Planning Commission Meeting of April 14^th may have intentionally or unintentionally set the stage for SG City Council to reveal itself…..You will be glad to know that I am not referring to Code Enforcement Reform or the blatantly obvious favoritism shown to the Lions Rodeo Event….Hidden under the guise of Tradition.

 Folks, the Planning Commission is made up of citizens hand-picked by Mayor and approved by the City Council. Utah Code 10-9a-302. Planning commission powers and duties. The planning commission SHALL make a recommendation to the legislative body for:

(1)   A general plan and amendments to the general plan;

(2)   Land use ordinances, zoning maps, official maps, and amendments;

(3)   An appropriate delegation of power to at least one designated land use authority to hear and act on a land use application.

(4)   An appropriate delegation of power to at least one appeal authority to hear and act on an appeal from a decision of the land use authority; and

(5)   Application process that:

(a)    May include a designation of routine land use matters that, upon application and proper notice, will receive informal streamlined review and action if the application is uncontested; and

(b)    Shall protect the right of each:

(i)              Applicant and third party to require formal consideration of any application by a land use authority;

(ii)             Applicant, adversely affected party, or municipal officer or employee to appeal a land use authority’s decision to a separate appeal authority; and

(iii)            Participant to be heard in each public hearing on a contested application.

Renumbered and Amended by Chapter 254, 2005 General Session

Utah Municipal Code 10-9a-203. Notice of intent to prepare a general plan or comprehensive general plan amendments in certain municipalities.

(1)   Before preparing a proposed general plan or a comprehensive general plan amendment, each municipality within a county of the first or second class shall provide 10 calendar days notice of its intent to prepare a proposed general plan or a comprehensive general plan amendment:

(a)    To each affected entity.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT having been given with the listing of the above Utah Municipal Code sections I will review agenda item 7B: Consider a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Commercial. The proposal is to change the General Plan to allow for the future submittal of a commercial zone change. The property is located on the north side of 1580 East and River Road on approximately 1.4 acres. The applicant is River Road Inv. and Shefco. The representative is Mike Sheffield. (His father is Steve Sheffield the developer of the Summit Athletic Club/Jiffy Lube/Maverik. Steve is hoping to bring a commercial development to the big vacant lot located west of the Summit Club.)

The property in question is located on the west side of River Road where it intersects with 1450 South. The 1.4 acres is next to the north side of Bundy Lane…..It’s a dirt road below the backside of the St. James Homes that looks north to the Virgin River. You may have seen trucks dumping dirt to raise the Flood Plain level almost reaching the Virgin River. This agenda item only pertains to 1.4 acres. The large remaining acreage is not now at issue.  Currently there are 3 to 4 homes located on Bundy Lane. They look like old farm homes and if you don’t look closely you will missing seeing the entry way to Bundy Lane. To a layman, it may appear to be a piece meal approach in developing the entire site where you see dirt being dumped. I have been informed that $500,000 has already been spent just to bring the dirt onto this site. This has been an expensive long term investment for the property owner (s) and you may determine for yourself how this ties into Utah Codes regulating General Plan Amendments.

This Planning Commission meeting began with all commissioners being present. Also present was Councilman Bowcutt, representing the entire City Council. It was made known to the applicant and public that this meeting was ONLY to address GPA and not any other issue. Development of entire site would be addressed at a later time. This, as expected, rubbed citizens the wrong way. Representatives from the Boulders, Saint James, Eagle’s Ridge, Eagles Landing, and Quail Valley Neighborhoods informed the Planning Commission that commitments made a year ago concerning this specific site are not being complied with. Resident Tim Martin asked that provisions of a year ago be considered in total…..Traffic Study, agreement to work with residents needs to be followed. Jinx informed Commission that this should not be done incrementally, “We are seeing pieces. We want traffic study included.” The Commission was told “There is more animosity, concern than you can imagine” brought on by the manner in which this issue is being processed. The feeling was expressed that Planning Commission should not have to deal with this piece by piece, “It’s a Sheffield Problem”.

Steve Sheffield informed the Commission and Audience that concerning the Westside River Road Investments “I have no interest on Westside” This has been turned over to son Mike Sheffield and his brother. Steve related that he in effect has retired from being a developer and is now employed by the company and serves as a consultant and advisor. Steve explained that he lives in the Boulders and that the development of this property has created unfavorable living conditions for him. Steve is now in the process of Ward Shopping in order to make the decision of where to move. To his credit Mike Sheffield expressed his willingness to work with neighbors in a belated effort to resolve issues. In describing the 1.4 acres where he plans to build a two story building that will house a Stevens/Henager Business College…..Mike Sheffield expressed a willingness to meet with neighbors and discuss mutual concerns. Mike Sheffield mentioned the fact that Bundy Lane was partially on his property. The city had evidently been lax when approving the roadway.   

To further confuse the issue, Commissioner Beuehner stated “General Plan does not have force of law” This statement needs to be clarified if we are to better understand the power and duties assigned to the Planning Commission in dealing with GPA issues. It appears City Manager Esplin has his work cut out in providing direction to the Planning Commission.  When it finally got around to the Planning Commission voting to approve the applicants request two of the commissioners had excused themselves and had left the building. A motion made by Don Beuehner to grant the request died as did the motion made by Todd Staheli to reach an amenable solution. The Buck was passed WITHOUT a recommendation.

Carol Bundy, a 34 year resident of Bundy Lane posed the question. What is best use for Bundy Lane? I caution you to be wise. Its 1.4 acres…..Maintain integrity of Lane…..Maintain safety.

 Thank you, ED BACA