The Summit County Council on Wednesday continued to review and debate a proposal for a storage business along State Route 248 in the Kamas Valley.
The discussion included heated opposition from councilor Doug Clyde. It also touched on issues about the character, the economy and the planning policies on the East Side.
The proposal for Mountain Side Storage would locate the business on a parcel of more than 13 acres on the south side of S.R. 248. The site, currently used for lumber processing, is adjacent to a UDOT road shed a short distance away from Democrat Alley on the other side of the highway.
The applicant is asking for a zone change from AG-5 to commercial, and a master-planned development approval.
The proposal was blasted by Clyde, a South Summit resident. He said it’s a square peg in a round hole. He added that, amid a single-family area, the rezone would trigger other owners to ask for a zone change.
“So we are going to take one parcel on this road, we’re going to pull it out and we’re going to say, it is no longer single-family because we believe in our heart of hearts that there is something magical about what you’ve drawn here that makes this a good thing for the public,” he said. “And therefore that single object would allow you to rezone every parcel on the entire street to that zone. This is not comprehensive zoning. This is not paying attention to the general plan. This is doing a very bad job of what we’re doing. We are telling the people in Kamas Valley we don’t give a damn about our general plan. We don’t give a damn about what we’ve been over with you. We’re going to spot-zone this damn thing for whatever specious reason you like.”
Councilor Roger Armstrong also asked how this squares with the East Side General Plan and Development Code, which went through a painstaking revision process earlier in the decade.
He said residents told them the east side should stay as an agricultural community. He said under the general plan, the county vowed it would push density toward the cities, which need business development, and they would entertain commercial only through an avenue like a village overlay zone.
“Where is the stability that we promised to the East Side,” Armstrong said. “Where is the overriding public need to do this.”
But the applicant, Rocky Malin, said when he came to the county about two-and-a-half years ago, staff planners said there was a deficiency of commercial on the east side and they were looking for desirable spots.
“They came back to us and said ‘okay, well, we’ve looked at areas and there’s really no other better area,’” Malin said. “Because, I mean, if we’re talking realistic here, show me anywhere else in the Eastern Summit County that’s in a better location, that if we do put a 30-foot building, you’re not obstructing views like crazy. This is the only spot that you’re down in a hole that you don’t do that. And they’ve identified that. And they said on top of that, they’re looking at the salt storage unit, it’s just not a desirable area.”
He also exchanged words with Clyde.
“Sorry, Doug, I know you think this is a flaming piece of (expletive) on everybody’s doorstep. … You know what? It’s really hurtful and really actually kind of disappointing to have a public entity speak of somebody like that, but let alone when we’ve worked with your staff that you have hired.”
Clyde disagreed with Malin’s assessment of the county staff’s reports.
“Rocky, you’re not going to prevail on the notion that staff was an advocate for this project,” Clyde said. “That is just completely false.”
Later on, Council Chairman Glenn Wright told KPCW there were good arguments on both sides, but he leaned toward approval.
“I really respect Doug’s opinion that that’s not appropriate according to our zoning,” Wright said. “But on the other, readings of the Eastern County Plan indicate that they are in favor of economic development, and there are few Commercial areas. And sitting next to the UDOT salt shed is probably is something that’s very similar to a commercial activity. Plus a lot of the AG-5 approved uses are very commercial-like. This looks like to me a pretty decent project.”
Councilor Chris Robinson said that on balance, the factors favored approval.
“We should try to be accommodative to private property rights if they’re not overwhelmingly, substantially inimical to the greater good,” he said. “You would argue, Doug, that it is inimical, harmful to the greater good. ... My point would be similar to Roger’s, that there are many other uses that could actually be more detrimental, higher buildings, greater impacts.”
Robinson said his major concern is that approval could open the door to bigger or more intense uses that are allowed in the commercial zone—and also allowed, in fact, in the AG-5 Zone.
Wright said the council has given its instructions to the staff for the next meeting.
“I think we’ve given guidance to planning to essentially tweak the development agreement so we can vote on it when it comes up to us next. ... So one of the pieces of guidance we gave planning was to remove the uses that are not being asked for.”
