The Summit County Council is mixed on whether to support a proposed ordinance that changes how the county rezones properties in the Snyderville Basin to accommodate large developments, with some councilors expressing concerns about a decrease in oversight and others claiming the amendment could encourage smaller, more affordable projects.
Rezone requests are key in the Snyderville Basin because the area is predominantly zoned for low density development, which means developers need to rezone properties to build apartment complexes, mixed-use buildings or other large-scale projects.
Developers currently need to meet requirements outlined in two chapters of the Summit County Code before submitting an application for a zoning change. However, Community Development Director Peter Barnes told the County Council last week that the requirements mandate developers provide the county with “construction-level drawings” before it’s known whether the project will move forward.
The necessary level of detail, such as the exact placement of mailboxes, often costs companies millions of dollars, and Barnes speculated that developers are less likely to change site plans based on feedback from county officials when they’ve spent so much time and effort engineering the project before appearing before the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission or County Council.
“What we as staff are trying to do is adjust a process and the timing, the effort, the money, the energy involved … so that the right amount of input is created at the right time,” Barnes said.
The proposed ordinance would change the process so developers are only required to submit a “concept development plan” instead of detailed construction documents when requesting a rezone. Barnes said the amendment would also help community members provide meaningful input on a project because the potential development — and whether it meshes with surrounding properties — would be publicized before the company has finished the site plan.
“The most influence you can have on a project is going to be at the beginning of the phases, not at the end,” Barnes said. “If you can do that at a place where people are less invested in terms of time and money, then there’s going to be more willingness to accept a potential change to a proposal. … It’s a way of introducing projects earlier in their more outlined phases and then working and influencing the design as it develops through the appropriate design stages.”
Rezoning parcels is a legislative action taken by the County Council, while the approval of engineering details and site plans is an administrative action handled by the Planning Commission. County planner Amanda Curtis, who helped draft the ordinance, said the legislative process should focus on whether the project is appropriate and feasible for the proposed area, not engineering details.
However, Barnes and Curtis emphasized developers would still need to provide information regarding density, land use, open space and traffic to the county in a concept design plan submitted with the rezone application.
“This amendment doesn’t remove any review,” Curtis said. “We’re not lowering the standard. We’re simply changing when applicants have to provide the technical details.”
Curtis said the concept design plan would be a binding document, preventing developers from changing major aspects of a project after the County Council grants a rezone request. The county would also still be required to hold public hearings.
“‘Conceptual’ does not mean speculative or incomplete,” Curtis said. “We still need to know if the proposed road network is capable of meeting county standards. We still review whether the proposed density appears feasible under utilities, grading, access and other developmental standards.”
County Councilor Tonja Hanson said she was nervous about the proposed ordinance because it didn’t specify how much information is needed in the concept design plan to be considered “sufficient” for an application. County Council Vice Chair Roger Armstrong agreed, telling Barnes that the changes are “an invitation for mischief.”
“Changing a zone should be difficult,” Armstrong said. “(The County Council) is a pain in the ass to the Planning Department. We are a pain in the ass to developers. We are a pain in the ass because what we have here is special and unique, and we’re trying to preserve it.”
Armstrong said most developers have experienced attorneys who are comfortable finding and exploiting loopholes in local codes, which is why the County Council needs to be “careful” regarding any changes to how it rezones properties. He said “rough negotiations” between the County Council and developers often benefit the county because developers are forced to return with a more appealing project.
“On the surface, with the way it’s written right now, I can’t support this because there’s not enough certainty in the changes for me,” Armstrong said. “I’m not willing to release that much control over a rezone in this regard.”
But Barnes said the County Council wouldn’t relinquish control, telling Armstrong the result “is going to involve the same amount of work.”
“Achieving a rezone is going to be no less difficult for any applicant,” Barnes said. “All of those standards will have to be met. … What we don’t want to do is repeat it and make it unnecessarily expensive and time-consuming. We want to get a good project early, and we want the input and opinions of the public, the Planning Commission and Council early enough to have an appropriate level of influence on the final design.”
He reiterated that granting a rezone doesn’t mean a project has been approved.
“The design should be difficult,” Barnes said. “The creation of the project should be extraordinarily hard, and that’s where the energy should go. The processing of that application should not be the hard part.”
County Council Chair Canice Harte told Barnes that he doesn’t want to make the process easier for developers and that he would vote against the ordinance in its current form. He also expressed concerns that developers would attempt to “flip” properties, obtaining a rezone and building a smaller project to sell to another developer down the line for more money.
“There’s no reason for the council to make it easy on a developer,” Harte said. “It’s in our best interest to keep it challenging, to keep it difficult.”
County Councilor Chris Robinson didn’t comment on whether he would vote in favor of the ordinance. However, he had the same concerns as Hanson and Armstrong about the vagueness of the language and potential loopholes. He also suggested the county create an affordable housing overlay or similar zone to encourage projects of that type rather than hoping an easier rezone process inspires developers to propose more units.
County Councilor Megan McKenna was the only councilor to outright support the ordinance, saying it could encourage smaller developers to build in Summit County. Specifically, she said lowering the barrier of entry to apply for a rezone could help nonprofits, churches or similar organizations propose affordable housing or other community benefits if they don’t need to front costs to engineer a project before submitting an application.
The County Council is expected to hold a public hearing and vote on the ordinance on Aug. 19.