New City Center Moves Forward, Part Three of Three

City Response to Public Concerns

by Robin M Johnson

Last of a three part series, this article addresses Midway City staff and planning commission’s answers to questions raised by residents in a public hearing held April 19.

Michael Henke, city planner, began the city response answering two questions raised by the public. First, has the city considered shopping and residential like the Riverwoods?  Henke said, “This code actually allows and encourages commercial on the lower and residential on the upper floors.” 

Second, have there been any financial studies to show the population and tourism can support the commercial and arts?  Henke said, “As for completing a Proforma on the property and doing a financial analysis, we have not taken that step at this point. It is already zoned commercial. This would most likely increase that commercial use and also the sales tax, but we would have to actually hire a firm and go through and do that analysis. If we are directed to do that, we will do that.”

Steve Nichols, planning commission chairman, said, “… without knowing what businesses are going to be there it’s very speculative as to what those numbers would be; … we assume that anyone willing to invest in a business there will do their homework as to whether that business is likely to succeed.”

Wes Johnson, city engineer, answered questions on traffic congestion. Main Street as a state road falls under the jurisdiction of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) which has plans to handle traffic congestion. Johnson said “Possibly this summer, but absolutely next summer, UDOT will be installing a traffic signal at 400 east.”

Johnson said UDOT ran traffic studies at 400 East and also Center Street and quickly discovered both intersections warrant a traffic signal on data collected on three criteria; the delay, the stop time, and the congestion. The design is underway at UDOT for a traffic signal at Center Street and Main Street. It will be installed this summer.

One obstacle holding up installation of a traffic signal at 400 East is a fully widened Main Street at 300 East that narrows down to two lanes with no center or left turn lane at 400 East. The road was widened and a center turn lane added with the Main Street beautification project in the early 2000’s from 200 West to 300 East.

Johnson said, “… this will need left hand turn lanes, center turn lanes; and I’m concerned that we have a fully improved cross section at 300 East. I don’t want the road to narrow down after 300 East then widen back at 400 East and narrow down again. So UDOT is looking into trying to acquire funds to widen from 300 East to 400 East.

“ Ultimately, it’s our master plan improvement to have a center lane on Main Street and, hopefully, down through to Michie Lane and down through the bridge where the sewer plant and that fishing access is, … and then, in our master plan, is a center turn lane for River Road,” Johnson said. He added it could be ten, fifteen, even twenty years before some of the improvements in the master plan happen. The city’s policy is to require developers to put in those improvements associated with their developments, Johnson said. Additionally, there are plans in the proposed C-4 zone for an access on River Road south of Memorial Hill between two existing homes, a roadway that would connect and serve as an alternate route into and out of the area.

Height concerns were addressed by Nichols and Henke. Nichols said in the new C-4 proposal “a building’s roof has to fit within that height limit. The roof cannot extend above the height limit stated.” Henke said the original proposal allowed 55 feet with an additional 50 percent allowance, 27.5 feet, for architectural elements or decorative features, designated as non livable space. “The code does say a maximum of four stories and a maximum of 55 feet for the top of the roof itself, in that center section.” The mid section height limit is 45 feet with three stories and the perimeter is 35 feet with two stories, these height limits are a permitted use.

“If something is of worthy value architecturally speaking, yes, it could be added on top, if it was approved,” Henke said.  Architectural elements are still allowed above the maximum height allowance, but they are considered a conditional use. As such they require approval of the Architectural Review committee and the City Council, ensuring many eyes will review the request. 

High density concerns were addressed by Henke. Density in the initial proposal was 40 units per acre, compared to the C-2 zone at 20 units per acre. In the new C-4 proposal density is adjusted down to 30 units per acre as it moves forward to the city council. Henke pointed out density could be adjusted down even further once the proposal goes before the city council.

“The one thing that’s uncertain is what would make a development work of this magnitude. How many residential units would there need to be to make it pencil out for a developer?" Henke said. "And that’s really unknown right now, but that’s something that needs to be considered. If it is toned down enough it won’t be attractive to a developer.” He added, “A developer does have to acquire open space offsite that reduces density in the city also.”

Referencing the observation there are no parcels left along Main Street large enough for a 20 unit per acre development as currently allowed in the C-2 zone, Henke said, “Developers could buy up and combine some of those smaller pieces together and create a larger development … if we do go through and reduce density on the rest of Main Street … we would be avoiding that scenario.”

Concern that allowing 80% residential would create a burden for the city and also cancel out any commercial gains was addressed by Henke. "For every $1.00 brought into the city from residential development (on quarter and third acre lots) we spend $1.16” on services that are subsidized by other forms of revenue. Streets are a large portion of that cost.  When you have density that’s really closer together you don’t have those same costs. So it actually ends up not being as much of a burden,” Henke said. It may even be “a positive when you have higher density. It’s when you spread out the density and you have a lot of roads that the cost comes in.”

Following the public hearing planning commission members also had question for city staff before they made their motion to recommend the proposed C-4 code to the city council for consideration. 

Note:Article to follow on the six parcels of property to be included in the proposed C-4 code if the city council decides to adopt it. Planning Commissioners questions after the public hearing will be included in that article.