CITIZENbriefings

GUEST ARTICLES POSTED HERE:

From time to time Midway citizens may either be invited or volunteer to cover community events. Messages & Milestones reserves the right to edit for clarity and brevity. Items for this page can be submitted at MidwayUTnews@yahoo.com 

⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗

August 4, 2017

Second Grassroots Open Space Meeting

by J C Simonsen, member of Pure Midway, candidate for city council,           

and Robin M Johnson, editor and writer, Messages & Milestones

On Thursday, July 27th, the second of two planned community discussion sessions on the topics of growth, rural preservation, and Open Space was held in the Midway Community Center cultural hall. Sponsored in part by Pure Midway, and in part by an unaffiliated group of citizens that share the desire to converse on these issues, both this and a previous meeting held July 13th, were well attended. Some people returned for the second meeting but a lot of new and different voices also joined in, attendees consisted of citizens from various age groups and backgrounds.

Worthy of special note, a couple of developers with obvious experience working with the city ordinances relating to development turned up and showed great interest in how their projects align with public sentiment. Organizers were pleased and honored again by the presence of local leaders including the Mayor of Midway, one council member, one planning commission member, and the city planner who is always helpful with his knowledge of city ordinances. Representation from all of these parties made the discussion more informative and valuable.

Following the format of the first meeting citizens, developers, and leaders were seated at a number of round tables. This configuration was chosen with the intent to encourage small, local discussion at each table, giving each more opportunity for input.

PHASE ONE: Open Space Amendments
Ken Mickelsen functioned as MC for the night. Mickelsen started the meeting introducing the first phase of discussion by briefly explaining six code text amendments relating to open space the city is considering during the current moratorium. The purpose was to get public feedback which might prove useful to the city. For each proposed text amendment change a short time was allowed for table discussion, followed by a vote and summary comments from each table.

PUD AMENDMENT:
The first code text amendment proposal was regarding the Planned Unit Developments (PUD) fifty percent open space requirement. As the code stands today that fifty percent open space could be comprised of any type of land, whether usable (buildable or developable) or unusable (such as wetlands or steep slopes).

The question raised in discussion was if treating all land as equal was a fair approach, or if the city should enact a policy that would treat unusable land to count some amount less than fully toward meeting the requirement. Consensus from all tables was nearly unanimous agreement, even from the developers, that unusable lands are not one to one comparable to usable lands. There was broad support for changing the open space requirement to reflect greater value for usable lands and lesser value for unusable lands.

ANIMAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
In order to encourage the rural feel and agricultural uses at any scale, small or large, Animal rights were considered next. The city is considering a different approach to managing the animal use codes to expand property owner's rights to keep animals. The gist of the city's thinking is to change all animal codes in all Rural (R) and Rural/Agricultural (RA) zones to be the same, and to base animal rights usages for all R and RA zones on acreage. Again, there was a strong consensus that this would be supported.

Several concerns were voiced regarding animal rights code. One suggestion was that acreage limits should be appropriate for the type of animal being discussed; for example, you can put 20 chickens on an acre but you can't put 20 horses on an acre in most cases. Another concern was that the RA zones, which currently have more animal rights, should not lose rights based on this change, since the intent of the change is to increase animal rights not reduce them. It was suggested the city should change the R zones to have animal rights similar to those already allowed in the RA zones; and not make any changes in the RA zones at all. This would avoid unintended consequences to landowners within the RA zones.

BUILDING PERMITS AMENDMENT:
Should the city enact a limit on the number of building permits issued each year by enacting a yearly building permit cap? The proposed cap would affect both PUD and Subdivision permits, but not single lot permits. However, both the city planner and the planning commission member voiced concern that there may not be any legal way to do that.

One question considered was whether or not it is fair for a small city with limited resources to be expected to process an unlimited number of applications. After a fair amount of discussion, it was agreed by a lesser margin that if the approach used was legal it might be a good tool to help the city better manage the applications and reduce errors and omissions in the process. It would be up to the city to determine if any approach they used would be legal or not.

COLLECTOR ROAD SETBACKS:
Consideration of increased setback requirements on collector roads was the next code text amendment introduced. Collector roads are essentially main roads that bring people into or out of the city. There is actually a designated list of roads within Midway City that are considered to be collector roads; Center Street, Main Street, River Road, Burgi Lane, and Homestead Drive are on the list. A good example of a new collector road currently being widened and paved is Michie Lane.

The idea is to increase building setback requirements along these corridors from 30 feet as currently allowed to 50 feet. The effect would be increasing the psychological 'open' feel as one drives through the city. It was noted that in some other city codes 50 feet is already standard. This idea was again largely supported by citizens and leaders; even the developers in the room seemed to be in support of this simple requirement with obvious benefits for all as growth continues to happen.

SUBDIVISION AMENDMENT:
Should new subdivision developments be allowed up to a fifteen percent reduction on individual lot size requirements in exchange for creating more contiguous open space at another location within the development? After brief discussion on the pros and cons of this allowance the room came to consensus that if this change is made it should first be determined that the policy would help reduce overall density on new developments.

COMMERCIAL ZONE AMENDMENT:
The final code text amendment produced a lot more debate than most previous topics. At issue, should commercial zones have an open space requirement? Currently commercial zones don't require open space, even if they are mixed use developments, with both one commercial unit and a large residential component of up to twenty units.

Several concerns were voiced: First, Midway would not want to discourage commercial development if it was in line with the city general plan and vision. Second, smaller commercial lots couldn't realistically be expected to support a lot of open space. Third, there are very few larger commercial lots that would be affected by requiring open space, therefore legalities could arise because zoning laws by nature are required to be general and must not target only a small percentage of known lots in their definition.

Putting an open space bond on this fall's General Election ballot was the final 

piece of the night's meeting. The city must approve a resolution and pass the 

official ballot wording 75 days before the election is held. Two regular council

meetings are held per month on the second and fourth Wednesdays. However,

the second August meeting will not be held. Photo credit: Michael R, Flickr, 

Link to photo: ht tps://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelcr/4683203225/ 

There was some discussion about what might happen in Midway commercially as the city grows. Two questions focused on were: Would new commercial areas develop? Would it make sense to plan ahead for that now? As the discussion ended it seemed clear everyone agreed a very large commercial development probably should have some open space requirement; however it is unclear right now how to be effective making this recommendation and it was acknowledged open space in the commercial district is probably not the biggest issue Midway currently faces. Support was definitively fifty percent or lower regarding commercial open space.

PHASE TWO: Identify Open Space Criteria and Discuss Bonding

The second phase of the evening’s discussion focused on the idea of preserving open space. Several thought provoking questions introduced the concept. One, imagining that the city had money available from whatever source to support open space initiatives, how would open space be defined? Two, what sorts of criteria would be effective and would represent not only the reality of life in Midway and the growth that Midway is experiencing, but also the goals of the residents for preserving quality of life in consideration of that growth?

In other words, let's define what we care about in order to frame the question of how much we care about it. This discussion was intended to generate a usable list of criteria that supports the desires of the residents as they envision a future together that includes managing growth.

To get discussion going, Mickelsen proposed a starter list based on another city’s developed criteria, but made it clear that it was fair game to add to or remove from the list, as well as expand on or redefine the items on the list.

INITIAL OPEN SPACE CRITERIA:
* Areas that have the potential to preserve functional agricultural activities
* Areas which will either provide connectivity to existing trails, or contain potential trail development in the future
* Areas which preserve wildlife habitat and sensitive lands, i.e. geothermal, wetlands, etc.
* Areas which preserve unique scenic or historical features
* Areas which are under immediate development pressure AND meet other given criteria for open space

ADDITIONS TO OPEN SPACE CRITERIA: (from discussion)
* Areas that would enhance the city's entry corridors.
* Areas that were in need of density reduction.

IMPORTANT POINTS ON OPEN SPACE CRITERIA:
First, the definition of agriculture should include small scale agriculture, such as hobby farms, backyard horses, family or community gardens, etc.

Second, the city already has a fairly well developed trail plan. While it is not a problem having trails on the list as open space criteria it may not be the highest priority to purchase new land for trails. Most of those details are actually already worked out for the planned trail system.

Third, the city needs to make sure that all city codes and ordinances are in harmony with the open space criteria and operating procedures that might be put in place to make use of the criteria. In other words, when facing massive growth the city needs to have a well rounded approach that will manage growth from all angles.

Fourth, the wording about scenic or historical features seemed appropriate considering places like Memorial Hill or the Tate barn property as examples that fit this description.

Fifth, given that the geothermal activity in Midway is a relatively unique asset, this distinction was also noted as appropriate.

BONDING:
Finally, direct focus went to the option of putting a bond initiative before the voters in order to allow the people to decide what they want. First it was observed that Midway is experiencing outside growth pressures that are exceptionally high at this time, and all indications are that the trend will continue for the next several years. This made the decision about whether to move very quickly to build the city's open space toolbox difficult. Challenges include the urgency of preserving open space because the push to develop is time sensitive, it isn't an easy matter to deal with in haste, and the pressures to develop open space are not within the city or the residents’ control. Additionally there are timelines involved.

To meet the deadline required for the bond’s inclusion on the General Election ballot the city would need to pass and submit a resolution including the actual language to be placed on the ballot for the bond by mid August, 75 days before the election. Colleen Bonner, mayor, said the city council was not planning to hold their regular council meeting on Wednesday, August 23. This came as a surprise to many people in the room. Two questions were asked: Why is that happening? Is there any way to change it? Bonner vowed to look into possible options to approve the resolution and bond wording before the deadline.


The meeting was adjourned.

NOTE: by J C Simonsen

Several folks stayed around after the meeting to chat.  This was valuable time where community members, whether in leadership roles or not, had a chance to speak about our joint concerns on a personal level, building rapport and enhancing our ability to function as a considerate and unified group with one voice.

While there were originally no plans to do more than two meetings like this, they have been so productive and enjoyable the citizens who organized them have started talking about doing more.

⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗

July 18, 2017
Grassroots Meeting for Open Space Preservation

by J C Simonsen, member of Pure Midway, candidate for city council

Last Thursday July 13th, the residents of Midway were invited to the Community Center to discuss ideas for preserving Midway’s rural heritage and a possible open space bond.  The meeting was sponsored in part by a local nonprofit, Pure Midway, which is dedicated to thoughtful growth and providing options for landowners to preserve the rural character, open space and heritage of Midway.  

The Open Space Preservation meeting was chaired by Ken Mickelson, Midway resident, who worked in Parks and Recreation for Ashland, Oregon for thirty-five years. Mickelson has experience with growth issues and raising funds to preserve open space.  

Broad diversity was represented in the audience including developers, artists, historians, lawyers, small business owners, farmers, and  other residents new and old. The audience was seated at six different tables and the room was quite full with approximately 50 to 60 attendees. Several city officials attended the meeting including the Mayor, some city council members, a couple of city staff employees, and one county council member, all representing themselves as citizens.  

Part one of the meeting both Mickelson and Michael Henke, city planner, made a presentation to the whole group. The focus was two fold, first, existing tools the city already has for preserving open space and second, what preservation of Midway means to people. Mickelson and Henke explained that there is already a new five acre rural preservation subdivision ordinance that was recently adopted as a tool for open space. The benefits are the new rural subdivision costs less for developers to build, and it reduces density within the city.

Next they discussed Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) as a city planning tool. Houses in a PUD do not have yards, instead they are required to have  50 percent of the development as shared open space. These were compared with regular subdivisions which currently only require 15 percent shared open space but also typically have yards for each single family home.  There was some discussion of Transfer of Density Rights (TDRs) as a tool for transferring open space from one area to another area in the city. TDR's haven’t been used in a while and when they are used they have mixed results.

In the first breakout session, each group went through local introductions and then discussed what types of open space were valuable and what was the most important to everyone.  Most of the groups agreed that preserving agricultural land and connecting trails was of paramount importance.  Other groups wanted to find ways to preserve the local barns and historic homes.  Some ideas were brought up about about how to continue the farm legacy through training new farmers and by supporting and encouraging local farmers via city planning and supportive city code.  

Midway citizens seated at tables in the Community Center cultural hall for the first grassroots open
space meeting. One longtime resident was surprised to learn from newer residents seated at his table
that they wanted to see the same things preserved in Midway that he did. Photo courtesy of J C Simonsen. 

Steve Farrell, Wasatch County council member, introduced the idea he has been working on at the county level of lowering greenbelt taxes on smaller pieces of land that are being actively used for small scale agriculture. Overall, there seemed to be less support for manicured parks or unmanaged open space and more support for open space used as farmland, or as pasture for horses and cows, and finding ways to keep agriculture viable.

Open space bonding for Midway took center stage for the second part of the meeting, the main question was whether that was an idea people would support.  A short presentation went over many different potential ways to use and manage bond funds, with particular focus on how to get the most bang for your buck in Midway where land prices are comparatively very high.  

For example, the bond revenue could be used to buy land, or development rights from landowners who decide they would like to sell all or part of their land value.  It could also be used to “buy down” or reduce density in other areas from willing landowners in various ways.  And it would be possible to apply for grants and partnerships that could multiply the value of the bond funds, noting that many require some matching funds for eligibility.  

For context, there were some handouts at each table showing the impact of a six million dollar open space bond. It would cost property owners $35 per year for every $100,000 worth of taxable value for property they own in the city.  It was also noted that in order to get a bond measure on the voter ballot the deadline to have a submitted packet with petition signatures is August 15th.

After this presentation there was an additional discussion session.  Resulting from this discussion time, there was some concern expressed that a bond could be a challenge for some of the residents of Midway.  Yet there seemed to be a consensus that Midway is special and is under a high degree of change pressure.  Many felt that Midway is at a turning point where it may be now or never to make a concerted effort to preserve as much of the rural heritage as possible.  

Discussion also showed most liked the idea of leveraging and matching bond funds with grants so the bond dollars could be stretched to do more.  Some concerns were that the bond would increase taxes now and that the land may not stay under active agricultural use which would leave the city to manage it at a cost.  At least one table made the comment that bonding for open space now might delay and reduce bonds for infrastructure items like water, roads, and schools, making it a different tax impact decision than all or nothing.

Overall the meeting was a great opportunity for members of the community to get to know each other and share ideas and work together.  Considering the great variety of issues and ideas that need to be considered the discussion format seemed to be productive.  

NOTE: The next meeting will be to discuss criteria for selecting open space and will be held Thursday, July 27, 7 pm, at the Midway Community Center.  All are welcome and encouraged to attend.

⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗⬖⬗