Do I love 60 foot Retaining Walls?
Another candidate states:
I am the only candidate who has voted consistently against a major development on the northwest hills, which includes 60 foot retaining walls. Three other candidates have voted in favor of retaining walls terracing up our mountainside, claiming that the ordinance allows it”. (emphasis in the original flyer)
What do you think of when someone says “60 foot retaining walls?” Do you think of one huge wall with 60 vertical feet? Or do you think of the actual plan from the developer of terraced steps up a hillside? This candidate’s statement makes it sound like everyone else is in favor of retaining walls like you find in Provo Canyon.
The terraced walls were allowed by the city ordinances under which the developer applied. The job of the planning commission is not “legislate from the bench.” The planning commission is instructed to compare the developer’s application to the ordinance and Utah state law. From the city ordinance governing the Planning Commission:
If the Final Plat and all supplementary data complies with the applicable requirements of these regulations and the requirements of the approved Preliminary Design Plan, the Planning Commission shall certify approval of the Plat on the space provided.
The candidate’s claim is at best over dramatic; at worst it is misleading.
For more on the subject see Vista Meadows – Role of the Planning Commission in considering applications.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
This post is misleading. I held off posting until after the election, but not want to set the record straight.
Four of the current Planning Commission members, including you and I, were not on the Planning Commission when the initial vote on these walls was taken. There were only two votes taken on this matter since we have all been on the council.
The first vote was for an extension to the development, after their original one had expired. You mistakenly try to sidestep this issue by claiming not to ‘legislate from the bench”. Understand that this WAS a legislative procedure. Our city attorney let us all know that, if we felt that anything significant had changed in the ordinance, we could deny the request from the developer, and force them to resubmit. Something obviously did change in the ordinance; whereas it now allowed for the City Council to be involved in this decision process (previously if Planning Commission voted in favor, the City Councils hands could have been legally tied). Many felt that a non-elected body should not force the hand of an elected body. You made the motion to not force the developer to come back under the new ordinance, and it barely passed with the City Council member making the tie breaking vote.
The only other vote we took on this, you decided to abstain from the vote, probably due to the large number of voters who were against those walls.
However, I don’t know if the above statement is entirely true with regard to Tom Whitchurch’s voting record as I haven’t followed it as closely, but it is true with regard to yours.
With regard to the stepping of these walls, I think it is a non-issue with the above statement. Having a 9′ rise with a 8′ step, until it reaches the height of 60′ doesn’t lessen the presumed safety and view scape issues.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Jason,
I’m sorry you feel that this is a misrepresentation.
“anything significant had changed in the ordinance”
It is well known that an application is subject to the ordinance at the time it is submitted. You can’t change the rules after the fact.
“you decided to abstain from the vote, probably due to the large number of voters who were against those walls”
I made it clear at the meeting that I did not see any “good, solid, credible evidence” which is what state law says you need to deny it. However the builder was not there to answer questions and had not even asked us to review it. So I didn’t think it was appropriate to give any kind of recommendation. For someone to turn that into “support for 60 foot retaining walls” is a misrepresentation of my position.
Bradley