A developer's request to allow construction of a research park in the Riverbottoms may go back to the city Planning Commission for a rehearing because of concern that the process was compromised.
Comments made by the City Council's chairman during a public hearing have raised questions about whether the Planning Commission should reconsider the request, and Council members plan to discuss where to direct the matter during their next study meeting.Another item appealed from the Planning Commission - a request to change zoning at 3330 N. University Ave. to allow development of medium-density housing - will be placed on the council's March 20 agenda.
Members of the Council have received letters from two planning commissioners expressing concern about comments made by Gordon Bullock during a public hearing on Feb. 28. Bullock acknowledged he was Council chairman but said he was speaking as a private citizen.
Should Bullock be excused?
Planning Commission member Dennis Weir said in his letter that Bullock should be excused from hearing the matter if it is appealed to the City Council. The developer filed an appeal Friday.
Several Council members said that in light of concerns expressed about the issue, they are not prepared to discuss the item and are unsure whether it should be forwarded to the Council's action agenda or sent back to the Planning Commission for a rehearing. Councilman Stephen Clark was in favor of sending it back to the Planning Commission.
"We ask those people to serve to vote," he said. "To abstain is not a good solution to the problem."
Mayor Joe Jenkins said, however, that "in all fairness I'm not sure sending it back to the Planning Commission is the right thing to do. Asking them to go back and rehear things and open old wounds is too much."
Leland Gamette, director of community development, said Planning Commission members believe the "process has basically been breached," and it should go to the City Council and be taken care of there."
No need for research park?
During the Planning Commission hearing, Bullock said the master plan is best left unchanged and there is no need for a research park in Provo. He also said that from "the Council standpoint, we will certainly appreciate your recommendation and will evaluate it and move on."
The commission voted to deny a request by Riverfront Partnership to change the general plan at approximately 5000 North and 300 West from very low- and low-density residential to suburban high-technology research park, a new designation.
Process `compromised'
In his letter to the council, Planning Commission Chairman Dan Johnson says "the proper decisionmaking process for Provo has been compromised."
"It is my understanding that the role of the Planning Commission is one of studying issues, gathering information from all appropriate sources and then making recommendations to the Council," Johnson stated.
"Our recommendation should always be based on what we feel is the best planning for the future of Provo. Then the Council can either accept or reject our recommendation based on the input they receive. What I'm saying is that the information sharing process does not stop until after the City Council makes the final decision."