After almost a year of intense debate and study, a controversial commercial development in the historic Union Fort area received its first government go-ahead Tuesday.
Over continuing objections from area residents, the Salt Lake County Planning Commission approved an amendment to the Union Community Master Plan, two necessary zoning changes and a preliminary conditional use permit.One parcel was removed from the zoning change after the property owner objected to its inclusion, however, leaving a hole in the middle of the developer's plans.
The issues next go before the County Commission, which must hold public hearings on the master plan and zoning recommendations. Also, a list of 15 unresolved issues must be addressed before the planning commission gives final approval to the conditional use permit.
Planning Director Jerold Barnes said county commissioners would be asked to set hearing dates for the master plan and zoning changes as soon as possible. Meanwhile, planning staff, the developer and the Union community will be attempting to address outstanding traffic, design and impact concerns.
The planning commission action Tuesday moved the debate off dead-center, where it has languished ever since area residents and history buffs last year raised objections to the proposed removal of remnants of the pioneer-era Union Fort.
The developer, Hermes Associates Ltd., is planning to expand the Family Center at Fort Union toward the south and preserve some of the historic structures, including the Jehu Cox home, on a one-acre park in the middle of the development's parking lot.
As the project moves through the regulatory process, the debate has started to shift from historic preservation to community impact. At the hearing Tuesday, residents were informed the expansion involves 300,000 square feet of commercial space, twice the size of the existing Family Center.
"This will gut the heart of Union without giving the community anything in return," said Sharon Brinton, chairwoman of the Union Community Council. "This project will put the whole east quadrant of the valley in jeopardy."
According to Brinton, taxpayers will ultimately subsidize the project through Redevelopment Agency incentives amounting to millions of dollars. She also said lawsuits may be filed to prevent RDA condemnation of private property for the project.
"These properties do not meet the definition of blight," she said. "A community with the highest rents and lowest vacancy rates in the county cannot be called blighted."
And the traffic problems are insurmountable, she added, citing studies that predict total failure of the road system if the expansion produces the predicted traffic.
The planning commission recently rejected a convenience store development at the corner of 1300 East and Creek Road because of traffic concerns.