Here We Go Again - Development History

Once again the County Council has understood that the current RA-1 zoning ordinance is in need of repair. Since the moratorium of September 2005, the County has enacted two RA-1 laws to maintain our "rural" atmosphere. At that time (2005) a group of citizens tried to suggest a solution to the growth, as usual it was met with a gaping yawn of indifference.

The first try called for 50% open space, a convoluted "clustered" development, and various bonuses to achieve a "one unit per acre density" which would provide for a increase in density (number of houses) of 30%. (Historically RA-1 meant each house requires one acre of land, and each lot required 200 ft of road frontage; meaning on a ten acre parcel, about seven houses could be built after the roads were put in.)

A few short months under the new ordinance brought the realization that the ordinance was virtually unworkable, somewhat equivalent to trying to place eight pounds of substance in a five pound bag. A second moratorium was called and a second plan formulated, nearly as bad as the initial change, both proposing/allowing/encouraging a large increase in the number of houses (a 41% increase in density over pre-moratorium, with 40% LESS open space than the previous ordinance). This also included the subjective bonuses amounting to a possible 70% or so with only30% needed to maximize.

Needless to say, a minor flood of pent up development demand jumped on the bandwagon, with the usual disastrous result - more houses on smaller lots with a generlaly serpentine nominal "open space" winding it way between the potential McMansions. The Planning Commission generally approved near the maximum density, Council often cut it down somewhat.

Result - further erosion of the universal desire for rural, small town environment. The increased workload on the Planning Department and subjectivity of the bonus system, brought us to the current dilemma - and solution (NOT). After the Planning Commission decided to recommend the worse of two options, the Council opted for a third option. Basically, just give the developer one unit per acre by jumping through some small hoops or coughing up a little cash.

The hoops:

• 30% "open Space
• 20% of lots with animal rights (= over one acre)
• trails, enhanced minimum landscaping (which may be required by any development)
• I think that was it folks!!! (as no written copies were available, it may be slightly different and, as always, the devile is in the details)

An option was being offered to buy out of the open space requirement for 50% of the raw land cost. For example, on ten acres parcel, the three acres of open space could be avoided by paying ca. $150,000 (half of raw land cost). Although this was presented as a open space buy out, it certainly appears to be an increased density purchase. The $150K would provide for three lots to sell for $250,000 each PLUS the profit in the building of the McMansion.

That amounts to 3 lots at $200K plus 3 houses at $50K (??) profit or roughly $750,000 - a five to one return on investment.

One more step on the road to Wasatch City. The County has added to their website a new listing of developments, with a map and their size, density and status. It's a well conceived report which should be helpful to those wanted to follow the progress of citification.

More later, maybe.

Open Letter to County Council

A few comments on the developments discussed in the County Council meeting 7/11:

I believe it should be noted that the County is NOT required to approve any bonuses for RA-1 developments, such approval is purely a discretionary legislative act for planned unit/performance developments and, if considered, the subjective ratings for the bonuses are completely at the discretion of the County. The 'simple' RA-1 of one lot per 1.3 acres does not have that discretion.

Grand Haven: Development was approved under the previous code at 91 ERU's. Under the new code the base density would be 101 (a 10 percent increase), the requested approval is for a bonus of up to 40%. This proposal was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, 7-0 with a density of 121 ERU's. There is apparently now no "public" open space, but a substantial portion of the 30 % (min. required) open space is planned for farm/grazing and is located along 2400 E which will, at least, give some visual "rural' open area for the neighborhood.

Staff suggested (and PC approved) a large bonus (8%) for "10% usable open space within the 30%." That 8% bonus would equate to 8 bonus lots at a nominal $300K per lot for about $2 million in lot sale profit alone to the developer. That usable 10% would be a landscaped private park for the use of the development residents. Some mention was made of public use as a soccer field, which may warrant a small "public use" bonus - if guaranteed in the development agreement.

Staff suggested a landscape bonus of 5% or 4.5 ERU's ($1+million in lots) for $250K (?) of trees. A "large animal" bonus of 1% was suggested for animal use on 21 lots (15% of development). While animals might maintain some semblance of rural, that might be high for the percentage of available lots.

If this openspace is deemed beneficial to the county a total bonus of perhaps 12 lots might be more appropriate; even that would still be an increase of 23 over the prior approval of 91 - a 25% increase.

As Councilman Neil Anderton commented, "I think we are heading in the wrong direction." (concerning density awards)

Eagle View: While this nominally may meet the 30% open space requirement, it is nearly totally within the development and is made up of blocks of space connected by trails, with little functionality for the public in general. It does not seem to meet the code designated intent for "achieving rural character" and does not "promote a rural feel along country roads" (The 50 ft buffer strip is a general requirement for all RA 1 developments)

Saddlebrook: Still contains NO open space and there is currently NO code enacted to allow for opting out of that requirement.

Sleeping Indian: This will be the first proposed development in the M Zone and may set a precedent for M Zone developments and awarding of bonuses. With the possibility of up to 115% bonuses, the M Zone will effectively become an "RA-2.3 zone" allowing twice the density of the RA-5 zones on the valley floor. M Zone is theoretically a transition zone from the valley floor to the P160 preservation zone and was nominally created for "clustering" which doesn't appear to have occurred in this proposal.

The M Zone PPD Performance Chart (16.29) is even more subjective, complicated and confusing than the RA-1. Planning Commission discussion on the bonuses, in general and specifically for the Indian Ranch project was very limited.

The first graded category "Extra unusable Open Space" refers, in this case, to the constrained land (30%+ slope) (unbuildable) and specifies "For each ten percent of extra open space that is unusable, the bonus density would apply as written." With a range of 1-10%, I have no idea what that means. As a maximum of 10 is allowed this would seem to say that 35.35 acres would yield 4 "10% of open space" or a 4% bonus, or does it mean that 8.9 acres of unusable space would be worth 10% bonus??.

"Density bonuses may not be stacked upon each other and more than one bonus given for the same item." Items 7, 8 and part of 10 seem to be giving duplicate credit for the same 10 acre park of which 8.9 acres (10% usable open space) is a basic requirement to get any bonus consideration. The concept of a 0.5% sales fee on lots (item 10) for construction of a fire station is an interesting concept. 150 lots at $300K x 0.5% = $225,000 Is that worth a 15% bonus or 5.6 ERU's at $300K = $1.6 million in lot sales??? That same park also may be a consideration for a bonus in the RA zone portion. The fee/tax on lot sales (a transfer tax) is something the County might enact to offset some of the costs of new developments - without awarding any bonus to developers.

While the 10 acres park and land for a fire station would be great assets to the County, it needs to be asked if the benefit is greater than the cost in extra density.

Items 11 through 16 are basically enhancements to the development and its residents. The bonus starts at 5% rather than 0% Is the mere request for a bonus worth a 30 % bonus? (6 categories at 5% minimum).

The RA Bonuses are also suggested by staff for internal non public parks and land and street scape for large bonuses. See comments above on cost vs. benefit to developer.

This entire M Zone bonus system needs to be reworked, IMO.

North Village Code amendments: 'Minor' modifications are being requested by the developer to allow maximizing the number of potential ERU's available for the Wasatch Commons development. Without the proposed changes to maximum lot size and width requirements, perhaps 5 to 10% fewer units (of 393 proposed) could be built and it would necessitate a few small "parks" especially on corners which may not be able to conform to current North Village Code. Wasatch Commons is forecast to have a negative fiscal impact of $900,000 (primary residences) to $300,000 (secondary). This impact is 'planned' to be offset by a commercial development on the lower mixed use area which forecasts a positive fiscal impact of $900,000 - IF a Big Box were allowed (current NOT allowed under Wasatch Code) or $230,000 as other retail.

Spring Hollow/Summit Creek: This is another development that had received approval under prior code for 19 lots. It is now back with a request for 25 on 26 acres. (a 32% increase) It has many similar problems as Grand Haven and Eagle View above, but no agricultural open space. The integral open space may be beneficial to the development, but little to the community. It does not yet have the required secondary access. The fiscal impact went from +$44,000 in Aug '06 to negative $66,000.

As County Manager Mike Davis has asked,"Is it the function of the County to maximize the profit of developers?" click here for audio

Report of recent Planning Commission meeting:

The current "standard" development in Wasatch County is described in 16.27.09 and more specifically 16.27.10(2). (regrettably not available on the County Website) "Bonuses" above the "standard" of one house per 1.3 acres, with an average lot size of one acre, may be available at the discretion of Wasatch County by following procedures described in 16.27.10.

It appears that since the passage of the bonus system, virtually every development, as reflected by applications, expects to be able to attain the "full" allowable density of one unit per acre. The County Council and County Manager have repeatedly (and the Planning Staff has dutifully recorded in staff reports) stated that "a full density bonus will not be easy to attain. . . grading should be tough . . . and full density would need to be the best that could be proposed" (Or similar terminology)

At recent Planning Commission meetings in May and June, several developments were recommended by less than a unanimous vote that did not comply with the Land Use Law.

There are certain specific guidelines, requirements and objectives written into 16.27.10 concerning Rural Landscape Character, Open Space, cluster developments, etc. to attain any bonus density. Many (most) of the recent proposals did not meet the intent of the law, much less the actual wording thereof.

The problem of the requirement of 30% Open Space requirement now seems to be acknowledged and clarification are now being considered. The subjectivity and amount of the bonuses is now apparently being reconsidered.

I would again strongly suggest that approval of any development desiring densities above the standard be discouraged or not allowed for consideration. Any bonus density is at the sole discretion of the County as a legislative act in approving the development.

A few specific comments:

Eagle View: has open space but, while nominally contiguous, runs snake-like through the property and is of far more value to the development than the County as a whole.

Falcon Ridge: All but ten acres of the open space is unbuildable land, but receives credit and extra bonus. A substantial bonus is being suggested for "minimal" expense on landscaping, etc.

Grand Haven: It was approved last year at 91 ERU’s and failed to qualify under the previous ordinance for 131 ERU’s with 50% Open Space is now "qualified" with 30%. Base density increased by 11% and total by 44%. It has a large negative fiscal impact to the remaining County taxpayers (based on primary residences.)

Lakeside at Deer Valley: Previously had been awarded 62 ERU’s, a new request was made for an increase to 325 and they were awarded 362 per a last minute recommendation change from Planning Staff.

Pine Shadows was recommended by the Planning Commission to the County Councel without the required 30% Open Space. The developer was told by the Planning Commission that it was not needed, even thought the developer planned (an offered) to purchase additional open land elswhere.

Saddlebrook was approved with the standard density with a provision for a bonus if "fee in lieu" was adopted. It had NO proposed Open Space.

Sleeping Indian Ranch has brought us into the question of the desirability of the massive bonuses allowed in the M Zone, which effectively creates a denser (1 per 2.3 acre) zone the RA-5. While a nicely designed project with a ten acre park and proposed "fee" on land sales for a firehouse, it appears that multiple bonuses may have been given in several categories for the same items.

Summit Creek or Spring Hollow is another previously approved development (19 on 26 acres) to return to take advantage for the increased densities allowed under the new (RA-1 code.) Base density up 5% and total up 32 %. Again the bonuses proposed are for items that greatly benefit the development but add little to the County other than a trail, more houses and traffic and an increase in negative fiscal impact of $107,000 from the 19 original (may be partly due to parameters of the calculations)

Wasatch Commons in the North Village is requesting a change to the code because it is too restrictive to allow them to receive their "allowed" density under the current restriction. It has a negative fiscal of over $800,000 which is supposed to be offset by an adjoining commercial development which may produce over $800,000 if a "big box" is allowed (currently NOT allowed under County Code).

These are just developments under consideration by the Wasatch County Planning Commission for May and June, more to come in July and . . .
Heber City and Midway have also recently approve a bevy of annexations and subdivisions.

Click on the link for some of the developments approved Pre 2003 and in 2004-2006

Development	Date	ERU	acres
Eagle View	05/10/07	16	17
Falcon Ridge	06/14/07	66	102
GrandHaven	05/10/07	131	133
Lakeside DV	06/14/07	360	38
Pine Shadows	05/10/07	22	22
Riverside	06/21/07	10	10
Saddlebrook	04/12/07	18	24
Sleeping Indian	06/14/07	151	295
Summit Ck	06/21/07	25	26
Wasatch Commons	05/10/07	393	112
Woodland	06/14/07	13	75
Woods Cobblestone TOTAL	06/21/07	11 1216	12 866

Council Approves Red Ledges

It continues to amaze me how some elected officials are seemingly oblivious to the desires and wishes of their constituents. Last week (3/15/07) the Heber City Council unanimously approved the annexation of the 1400 unit Red Ledges development. That application, submitted 11/22/06, had previously attempted approval through Wasatch County, but was brought to Heber City when it became apparent that the desired density increase from about 50 to 700 was not going to be approved.

Heber City officials, from the first inkling of the project, seem to have coveted for the perceived tax revenues which they felt would flow into the city's coffers. (see blog of 9/16/06)

Throughout the entire process, the 'public' was overwhelmingly opposed to the project for various reasons - traffic, congestion, density, gated exclusivity and little direct community benefit. At the 'final' approval meeting before a packed room,s several people spoke against approval primarily for traffic and fiscal reasons. A request was repeated for a deliberate analysis of the potential community fiscal impact prior to annexation. At the conclusion on the public comments, the City Manager Mark Anderson, was asked about that impact.

Reported, as it were, from a quick crayon scribbled analysis on the back of a napkin (figuratively), he acknowledged that the house "values" presented by the developer may be inflated by 30% and the benefit to Heber Light may be exaggerated. He also agreed that the percent of secondary residences was probably way off, etc. While not giving any real analysis of the potential costs to the average taxpayer of Heber AND Wasatch County, he concluded that (paraphrased) "I'm certain that it will be revenue positive for the city." and that his decision was not based solely on money and that we need a "diverse" community and affordable housing. Anderson also declared that there is correlation between retail business and population and that increasing housing will bring more business which will offset the cost of the residential. (A recurring philosophy, he has promulgated for some time in his quest for more annexations and growth.)

Council member Hokanson, then asked if a berm could help the road impact to surrounding neighbors. Anderson replied that with a 102 ft wide property being purchased for the road (connection to Mill Rd.) and only 56 ft required for the road, Heber would have a surplus of 36 or 38 ft (sic) (An example of his analytical prowess?) which could be sold to the neighbors or landscaped.

Council member Bradshaw then indicated that he is just a regular guy and knew there are certain thing government should and should not do and it wasn't government's business how much profit a business should make. He said we should ensure that this project is a benefit to the community and he had confidence in the City Manager and he was favorable to approval.
Council member Lange, gave a delightful homily about a man riding his horse in a neighbor's cornfield and respecting property rights which warmed the cockles of one's heart.

Council member Lazenby said something about if we don't approve it the county will at the same density (A statement which, on its face, failed as the reason for the annexation was DENSITY). Council member Shelton was present. Mayor Phillips was out of town. Approval to annex passed five to nothing.

Now that we have the additional 1400 houses we assuredly will need a Big Box (or two), per the Anderson dicta on growth. Coming soon at a meeting near you.

Why Does the County Council Want to Encourage MORE Houses than Before?

A couple of people (including a current County Councilman) have questioned my data on the increase in potential houses as a result of the new proposed change to the existing development code.

Here's a concrete example, that hopefully anyone (even the councilman) might understand:

A development called Grand Haven (2400 S & 2400 E) filed for a "conservation" subdivision of 133 houses on 133 acres with 50% open space. After much discussion, the proposal was finally withdrawn because it would have allowed MORE houses than the underlying zoning. The developers opted, and were approved for, 91 houses on one acre lots - the maximum they could fit onto the property.

Hearing of the NEW proposal, I understand that Grand Haven developers are already considering a modification of the approved 91 unit subdivision to a 129 unit development with 30% open space. That's a 41% INCREASE in houses with 40% LESS open space than under their previous proposal.

This exemplifies the problem with the proposal which could be magnified by a HUGE factor. I would reiterate that the recently adopted proposal will allow an increase in density of about 33% on most of RA-1 zoned property.

Briefly, under the prior law, with 25% removed for roads, 'only' 75 houses could have been built on 100 acres. Prior to that law, the general rule was that each lot required one acre of land and 200 ft of road frontage - which had basically been in effect since 1972, with minor changes for clustering, etc. One acre and 200 ft. frontage generally resulted in substantially less than 100 houses on the proverbial 100 acre lot.

The new proposal WILL allow, and is apparently formulated to create, the "right" to build 100 houses on 100 acres. In actuality, with the proposed "bonuses" it will allow 10 houses on a 10 acres lot, six on six acres, etc. - again with out consideration of the need for roads to service the houses. Lots from 5 to 15 acres will be required to have NO open space and can build on any size lot they desire (1/3acre min).

In the Eastern Planning Area alone, there are approximately 400 parcels of land with an acreage of greater than 5 acres ( the proposed floor of the one per acre allowance); there are currently 3300 acres of land with NO house on the parcel; and 1100 acres, in 100 parcels, with ONE house on the parcel.

The finalization of these changes to RA 1 development and the ending of the moratorium may be discussed/reconsidered at the Council meeting on Wednesday (12/20).

Ladies and gentlemen, that's a lot of acreage on which to allow a 33% increase in allowable houses - and that 's just the Eastern Planning Area.

We constantly hear reference to the "property rights" of landowners; I would humbly submit that if we are using Land Use Management (which we are) principles (zoning); we must"protect" the rights of those who HAVE built, in addition to those are want to built. If we are to have Land Use Management for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, then we must respect the property rights of those who reside in this county to expect a semblance of continuation of reasonable zoning to the ends elaborated in the General Plan and the expressed desires of the residents.

Expansion of the "rights" of developers and land owners to get more and more density on smaller and smaller lots in NOT consistent with the general principles expressed in our planning documents. This proposed law change is not even consistent with the "purposes" expressed in the law itself.

The Utah Supreme Court has said: “If an ordinance could promote the general welfare; or even if it is reasonably debatable that it is in the interest of the general welfare, we will uphold it.” “The selection of one method of solving the problem in preference to another is entirely within the discretion of the city, and does not, in and of itself, evidence an abuse of discretion.” See Bradley v. Payson, 2001 UT App 9, aff’d, 2003 UT 16; Harmon City v. City of Draper, 2000 UT App 31.

Defining RURAL

The RA-1 development code (and the General Plan) repeatedly mention the purpose and goal of RURAL. Many people seem to have trouble understanding the term, below are a few definitions found on the web which may be helpful in formulating law to institute the stated purposes.

16.27.10 (1) Requirements for Achieving a Rural Landscape Character. Achieving rural landscape character of a subdivision requires promoting the protection of natural resource areas, prominent features of the site, farmland and other large areas of open land, while permitting residential development at low, rural densities, in an open space setting designed to reduce perceived intensity of development. Specific objectives are as follows:
(a) To maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character by preserving important landscape elements, including those areas containing unique and environmentally sensitive natural features such as stream corridors, wetlands, groundwater, floodplains, ridgelines, geologic hazard areas, steep slopes, and natural areas by setting them aside from development.
(b) To promote a rural feeling along County roads.
(c) To provide for the unified and planned development of larger parcels for clustered, single-family, low density residential uses, incorporating large areas of permanently protected common open space.
(d) To reduce erosion and sedimentation by retaining existing vegetation and minimizing development on steep slopes.
(e) To allow for the continuation of agricultural uses in those areas best suited for such activities and when such activities are compatible with adjoining residential uses.
(f) To permit various means for owning common open space and for protecting it from development in perpetuity.
(g) To promote interconnected greenways and corridors throughout the County.
(h) To promote active and passive recreational use of common open space by residents of a cluster development or by the public.
(i) To encourage more efficient forms of development that consumes less open land and conforms to existing topography and natural features better than a conventional or grid subdivision.
(j) To implement the objectives and policies of the General Plan.
(k) To provide open space that is preserved in such a manner that future development can connect to the open space in existing developments.

Definitions of "RURAL" on the Web (click on the link for the source):

• living in or characteristic of farming or country life; "rural people"; "large rural households"; "unpaved rural roads"; "an economy that is basically rural"
  relating to rural areas; "rural electrification"; "rural free delivery (RFD)"
• Rural areas are sparsely settled places away from the influence of large cities and towns. Such areas are distinct from more intensively settled urban and suburban areas, and also from unsettled lands such as outback or wilderness. People live in villages, on farms and in other isolated houses.
• pertaining to the area outside the larger and moderate- sized cities and surrounding population concentrations. Generally characterized by farms, ranches, small towns, and unpopulated regions. Compare with suburb.
• Places of 2,500 or fewer population and not other urban areas.
• Countryside.

It ain't rocket science, folks!!!

More Developments - Pre 2003

Many of these developments were approved by the old County Commissioners prior to the cahnge of government. Some of partially complete, most are still waiting for who knows what.

At an average of merely 3 persons per Household, these 7600 ERU's could account for 22,800 people in Wasatch County. (Many may be secondary homes, which are generally an economic benefit to the county.)

---

pre 2003	North Village		estimated	1000
pre 2003	Sorenson		estimated	1000
pre 2003	Beaufontaine	1600 E Lake Ck Rd.	estimated	100
Nov 2002	Crossings		(150 shown above)	538	336
2005	Strawberry Pines			316	1002
pre 2003	Cobblestone	1200 S	some remaining	127	98
pre 2003	Lake Creek Farms	Wild Mare	some remaining
pre 2003	Greener Hills
pre 2003	Victory Ranch		estimated	1000
pre 2003	Aspens at Jordanelle			1348
pre 2003	Tuhaye		estimated	600
pre 2003	Hideout Canyon		estimated	100
	Midway			???
	Heber City			???
Proposals:
Aug 2006	Red Ledges			1468	1900
Aug 2006	Spring Hollow	3200 E Lk Ck		19	26
Aug 2006	The Woods	600 S 2200 E	Cobblestone	9	12
				7625

---

Wasatch City - Again

In 2004, the US census estimated Wasatch County had 7,853 housing units. In the last two years Wasatch County, alone, has approved at least 1,448 new houses. This does NOT include many previously approved developments that are still not completely built out. It also does NOT include those approved as single house or small scale developments (less than five acres), or those approved in Heber City, Midway,etc.

Growth moves inexorably forward, but most current residents do not seem too happy about it. In my conversations on the subject, most people seem to feel little can be or, at least, will be done about growth. That's probably true - if that unhappy populace does not express their collective opinion to those who CAN make the decision to moderate the growth rate to attempt to retain at least a facade of rural environment. The county moratorium and subsequent Land Use change certainly didn't solve the problem, nor did the proposed General Plan review committee. (Whatever did happen to that?)

We hear of "smart growth," sustainable" development, "walkable" communities, Envision everything, and Agenda 21 - all apparently leading to the same goal - put everyone in big houses on small lots and make them use public transportation. We seem to have tacitly adopted the philosophy of a "medium rural" environment. That's where you might see the cows, but you can't smell them.

If you're happy, sit back and wait for the traffic lights to change; get out your check books for the property taxes coming as the winter murk begins to settle on the once pristine valley. If you are less than satisfied about the direction we are heading - get involved, make your voice heard. Thursday night, the County Planning Commission will be considering another four new developments, with only a 100 or so houses; but the Red Ledges (1468 ERU's) and other developments are waiting in the wings.

Here's a list of approved developments in the last two years:

---

Date approved	Development	Location		ERU's	acres
			TOTAL ERU's =	1448
Jun 2006	Farms at Tate Lane	Tate Lane	phase 2	9	10
May 2006	Crossings	3000 E Lk Ck Rd	phase 14	58
Apr 2006	Grand Haven	2400 S 2400 E		91	133
Mar 2006	Victory Ranch	Kamas Rd.		73	298
Mar 2006	Wild Mare Farms C	3200 E 1670 S		13
Mar 2006	Jordanelle Ridge	Kamas Rd.		145	77
Feb 2006	Tuhaye	Jordanelle		15	31
Feb 2006	Tuhaye	Jordanelle		4
Feb 2006	Tuhaye	Jordanelle		6
Feb 2006	Black Rock Ridge	Jordanelle		162
Feb 2006	Summit Meadows	3050 E 1200 S		11	13
Jan 2006	Slipper Hollow	Wallsburg		9
Jan 2006	River Meadows	River Road		39	80
Dec 2005	Triple Crown	450 S 1200 E		61	95
Dec 2005	Black Rock Ridge	Jordanelle		102	32
Dec 2005	Fox Run	1800 S 3600 E		17	22
Nov 2005	Crossings	3000 E Lk Ck Rd		45	13
Nov 2005	Victory Ranch	Jordanelle		22
Oct 2005	Hideout Canyon	Jordanelle		15
Sep 2005	Deer Meadows	Jordanelle
Jul 2005	Deer Canyon Preserve	Jordanelle		103	401
Jul 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	Ridgeway B	37
Jul 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	phase 13	15
Jul 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	phase 16 S	51
Jul 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle		24	11
Jul 2005	Victory Ranch	Kamas Rd.	phase 1A	22	289
Jun 2005	Farms at Tate Lane	Tate Lane		8	20
Jun 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	phase 3N	15
Jun 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	Ridgeway A	11
Jun 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	phase 16So A	28
Jun 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	phase 16So B	23
Jun 2005	Hideout Canyon	Jordanelle	phase 2&4	69	33
Apr 2005	Tuhaye	Jordanelle	phase X2	17	13
Apr 2005	Deer Point Preserve	Jordanelle		12	151
Sep 2004	Stillwater	Jordanelle	phase 2	63	7
May 2004	Crossings	3000 E Lk Ck Rd	phase 1	47	80
Mar 2004	Giltner	Hwy 248 Jordanelle		6	15

---

Moratorium Solution?? - Option 3 modified, passed

Amid a flurry of last minute changes by the Planning Department, in apparent response to my message detailing its unworkablility, the modified Option 3 was voted on by the County Council, and passed by a 6 to 1 vote. (Councilman Neil Anderton, the sole supporter of sanity)

While some things may have changed (very) slightly for the better with the last minute changes, the end result will still be - more developments, more houses, and some open space generally placed in the back of the lots, unseen by the public eye, or filled with buildings (see The Crossings or Cobblestone) and lots of 14,250 sq. ft.

With 335 lots in the 5 to 10 acre size alone (as reported by the Planning Department), at an average size of 7 acres, that would be potentially 2000 acres of building or 2,000 houses, in that group of land parcels alone. There may have been a modification to the smaller parcels which would reduce this somewhat.

In actuality, though I have not seen the complete proposal, it appears that this amendment also is nearly unworkable. The change involved deleting the "2/3 acre" lot and limiting other lots to a maximum of 35%. Net result, for example, a 60 acre parcel, under the new law, would be allowed

18 @ 1/3 acre lots
18 @ 1/2 acre
0 @ 2/3 acre
18 @ 3/4 acre
and 2 @ 1 acre for a total of 56 houses

That would be as large as the lots could get. The total acreage used by building lots would be 30.44 acres, with 29.56 acres of "open space;" which, of course, would:

1. not comply with the 50% open space,
2. not allow "clustering",
3. and would have no space available for "buffer strips" between the clusters, even if they could be accommodated.

But, never fear, a few words were added - "or as determined by the Land Use Authority" which will allow the Planning Commission to approve whatever they desire.

Option 3 Unworkable

This weekend, I conducted a very rough analysis of the feasibility of the proposed Option 3 as recently proposed, with 25% max in each lot size group and large Parcels (> 15 acres) proposed to have 50% open space. Including the TROZ (Transition zone) which would allow a bonus of 25% more lots.

The goals in cluster description are indicated as providing open space, maintaining rural atmosphere, clustering of homes (10 or fewer homes in a cluster) separated from other clusters by open space or buffer strips, etc. This is virtually impossible to accomplish under the proposal.

Parcel size	1/3 ac	1/2 ac	2/3 ac	3/4 ac	1ac	2+ ac	total	lot acres	open space
5	1	1	1	0	1	1	6	4.5	0.5
TROZ	2	1	1	1	1	0	6	3.08	1.92
10	2		2	2	2	2	10	5.5	4.5
TROZ	3	3	2	2	2	0	12	12.33	-2.33
15	2	3	3	3	1	3	15	5.92	9.08
TROZ	4	3	3	3	3	2	0	14.08	0.92
large parcels"
16	3	3	3	2	0	1	12	8	8
TROZ	4	4	4	2	1	0	15	8.5	7.5
60	10	10	8	7	10	0	45	28.91	31.09
TROZ	14	14	14	14	0	0	56	31.5	28.5
80	15	15	12	10	4	4	60	39.99	40.01
TROZ	18	18	18	18	3	0	75	43.5	36.5
100	18	18	18	13	3	5	75	49.75	50.25
TROZ	23	23	23	23	0	0	92	51.75	48.25

Results:
As shown in the chart, with the 50% Open space the area required by the building lots alone will virtually consume all of the "buildable" space. There will be no room for "clustering", or for proposed buffer zones, not even enough room for streets using the proposed density, open space and lot size distribution. The TROZ parcels can NOT achieve the maximum proposed density with the criteria.

There will be little flexibility allowed, developments will be forced into a restricted design of 'exact' number of lots in each (smaller) category to achieve "maximum density." Most scenarios will only be able to have a few "large" lots (1 ac +)

The NEGATIVE FISCAL Impact to the remaining residents of the county needs to be considered. The primary avowed purpose of Zoning is the health, safety and welfare of the COMMUNITY.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, there is not sufficient information to make a reasonable planning and zoning decision. There is a mention of some 335 lots in the 5 to 10 acre range alone. Under this proposal each of these lots will be permitted (actually required to be approved as "standard subdivisions") with the full one dwelling per acre. By allowing smaller lots each smaller parcel will be developed to that full number and still have room for streets, as no open space would be required. At an average acreage of 7 acres this could be an addition 2,000 houses just on lots under 10 acres.


Temporary PROPOSAL
Consequently, let me again propose an RA zone allowing a PPD with one unit per 2.5 acres of parcel size, with 50% open space and a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre - with a 50% bonus in TROZ to implement the strategy of higher densities closer to incorporated towns. This would allow the flexibility of lot size variety and enough excess space for clustering and buffers, etc. or even a "standard" lot size development of 1 acre at the developer's discretion ( including 50 % open space).

Smaller parcels will be allowed fewer houses (than RA1) but a more open environment and still allow a variety of lot sizes. A few random sample distributions shown below:

Parcel size	1/3 ac	1/2 ac	2/3 ac	3/4 ac	1ac	2+ ac	total	lot acres	open space
5					1	1	2	3	2
TROZ				1	2		3	2.75	2.25
10				2	2		4	3.5	6.5
TROZ		3		2			5	3	7
15			3			3	6	8.01	6.99
TROZ			3	5		1	9	7.76	7.24
large parcels"
16		3			2	2	7	7.5	8.5
TROZ		5		2	2	1	10	8	8
60			4	4	10	6	24	27.68	32.32
TROZ		10	10	10	5	1	36	26.2	33.8
80		5	5	5	5	12	32	38.6	41.4
80		20	5	5		2	32	21.1	58.9
80		2	10	10		10	32	35.2	44.8
TROZ		10	15	5	10	5	45	38.8	41.2
100		10	5	10	5	10	40	40.85	59.15
TROZ		20	2	26	10	2	60	44.84	55.16

---

This will effectively preserve open space per the moratorium, and it will allow development during the period of time a General Plan Land Use Study Committee is created to determine the desires of the community and formulate a long range plan to achieve that goal. It will also eliminate the problem imposed with Option 3 of the division of large lots into smaller ones to achieve more potential building lots.

Respectfully,

Robert Wren
member Planning Commission

To: Wasatch County Council

From: Robert Wren, member Planning Commission 27 January 2006

Minority Report in opposition to proposed legislation

Last week the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-1, recommended that the County Council adopt the Planning Department’s "Option 3" (of 8 or so), modified to 25 acres to "solve" the problems of open space and growth.

The avowed purpose of "Zoning" is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. A group of citizens has called for an interim zone change to RA-5, (possibly with a Planned Performance Development which will reduce - not increase - potential housing construction), while a deliberate study is done to review, and update, the General Plan of 2001 (a five-year review is one of the goals of that plan) and present a considered, thoughtful solution to the potential growth potential and to attempt to retain what the residents have expressed a continuing desire for - a rural, small town with open space.

This proposed amendment to Title 16 (Land Use Code) does nothing to slow growth of development - it may actually increase the number of houses that can potentially be built in the unincorporated County.

Much in the wording of the overall proposal is excellent. The description of "Rural Landscape Character" was generally well conceived. The proposal of how to protect open space through various ownership and easement arrangement is well done. However, the devil is in the details.

What’s wrong with Option 3, and basically the whole array of proposed options? At one point in time not too long ago, Wasatch County required 200 ft. frontage on a county road for a building lot, and that land parcels could be only "subdivided" once.

1. This new proposal will apparently allow anyone with a lot of two acres or more to subdivide further. I will readily admit that, although I have studied the two-inch thick Title 16 and the one inch General plan, there may be some proviso that may limit this.
2. Under the proposal, "property less than 25 acres" . . . with sewer, will allow one Dwelling Unit per acre, on lots as small as 1/3 acre. (About 100 feet by 140 feet) (Variable lot sizes, with no more than 25% of each size.) For example, six lots at 1/3 acre, six at 2/3, 6 at ½ , and seven at 1 acre on a 25 acre parcel. This is defined as a "Standard Subdivision."
   
3. If the total parcel size is greater than 25 acres, a developer may, by leaving 50% in open space, build one unit per "buildable acre" on lots as small as the 1/3 acre. So, with 100 acres, 75 houses (not 100) may be built (because of the "buildable acre" concept)
   
4. The Planning Commission voted to retain the "Transition Zone" - the potential "annexation" areas around the incorporated municipalities (It had been proposed to delete it). This provides a "bonus" of 25% more houses, by meeting certain criteria.
   It doesn’t take too much analysis to figure out that by dividing a piece of land into parcels of less than 25 acres it would be possible to build MORE houses AND proclaim that open space is being preserved, merely by putting houses on smaller lots.
   Further subdivision of your current home’s lot At the PC meeting, a list was presented of the various lot sizes currently in the RA 1 zone. It was indicated that there were 335 lots of 5 -10 acres, and it was explained that some currently have homes on the lot. The impression given was that a lot, with a home, on say - 10 acres, under this proposal, could be further subdivided as noted in #2 above. For example, a home on 10 acres (335 of them, ‘many’ with houses) could carve out a 2 acre parcel for the current owner’s house and build eight more homes on the remaining property (10 more if within the TROZ)
   Is this the intent? Will it be the result? I sincerely hope that this interpretation is incorrect, but I see little in the law to preclude this. This is part of the reason to slow down and think about this whole proposed change. Find out what the County residents truly desire for our valley; and determine what is best for the health, safety and welfare of the community, as a whole, and not mainly for the benefit of a relatively small group of land holders.

If this is correct and this proposal does provide more "development rights," than the current RA-1 zone, it will become even more difficult to change it at a later date, because it could cause even more claims of reducing the value of the land. It is not really the function of the Government to "maximize" property values. It is the function of government to protect the rights of ALL individuals AND the health safety and welfare of the community in general.
At some point in our future, growth will become limited; is it fair to all concerned to allow more density to the current developments and face the possibility of decreasing it for later developments when the limiting factors are encountered? Do we really know what the practical limit of the number of houses that can be sustained in our "rural, small town environment?" Do we even know what the total number of houses that can be built under these many various proposals, or the current regulations? Wouldn’t it be more logical and fairer to determine that practical "maximum" and allocate ERU’s on that basis, similar to what was attempted at Jordanelle?

Administrative vs. Legislative Acts There are two types of land use actions. Basically, with an Administrative Act (e.g. Standard Subdivision) there is little discretion in approving a subdivision. If the law allows it - must be approved. I believe the "less the 25 acre" proposal will fall into this category.
A Legislative Act (e.g. Planned Unit or Performance Development - PUD) allows the county a little more discretion in approving developments. Particular criteria must be met for approval, which generally will be considered "reasonably debatable to further the general welfare," in a possible court case. A PUD will allow more input into developments and allow the discretion afforded under Legislative Acts, if that is what is desired. See www.uthapropertyrights.com/land for a further explanation of this concept.

Otherwise why not just eliminate zoning, and let the ‘market’ work? The answer, of course, is that we DO have zoning and with it certain expectations that the zoning has created. If a house on a rural piece of land in a low density zone is purchased, it should be a rational expectation that the surrounding area will be kept rural and low density.

Growth Rate: It’s certain that corrections will be forthcoming for any errors expressed here, as they were for the idea that Wasatch was growing at 15% annual growth. While Wasatch is one the fastest growing counties in the nation, that should have been a 15% growth in three years, or 4-5 % annually. In actuality, the rate of growth is not all that relevant, but the potential for growth IS. This faux pas also serves as an excellent example of why it is desirable to study, consider and deliberate, before making these very important decisions. I do not proclaim to have all of the knowledge or all the answers, I do have questions and I do have a concern for the direction we are heading - Wasatch City!!!

Litigation: At the PC meeting a few comments were made about avoiding litigation. That’s an excellent idea. Most Land Use litigation seems to stem from a perceived loss of land "values." However there is case law stipulating that local government has great discretion in Land Use Law. e.g. "If an ordinance could promote the general welfare; or even if it is reasonably debatable that it is in the interest of general welfare, we will uphold it." "The selection of one method of solving the problem in preference to another is entirely within the discretion of the city and does not, in and of itself, evidence of abuse of discretion. See Bradley v Payson, 2001 UT App 9 aff’d 2003 UT 16; Harmon City v. City of Draper, 2000 UT App 31 "In the context of rezoning, it is not sufficient that a plaintiff demonstrates economic loss caused by the rezoning, as long as he or she retains some reasonable use of the subject property there is not a constitutional "taking." Harmon City, Inc. v. Draper City, 2000UT App 31

History: The last major Land Use case in Wasatch County, resulted from the apparent passage of a law providing a 2 ERU per acre development. That law, or provision in the law, was apparently not well discussed and deliberated and was of questionable origin. The cost to the County was high, I hope we don’t repeat the error.

General Plan Update: The Plan calls for periodic review (at least every five years). As pointed out in the Moratorium Ordinance (05-11) we now have "unprecedented growth pressure in the form of multiple large scale subdivisions applications and corresponding loss of agricultural use, open space and rural atmosphere"; and "zoning regulations in the RA-1 zone are currently inadequate to protect this valuable asset (rural atmosphere, open space and agricultural feel)."

The Plan was established as a "mandatory guide for land use decisions . . . " and the proposed regulation may be in conflict with the goal expressed of "preserving the rural character of the county," "reduc(ing) the haphazard scattering of development," "protect the social and economic well-being of the people," and other goals listed in the Plan.

An example: On "Lake Creek Road, 1200 South and 1200 East . . . new access from driveways shall not be allowed." But the proposed under 25 acre developments on 1/3 ac will allow a plentitude of ‘streets’ providing access from small subdivisions. Wouldn’t a driveway from a five or ten acre home site be better for all concerned than a street for 5 to 10 houses?

Proposed State Legislation: With the introduction of SB170, it becomes even more critical to get this right. If SB170 should be passed it would severely restrict local Land Use Planning. While they are seem to be trying to limit local land use planning by "prohibit(ing) counties and municipalities from imposing stricter land use requirements or higher land use standards than required under statute"; line18-19 http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/bills/sbillint/sb0170.htm , which basically means "health, safety and welfare." It must be recognized that the financial 'welfare' of the entire community must be considered as a factor in planning and development approval. Negative fiscal impacts must be a factor, otherwise the property rights of existing property owners are not being protected - because they will be required to pay for the impact of the development.

SB 170 will also directly affect any possible future changes to zoning, as any change might be construed as "materially diminish(ing) the reasonable investment-backed expectations of the property's owner; " which would effectively not be allowed. SB 170 gives further a further reason to adopt a general RA-5 zone and then work on an appropriate Planned Performance Development.

I urge developing and adopting a vision for future growth accompanied with a review of the General Plan, for changes to be submitted in November to bring Wasatch County in the direction of those visionary goals. We should further develop the current statistics to determine the effect of various Land Use proposals on the developable land in the County and enable the development fiscal analysis program to provide the best possible information for rational decision making, to meet the goal of preserving the "County’s fiscal health" and helping to insure that "each development should also be require to pay its own freight." (General Plan 132-3)

Regards,
Bob Wren

Moratorium Solution - NOT!

Last week the Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-1, recommended that the County Council adopt the Planning Department’s "Option 3" (of 8 or so), modified to 25 acres to "solve" the problems of open space and growth.

This proposed amendment to Title 16 (Land Use Code) does nothing to slow growth of development - it may actually increase the number of houses that can potentially be built in the unincorporated County.

The avowed purpose of "Zoning" is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. A group of citizens have called for an interim zone change to RA-5, (possibly with a Planned Performance Development which will reduce - not increase - potential housing construction) while a deliberate study is done to revisit the General Plan of 2001 (as required by that plan) and present a considered, thoughtful solution to the potential growth potential and to attempt to retain what the residents have expressed a continuing desire for - a rural, small town with open space.

Much in the wording of the overall proposal is excellent. The description of "Rural Landscape Character" was generally well conceived. The proposal of how to protect open space through various ownership and easement arrangement is well done. However, the devil is in the details.
What’s wrong with Option 3, and basically the whole array of proposed options? At one point of time Wasatch County required 200 ft. frontage on county road, and that lots could be only "subdivided" once.

1. This new proposal will apparently allow anyone over a lot of two acres or more to subdivide further. I will readily admit, that although I have studied the two inch thick Title 16 and the one inch General plan, there be some proviso that may be limiting.
   
2. Under the proposal, "property less than 25 acres" . . . with sewer, will allow one Dwelling Unit per acre, on lots as small as 1/3 acre. (About 100 feet by 140 feet) (Variable lot sizes, with no more than 25% of each size.) For example, 6 lots at 1/3 acre, 6 at 2/3, 6 at ½ , and 7 at 1 acre on a 25 acre parcel. This is defined as a "Standard Subdivision."
   
3. If the total parcel size is greater than 25 acres, a developer may, by leaving 50% in open space, build 1 unit per "buildable acre" on lots as small as the 1/3 acre. So, with 100 acres, 75 houses (not 100) may be built (because of the "buildable acre" concept)
   
4. The Planning Commission voted to retain the "Transition Zone" - the potential "annexation" areas around the incorporated (It had been proposed to delete it). This provides a "bonus" of 25% more houses, by meeting certain criteria.
   It doesn’t take too much analysis to figure out that by dividing a piece of land into parcels of less than 25 acres that you will be allowed to build MORE houses AND proclaim that open space is being preserved, merely by putting houses on smaller lots.
   

Further subdivision of your current home’s lot At the PC meeting, a list was presented of the various lot sizes currently in the RA 1 zone. It was indicated that there were 335 lots of 5 -10 acres, and it was explained that some currently have homes on the lot. The impression given was that a lot, with a home, on 10 acres, under this proposal, could be further subdivided as noted in #2 above. For example, a home on 10 acres (335 of them, ‘many’ with houses) could carve out a 2 acre parcel for the current owner and build 8 more homes on the remaining property (10 more if within the TROZ)

I sincerely hope that this interpretation is incorrect, but I see little in the law to preclude this. This is part of the reason to slow down and think about this whole proposed change. Find out what the County residents truly desire for our valley; and determine what is best for the health, safety and welfare of the community, as a whole, not for a group of land holders.

Administrative vs. Legislative Acts If you’ve read this far, congratulations, this will surely put you to sleep. There are two types of land use acts. Basically, with an Administrative Act (e.g Standard Subdivision) there is little discretion in approving a subdivision. If the law allows it - must be approved. I believe the "less the 25 acre" proposal will fall into this category.
A Legislative Act (e.g Planned Unit or Performance Development - PUD) allows the county a little more discretion in approving developments. Particular criteria, generally will be "reasonably debatable to further the general welfare," must be met for approval. A PUD will allow more input into developments and allow the discretion afforded under Legislative Acts, if that is what is desired. Otherwise why not just eliminate zoning, and let the ‘market’ work? The answer, of course, is that we DO have zoning and with it certain expectations that the zoning has created. If one buys a rural piece of land in a low density zone, it should be a rational expectation that the surrounding area will be kept rural and low density.

I’m certain that corrections will be forthcoming for any errors expressed here, as they were for the idea that Wasatch was growing at 15% annual growth. While Wasatch is one the fastest growing counties in the nation, that should have been a 15% growth in three years, or 4-5 % annually. In actuality the rate is not all that relevant, the potential for growth IS. This also serves as an excellent example of why it is desirable to study, consider and deliberate, before making the very important decisions. I do not proclaim to have all of the knowledge or all the answers, I do have questions and I do have a concern for the direction we are heading - Wasatch City!!!

If you have similar concerns, this is not the time to rest on your apathetic laurels and trust that your elected representatives will protect you, and your county, from "unprecedented growth pressure in the form of multiple large scale subdivisions applications and corresponding loss of agricultural use, open space and rural atmosphere." (Moratorium Ordinance 05-11) Your action is required because "zoning regulations in the RA-1 zone are currently inadequate to protect this valuable asset (rural atmosphere, open space and agricultural feel)" (05-11) Please Contact the County Council and express your opinion.

A Public Hearing will be held on February 1, your input is needed. Amidst cries of "elitist" and "anti-people" and "you trying to keep my children for living here," I remain a cry in the wilderness (rural, of course) to what is coming. Don’t say you have not been warned as you wait through the fifth stoplight change to turn left. I think developers will love this plan; I hope the only thing left is not the 10,000 plastic cows to maintain the rural facade.

Wasatch City II

Rural or City - which will it be?

In the immortal, paraphrased, words of Chicken Little: "The valley is filling, the valley is filling." Yes, I understand, that warning was false - but, this one can be observed.

Last Wednesday an ad hoc committee presentation was made to the County Council proposing a possible solution to the problems described in the development Moratorium - "unprecedented growth pressure . . . (loss of) rural atmosphere, open space and agricultural feel . . . protect(ion) of this valuable asset." The slide show is available on line. (Large file- long download - self executable)

After an explanation of the current situation, the ad hoc citizen committee proposed to modify all RA-1 (one acre per house) zones to RA- 5 (five acres per house). After dong that, create a citizen Land Use Committee to discuss further plans, in a deliberate and thoughtful manner, for accomplishing the goals of the 2001 General Plan and the desire of Wasatch County residents.

Some of the goals of the citizens’ Committee of 100 were clearly defined and described in the General Plan:
"Preserve the rural Character of Wasatch County"
"Preserve the present air quality of the county"
"Develop land use policies that encourage open space"

A further goal: "Due to the rapid growth that is taking place in the County, the land use portion of this plan shall be reviewed at least every five years to determine if the land use policies are being adhered to and changing conditions are being addressed" also needs to be fulfilled. By law, a moratorium can not be extended beyond its six month limit and enacting passage of Land Use regulations requires a minimum of two months, with required public notice, meetings, etc.

On Thursday of last week, a plan was introduced at the Planning Commission to attempt to resolve the RA-1 moratorium by effectively changing ONE acre zoning to one-half acre zoning, in clusters, and leaving open "green belts" on half the property. This proposal, with or without modification, will be submitted to the Planning Commission on the 19th of January. Public Notice will need to be given in the Wave on the fourth of January to conform with the legal notice law. An approval/disapproval decision will then be made by PC and forwarded to the Council for consideration and passage. The moratorium expires February 23rd.

The moratorium ordinance (#05-11) states, "regulations in the RA-1 zone are currently inadequate to protect (our) valuable assets." I heartily agree, and submit to all of you that the current cluster proposal will also be inadequate.

More information may be found at http://wasatch.blogspot.com/ If you have an idea or opinion on this issue, contact your Council Representatives, or the planning staff, or Commissioners. Please join wasco-subscribe@yahoogroups.com for a discussion on Growth in Wasatch County. Currently, anyone may join; Emails sent to the group will be sent to everyone who joins.

Welcome to Wasatch City

A little over a month ago the Wave heralded the development moratorium passed by the County Council. At last we were to take a stand about the loss of our "small town" atmosphere and rural environment. During polling on the Walmart issue the people had spoken - the consensus was to maintain the valley as it has been, in so far as feasible.

This moratorium can, by Utah law, only run for six months; during which time we would all hope for some proposals to help alleviate the perceived problems. By County law, amendments to Title 16 - Planning, Zoning and Development Code - and the Master Plan may only be amended annually before 30 November. With public hearings, notices and other meetings, there appears to be little time to prepare and approve changes. It is, perhaps, possible that "emergency" authority might be used to avoid this restriction, but, to date, little has been done (as far as I can tell) to formulate any proposals to correct the RA 1 development concerns that apparently precipitated the moratorium.

Early in September, as a member of the Planning Commission, I emailed Council members asking: " What specific problem(s) are we trying to solve?" and "What is the suggested direction for solution?" See wasatch.blogspot.com/ for full text. This was met by a deafening silence. Oh, there have been a few minor general discussions at Planning Commission meetings and I have had some brief discussion with a few Council members, but the only proposal thus far set forth is a proposed Title 16 change which would allow greater "bonus" density (MORE Houses) to developers "willing" to build on SMALLER lot sizes. Instead of 100 homes on 100 acres, they would be allowed to put 125 "clustered" homes on 50 acres and keep the remaining 50 acres "open" or in a park for the use of those in the development. Is this the direction the residents of the County want to go?

To get a feel for our future "rural" atmosphere, I might suggest driving up 1200 South and comparing Cobblestone (2000E -clustered high density), then close your eyes while passing The Crossings (2600 E - very high density - 500+ homes) and continue to Stonebridge (4100E - one acre lots); then turn right into Lake Creek Farms (one + acres). Then amble over to Center Street and visit Greener Hills (4200 E - 5 + acres) and Pole Estates (6000 E -1 acre) and decide for yourself which example you might prefer as an example for future growth in the county. Consider our supposed plan to grow from the cities outward, then contact members of the County Council and Planning Commission and give them your impressions.

There is a process called Public Involvement in local planning matters, it might have an effect - if used. May I suggest attending the October 20 Planning Commission meeting. Go to the Council meetings (Oct 19, Nov 2, Nov 16) - listen and express your opinion on these issues. Take a look at http://wasatch.blogspot.com/ where I infrequently post some items of County interest and leave your comments, please. Join a new discussion group concerning Wasatch County issues by sending an Email to wasco-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Everyone is welcome. Our 2001 General Plan, which actually considers up to 91,982 homes (pg. 86) in Wasatch County, is up for review at the end of five years.

Personally, I fear that our desire for rural and small town is a long gone vision and the best we might hope for is a small town facade disguising Wasatch City. But, who knows, some of you out there may have a solution. In the meantime, I am researching the possibility of purchasing 10,000 plastic cows which can be placed strategically around the county to at least maintain the appearance of a rural environment, but I'm not sure how to provide an authentic smell - perhaps our local politicians can help.

Moratorium on Developments

An Open letter to the County Council:

I left town for a week and returned to find we now have a development moratorium. If we are to propose a solution prior to the end of the six month period, many considerations must be made to solve the indicated problems. In actuality, as any Title 16 changes (16.02.05) must be made by 11/30/05, there are less than 90 days to complete the process. Two public hearings (PC and Council), with appropriate notice (14 days), appear to be required to make this change.

With the last Council meeting scheduled 11/16, notice would have to be sent for Wave on 11/2; after the Planning Comm meeting of 10/20 to consider the proposed change which would require a notice on 10/5. So basically, it appears there is about a month to create this law change. There is currently one PC meeting scheduled on 9/15.

In my understanding no specific proposal has yet been created or under consideration. It appears to me that gathering more public opinion on these issues ASAP is paramount to creating an acceptable solution. I hope that we are NOT using Cobblestone as a standard of desired development. Although very successful in sales, to me Cobblestone does not appear to be "rural" or even "small town;" (obviously The Crossings has to be the worst example of rural planning). If we do not want to create Wasatch City, Stone Bridge, Lake Creek Farms, Greener Hills and Pole Estates might be better examples.

As a member of the Planning Commission, I would ask the following questions:

1 What specific problem(s) are we trying to solve?
Maintain rural atmosphere?
Maintain Open Space?
Keep agricultural use viable?
Slow the speed of growth?
????
2 What is the suggested direction for solution?
Rezone to 5 acres?
Require x % open space in any development over x acres or x units?
Purchase of open space by County?
Transfer Development rights?
Larger property tax abatement for agricultural with longer rollback on development?
Dedicated Parks? County maintained?
Create a facade of rural environment - 10,000 plastic cows?
One story homes - at least we will be able to see some land?
Open space on roads - not in back of homes?
Impact fees for buying open space ?
Limited annual building permits - to control the RATE of growth?
No more new roads - Build on current roads only?
No more PUD's?
No more SSD's - No mechanical Waste treatment?
Minimum distance between houses?
Water??
Cap the number of homes allowed in the Heber Valley?
????
A few sites mentioning limiting annual building permits, to better control the rate of growth and necessary infrastructure and "to promote the prosperity, improves the morals, peace and good order, convenience and aesthetics of the community":

http://www.capecodcommission.org/bylaws/buildcap.html
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:vRoFBygixqkJ:nh.gov/oep/resourcelibrary/referencelibrary/g/growthmanagement/documents/growthmanagementinnh.doc+building+permit+limit+number+ordinance&hl=en
http://www.islamorada.fl.us/newsite/ordinances/04-16.pdf
http://www.emmitsburg.net/towngov/bulletins/ordinance_14.htm
http://www.sprawlwatch.org/election.html
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/City+Council/Council+Meetings/2005January/Reports/05-003.htm
http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/11/05/ca/sac/meas/R/

Water? (from the 1999 archives)

Water, Water Everywhere???

Is anyone else concerned with the source of water to be used by all of the new growth in the Heber Valley? We hear a lot of talk about water rights, water shares, Special Service Districts, and millions of acre feet for this, that and the other. I have a simple question: who is responsible to insure that water is available for me to pump in my well?

It seems fairly obvious that there is a limit to the supply of water in our valley. Our water currently must come from underground aquifers or from lakes, ponds and reservoir. Most of Jordanelle and Deer Creek water has apparently been allocated elsewhere by the ubiquitous CUP.

We therefore seem to be limited basically to that which we can pump from the ground. That water can only come from three places: precipitation, runoff or recycling. Precipitation is obviously rain and snow, runoff is the result of the snowpack and recycling occurs through septic, sewers, irrigation, watering, etc.
Ten years ago, it was difficult to get a building permit. The avowed reason - there wasn't enough water. Now it seems we have created an almost unlimited supply. We are building more and more sewer systems which take water from the local areas and pipe it somewhere for recycling. That water then returns to the aquifer. Is that the same aquifer that MY well pumps from? I have no idea. I fail to see how sewers can INCREASE the available water supply.

Effluent does not flow uphill. These new sewer systems allow greater housing density
Not too long ago there was an irrigation ditch which had water flowing in it most of the summer. With the diversion of water by the new CUP system that seems to have dried up. We are converting irrigation water into home usage. Does that decrease the recycling effect? We had an irrigation system pressurized by gravity, now we are converting to a system requiring electric pumps for distribution. Is this progreess?

Heber City is building a large reservoir which must be filled by pumping from this
underground supply. Will this affect the water level? I have to think that it must. Does anyone know the quantity of our underground water? Where does Heber City obtain their water rights?

Wasatch County recently allocated millions of acre feet to the Jordanelle SSD. Won't all of the new construction in the County need that water? Is there anyone in this county in charge of protecting the water rights of the current valley residents? Are new developments required to insure that proper amounts of additional water will be available to use in those new homes? How much water is, or should be, allotted to each proposed residential unit?

There is a new Planning/Zoning proposal to all "Clustered Development" in RA zones.
This will greatly increase the allowable building density. (County Commission to vote on 13 December!) This seems to violate the rural agricultural setting that the 1973? Master? Plan? was supposed to protect. Is there any such thing as a master Water Plan? Do we hear anything about water conservation? Are we emphasizing low water usage building and landscaping concepts?

These are just a few questions about an item that should concern everyone in this valley. Water is not an unlimited resource, no matter how many sewer lines we build. The overriding question is: In ten years and after hundreds (or thousands) of new homes will you and I be able to turn on our taps and get water from our wells or will we be required to hook up to a public water system (at our expense, of course) which will provide me water from an Alaskan pipeline?