Provo Canyon Road et al

The cost of Provo Canyon Road appears to have been $108,020,325 See page 69 of UDOT STIP

That seems to be a little higher than I remember.

DNews 3/4/2005 "The five major projects in UDOT's Region 3, covering the north-central part of the state, will cost a combined total of more than $83 million.

The most significant of those projects, by far, is in Utah County. It involves reconstruction of U.S. 189 in Provo Canyon. UDOT will widen a five-mile segment of the road between the dam and the Sundance Resort turn-off from two lanes to five.

"This is a fairly big program for the county down here," said Region 3 director Tracy Conti.

"Provo Canyon is definitely the glamour project, to say the least. I don't know if it's the biggest one going on in Utah now, probably U-201 (in Salt Lake County) is bigger as far as dollars are concerned, but as far as the technical work, on Provo Canyon — we've got a structure that's going to span 500 feet and a couple hundred feet above the ground right where the road will tie into the dam. It's going to be an engineering marvel."

Several people have indicated the need for an pedestrian underpass at the HUB intersection. Interestingly, on that same page of the STIP report is listed: US 40 pedestrian underpass $10,000,000 in 2009 (probably at Mayflower for the new $2 Billion hotel 'mixed use' project across from the Deer Valley gondola)

Another item shown is $30 million for "Midway Interchange" (presumably US-40 and River Road) no date indicated. AND $872,616 for Center St. to 1400 E in Heber for 2009 (Four lanes ???)

The 'benefits' of growth move inexorably forward.

Update on County RA-1

The Plan to "encourage innovative site planning" with the objective for "Achieving a Rural Landscape Character and, specifically, to "maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character" and to promote a rural feel along county roads" and all sorts of wonderful platitudes is nearing completion and passage by the County Council.

This proposal was discussed here in September. It hasn't improved in the interim and will allow a near certain guarantee of an increase in RA-1 density over pre-moratorium (2005) days by 30%.

Growth has been the prime election issue in Wasatch County for years and county (and city) government continues to lead in allowing MORE density.

Consider this, for each average house built a NEGATIVE fiscal impact of $1 to 2,000 must be imposed on all of the taxpayers. A ONE house increase to a developer is worth about $100 to 200,000 in profit. So who is looking out for the taxpayers and who is maximizing the developer profit? (answers - NO ONE and your elected officials)

What are the potential results of this change?

Current number of houses existing in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) = 625

• potential houses under current law ca. 4700
• potential houses under new law ca. 6250
• A potential 33% INCREASE in an area with a current approval of about 1500 houses

NOTE: this is only in the Eastern Planning Area (Center/Lake Creek area) and only in the RA-1 Zone.

NOTE also that there are currently development approved in Wasatch County (not including municipalities of Heber, Midway, etc.) of over 13,000 housing units which are yet to built. There are currently about a total of about 10,000 houses in the County. Oh, the 13,000 does not include an additional 3,600 recently awarded to the Sorenson development (Jordanelle Ridge)

Where are we being led and why are being led there? Answer - Wasatch City and I have no idea.

Click here or on the zoning or planning links in the left column for more information.

The current downturn in the real estate market may provide us with the breathing room to do a little proper planning - of we would only use it!!!

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.

Bypass, Big Box

Wasatch County (via MAG RPO) gave a good presentation (large file) to the Transportation Commission this morning about Heber Main Street traffic, the West Bypass road, the River Road intersection and "the Hub" US40/189 intersection. Included were resolutions from Wasatch and Heber supporting the bypass.

The reported traffic study (2005) showed 25,000 vehicles per day on Main Street, they estimate it is probably up to 28,000 now, which should be no surprise to those in the valley. That appears to be the third highest traffic numbers in Wasatch and Summit counties; compared to 44,000 on I-15 at Parley's Canyon and 33,000 on the road by the Canyons Resort and about the fourth highest in all of northern Utah outside of the metropolitan areas of Utah and Salt Lake Counties.

Five percent of the Main St. traffic are trucks. 46% of the through traffic uses 189; 32 % US 40; and 22% 189 to 40 East Councilman Mike Kohler mentioned it was important to get this done before the current plan date of 2030.

The first comment after the presentation, from UDOT (Commissioner Glen Brown) was about the Hub intersection: (paraphrased) "Putting a big development at that intersection will really cause a lot more congestion. Why are you permitting it?"

A minor discussion resulted in Heber City Councilman Terry Lange's comment (paraphrased), "There's a referendum on the issue this November." Brown responded, "Oh, it's that controversial."

A UDOT employee (?) said, "We'll be happy to give you traffic information on big developments."

UDOT Commission Chair Adams then asked, "Will there be commercial (Big Box developer) participation in the Hub intersection costs?"

Discussion ensued on the development's frontage, bypass location between 189 to 40, etc.

Kohler: "It's proposed as limited access, there's no plan for access to the development from the Bypass, we haven't decided on the final part of the road to US 40."

Adams: "I think we need to get working on that intersection now, why wait."

On the subject of the interchange at River Road, the UDOT Committee indicated that they thought the plan was already in process and had been delayed by needed funding for Provo Canyon. Corridor preservation funds should be available to the required property.

Committee members were very impressed with the current work being done for the project and seemed quite encouraging about the entire project, but no motion was made for action.

Minutes of the meeting should be available in a month or so.

Scriptural warnings

Planning and Zoning??

Isaiah 5:8 Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth!

9 In mine ears said the LORD of hosts, Of a truth many houses shall be desolate, even great and fair, without inhabitant.

Micah 2:2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage.

Wasatch City - Part 27

Many of you long-time residents of delightful rural Wasatch County remember the good old days of green fields, pastures and open spaces that you cherished about the lovely Heber Valley. Many of you newcomers were enticed to this area because of the same features.

Most of you are aware that we live in one of the fastest growing areas of the country, partly because of the valley's desirability that is recognized by new and old alike. About two years ago, some county officials finally seemed to realize that we were losing the small town atmosphere that everyone seemed to agree was desirable - as shown through polls, comments and, even, campaign speeches. A moratorium was placed on development in the county.

The supposed purpose was to provide for open space on the valley floor to attempt to retain some of that desired and elusive open space and rural character. The resultant law from that 2005 moratorium was a convoluted "cluster" requiring each development to have 50% open space, with bonus density for pretty landscaping. This was quickly found to be unworkable for various reasons, mainly because it tried to put eight pounds of stuff in a five pound bag.

A second moratorium was enacted and the RA1 development law was again changed to now require only 30% open space in each development, again with bonuses for cosmetics. A possibility of a "fee in lieu" was included, as a teaser, to allow the purchase of additional density (building lots) above the base of one lot per 1.3 acres.

Land developers are very shrewd in interpreting law and configuring their acreage to maximize their investment. Very quickly the idea arose that "each proposed cluster development shall provide thirty (30%) dedicated open space" did NOT mean 30% of the land must be open space, but it meant that open space could be someone's back yard, or a road, or unbuildable land, or anything that would allow the maximum number of houses to be built and maximum profit to be made. Recent (maybe two months ago) INTERPRETATION of this development law indicated the REQUIRED 30% open space could be offset by a fee - for which there is NO LAW to allow this to happen.

The end result to date: Before the 2005 moratorium, in the RA1 zone, one acre was required to build one house. Meaning, quite simply, on 100 acres about 69 houses could be built, because of required roads and lot layouts designed of a minimum of one acre. The first resultant RA 1 law changed this to a base density of 76 houses on that same 100 acres (a ten percent increase); or, with 50% open space, 100 houses could be built (a 40 % increase). That second law kept that density increase but required a 30% open space.

The latest INTERPRETATION: The open space may be someone's backyard and is contained in the 1.3 acre per house calculation - which will now allow 1 house per acre and NO open space is required. This amounts to a 40% increase in density before the moratoriums to increase open space and "To maintain and protect Wasatch County's rural character" - the avowed and expressly written purpose of section 16.27.10 of the County Land Use Code.

Thus the continuing slide towards Wasatch City continues, not even considering the massive and growing density increases caused by city annexations. Is this 40% density increase really in the interest of the "health, safety and welfare of the community?"

In rural Wasatch County, is this truly the desire of the residents?

BIG BOX repeal on the ballot

The referendum petition was reportedly certified by the County Clerk today.

1658 Signatures submitted
1424 Certified as valid - others were not registered, duplicates, non Heber, etc.

As under 1200 were required by law to put the item on the ballot; it appears that Heber citizens WILL have the opportunity to repeal the MURCZA zone allowing 150,000 (or more) sqft retail businesses and five story condo units at 20 (?) units per acre.

Heber City Council basically ignored the petition signers:

Ballot box may decide big-box issue in Heber City
By Christopher Smart The Salt Lake TribuneSalt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:04/09/2007 12:24:49 AM MDT
The Heber City Council voted last week to zone 70 acres for big-box retail - despite a petition drive to allow voters to determine whether such large structures should be built within city limits.

A grass-roots organization called "Put Heber Valley First" needed to gather the signatures of 1,160 registered Heber City voters to put the referendum on the November ballot. They submitted 1,595 names to City Hall before the April 1 deadline.

Wasatch County Clerk Brent Titcomb is in the process of certifying the petition signatures. That tally should be complete this week. The petition push came in reaction to a February council vote to increase the limit on large retail outlets from 60,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet. That could set the stage for Wal-Mart.

Mayor Dave Phillips said Friday he believes there is a good chance the issue will go to voters. The Boyer Co., which is acquiring most of the 70 acres in question, had requested the rezone, Phillips said. "The developer knows it could go to a referendum," he said. Nonetheless, the council voted 4-1 for the rezone. Councilman Terry Lange cast the lone vote against the change.

Councilwoman Elizabeth Hokanson said the council didn't wait for the petition to be certified because "we wanted our intentions known." She pointed to a 2005 study that showed 90 percent of Heber City residents' nongrocery retail spending takes place outside Wasatch County. In addition, Hokanson said, Heber City leaders fear big-box retail could come to Wasatch County but be located outside city limits. "We want to broaden our commercial area and our tax base."

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!!!

NEW RA-1 Code = MORE houses

On 11/29, the Wasatch County Council passed a new RA-1 development law again accelerating the march toward Wasatch City. This was a joint public hearing of the Council and the Planning Commission, which was not widely advertised. Changes to Title 16 (Land Use code) generally have two separate public hearings separated by 14 day public notice periods for the public to consider and comment on the proposed changes.

Approval of the change was first recommended by the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-1, after discussion and minimal public input. Perhaps some residents had missed the legal notice in the Deseret News.

The Council then approved the measure with a few changes, which further increased the allowable density. Approval was by a vote of 4-3, with Bangerter, Price, Draper and Farrell voting in favor and Anderton, Crittenden and Kohler voicing opposition.

Current number of houses existing in the Eastern Planning Area (EPA) = 625

• potential houses under current law ca. 4700
• potential houses under new law ca. 6250
• A potential 33% INCREASE in an area with a current approval of about 1500 houses

Below is an analysis of the potential effects on the EPA(Center and Lake Creek area) from Wasatch County GIS data.

ASSUMPTIONS:
below 5.0 acres maximum houses acres/1.3 minus one for the current house
5.0 to 15 acres: maximum houses = acres - current houses
empty parcels will more likely approach the max allowable
parcels with current houses may be less likely to subdivide
current law: 0.75 houses per acre

Comments:
A few lots are P160
Timber Lakes development NOT included
For reference, Red Ledges development proposal was for a total of 1400 houses. In 2004, Wasatch County had 7,853 housing units.
This analysis does not include P160 and M Zone
This analysis covers ONLY the EPA and does not include other areas of Wasatch County, including Jordanelle (which may have a build out of 15,000 houses).

The primary cause of the increase under the new law results from now allowing credit for area used by roads in the computation of density. This has historical never been done. Under the current law, recently under moratorium, 25% of the area was removed for roads yielding a maximum density of one lot per acre for 75% of the buildable land in a parcel. (40 acres allowed 30 houses)

No solution was offered to the Transportation Plan for the area to accommodate this future growth. The recent citizens' General Plan review of the EPA was not presented or apparently considered.

acreage	<1.0	1.1-5.0	5.1-10	10.1-15	15-20	20-30	30-40	40-50	50+
RA 1 No Houses Built	547	372	147	68	21	16	10	6	14	1201
total acres buildable	?	845	1042	728	372	413	314	264	1244
avg lot size	?	2.27	7.09	10.71	17.71	25.81	31.40	44.00	88.86
maximum added houses	?	650	1042	728	372	413	314	264	1244	5027
under current law	?	488	782	546	279	310	236	198	933	3770
likely new houses ??	?	300	600	500	350	400	300	250	1200	3900
RA 1 with a House	183	333	78	15	8	2	2	2	2	625
total acres buildable	134	771	468	177	137	52	65	91	195	1956
avg lot size	0.73	2.32	6.00	11.80	17.13	26.00	32.50	45.50	97.50
maximum added houses	0	260	282	162	129	50	63	89	193	1228
under current law	0	195	212	122	97	38	47	67	145	921
likely new houses ??	0	100	100	50	50	20	30	40	100	490
Total Parcels	730	705	225	83	29	18	12	8	16	391

---

Criteria for Rezoning

The requirements for rezoning in Wasatch County are very clear. "amendments shall not be made to . . . the adopted Zoning Map except to promote more fully the objectives and purposes of the General Plan and this Title." Refer to the following for the code concerning establishment of the various zones and rezoning procedures.

Also included are the "purposes" of Title 16 (15 items) and the General Plan (9 items).

Title 16 excerpts concerning rezoning:

Section 16.02.05 Procedure to Amend the Title, Code or Zoning Map.

(1) Application. This Title, including the Map, may be amended by the Wasatch County Legislative Body in accordance with the requirements of the Utah Code Annotated (§17-27-101) County Land Use Development and Management Act. For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within the County, amendments shall not be made to this Title or the adopted Zoning Map except to promote more fully the objectives and purposes of the General Plan and this Title. Any person seeking an amendment to this Title or the adopted Zoning Map shall submit to the Planning Department a written petition containing the following information:

• (a) Designation of the specific zone change or Title amendment desired;
  (b) The reason and justification for such zone change or Title amendment, and a statement setting forth the manner in which a proposed amendment or zone would further promote the objectives of the General Plan and the purposes of this Title;
  (c) A complete and accurate legal description of the area proposed to be rezoned; or a draft of the proposed Title amendment;
  (d) An accurate development plan, drawn to scale, showing all areas to be included within the proposed rezoning, designating the present zoning of the property, and properties immediately adjacent thereto;
  (e) A slope map showing categories of slopes at 0-10%, 11-20% 21-30% and over 30% slopes; and
  (f) The filing fee as established by ordinance.

(2) Public Hearing. The Planning Commission and County Legislative Body shall hold a public hearing wherein it must be shown that such amendment is in the interest of the public, and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Wasatch County General Plan:

• (a) The County Legislative Body may amend the number, shape, boundaries, or area of any zoning district, or any regulation of or within a zoning district, or any other provision of this Title. Such amendments shall either be proposed by the Planning Commission or first submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval, disapproval, or recommendations.
  (b) The County Legislative Body shall hold a public hearing on all proposed amendments and rezonings as defined in this section. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in a manner consistent with state law.
  (c) Except as otherwise provided in this Title, the County Legislative Body shall consider amendments to either the Development Code or the General Plan only once in any given year and rezonings as defined in this section annually in November. The deadline for such amendments and rezoning applications shall be submitted to the Planning Department by July 15, of any given year for the recommendation by the Planning Commission. After July, the item may not be heard until the following year.
  (2003-22, Amended, 11/24/2003)

Section 16.02.03 Zone Establishment.

In order to accomplish the purposes of this Title, Wasatch County hereby divides the County into zones in accordance with the General Plan of the County as herein after set forth. In the preparation of this Title, due and careful consideration was given, among other things, to the relative quantities of the land needed for particular uses and to the suitability of such uses, to existing and probable future conditions within the County, and to the character of each of the several zones, with a view to conserving property values and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the County.

Section 16.03.10 General Plan Consistency
(1) Land Use Regulation. All land use regulations including building, zoning, subdivision and environmental protection regulations shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan. No discretionary land use project, public or private, shall be approved by the County unless it is found to be consistent with the adopted General Plan.
(2) Reviewing Department. The Planning Department is designated as the department authorized to review discretionary land use projects, public or private, and to make findings regarding whether such projects are consistent with the General Plan.


Section 16.01.01 Purpose.
This Title and the regulations and restrictions contained herein are adopted and enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, welfare, prosperity, improved morals, peace, good order, comfort, convenience and aesthetics of the present and future inhabitants of the County and to:
(1) Guide the future growth and development of Wasatch County, in accordance with the Wasatch County General Plan;
(2) Provide for adequate open space, light, air, air quality, privacy, safety from fire, flood, landslides and other geologic hazards, and other dangers and to try to prevent overcrowding of the land, and to lessen traffic congestion;
(3) Protect and conserve the character and stability of Wasatch County, and to encourage the orderly development of the land;
(4) Protect and conserve the Wasatch County property values and minimize conflicts among uses of the land and structures;
(5) Establish public and private policy that encourages action to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation and other public facilities;
(6) Establish reasonable standards of design and procedures for development;
(7) Create an atmosphere attractive to visitors and residents;
(8) Fully exercise all of the powers granted to the County by the provisions of the Utah Code Annotated (17-27-101) County Land Use Development and Management Act, and all other powers granted by statute or by common law for the regulation of land uses and improvements;
(9) Protect and enhance the quality of life in general for Wasatch County residents;
(10) Allow development in a manner that encourages the preservation of scenic values, historic structures, agricultural uses and minimizes the impact on natural resources in Wasatch County;
(11) Provide for well-planned commercial and residential centers, efficient traffic circulation, and efficient use of county services;
(12) Regulate development that may add to existing geologic hazards, erosion, flooding or other conditions that create potential dangers to life and safety in the community or detract from the quality of life in the community;
(13) Require new development to be fiscally responsible by providing all required improvements and adequately mitigating any impacts to the County;
(14) Establish Zone Districts within which the Legislative Body may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings and structures and the uses of land; and
(15) Provide methods of administration and enforcement of this Title and provide penalties for the violation thereof.

General Plan Purpose
The purpose for the preparation of this general plan is to provide a comprehensive approach to the coordination of development, natural resources and open space in such a way as to provide a harmonious relationship that meets the needs of present and future residents and also promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the County. Specifically, the purposes for planning within Wasatch County are:
1. To promote the most acceptable type of development within each planning area of the County.
2. To insure the orderly growth of urbanizing areas and reduce the haphazard scattering of development that has occurred since the first plan became outdated.
3. To foster commercial and light industrial development that will strengthen the economic base of the County.
4. To protect the natural and cultural resources of the County.
5. To insure that geologic hazards, flood plains, wetlands, ridgelines, view sheds and other physical constraints are adequately considered in each planning area.
6. To insure that local units of government can obtain the highest return per dollar spent in maintaining water and sewer facilities, storm drainage facilities, streets, parks and other types of public facilities.
7. To ensure that public safety personnel and facilities are within a reasonable distance in areas of concentrated development within the
County.
8. To promote the social and economic well-being of the people of the County.
9. To insure that growth does not over tax the water resources and degrade the clean air of the County.

Red Ledges Zone Change Approval

A news story reported on the "ritzy venture" on Thursday, discussing the Red Ledges development and its effect on Wasatch County.

The first step in the approval process came before the Planning Commission on 11/9, after an initial 3 to 3 vote in an earlier meeting. At this meeting, traffic studies indicated a threefold increase in traffic on Center St. from new developments - without some alternatives being implemented.

After extended discussion of the potential traffic which and introduction of various possible traffic plans, several of the approximately 75 citizens in attendance expressed their opinions. About 15 people spoke, with over two-thirds expressing displeasure with proposed zone change. Previous meetings had also brought vocal opposition to the project. A few residents have indicated their approval of the proposed 1500 new houses which the project might bring.

After all of the discussion, a motion was made to deny the approval for the zone change, which was defeated by a vote of 3 to 4. A subsequent motion to approve was passed 4 to 3. The issue now goes to the County Council for their consideration. The change for P160 and RA-1 will allow an increase from less than 50 house to about 500 under current Mountain Zone regulation. An further request has been made to change the law concerning the zone to further increase the allowable houses to nearer the desired 900 plus.

Red Ledges Development Survey

A new internet poll has been posted concerning the Red Ledges development at www.snipurl.com/ledges This survey is open to Wasatch County residents and is totally anonymous. It will take about five minutes to complete and has ample room for personal comments. Please feel free to weigh in with your opinion.

The Red Ledges development is proposed as a large gated community with a private golf course and other amenities for its residents. I would be located on the former McNaughtan farm on the eastern edge of Heber City just north of Center St and would include the adjoining property located in Wasatch County.

More information can be found on the developers' website by clicking HERE.

The project is currently planned to be jointly developed in coordination with both Heber City and Wasatch County. Several hearings have been held on the issue. One joint meeting was reported HERE.

School Bond Survey

With a reasonable number of responses to the poll on Wasatch County growth, including many excellent comments; a poll was created concerning the proposed School Bond hoping to gain some more comments (pro and con) on the issue.

The growth issue poll was, from its inception, overwhelmingly of the opinion that Wasatch has too much growth and is not doing well at managing it. The School bond received mixed responses of about 55% opposed to 35% favoring. At least until September 25 through 27, when 17 responses arrived. Remarkably, 11 were "Strongly in favor" of the Bond and most made a comment about the current school being outdated or old. On further analysis of the results, it was found that five of these responses came from the same IP address and four came from another.

Lo and behold, the first IP (205.123.148.252) was traced back to the "Utah Educational Network" The second (192.107.181.) is assigned to Utah Valley State College Org.

On Wednesday, 9/27, two officials from the Wasatch County School District were interviewed on KTMP about education and school bond issues. After the online interview, this curious coincidence was mentioned to these individuals - with virtually no response.

The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.

Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?

Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it.

Most of the comments indicated the belief that their taxes would GO DOWN! One respondent (who actually twice at 2006-09-29 22:11:30 AND at 2006-09-29 22:10:55) said "I have a house on an acre valued at $750,000, my taxes are only going up $16." Can anyone seriously believe a $60 million bond will NOT raise taxes?

His (or their) other comments: "The cost per 100,000 is $3 less than the Heber Valley bond that was passed approximately 6 years ago, and we are getting $50 million more worth of building. The Heber Valley bond will be paid off 4 years earlier, and has gone from $81 per $100,000 property valuation to $18 per $100,000 property valuation. Please do your homework prior to using an internet survey macro. Give me a break. Math and statistics lab, so people like you who made a weak attempt at designing a survey, might be better educated through their children attending a state-of-the-art facility.

This is a stupid survey. You don't ask any demographic questions, like whether I am on a fixed income or whether I am worth $2 million dollars. Don't you think this would have an impact on my answers. This is an example of the uneducated population in this valley, and just another reason to have a new high school so our future generations can appropriately design and execute a survey that evaluates objectively the local opinion."

Shall we post the name of this poll taker???

While all poll responses are appreciated, a little originality, logic and respect in the comments is strongly encouraged.

The proponents of the School Bond now have a web site - Vote Yes for a New Wasatch High School. We would encourage everone to carefully weigh the issues and vote based on that careful analysis and not succumb to emotion. Here's an opportunity to offer an educational lesson for the children, by example, of the need to differentiate between NEEDS and WANTS.

What to do about growth

1 Educate Yourself

To find the rules of growth, planning and zoning, see County Title 16, the County General Plan for Wasatch County. For Heber City, see the Heber City Code (particularly Titles 17 & 18).

To read the City survey, click here - Big Box for the presentation and results

Other contacts, Wasatch County Heber City and we mustn't forget Midway

2 Inform your Neighbors

In Wasatch County, Empty land has Property Rights, People in HOMES do not! The avowed purpose of "Zoning" is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. That must include the current residents who have repeatedly expressed their collective desire to maintain a rural, small town environment.

They have built and purchased homes at least partly predicated on promised zoning. Regulations are being continually modified toward higher and higher densities and more and more growth in defiance of the expressed desires of the residents.

3 Express your Opinions

To contact your elected officials, see County Council and Heber City Council and/or the Mayor or City Manager

Mike Davis Wasatch County Manager, 654-3211 fax 657-5116

Mark Anderson Heber City Manager, 654-0757
Alan Fawcett Planning Director, 654-4830

4 We need to understand, we ALL live in Wasatch County!

(The recent growth survey was posted at www.snipurl.com/heber. Preliminary results were posted below in this blog.)

Joint Wasatch County Heber City Meeting

On August 14, the county and the city held a joint meeting to discuss issues of growth, annexation and working together. The primary focus for the first half of the meeting was working together to facilitate the Red Ledges development as a joint project.
Below is a 'paraphrase' "transcript" extracts of the meeting - an interesting discussion. The numbers indicate the times from the beginning of the meeting on the recording. (No minutes of this meeting are found on the County website.) Phillips or DP = Dave Phillips, Heber City Mayor; Anderson or MA = Mark Anderson; Heber City Manager; Lange = Terry Lange, City Council; Price or JP = Jay Price County Council Chair; Davis = Mike Davis, County Manager and other members.


9:40 Philips; This is unique (working together) If Red Ledges makes sense and feels right - It’ll be a landmark . It'll benefit the county for a long time. If you are willing to consider we can take it to the next step.

11:30 Phillips: $1.2 million in property taxes to city on the whole project Red Ledges
Price: Cost to city?
Anderson; I can’t say that (have) figured it
??? Red Ledges says 40% second homes - I don’t trust those developers

12:30 MA: was 1800 ERU's down to 1400 their marketing says the number may go done more.
Davis: Could be different because it’s in the valley, most of secondary homes are out of valley
Phillips: They (RL and developers) say more secondary because not much service to secondary homes. (Italicized comments added)

Lange: some history

15:00 Phillips: We’ve shared our vision
Price; Questions from council ??
Farrell; With a joint planning impasse who has final say?
Phillips: We need a fall back plan - this is what we are going to do. We have differences on safety issues

17:20 DP; divide fees based on ERU’s Committee to work on it In the end we're living here, this is for the folks down the road. We’re not getting anything out of it.
JP; what are your fees?
(Most of the discussion seems to center on how much can be collected in fees - NOT how it affects the future)

18:20 City fees way low - Anderson: escrow actual costs.
Price: 5% for engineering 3% for water we get em for 8% Barely covering costs with that.

19:50 Anderson; we see our boundaries as being restricted this provides us with growth areas to west.
PC Zone City; 40% open space 5500 sqft lots 2 units per acre. (New) McCluskey (60 acres/120 units) nw of mcNaughtan (between McN and city)

Davis; Annex to collect city taxes? YES
Davis; You will annex Wasatch View acres. Illegal without that. Will you Annex Gary Conrad above greener Hills.

22:40 Anderson; Annexation plan dynamic. People might want to annex from twin creeks SSD
Davis; Draw a lIne ?
DP; what are you trying to say Mike - just say it.
Davis; we aren't trying to annex Twin Creek into Heber; we have a line at the city.

23:24 Phillips; Response to Jul 6 Co letter County wants TROZ (16.18) hard to do if you can't set city boundary
Phillips; what do want us to say? To annex Burns without view acrew would be a peninsula. (Illegal)
Davis; we need to know where the city will stop.
Phillips; Maybe I’m reading something into this - I apologize you are asking where do we stop.

25:45 Davis; will the city consider the next to the east
Price; Scott just bot that property and will want the same consideration

26: 15 Davis: TROZ offers higher density adjacent to city. M (meant P160) zone is 160 per home when adjacent to city becomes potentially M zone "with the density we are going to see in the Burns development" (RL & mountain Zone not in TROZ)
If it stays P160, $12 million is very expensive for 40 homes, (Actually $300K/ lot is not too exorbitant these days in the valley) If he is adjacent to city there’s a potential for m zone
Shari Lazenby; How big is the TROZ Davis; TROZ = 2 things Heber annexation and adjacent to that area (NO- not clear, seems to want to include RL as adjacent see 16.08.01)

28:49 Kohler; county trying to give comparative density next to city - you allow 4 per acre 1 acre looks good compare to what you’ve got. If the city was not annexing we would not give as much density than is being considering now. How do we get around that?
Lange; We stayed of ? annexation makes your property more profitable. (Why do we continue to worry about the profitability of empty land and not about the taxes caused on the current property owners) Why do we have to fill in Wasatch view acres they don't want in Behind there they may want to - Cove

31:52 Kohler; If the city keeps annexing up the hill how do we get open space anywhere? If we don't do something you will keep annexing.
Lange; Get a petition (for annexation) and let’s talk about it.
Kohler; The assumption is if we don’t do something, you will so we have to do something.
Farrell??; if we have successful joint planning on RL, I don’t know why you abandon it.
DP;. With PPD we can create open space, our PPD give open space - bring your 160 acres and will talk about it.

33:34 Kohler; The leverage is always there (annexation) they can always come to the city and get more. If the city continues to annex to increase revenue. We have two different ideas. (Open space vs. revenue??)
DP; I like the plan for McN because it has open space, not a grid square subdivision. The rest of the Burns property should be more open than that.
Kohler; He didn’t spend $12mill without expecting something We have to break that expectations that higher densities are available.

36:30 Anderson; philosophical differences. SLC, Summit and Wasatch are pro development. It would be nice to have areas to grow into. Avoid the competition, (between city and county) sit down and plan something for this valley rather than add a lot of density
DP; It terrible that you have to make the decision based on us. If all of the growth had gone from the city outward we wouldn’t be having this problem. 50 years from now we have x people maybe we'll say we should have done better. Maybe tonight is the beginning of the game. This may good for Burns but what problem will it create. Next people come along and change everything
Price; That’s a mistaken attitude. County hasn't gone out promoted development. People have come in and promoted development.
??? ; We haven't either.

39:45 Price; Apparently you aren't feeling the pressure that we are getting to slow development. What are Heber citizens saying?
Lange; Developers always want more development.
KC; people say shut it off
DP;: 95% say I’ve got my place - stop. they don't want more subdivision. They want their open space at someone else’s expense.

Price; Mark, you’re saying leave the open space in the county so we can expand into it. We're saying develop in the county at less density.
DP; Take that to RL and work together. They already given up some density since they started. (Actually they started out high). Then we go to the next guy west and say do you want to build something.
I‘d like to see that guy 6th south collaborate with neighbor. for open space. Maybe one acre is the best we can get.

44:00 DP; we need to work this out
Price; OK, How do we deal with the transition to county
DP; county is more open than city. Where does leave us in the city with the property owners that want to develop. If we say let’s develop everything in the county form this day forward where does that leave the city?
Davis; Is it the government responsibility to maximize the profit to someone that owns property or let them develop under guidelines that are socially compatible with the people that live here?

DP; By limiting them to one house per one or five acres we are taking away their property rights. If I’m saying something wrong, let me know.
Davis: City protested Jordanelle. If the guy wants to build on 40 and River Rd. why not let him, why not let him (under your philosophy?

DP; Because I’d like him to build a it out on 12th South.
Lange; back in the pre Davis days, Mathis came to city and asked for support for stopping commercial north of town. We agreed. I voted no on Southfield Rd annexation turned down. We turned it down many times and have been harassed.

49:15 My wife’s nephew wants to develop condos flowing north into north fields on 105 acres. I told him to stop talking. I ask Val and you what’s the density there, I’m still skeptical with the Bypass road thru that property. Because I thought you guys would protest.

50:54 DP; it's property owners right to annex, city makes decision whether to accept. (City has the right and responsibility to set the annexation zone and protect the welfare of the community)

52:26 Davis; we have no say in annexation.

Initial Survey Response

An online survey is being taken at Wasatch Growth Survey. It began on July 19, 2006. To date (Aug 6) the responses has been very consistent and the comments defining "rural" and benefits and problems with new developments and miscellaneous remarks have generally been quite insightful and apparently sincere.

The survey was 'promoted' through word of mouth, two letters to the Wave and comments on the local radio station KTMP 1340. Response was available to anyone willing to participate and, hopefully, self limited to Wasatch County residents. Individual responses indicate this to be successful. One apparently facetious comment was submitted yesterday in the "Too little" growth category with some humorous (?) comments.


1. How would you rank residential growth rate in Wasatch County?
Too much 58 - 81% Too little 1 - 1% About right 13 - 18% Total 72

2. Is Wasatch County government on the right track in managing growth?
Yes 10 - 14% No 61 - 86% Total 71

3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Total Number of Comments 62

4. What should be the smallest lot size in the unincorporated county?
1/3 acre (15,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% 1/2 acre (22,000 sq ft) 10 - 14% One acre 25 - 35% Five acres 27 - 38% Total 72

5. What housing density should be allowed in the RA-1 zone (RA = Residential Agricultural), that is how many houses would be allowed on, for example, 30 acres?
30 houses 19 - 27% 15 houses 8 - 11% 6 houses 30 - 43% 60 houses 10 - 14% 22 houses 3 - 4% Total 70

6. What do you see as the benefits of new developments?
Total Number of Comments 65

7. What problems do you foresee with new developments?
Total Number of Comments 66

8. Should "Open Space" be required in a development and, if so, how much?
No 3 - 4% Yes, 50% 25 = 34% Yes, 20% 7 = 9% Yes, depends on the area. 39 = 53% Total 74

9. How long have you lived in Wasatch County?
Generations 14 = 19% 25 to 50 years 19 = 26% 10 to 25 years 24 = 32% less than 10 years 17 = 23% Total 74

10. How much land do you currently own in Wasatch County?
Less than one acre 24 = 32% one to five acres 25 = 34% 5 to 20 acres 15 = 20% 20 to 100 acres 5 = 7% More than 100 acres 1 = 1% None 4 = 5% Total 74

11. Would you support a law that limited the property taxes (current level plus a small allowance for inflation) on your home for as long as you owned it but would allow new sales to be taxed at a higher, market rate?
Yes 52 = 75% No 17 = 25% Total 69

12. Please add any other comments.
Total Number of Comments 48

Land Use Survey - from Sep 2000

I'm certain there will be those that say the anonymous, open to anyone, survey is not "scientific" or does not really indicate what the Wasatch County residents REALLY want. However, it is quite consistent with other measured barometers of public opinion. Anyone remember the Asphalt Plant hearings or the Airport Expansion.

Prior to the 2001 General Plan a survey was done for the county by BYU.

The current survey is quite consistent with the BYU survey's results. Excerpts:

"72% . . favor slow to negative population growth. Economically there is greater sentiment in favor of slow to moderate growth. There is little sentiment in favor of rapid growth on either population or economic dimensions."

When residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their community - 45% highly and 28% satisfied. When asked for "Preference for Community Change" 61.6% said it was "absolutely essential" to keep "The Way It Is." (76.5 % serious+)

Other serious "Preference for Community Change" were 89% Protect Air and Water quality, 82% Enforce Zoning & Land Use, 82% protect wetlands, 72% agricultural community,

"In general, the majority of respondents favor keeping at least 75% of the unincorporated areas of the county as open space." "There is very little sentiment favoring large scale developments of any of the areas." (defined as County, North Fields, South Fields, Provo River, Snake Creek, Round Valley, Woodland, Lake Creek)

In 2000, respondents were asked about "Problem Areas Five Years From Now." The number one problem - "Excessive Residential Development" 80% said it would be a serious problem; 80% also listed Traffic. Over 60% were concerned about excessive COMMERCIAL development. Have we solved those problem or fulfilled the prediction?

"The majority prefer that both the Master Plan and the zoning ordinance be changed in minor way to refine them. A large majority (over 30%) would like to have them both revised extensively to make the more restrictive."

How have we done in abiding by the desires of the residents? For any wishing to read the entire report, I'm sure you can find it on some dusty shelf or archive in a government office.

The BIG BOX survey - May 2005

Talking about consistency of opinions, here a some from Heber City's "Big Box" survey. Many of the elected officials, appointed board members and associated bureaucrats are attempting to say that it was a clarion call for more retail stores, shopping and, of course, the ubiquitous BIG BOX.

When asked in for an open answer (#6) "What do you like best about living in the Heber City are?" about 60% specifically responded with terms like "rural," "small town," "peaceful," "remoteness," and "beauty."

When asked (#7) for desired "major improvements," 28 % said "more shopping facilities." Reading the comments, one finds that means "mom and pop" stores, restaurants, movies, small retail stores, etc. - a mere 4% suggested a Big Box.

In answer to (#42) "What projects or services would you like," only 12% called for "more retail shopping" and, again, a mere 4% (9 out of 236) indicated a desire for a Big Box.

"How important is it to you that Heber City have that small-town character?" (#43) gets an astounding 89% answering somewhat (27%) or very (62%) important.

Other interesting responses:
69% seldom or never buy groceries "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#58)
63% seldom or never buy gasoline "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#63)
49% seldom or never buy hardware "OUTSIDE of Wasatch County." (#61)

61% supported an ordinance on retail store size. (#83, 84)
65% agree that "Large retail stores negatively impact local businesses." (#91)
55 % say "Large retail stores negatively the character of Main Street." (#93)

68% say Big Boxes will increase tax revenues, to which I respond Big Box Baloney.

Anyone wishing to read the entire results, the dusty archive of Heber City may be able to produce a copy - be sure to get the comments, too.

Survey Comments - Define Rural

These are VERBATIM comments submitted be survey participants:

3. Please define "rural" in respect to growth in Wasatch County.
Property used for livestock or crops.
Generally Farms and ranches intermixed with low density housing. With recognition that some very limited areas will need to be set aside for affordable housing.
open space
the areas surrounding provo River that has not been developed but is now in horse farms and meadows. Use the hillsides and East of Heber for development but keep the areas between Heber and Midway green.
low housing density, large open spaces
Robust agriculture thrives on a siginficant portion of the county's inhabited land. Large tracks of open, virgin, untouched forest and brush land where wild life florishes.
Agricultural land interspersed with residentual. Limited (be careful of the big box business) although I enjoy shopping at them, "rural" is the opposite of their nature.
Wasatch County has already defined it----it is one home per acre in a subdivision and one for every five acres outside of a subdivision. Does the public keep having to remind you in the face of the barrage of developer pressure?
you can see and smell the cows
small town feel. Knowing that big stores, some services will not be available. Slow growth, open spaces, animal rights on some property. Lack of big developments. Government that assists us in keeping the small town feel, a government that does not feel like they need to provide all the services of a big city. Keeps costs in check.
Wasatch County up to 5-7 years ago
Definable communities with open space seperating them so they don't all run together. A community where their is a sense of belonging and knowing your neighbors.
Even if hard to define, we know it when we see it - and where we are going is not rural!
Use a formula of present developable acreage in the county divided by the present population = persons per acre, and do not allow future development to increase this factor and to only allow new developments to sustain growth to a predetermined build out date.
Homes that have more than 5 acres or farming area for either food or animals
Open Fields, such as a farming comunity, along with areas that might have small 5 acre homesteads.
We need to keep the open field/space feeling. Keep some breathing room, and recreation and horse property.
Designated open space that the taxpayers have to bond for to purchase from the farmers. Keep North Fields WETLANDS regardless of a new septic system being approved. Cluster lots to allow open space. No one wants to water and maintain a 1 acre lot that's not horse property.
To many fields disappearing into subdivisions. I can't go four wheeling anywhere we used to just a few short years ago.
Open space in neighborhoods and in areas throughout the community. Clustering is probab;y a good idea.
People in rural areas live on farms and in other isolated houses
Rural is being able to sit on your back porch with an unobstructed view of the country-side be it mountains or fields instead of an ocean of homes. Rural is not being able to see what your neighbors are having for dinner. I have been there and done that.
Many open fields, many containing animals
Out side of the city limits, usually with a small farm, cows, chickens, etc.
slow responsible growth based on needs and not on money. Rural is open spaces, homes on large lots. People with animals. Small businesses. views from the hillsides and views of the hillsides that are open and uncluttered.
Websters defines "rural" as "sparsely settled or agricultural country". To apply that to planning and zoning regularions in the County, some portion of space, i.e., 35%, 40%, perhaps even 50%, within the County needs to be reserved or designated as "sparsely populated agricultural" space. A portion of this "rural" space could, and should, be the hills sides, but a major portion should also be the flatlands, that could feasibly be considered agricultural.
more open space in developments- not so condensed
rural to me means open space used for agriculture and animals such as horse pastures. It can mean large 5 acre lots or if smaller, open space for parks, etc.
Rural in respect to growth in Wasatch County appears to include building construction on any site in the county that has a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Rural=pasture land or farming land with a home or two on a minimum of 5 acre parcels.
Maintain the horse/pasture land as you enter from the North. This really sets up a "rural" feel for the valley.
a country lifestyle (this includes open space, right to have animals/livestock, room for large gardens or farmland). Wife says "wildlife habitat" should be included here; husband disagrees; he feels open space covers "wildlife."
No stop lights anywhere but main, no shopping on 12th S. east of Heber, or on Center East of Heber. At least half of the existing farms east and west of 40 remain in agrucultural use or open space.
Lots of pasture land, open fields. Few ammenities such as sidewalks and Wal-Mart.
rural signifies property not immediately bordering a major housing development
Rural is a small town or small farming community.
Rural was when it was farm land. We are no longer rural in the sense of agricultrural dependency but rather gentlemen farmers or back yard farmers. Our land is used to house families and recreational animals tho ride on trails rather than pl;ow the fields. Times have changed and we are that change.
There no longer is "rural" in the unincorporation areas of Wasatch County.
Wasatch county is rural in the sense that the streets do not have side walks and the road ways are narrower than Salt Lake. We are rural in the fact that people own horses and cows and you can hear a rooster crow. We are rural that we know the difference between a rooster and a hen.
For a metropolitan dweller Wasatch County is frightening and way too far removed from civilization. It is all in the eye of the beholder. We are rural because we board our own animals.
Rural means you can't see or smell what your neighbor is having for dinner
Being rural means you are from a small school and have to go to town to get a bigger selection of goods and services.
Houses on farms or ranches. Not PUDs.
My definition of rural is the way this town was before Lynn Adams sold us down the river.
There is no rural any more. Not the same place I grew up in.
Homes with 5 + acres.
Where farmland, houses, and animals coexist. Not where farm land gets filled in with huge homes with big driveways.
Rural is going to no more at the rate of growth Im seeing. Small town businesses that are unique to our area. Specialty shops, we dont need big box stores!
where ther are no subdivisions, and there are at least 5 acre lots for each house.
Farmland/ space in between homes / livestock
Rural to me means that there is more land in agriculture than in residential areas and that people are more concerned about their natural resources than shopping and eating out and driving fast.
open space,large building lots,trees,streams,
WE all ahave to know and understand we are growing planing is MOST inportant and staying wirh the plan after it is made we can not have a plan with out a vision and we did that in 2001 and then it was changed. So lets all get on the some page.
To maintain its rural character, Wasatch County MUST preserve the open spaces between municipalities. This includes both the North and South Fields as well as the traditional agricultural activities connected to them. This must be based on something more tangible than a "gentelman's agreement." If we value the rural character of the valley, we must do what we can to preserve it. If growth is inevitable, we should not assume that well-managed growth comes along with it automatically. I'd rather end up looking like Jackson Hole (managed growth)than Park City (overdeveloped); or Ogden Valley (still essentially rural) rather than Star Valley (haphazard planning).
We need to keep the wetlands and some open spaces, that is why many of live here and/or have choosen to move here.
"rural" should mean larger parcels, and less density
Open space--Farm land and ect..
can't see neighbors or hear traffic
You can see wife next door taking a shower
the sound of crowing roosters in the morning
Have balance between endless, cluttered subdivisions and pastures, agriculture and openess.
Rural means agriculture and open space are apparent