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

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?

New High school over budget??

Ogden School District grapples with a $40 million shortfall, with plenty of projects in the pipe - excerpt:

Ogden district isn't alone.

Wasatch School District voters approved a $59.5 million bond in November 2006. The district estimated $50 million to construct its new high school and $9.5 million for the land purchase and furniture.

Bids are still coming in and could be decided in mid-June. But Wasatch district officials believe the total will be much higher than was originally projected.

"All of us (school districts) are going through sticker price shock," said Wasatch Superintendent Terry Shoemaker.

"Cost of square footage has gone up in the last few months," Shoemaker said. "It doesn't take a genius to know part of it is gas and diesel prices making construction costs go up."

He said the district hopes it won't have to cancel its new high school project in Heber City. Instead, officials will look at economizing on materials or cutting back on square footage.

Wasatch district is using architect and construction companies different from those Ogden district is using. "We are talking about economic forces at work here -- not bad data," Shoemaker said.

New Telephone Poll on Big Box

A telephone poll is being conducted in Wasatch County by "Western Research" for an unnamed client:

Questions:

Does Heber City have enough retail?

Would you prefer services (like police and fire ??) to be paid by propertytax or sales tax.

Does Heber need a WalMart?

Development proposes Lowe's and other stores, do you favor that being built?

If the vote were held today, would you vote to repeal the ordinance?

Wal-Mart Gears Up for Campaign in Heber

Apr 11, 2007 by Julie Rose (KCPW News)

Anti-big box organizers in Heber collected enough signatures to get the city's big-box zoning ordinance on this November's ballot. But now they'll have to campaign against one of the world's wealthiest corporate giants for enough votes to quash "big box" stores in Heber.

Wal-Mart spokesman Gray McGinnis thinks a "silent majority" of voters will welcome his store with open arms: "A well-organized minority can very effectively drive the agenda, regardless of the needs and wants of a silent majority," says McGinnis. "So in the past we have run campaigns to bring out our supporters and ensure the city council knows that Wal-Mart is very welcome in the community."

Heber City has an estimated population of nine-thousand people, of whom some 14-hundred registered voters signed the petition to put big-box zoning on the ballot. Citizens group "Put Heber Valley First" is trying reverse a recent Heber City Council decision to allow retail outlets larger than 60-thousand square feet. The group worries big retailers like Wal-Mart will force locally-owned shops out of business.

McGinnis says Heber will benefit by keeping more shoppers in town:
"Currently the majority of the Heber shoppers are driving to Provo to fulfill their everyday shopping needs," says McGinnis. "And these sales tax dollars directly benefit the community - to funding parks, police, fire and other municipal services in Summit County."

Don't expect to see Wal-Mart's name splashed on campaign signs and pamphlets leading into the November election. McGinnis says The Boyer Company, which is proposing the development, will lead the campaign with funding from Wal-Mart.


SL TRIB EDITORIAL!!!
Big-box on ballot: Heber voters score a chance to vote on Wal-MartSalt Lake Tribune, UT - 19 hours agoAnd they found more than 1400 fellow citizens who want a chance to tell the big-box retail giant to peddle its cheap wares elsewhere. Put Heber Valley First ...

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."

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.

An Open Letter to Heber City Council

The Heber Big Box issue was recently on KSL Click here: broadcast on KSL!!!

Dear Heber City Council members,

Some momentous decision are apparently soon to be made on two items which will have a lasting and unchangeable effect on the Heber Valley. The removal of the cap on retail business (Big Box) and the approval of the Red Ledges development. I urge, in the strongest terms, that a slow and deliberate process be made in the consideration of these items.

Probably the best thing that has happened as a result of the proposed Red Ledges development is seeing the County and Heber City working together to attempt to solve mutual problems. One of the saddest things about that cooperation is that the solution seems to be more to the advantage of the developer than the consideration of the health, safety and welfare of the Heber Valley community as a whole.

The issue of density was apparently not considered in the Interlocal agreement, the developer’s proposal of 1370 was accepted as the maximum density allowed. The original allowed density was under 100 ERU's, as purchased, on the current county portion of the land.

A plan is being formulated by the County Conservation/Open Space committee and was planned to be implemented for this development. This was to be in coordination with all governmental entities in the valley and talks are reportedly being held to implement the plan. Under the plan, the open space mitigation fee structure for "zone changes," which would include Red Ledges, is being proposed as 12.5% of the lot value times the density increase.

The proposed mitigation fee in the Interlocal Agreement of $4.5 Million is off by a factor of over 10. At an approximate 750 increase in houses requested by the zone change, times $600K average lot price at 12.5% equals $56 Million. With the annexation approval this would now be limited to $4.5 Million. Is this to the benefit of the community or the developer?

As is generally agreed by everyone interested in this issue, the primary (if not sole) reason for the annexation petition by the developer was DENSITY. The primary (if not the sole) reason for consideration of the petition by Heber City was money - in proposed taxes and fees. The city has NOT done any independent analysis of the fiscal impact figures presented by the developer as was promised by Heber City Manager (see podcast of interview with Mark Anderson labeled "city part I" and "city part II")

Many of the developer’s figures are suspect, in my opinion, and overestimated in the developer's favor. At the very least, an analysis needs to be done for a conservative impact of costs and benefits - to the City AND to the county, in general. ALL Heber City residents are also Wasatch County residents, but the City fiscal impact analyses generally ignore the County (and school) costs.

The Red Ledges project has little positive effect or benefit on the "health, safety and welfare" of the community as a whole, which is, or should be, the major deciding factor in these issues.

The Red Ledges developer extols three "benefits" on their website :

• Money - taxes which may be overestimated and costs which may be underestimated.
  
• Public Facilities - of which there may be a few for the community, a private golf course not included.
• Prestige - Wasatch County is already World Class as proven by all of those desiring to come and those desiring to stay.

There are similar financial analysis problems with the new "unlimited’ mixed use zone and the proposed Boyer development. An analysis of these financial impacts - other than that presented by the developer - should be a MINIMUM requirement for approval consideration. I strongly urge you to revisit Heber’s $10,000 study on the Big Box - it was far from a ringing endorsement of the concept. The Dan Jones survey - including the comments - also needs to be read and heeded - not to mention listening to the strong opposition shown consistently and recently by your constituents.

I won't even mention the traffic issues, which have dominated the discussion so far and still have NOT been solved. The Boyer development will virtually destroy the current concept for the Western bypass. Red Ledges agreement apparently builds a road to nowhere.

In the final analysis, these projects are mainly about one thing - profit for the developer. At the Aug 14 2006 joint County City meeting, the County Manager wisely asked this rhetorical question: "Is it the government's 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?"

The answer to that question, in my opinion, should be your guide to a decision to continue with the protest. To me the answer is clear; maximizing developer profit is not the responsibility of government; protecting the welfare and property rights of the community, as a whole, IS.
This is an opportune time to continue a discussion between all of the entities in the Heber Valley to work, in conjunction, to implement the various General Plans and attempt to retain the rural, small town environment that is cherished by the residents. I strongly urge you to do the right thing for the residents of your community.

Council people, the decision is yours now on both of these issues. Approval of either one will drastically change the face and future of this Valley, in ways not generally favored by the residents OR contemplated in the current Heber City and Wasatch County General Plans. Do the right thing, follow the wishes of the Heber Valley residents.

Heber City Council Comments on the Big Box Cap 2005

Comments from the Heber City Council about the Big Box June 6, 2005 when the CAP was set at 60,000 sq.ft. on retail business:

• Councilmember Terry Wm. Lange – “We came to listen. We have learned from all of you the general way people feel.” He said it was important to him to know how the general pubic felt. He suggested this might be a very long-term ordinance change or it might be very short ordinance change. He indicated he would vote the way most of the public wanted. “I hope, as a City Council, we can take the advice and make the best decision we can.” He thanked those that attended and participated in the Hearing.
• 
  
• Councilmember (NOW mayor) Dave Phillips - “We have just experienced one of the greatest entitlements of being in this Country.” He said the Big Box Committee made a great presentation to the City Council last Thursday and indicated they had found some middle ground. They suggested the CAP be passed but incorporate some middle ground into it. “We can be the master of our own destiny,” he said. “We can have other opportunities to improve our tax base and have convenient shopping,” he continued. He suggested the Committee didn’t just pull 75,000 square feet out of the air--there was a reason for it.
• 
  
• Councilmember Lazenby indicated she had no opinion for it or against it. “Its not about me, its not about my store.” She indicated she would go with the majority. She reviewed the breakdown of the survey of individual responses. She concluded that the majority was for a cap on retail size buildings. Councilmember Lazenby reviewed her summary of the survey. She commented on page 25 and 38 of the General Plan. She indicated her vote would be for the CAP but because it was not perfect, there needed to be further study.

The Council then approved a CAP of 60,000 sq. ft.

To read the complete minutes with public comments, CLICK HERE

Excerpts From Heber City Big Box Presentation 2005

(Selected Excerpts)

Big Box Presentation by Heber City 5/27/05 (*$15,000 of Heber Tax money)

109,000 Sq. Ft. Smaller towns
150,000 Sq. Ft. Market areas of 20,000-30,000
180,000 Sq. Ft. Market areas of 30,000-50,000
220,000 Sq. Ft. Market areas larger than 50,000

• Heber cannot rely on an increased trade area to mitigate impact of Wal-Mart
• 80 percent of supermarket managers cite Wal-Mart as their biggest concern In the past decade 29 chains have sought bankruptcy, 25 of which cite Wal-Mart as a catalyst (Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2003).
• Day’s Market and Smith’s Food and Drug will most likely experience a decrease in sales between 10 and 20 percent. (pg 26)
  
• Anticipated Wal-Mart Sales:
  Square feet to be built: 107,000 Average sales per sf: $350
  Estimated Wal-Mart sales: $37.5 million
  Current County general merchandise sales: $2.1 million (pg 33)
• Wal-Mart has provided seminars to local business owners on how to compete with Wal-Mart.cial Impacts
• Heber City Revenue (Two columns depend on how much in "current sales" are lost ~ 30 or 50%)
  Highway tax (on sales) $88, 652 ..... $80,003
  Sales tax revenues .... $177, 303..... $160, 006
  Franchise tax revenues $7,313 ..... $7,313
  Property tax revenues ..... $16,791..... $16,791
  Total ............................... $290, 059 ..... $264,113 (pg 55)
  TOTAL(Wasatch County) ..............$124,504 ..... $115,855 (pg 56)
  
  
• It will cost Heber department $45,050 per year to hire an additional officer to cover Wal- Mart calls.
• Revenues ..............$290,000 ..... $264,000
  Police ..................... -$45,000 ..... -$45,000
  Public Works ......... -$26,000 ..... -$26,000
  TOTAL .................. $219,000 ..... $193,000 (pg 65)
  
• Overlay Zone: a zone that imposes a set of additional requirements to those of the underlying zoning. Used to address special features or conditions of large commercial project. (added comment - not in study)
  
• Local firms are better for local economy
  • Local firms generate 70 percent greater economic effect per square foot than chain stores (Civic Economics, The Andersonville Study of RetailEconomics, October 2004).
• Local firms generate 58 percent greater economic effect per dollar of revenue than chain stores (Andersonville Study).

Source: Heber City, Utah website

* From minutes 2/17/2005 (click for actual minutes)

Update on Big Box Committee – "Review Scope of Work: Anderson indicated Susie Becker, Wikstrom and Associates, attended the last meeting. She had been given information from the previous meeting and was there to address those issues. She received additional information from the committee to work on. Becker proposed a scope of work of $15,000; however, there would be some additional costs, such as a survey. The Council had authorized $25,000.

Anderson said he thought the group might be a little fuzzy as to their role but they were trying. Councilmember Phillips wondered if the group was focused and asked what had to be done to get them focused. Anderson talked that the group felt they needed to work with the Planning Commission to make sure ordinances deal with the issues.

Councilmember Phillips said his take from the beginning was that it was eventually going to happen so we ought to know the pluses and minus to the community. Anderson said if the ordinance is drafted along the line of the white paper, it would put the decision on the City Council.

Councilmember Phillips wanted the group to gather the facts and what the citizens feelings were. Then the elected officials would make decisions. (Mayor Adams arrived at 6:59.) Anderson talked to the group about the opinions of the city residents and how much weight ought to be given to the opinions of people that live outside the community."

Minutes 1/6/05

Big Box Committee – Membership and Scope of Authority: Mayor Adams indicated there needed to be some representation from the County on the Big Box Committee. He discussed the fact that a moratorium had been put into place and that this Committee needed to start its work.

It was recommended that Al Mickelsen and one of the County Councilmembers be on the Committee. Mike Davis indicated he would take that recommendation to their next work meeting. Councilmember Phillips suggested Mike Thurber as a Citizen-at-Large. Councilmember Lazenby suggested Corbin Gordon. Mayor Adams suggested Mary Noonan if Corbin was not able or interested.
Wasatch County Al Mickelsen
County Councilmember
Citizen-at-Large Mike Thurber
Amanda Lund
Corbin Gordon
CAMS Bryon Day
Mike Johnston
Pat Kohler
WEDO/CHAMBER Nelson Carter
Dick Buys
Governmental Rep. 1 from Midway
1 from Charleston
Public Safety Chief Rhoades
Plus three more as recommended by the Committee

Councilmember Burns moved to invite these people to serve on the Big Box Development Committee and give authority to them to invite three more of their choosing. Councilmember Lazenby made the second. The voting was unanimous in the affirmative.

Anderson indicated that staff had put together some recommendations for the Committee and, if approved by the Council, at one of their first meetings staff would educate the Committee and let them know what was expected. He proceeded by recommending that Wikstrom complete their study as authorized by City Council some time ago. That would then be presented to the Committee. Additionally their Scope of Authority would include:
1. Review of the Impact Study by Wikstrom
2. Review what the Planning Commission ordinance are that relate to big box and make suggestions
3. Disseminate findings through the media or public meetings
4. Develop tools or surveys that query different members of the Valley to get a representation of the people and what they want
5. Present results of study to the City Council

Minutes 5/5/2005

Mike Johnston, Big Box Committee Member, asked to give a progress report to the Council since there had been rumors and nonsense reported about what the Committee was doing and had been doing. He said he didn’t know where the rumors were coming from but understood this was a very controversial issue. So that the Council was not “sucked into the rumor mill’ he reviewed the following:
* The Committee first met in January--was into the moratorium one month already--only had about 90 days to really work
* They set up an agenda and an order of things to happen—they are doing a lot in 90 days
* In February and March met every two weeks. Discussed the information obtained at that point. Hired Wikstrom to gather information. Held the public meeting. He felt bad the slides were “awful.” The rumor that this was planned was “ludicrous.”
* They are preparing a lengthy article for next week’s paper that will review all the information, good and bad.
* Sent out Request for Proposal for Survey--choose Dan Jones. They met with Dan Jones one and a half weeks ago--the survey will begin next week.
* The Planning Commission has two ordinances to review--the public hearing is scheduled.
* The Committee will make a presentation to the Council on June 2.
* Facts are collectable
* It is difficult to collect facts on “quality of life,” etc.
* Survey will be 250 in City and 150 out of City

Mayor Adams asked if it would be better to get more input from the City residents. Discussion about the survey and statistics. Councilmember Lazenby questioned if the Committee had created the ordinance. She wanted to clarify information she had been given. Mike Thurber discussed the inaccurate information coming from the Council and felt it would slant the survey. He felt his name and the Committee had been slandered on the radio on Friday and was very upset about it.

Johnston continued to talk about the survey and spending an additional $300 to increase the number of questions—some not related to big box at all but of a general nature. Johnston said he wanted to make another comment “in public.” The rumor was the Committee was “pro” Wal-Mart. It had also been said on the radio the Committee was purposely slowing down the process, wanted to delay the issue and they were taking money. “The truth is everybody on this committee is very concerned about a big box coming to town and we are striving with all our might to be somewhat objective about it and present to you an objective report and not just view it through our own opinion because that is what you asked us to do.

” Where the rumors come from he didn’t know but they are “180 degrees” from the truth. He said the Committee debates all the time on how to be objective. Mayor Adams indicated he appreciated the work of the Committee and felt they were being objective. Mayor Adams thanked Johnston for his time and his work.

An Open Letter to the County Council - Annexation

A letter (Email) sent to County Officials 2/15/2007
(No response from any official)

Gentlemen,
While I can understand and applaud your attempts to work with Heber City officials on the annexation of Red Ledges, I strongly urge you to continue with the protest of the annexation to the boundary commission, and beyond, if necessary.

1. As is generally agreed by all interested in the issue, the primary (if not sole) reason for the annexation petition by the developer was DENSITY. The primary (if not the sole) reason for consideration of the petition by Heber City was money - in proposed taxes and fees. (see http://www.esnips.com/web/Impact for the Aug 14 County City meeting recording) The city has NOT done any independent analysis of the fiscal impact figures presented by the developer as was promised by Heber City Manager (see podcast of interview with Mark Anderson at the above site labeled "city part I" and "city part II") Many of the figures are, in my opinion, suspect and overestimated in the developer's favor.
2. The issue of density is apparently not being considered in the Interlocal agreement. At one time, the agreement even included a further density bonus of 5% for signing the agreement (68 more ERU's at $1.7 Million average or $100 million in increased revenues). The original allowed density was under 100 ERU's on the land - as purchased.
3. The proposed mitigation fee of $4.5 Million is off by a factor of over 10, under the proposed Conservation/Open Space fee structure. This was discussed at the County Planning Commission and, I believe, part of the proposal that was working through the county process. (approx. 750 ERU increase in houses requested, times $600K average lot price, times 12.5% equals $56 Million) Why should this be now limited to $4.5 Million?
4. It appears that the proposed Interlocal agreement solves very few, if any, of the legal issues raised by the proposed annexation. In particular, it does not consider these important factors:

• The proposed annexation DOES create an unincorporated peninsula of Wasatch View Acres.
• The Annexation Area was specifically changed recently, solely to accommodate this annexation.
• Heber City will NOT be providing municipal services (sewer, water) to the development, possibly they might not even be able to. This is one the primary reasons for annexation, in general.
• The annexation is being done primarily (if not solely) for taxes as has been noted in many meetings.

This project has little positive effect or benefit on the "health, safety and welfare" of the community as a whole. The Red Ledges developer basically lists three "benefits" on their website:

• Money - taxes which may be overestimated and costs which may be underestimated.
  Public Facilities - of which there may be a few for the community, a private golf course not included.
• Prestige - Wasatch County is already World Class as proven by all of those desiring to come and those desiring to stay.

I won't even mention the traffic issues, which have dominated the discussion so far.

In the final analysis, this project is mainly about one thing - profit for the developer. One of our County Officials wisely asked this rhetorical question: "Is it the government's 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?"

The answer to that question, in my opinion, should be your guide to a decision to continue with the protest. To me the answer is clear; maximizing developer profit is not the responsibility of government; protecting the welfare and property rights of the community, as a whole, IS.
This is an opportune time to continue a discussion between all of the entities in the Heber Valley to work, in conjunction, to implement the various General Plans and attempt to retain the rural, small town environment that is cherished by the residents. I strongly urge you to do the right thing for the residents of your community - continue with the protest of the annexation to the boundary commission, and beyond, if necessary.

I'd be happy to discuss this further with anyone or provide whatever amplifying information I can.

Fear of Big Box - NOT ! ! !

A respect for the desires of the community, rather than "Fear of the Big Box," is what is motivating those "opposing" a Big Box. Someone opined in the Wave of the supposed "Fear" driving opposition.

A mere year and half ago the Heber City Council placed a cap on retail business at 60,000 sq. ft. in response to the expressed desires of the vast majority of the Heber Valley. This action followed a public hearing Jun 6, 2005; the public response was overwhelmingly in favor of the cap on retail business size. The minutes of that meeting can be found on Heber City’’s website.

Next week the Heber City Council will be considering eliminating that cap and raising the limit to 200,000 sq. ft. AND allowing 55 ft. high buildings (isn’’t that FIVE stories?) AND allowing a housing density of 30 dwelling units per acre of land.

Thousands of Heber citizens' tax dollars have been spent on a Dan Jones survey and a Big Box study on the issue. The survey of Heber, and other Wasatch County, residents clearly indicated they did not want (or need) a Big Box. More retail - yes! Big Box - NO!

Here are a few of the survey responses:

• 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 IMPORTANT!!

The $10,000 big box study showed the pros and cons of the potential arrival of a big box in the valley; mostly negatives. The report indicated a net financial gain to Heber’’s coffers of less than $200,000 on estimated gross sales of $37 million - hardly a massive windfall.

The Heber City General Plan clearly calls for promoting MAIN STREET business: "Main Street is the economic, architectural and historical heart of the community. The most powerful and lasting image associated with Heber City is Main Street. " "Promote downtown as a distinctive shopping area emphasizing it as an attractive meeting place and staging area for festivals, special events, celebrations and a variety of community activities."

The actual law capping the size of retail buildings includes the wording "Attempts to circumvent or exceed this maximum, 60,000 square feet, shall be strictly prohibited." This wording is in ALL of the commercial zones. I leave it to the Heber citizens to determine the meaning of those statements.

All of these reports are available on Heber City’’s website. I wish everyone would read them - especially the City Council, before they make a decision. Is this proposed increase being done for the "health, safety and welfare of the community" our, in other words, for the benefit of the Heber Valley as a whole; or is it merely another benefit being freely offered to developers (out of town ones, at that).

Fear of Big Box - no, I don’’t think so. Respect for the desires of the community - priceless.

Red Ledges Fiscal Impact Analysis - A Pig in a Poke???

It’s axiomatic that developers and promoters will use numbers to prove and promote their particular project. This appears to be the case with Red Ledges. Is it really the Cash Cow some in the Heber City Government expect??

Heber City Revenue

For the Heber City Tax revenue the study apparently uses a proposed SALE price as the assessed value. These sales prices are, at best, an estimate - probably optimistic at that. While tax value assessment is supposedly equal to "market" value, houses in the valley currently offered for sale at $600K often carry an assessment of about $300K. Therefore, it could be concluded that the tax revenues predicted by using the anticipated sales price may be inflated by a factor of TWO.

It is not clear whether the tax computation separates the land value from the house value. The general Fund revenue would then be $870K rather than $1,750K. The net benefit to the general fund would then be a negative $250K - rather than +$625.

School Costs

School Children are computed at 0.51 per household for a total of 699 students; the County uses 0.8 yielding 1096 students.

***To determine the number of school age children, wouldn't it be logical to divide the number of school children (~4300) by the number of primary homes (total minus the number of secondary homes) - for a school children per house ratio and then multiply by the number of houses in the development or use households: 4000/4743 = 0.84 (2000 enrollment guess and census households) or 4300/18974 * 3.18 = 0.72 (2005 pop.) http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/49051.html
(A computation of Timp Meadows showed about 1.6 students/household a few years ago)

Red Ledges study uses 2005 figures and does NOT include the new High School bond which raises the per student cost by $150 (?)

NCES figures show local share of education costs at $3305/student.
1096 students @ $3305 = $3,620,000 Education Cost

Including the increase from the new bond cost 1096 @$3450 = $3,800,000

School Tax generated based on the factor of TWO overestimate would yield $4,500K

Net Results

The net benefit to Heber City indicated in the fiscal report ($625K city + $6,900K school ) appears to be overstated and the more conservative figures might be -$250K and $700K.

The report indicates that the School District is able "to accommodate this proposed increase" indicating that the current taxpayer have, or will be, paying for the current "excess" capacity. A more rational scenario would be for the development to pay for one additional high School (current $60 million for 1500 students = $40M) one Junior High, ($10M); one Middle school ($8M), and on elementary ($7M) to educate the 1000 children brought with the development. (total $65M or $4700 per unit).

The figures also represent amounts at build-out which may be 10 - 20 years and is base on current cost rather than the additional costs which will be created by service required by the development. It does not seem to include the increase in infrastructure cost to the County (e.g. new roads - widening Center St. or Bypass, which would be required to handle the increased traffic; police protection, etc.).

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

---

Red Ledges requests Heber Annexation

Despite the 4-3 approval for a Zone change from the County Planning Commission, the Red Ledges apparently has decided to request annexation to Heber City.

"Todd Cates/Lauren Knowles – Annexation Petition – Red Ledges Recreation Community – Consisting of 1,515.73 Acres and located at approximately 2300 East to 3600 East Lake Creek Road on the northern side of Lake Creek Road" Heber City Council agenda 11/16/2006

The City Council gave their preliminary OK and advised them to continue with their submission to the Heber City Planning Commission.

This might be an excellent time to review the Joint County/City meeting of August 14, 2006. A paraphrased transcript may be found on this blog dated 9/16/2006. Better yet, a podcast of that entire meeting can be heard by clicking here or here and then click on the download link.

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.