North/South Fields Rezone

The move is on to rezone the North Fields. The first step appears to be the rezone of the South Fields, this was recommended by a 4-1 vote at the recent Planning Commission meeting.

A public Hearing on the matter is scheduled for 6 PM on 19 Nov. It is item #9. Items #7 and #8 are also rezone requests (P160 to M zone or 1 house per 160 acres to a potential 1 house per 2.5 acres - a 64 fold increase)

Several arguments were presented in opposition to the change, to no avail:

1. The Wasatch County General Plan (See Chap. 4, pg 159) indicates the area is "highly prized by many local residents" and is "identified as having a public benefit as open space." The area has been called the jewel of the valley and its current zoning A-20 (Agricultural with one house allowed per twenty acres) protects the "desired green belt separation between Heber and Midway" (Policy 1.1.1)
2. The area is NOT included within the Proposed Heber City Annexation Policy. Several member of the Heber City Planning Commission attended the meeting and spoke against the rezone.
3. The area is in the "Inundation Area of Sudden Jordanelle Dam Failure" - approval of more houses could present potential danger to those house and liability to County taxpayers.
4. There are currently only 6 large land parcels (>20 acres) in the 464 acre proposed rezone area and another 12 parcels between 5 and 20 acres which, as "lots of record," could already be built upon. Some parcels already have houses built. Of ten parcels less than 5 acres, 7 current have residences.
5. A zone change from A-20 to RA-5 would increase the number of allowable houses from 33 to 92.
6. The long proposed ByPass road passes through several of the parcels, a rezone would likely increase the cost of property acquisition.
7. An Open Space, Transferable Development Right ordinance was recently passed allowing a "bonus" sale from rights in this area. Rezoning would adversely affect the goals of that ordinance.
8. While presented as a "County initiated" rezone, it was clearly introduced by the land owners and not necessarily for the "health, safety and welfare" of the community in general.

In 2000, a well written resolution was introduced to "protect" the North Fields - regrettably it was never really considered for passage:

Removing Four Way Stops

Open Letter to Wasatch County Council:

I would like to strongly urge the removal of the Stop Signs on 1200 South at 2400 E, 3600 E, 4800 E and, possibly, 1200 E.

These intersections are currently all 4 way stops.

Reasons for removal:

1. 1200 S is designated a major collector and the recent General Plan called for upgrading and less access.
2. I'd guess 90% of the traffic at the intersections is on 1200 S vs. crossroads. Four way stops are generally used for "equal" traffic for intersection scheduled for traffic lights.
   "Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day and the combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour."

Institute of Transportation Engineers.

The traffic is getting much more worse.

Many are already using 'cowboy' stops. I've witnessed a few totally full speed running the 1200 S stop signs now.

1200 S is the main road for access to the LDS girls' camp with lots of buses Mondays and Fridays.

Removal of the signs would decrease the pollution and noise of requiring the buses to make 3 extra stops.

No stops would create a better flow of traffic and would be much more fuel efficient.
"Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. " . . . "The cost to install two stops signs is $280. The cost to the traveling public is $210,061 (1990) per year in operating costs. This cost is based on about 8,000 vehicles entering the intersection per day. " Institute of Traffic Engineers

Reasons to Keep 4 way stop (and rebuttal):

• They keep the speed down. "Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen references found this to be their finding."

Institute of Traffic Engineers "there is no real evidence to indicate that STOP signs decrease the overall speed of traffic. Impatient drivers view the additional delay caused by unwarranted STOP signs as “lost time” to be made up by driving at higher speeds between STOP signs. ." Institute of Traffic Engineers

If speeds DO increase, there a source of revenue in speeding tickets. ; -)

They enhance safety. "Unwarranted STOP signs breed disrespect by motorists who tend to ignore them or only slow down without stopping. This can sometimes lead to tragic consequences." Institute of Traffic Engineers

Hub Intersection Traffic

Email to UDOT 3/15/2007 10:23 PM Suggestion for the intersection of 189 and 40 ( or 1200 S and Main St. in Heber. This is one of the busiest intersections in Heber City (Soon to be made worse by the proposed Big Box/Boyer development to be located there.)

An improvement to the flow of traffic could be made by allowing South bound traffic on Main St. to make the left turn onto 1200 S (heading East) at any time traffic is allowed to continue straight through. Currently the green left turn signal turns to red while the continuing through traffic continues to flow - often with little or no northbound traffic to impede the left turn.

Many drivers avoid the left turn signal by cutting through the commercial property (Hub or Arby) parking lots to avoid the lengthy light change. Secondly, when the left turn lane is repainted, the stop line should be moved back several(20) feet as the left turns from Hwy 189 onto Main frequently cut the (135 deg) corner creating an unsafe condition.

This intersection needs a lot of redesign, a plan is being formulated by the County and the City for a bypass around the West side of Heber City and cutting East to regain US 40 somewhere around the intersection. The large commercial development will hinder that plan.

Response: March 21, 2007 6:58 AM As you are aware, UDOT recently upgraded the traffic signal at the subject intersection by installing protected left turn phasing for traffic on US-40. This was done as a safety improvement because of the horizontal curve through the intersection.
We understand that it may reduce the capacity and level of service of the intersection, but we believe the safety benefits outweigh those other factors. We have heard about potential development east of the intersection, as well as the big box development northwest of the intersection, and as that area grows the protected left turn phasing will be even more justified, so we plan to keep it the way it is for now.
It is unfortunate that some drivers are resorting to making either illegal or improper movements through adjacent business property to avoid the signal. Perhaps you could speak with the Heber City Police and ask them to monitor the issue and enforce the necessary laws to reduce or eliminated the problem.

We are also aware of a request to completely overhaul the intersection,including straightening out the curve, which would be a dramatic impact on local businesses. We have not made any plans to do so at this time, but may consider it if discussions with the City and County continue to include this matter. If it ever is reconstructed, the location of all the stop bars would be included in the design.

3/23/2007 Thank you for the prompt response. I again drove through the intersection today - as I frequently do. I fail to see any "safety" benefit to restricting the left turn to only being allowable on the green turn signal. It seems to me quite rare to restrict a left turn in this manner. The road curve on US 40 does not hamper any sight restriction involving that left turn or hamper it in any way that I can see.

The North bound traffic into Heber City nearly always leaves adequate space to turn AFTER the red (no left turn) light appears while South bound traffic continues through the intersection. By stopping the left turn traffic prematurely, it creates a more dangerous situation because there is a greater chance a car will be present in the left turn lane on US 40 which IS a potential danger from cars making left turns from 189 onto Main St.

This two lane left turn is a far bigger safety problem than from Main St. to 1200 S. I think someone needs to analyze that flow again!! NO RESPONSE

It was a pleasure to meet you today in Heber, thanks for listening to our concerns about the intersection traffic and the drastic increase which is forthcoming.

A SECOND ATTEMPT 6/23/2008 : We didn't get to discuss this relatively minor suggestion, so I'd just like to reiterate a potential short term (and inexpensive, IMHO) solution to make the intersection a little better NOW. I frequently drive through the intersection making a left turn from Main St. onto 1200 South.

It frequently takes two signals to do so already. With the increase in semi-truck traffic coming up Provo Canyon, it is even a bigger problem now than last year and is not safe to be parked in the first position in that left turn lane.

• Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We are waiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM
• Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turn from 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed up the semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those cars waiting to make the left to 1200 So.

The UDOT response 6/27/2008 :

Regarding your number 1 recommendation, as the Region Director, I'm very uncomfortable overriding a decision by the Traffic and Safety Engineer and don't want to do that.

However, when reconstructed by Boyer there will be dual left turns, which must be protected (no permissive allowed). The dual lefts, combined with a change in signal timing should correct the problem.

Regarding number 2, I think we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary. Thanks again for meeting with us.

Dave Nazare, UDOT Region Three Director 801-227-8001

I guess one can admire consistency, but anyone wanting to try further might Email David Nazare

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.

HUB Intersection - Gridlock Coming Soon???

Let's talk TRAFFIC - Most Wasatch County residents have, I'm sure, noticed a massive increase in traffic in recent years to the residential growth. A new study has been released showing the effect of the Boyer Development (Valley Station, formerly Crossings at Heber, aka Walmart, Big Box, etc.) on the most crowded intersection in the Valley. US 40 and SR 189 or the Hub Intersection.

The DMJM Harris summarized results of the study can be downloaded here. This summary is based on the Boyer traffic analysis on the Heber City website. While that analysis contained a lot of numbers, it was short on conclusions. A private citizen hired a firm for an interpretation of the numbers.

The Conclusion: "The addition of project (Boyer development) traffic significantly increases the delay at the two intersections that operate poorly, and also cause the 910 South/100 West and US-40 and/1000 South intersection to change from an acceptable LOS (level of service) to LOS F."

Here's UDOT's definition of LOS F: "LOS F represents the breakdown of traffic flow – “failure” of the system.The condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds its capacity. Queues form behind such locations and vehicles may progress in a stop-and-go fashion. It can take two or more cycles to wait through a signal operating at LOS F."

The Harris study also reports that "Based on the Heber City criteria all intersection should be improved to LOS C or better." (Does this mean Heber City did not understand the numbers - or were ignoring them?)

As a result of this report another enterprising citizen has started a Petition to "request that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) WITHHOLD APPROVAL of the Boyer/Heber City access agreement for the US-40/US-189 intersection in Heber City, UT until a safer plan is in place."

The petition is available at various local businesses and online for signatures.

UDOT held a meeting in Heber in 2007 where the intersection was discussed a report of the meeting is available here. The complete official minutes are here.

Heber City Salaries and Population Density

Heber City public employee Salaries are now posted online.
Top Ten:

Mark Anderson	City Manager	Administration	-	$95,513
Bart Mumford	Engineer	Engineering	-	$78,977
Edward Rhoades	Chief Of Police	Police	-	$77,323
Steve Tozier	Public Works Director	Public Works	-	$66,646
Wesley Greenhalgh	Building Official	Building	-	$66,560
Jason Bradley	Police Sergeant	Police	-	$65,674
J.m. Smedley	City Attorney	Legislative	-	$64,368
Mike Clegg	Police Sergeant	Police	-	$60,053
G.a. Fawcett	Planning Director	Planning	-	$59,995
Robert Mcknight	Lead Worker	Public Works	-	$55,798

County Salaries have been available for some time.

While surrounding school districts have been posted, Wasatch Schools are still missing.

Heber City now ranks as the 27th most densely populated municipality in the state.

Hideout Incorporation Vetoed

The Wasatch County Council dismissed the Hideout annexation at its meeting 2/6/08. SLTrib and DNews reported on the meeting.

A little further info: The meeting was held before an overflow crowd of more than 100. Hideout's attorneys and owners present their interpretation of compliance with the 2007 Incorporation law.

Hideout indicate "the law is, what the law is" and the 'people' wanted to incorporate to control their destiny. Further explanation showed that the vast majority of the population was housed in the Todd Hollow apartment complex.

Because of potential litigation, the Council went into an Executive session.

Following that session, the discussion focused mainly on the Todd Hollow's request to opt out of the incorporation as allowed under Utah law. Todd Hollow owned 13% of the land value, only 1% was required. Hideout presented a unofficial list of resident desiring to remain in and argued that Todd Hollow could not be allowed to opt out because they were an "urban" development.

There are references to "urban" in Title 10 Chapter 2 Incorporations et al. Urban is used in reference to ANNEXATIONS and expansions NOT incorporation. I fail to see the connection with its use in this instance.

After discussing the ambiguity of the law, and the pressure being exerted on the County by Rep. Greg Curtis to 'not delay' the approval of Hideout suggesting a delay in the bill to remedy the flawed legislation, a motin was made by Councilman Jay Price to reject to request to opt out. This would allow the incorporation to go forward because there would be sufficient population (700+ in Todd Hollow) The motion failed 3-4. Price, Kohler and Bangerter in favor. A ubsequent motion to ALLOW the opt out was passed 4-3 Anderton, Farrell, Crittenden and Draper in favor.

Incorporation Law - background

The incorporation law passed in 2007 was hastily passed and badly flawed. It effectively allow a "company town" or a large land-owner to incorporate residents into a town controlled by the developer without there permission or even their KNOWLEDGE.

The bill was presented as assisting a group of people to acquire municipal services and requiring a feasibility study. The wording of the bill is now being interpreted (by developers) as carte blanche approval of nearly anything.

As widely reported that bill was hastily conceived in the last legislative session HB466 (Sponsor Mel Brown) and passed unanimously by both houses.

Brown introduced this in committee 2/20/07 (click here for audio): (paraphrased) We've had a problems with municipal services for growing areas, this will provide for a petition to incorporate as a town with 1/3 of value and property owner signatures to "require the county to do a feasibility study. . ." Jodi Hoffman (ULCT atty) says Mel described the bill very well. There is no good law now for incorporation of a town (referred to Daniel). question on feasibility study and cost analysis. Line 113 requires fiscal inequities to be mitigated.

Q. Difference between base and qualifying
A. Hoffman: 1/3 vs 1/2 of property value ; qualifying "goes through a more expedited feasibility study" More talk of municipal services. click for audio: Total hearing time 11 min.

2/22/07 House floor debate Brown: Easier process for incorporation for providing services. A group of people get together for a petition. base requires feasibility study - qualifying county can grant petition citizen friendly NO QUESTIONS from Reps. Total time 3 minutes

2/28/07 Senate Floor debate Sen. Killpack "only involves townships" - both tracts require petition - qualifying provides "expedited process for the uncontested incorporation" endorsed by cities and counties. Total time 3 minutes - (incl roll call vote)

INCORPORATIONS

Aspen - Independence - Hideout - Woodland - will Podunk village be next?

HB 466 has launched an open season on incorporation in Wasatch County. Thankfully, someone in the legislature is trying to change the law.

Sen. Stowell is looking for comments, Wasatch residents should have quite a few!!!

Tuesday, December 04, 2007 Becoming a Town By Dennis Stowell Utah State Senator, District 28 Clearly we need to amend last year's HB 466, in a way that empowers citizens as the gatekeepers. The proposal for a new Town Incorporation Process (for populations of 100 to 1000 people) mirrors the incorporation steps for cities with populations greater than 1000 which is currently on the books. The proposed new process: * Landowners file a petition with the County Clerk. * The County Commission decides if a feasibility study should be required. If not, the incorporation proposal would go straight to a public hearing. * If the feasibility study shows that revenues exceed expenditures by more than 10%, (5% for a city incorporation) then the County Commission could negotiate conditions to make the proposal work for the county. This should prevent cherry picking of high revenue areas. * The proposal would then go to a public hearing. * Following the public hearing an election would be held to decide if the area should be incorporated. If it does not pass, the proposal dies. * If it passes, a second election would be held to elect town officers. * The new mayor may then file articles of incorporation with the Lt. Governor's Office. Here's a flow chart (draft). I would appreciate comments on this proposal, especially from citizens who have lately been introduced to the unintended consequences of HB 466. How would this new process work for your community?

Update on Proposed Developments

Wasatch County has updated its monthly development report.

13,000 new houses waiting in the wings.

Heber City has also updated its too!!

About 3,000 additional coming.

County Payrolls

With Budget hearings now in progress, you may be interested in the Wasatch County payroll.

These figures seem to be base salaries, without fringe benefits, overtime etc. The site has many other municipal payrolls, but does NOT include Heber City:

Here are the top 12 on the payroll of 243 listed:

Phil D Wright	-	Health	-	$97,631
Michael Davis	-	County Manager	-	$88,866
Dennis Hansen	-	Prevention	-	$86,491
Alfred S Mickelsen	-	Planning and Zoning	-	$85,735
Kent J Berg	-	Public Works	-	$83,059
Thomas L Low	-	Attorney	-	$81,224
Don Jay Wood	-	GIS Date Processing	-	$77,725
Gordon Paul Wilson	-	Engineering	-	$75,868
Corinna A Porter	-	Mental Health	-	$75,599
Tracy Richardson	-	Health	-	$71,436
Kenneth Vanwagoner	-	Sheriff	-	$71,269
Sharon Jensen	-	Mental Health	-	$68,014

Wasatch County 2007 Budget

Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment

If any of you readers have desire to serve and attempt to assist in the planning of Wasatch County, here's a limited time (one month, or less, to apply) opportunity (Similar positions may be available at the municipal level):

There are two County Planning Commissioners (George Holmes and Bob Gappmayer) whose terms expire at the end of December. Plus possibly one additional available who has not met the attendance requirements. (John Price) (Co. Council Rep Kipp Bangerter's term is also up. SO . . .

Notice of Board Position Openings

Current Openings:

Daniel Township

Skate Boarding Park Advisory

**Planning Commission

**Board of Adjustment

**Please note: If you have previously served on these Boards and are interested in maintaining your position, re-application is necessary. Please call 657-3180 for more information.

Applications and copies of Board Member powers & duties may be acquired at the Reception desk in the Administration Building at 25 N Main Street, Heber, or by following the links below:

Wasatch County Code related to Boards:

You may also download the Board Application Form:

application (PDF)
application (Word)

Here are the official QUALIFICATIONS to become a member of the Planning Commission:

"members of the Planning Commission shall be qualified electors of Wasatch County."

That's IT folks!!! nothing more

"There is hereby established a county-wide Planning Commission consisting of seven regular members. Six of the regular members of the Commission shall be appointed by the County Manager with the advice and consent of the County Legislative Body. The remaining member of the Commission shall be a member of the County Legislative Body and shall be appointed by majority vote of the County Legislative Body."

**** ****** *********

"The planning commission has perhaps a greater opportunity to affect community change than any other public agency. Planning Commission decisions and recommendations can impose a significant impact on the physical and social development of the community they represent.

The planning commission is an authorized function of local government. The planning commission will vary in a number of respects from one community to the next. Planning commissioners are advisors, assisting the local elected officials in the decision-making process regarding the manner in which community development takes place. The commission also deals with the delicate balance between the public interest and private rights.

The work of planning commission must be conducted with a constant recognition of its responsibility to assure due process of law to every citizen who participates in the local planning process."
The Planning Commission, pg 1

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

What determines a "Conflict of Interest?"

A conflict of interest is “A situation in which a person’s individual interests are in opposition to the interests of his duty to others. As an example an elected public official who owns real estate may approve a ruling or a change in zoning that would increase the value of his property.” (Quoted from The Plain Language Law Dictionary)

There are various specific laws on conflicts depending on the position held, one of the more restrictive 'rules' applies generally to Planning Commissions.

The Planning Commission (CPPA, U of U)

The work of the planning commission influences the future of a community, and through certain planning measures can have impact upon the value of property. It is therefore important that the actions and behavior of commission members are at all times legally sanctioned and completely ethical. (pg 2-15)

Conflict of Interest:

A planning commissioner to whom some private benefit may be derived as the result of a planning commission action should not be a participant in the action. (pg 2-16)

The private benefit may be direct or indirect, create a material personal gain or provide an advantage to relatives, friends or groups and associations which hold some share of a person's loyalty. (pg 2-16)

State law requires that a public official experiencing a conflict of interest declare the conflict publicly. It is strongly recommended, however, that a planning commissioner with a conflict abstain from voting on the action in question and leave the room during consideration of the action. The commissioner should not discuss the matter privately with any other commissioner. The vote cast by a planning commissioner who has a conflict of interest, but who has not excused him or herself, shall be disallowed. (pg 2-16)

********** Wasatch County has even more specific rules:
By-Laws of the Wasatch County Planning Commission

- Sect XI: (C) No member shall act or vote on any matter which he or she has a direct financial interest, which involve a conflict of interest as found in he Utah Code, or which a member cannot fairly and impartially act or vote on any matter before the Commission.
Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall be disqualified and shall leave the room and not participate in the discussion and vote pertaining to that particular matter.

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!!!

People's Referendum Fails

Regrettably, too many listened to the propaganda by Boyer/Walmart outspending the local citizenry by probably 50 to 100 to one. (as predicted) The valiant effort by the citizens' referendum failed to stop the Big Box behemoth, proving once again that massive advertising campaigns with cutesy slogans seem to work (e.g. $900,000 benefits).

On the positive side there will be some new faces on the Council in January.

HOWEVER, the final decision has not been made on the design of the development. A few things can still be done to soften the blow to the Valley.

Especially with the 20 units per acre (or more) which will be requested under the newly approved zone. Explanations and lobbying must be offered to the Planning Commission and City Council members on at least TWO items:

1. Planning for the location of the Bypass must be made BEFORE approving the Boyer Project.
2. A proper fiscal IMPACT analysis must be made on the COSTS of the entire project (including housing) to Wasatch County residents (which all Heber residents are) - including potential education and school construction costs. Any benefits (sales tax) should be based on population - NOT on sq ft of the proposed stores. It would seem likely that a store in a market of 22,000 will not have the same revenue as one in a large metropolitan area.

They also should be reminded that just because MURCZA may ALLOW 20 per acre and 150K sq ft, Heber does NOT have to allow these maximums. The project should be built to conform with the general plan AND the wishes of the community. The vote, while legally binding, represented less than 23% of the registered Heber voters and barely 10% of County voters.

Hardly an overwhelming mandate!!

ALL county residents WILL be affected by this development.

Recommended/required for all concerned:

• The MURCZ code itself (Voter Info pamphlet)

• The Wikstrom study

• The Poll results - read and analyzed carefully
  

• It would also be helpful to hear Mark Webb (Planning Commissioner) on the subject

• AND City Manager Mark Anderson or excerpts

Previous posting on this blog may also be helpful.

VOTE NO on Big Box Mixed Up zone

Tomorrow's the big day for Heber Citizens to vote on the rezoning issue to allow 150,000+ sq. ft. big box retail stores AND 20 housing units per acre in Heber City. I strongly urge a vote AGAINST this proposal.

1 The project will cost Heber City resident MORE in property taxes, not less. No analysis has been done showing the COSTS to Wasatch County residents (which includes Heber City) of the proposed residential portion of the project. The resultant cost in school taxes will totally offset any increase in "revenues."
Heber City routinely has chosen to neglect ALL of the costs of projects and merely focuses on the Heber City portion of potential tax receipts as their deciding factor.

2 Heber Valley does NOT NEED a Big Box. While many may seek the convenience of "closer" shopping, the downside of the vastly increasing growth (which a big box will encourage to maintain
financial viability) will completely overshadow that supposed convenience. Increased traffic may even cause longer travel times than now required to get to Park City or Orem.

3 The proposed financial benefit (to Heber) is based on a sales $/ sq.ft. generated by similar sized stores - NOT on population. This is an inflated erroneous assumption designed to "sell" the project. The $15,000 Wikstrom study demonstrated the problems associated with a Big Box; the warnings apparently went unheeded.

4 This is absolutely the worst location for a large shopping center - at the busiest intersection in the valley AND on the route for the proposed Heber truck bypass/

5 Boyer (WalMart) is spending a tremendous amount of money on advertising, surveys, freebies, handouts, etc. to BUY your vote. I hate to tell you this, but these expenditure may be self serving.

6 A recent letter to Heber residents (?) (actually mailed to what appears to be the Boyer list) talks of tax dollars, intercity competition for the store, and local businesses. The letter points out that Heber is now longer a "small-town," but, at 10,000 population, it is certainly NOT to "big city " status yet. The "I think" letter is signed by five couples and appears to be the thinking of recent transplants who escaped from the city and now want to recreate in our (still somewhat) rural valley, what they left .

VOTE no (AGAINST( the mixed use Zone)


For more comments and in depth analysis click here.

Big Box Advertisement response

ADD your name to the No Big Box for Heber Valley Petition

In response to the full page 10/10/07 ad in the Wasatch Wave (one of a $$$ series), I offer this response:

MIXED UP Chaos Zone

So why would someone like me vote AGAINST the proposed Mixed Use Big Box ordinance?

10 Shopping Convenience: Many Heber Valley residents enjoy an occasional shopping trip to the "big city" only to return to the rural, small town in which they enjoy living.

9 More Time With the Family: If you are spending two trips a week solely to shop in Provo, you may need to either plan better, shop locally or take the family with you.

8 A Stronger Local Economy: Generating a large customer base to support Big Boxes will only cause MORE Growth to feed the incipient beast sending revenues out of the valley.

7 Improved Roads: How in the world does drastically increasing traffic into the most congestion intersection in the Valley improve roads? That congestion may even eat up the suggested saved "time with the family" with local traffic delays.

6 More Money for Education: Sure, there may be some increase in property tax - which will be OFFSET by the education costs of the NEW High Density development allow in the new zone - 20 units per acre or 200 to 300 units stacked 55 ft high, (or 300 new children at $4,000 education cost each or $1.2 Million - for starters.) How much DID your taxes increase this year?

5 A Better Environment?: MORE traffic, MORE emissions, MORE pollution and LESS rural and small town, which the community has said for years is our desire.

4 Additional Restaurants: Will this offset the "Family Dinner Day"? (Eat with your children and save the family resolution) Are more Fast Foods NEEDED?

3 It's the Wrong Time: Why fuel even more explosive growth? Is there never an end to expansion, if Heber City can't grow OUT must it grow UP? Or should it just 'grow up' and respect the community wishes.

2 More Money in your Wallet: The overestimated gas saving predicted will be offset by in INCREASED taxes to cover the extra costs of the proposed development. An annexation study (potential tax income) is NOT a fiscal IMPACT study (costs to the Heber/Wasatch County residents - Heber residents are also county taxpayers)

1 Voting AGAINST the Mixed Up Residential Chaos Zone will help maintain the small town desire clearly expressed by the community.

As always, call their comment line to listen to the circular recording and to have your telephone number collected.

It's a matter of choice - Big city vs. Small town We may already be too late for the "small" town can we at least try to avoid the CITY.

Regrettably, as a non Heber City resident I'm unable to vote on the issue in the upcoming election; hopefully my fellow County residents living inside Heber will not be swayed by thousands of dollars for a series of full page ads to promote a narrow self interest ($$$) but will speak for the community as a whole and reject this proposal!

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.

Heber Council Primary Results

Congratulations to the winners of the Heber City Council Primary.
1 Eric Straddeck - - 43% of voters
2 Robert Patterson - - 38%
3 Nile Horner - - 30%
4 Terry Lange - - 29%
5 Michael Thurber - - 28%
6 Kieth Rawlings - - 27% of voters

The voters of Heber City achieved an anemic 14% turnout (911 votes cast), with each voter casting an average of 2.8 votes. The first columns below are probably from votes cast at the old Senior Center, the second from the North School polling and the last the New Library.

Straddeck	53	38.1%	239	55.8%	104	30.4%	396	43.5%
Patterson	58	41.7%	147	34.3%	145	42.4%	350	38.4%
Horner	38	27.3%	128	29.9%	107	31.3%	273	30.0%
Lange	34	24.5%	125	29.2%	104	30.4%	263	28.9%
Thurber	80	57.6%	89	20.8%	87	25.4%	256	28.1%
Rawlings	42	30.2%	104	24.3%	103	30.1%	249	27.3%
Rose	29	20.9%	111	25.9%	102	29.8%	242	26.6%
Lazenby	17	12.2%	123	28.7%	75	21.9%	215	23.6%
Mahoney	28	20.1%	89	20.8%	91	26.6%	208	22.8%
Drew	13	9.4%	56	13.1%	38	11.1%	107	11.7%
Total	392		1211		956		2559	39.9%

Heber Council Candidates

With the upcoming Primary Election for Heber City Council coming up, several people have asked my opinion on the ten candidates, of whom four will be eliminated. Heber City residents will be able to vote for up to three of the ten. Many worthy candidates available, but the tough choices need to be made; no offense herein to any willing to to step up and run for office!!

As I am not a city resident, I have no vote; but the results of the election in November will affect the entire Heber Valley. The two overriding issues are GROWTH and Big Box - or more correctly the proposed mixed up Residential Chaos Zone - MURCZA - which would allow large retail stores in Heber. That said, and based on my personal observations and radio interviews and debates between the candidates, below are my ratings. I strongly suggest clicking on the links and hearing their comments in their own words. . Of course, it is election time. Interestingly, they indicated that Heber City was in the process of changing the Potential Annexation Zone to REDUCE it. Perhaps they are finally listening to the people, we'll see. Also there was a great deal of talk about transparency in government and openness, we may be making an IMPACT!!!

The candidates expressed nearly unanimous support for slowing growth and annexation into Heber

Top tier:

Sandy Mahoney and Eric Straddeck
Sandy is a long time resident, has a good grasp of the issues, experience on the Board of Adjustment and would work diligently on the RIGHT side of the main issues.
Eric is relatively new to the Valley, a successful entrepeneur, thoughtful and contemplative and would bring a fresh view to the Council.

Second Tier:

Danny Drew and Terry Lange

Danny is a young enthusiastic man with generally good ideas and would be a good addition to the mix.

The venerable Terry has a wealth of historical knowledge and is often on the right side and a consummate politician.

Third Tier - but wrong on the Big Box or growth

Robert Patterson, Mike Thurber and Nile Horner

Robert presented himself well in the debate with some interesting observation as did Mike (especially on developments) Nile was on the right side of Big Box but came up with the strange observation that annexations should depend on WHO was annexing.

Bottom three

Kieth Rawlings, Shari Lazenby and Perry Rose

Kieth and Shari as Planning Commission Chair and incumbent Council member, respectively, need to take some responsibility for the current City philosophy on growth, etc. Perry opted not to show up for the debates or interviews.