Summit Mountain Holding Requests Zoning Changes at Powder Mountain

Important Public Hearings Tuesday Morning at 10 am

We urge you to read the January 1, 2015 issue of the Ogden Valley News which hit newsstands earlier today for more details of a meeting that will be held Tuesday morning, December 23, 2014 @ 10:00 am.

In summary, two public hearings will be held at the Weber County Commission Chambers at the Weber Center in Ogden.

Here are the formal announcements of the Public Hearings, and we will note that the link on the Commission website announcing Public Hearings is blank.  We had to search the regular commission agenda to find notice of the public hearings:

 The Board of Commissioners of Weber County, Utah will hold a regular commission meeting in the Commission Chambers of the Weber Center, 2380 Washington Boulevard, Ogden, Utah, commencing at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, the 23rd day of December 2014.

  2.              Public hearing to consider and take action on a request to amend Title 108

                                  (Standards), Chapter 3 (Cluster Subdivisions) and Title 106 (Subdivisions),

                                  Chapter 2 (Subdivision Standards) of the Weber County Land Use Code.

                                  Presenter: Scott Mendoza

                

                 3.              Public hearing to consider and take action on Zoning Petition ZMA #2014-01 by

                                  Summit Mountain Holding Group L.L.C. to rezone approximately 6,160 acres, at

                                   Powder Mountain Resort, from Commercial Valley Resort Recreation (CVR-1),

                                   Forest Valley-3 (FV-3) and Forest-40 (F-40) to the Ogden Valley Destination and

                                   Recreation Resort Zone (DRR-1).

                                  Presenter: Scott Mendoza

                 4.              Public comments. (Pease limit comments to 3 minutes)

Soon after the public hearings, the commissioners will take action on these important items.

6.              Action on public hearings:

                                 

                                  G2-           Request for approval to amend Title 108 (Standards), Chapter 3

                                                   (Cluster Subdivisions) and Title 106 (Subdivisions), Chapter 2

                                                   (Subdivision Standards) of the Weber County Land Use Code.

                                  G3-           Request for action on Zoning Petition ZMA #2014-01 by Summit

                                                   Mountain Holding Group L.L.C. to  rezone approximately 6,160 acres,

                                                   at Powder Mountain Resort, from Commercial Valley Resort                                                     Recreation   (CVR-1), Forest Valley-3 (FV-3) and Forest-40 (F-40) to the

                                                    Ogden Valley Destination and  Recreation Resort Zone (DRR-1).

There you have it.  With very little notice of the public hearing, the commission will have a public hearing and take action on two important items the same day.

Merry Christmas, our humble readers.

Summit To Host Townhall Meeting Regarding Their Planned Residential Unit Development (PRUD) Application

An open notice from The Summit Group

Dear friends and neighbors,

It's been an exciting few months and we're happy to announce that we'll be submitting our Planned Residential Unit Development application to the county at the end of February.

In an effort to keep the valley community informed and engaged we're happy to announce a town hall meeting on the PRUD application and Summit's plans for Powder Mountain. Please come join us, we're looking forward to offering an overview of the plan and addressing questions and comments.

Day: February 13, 2013
Time: 6:30pm
Location: 3900 N Wolf Creek Dr, Eden, UT (right past Harley & Bucks)

The Summit Group

Summit Group Hosts Town Hall Meeting

The Summit Group, the new managers and future owners of Powder Mountain, hosted a town hall meeting for the community on December 6, 2012.

We will overview some of the highlights below:

• Powder town (aka Powderville) is dead.  The petition to incorporate and subsequent lawsuits have been dropped.
• They have purchased several parcels during the Wolf Creek bankruptcy sale, of which a 1500 acre will remain open space.
• The previous owners had mentioned 10,000, 5,000 and 3,000 homes with golf courses and 19 lifts.  Summit feels those numbers are excessive.
• Phase one will consist of 500 smaller (4,000 sq. ft.) single family homes south of the Hidden Lake parking lot.
• They plan to preserve the existing terrain and the number of lifts will remain roughly status quo.
• They own the Wolf Barn and 80 surrounding acres.  They plan to use it for resort base parking during the ski season, then reseed and use as a public park in the off season.  Possibly soccer fields.
• They hope to revive the Balloon Festival.
• After phase one, they hope to redone much of the 10,000 acres as TR-1 - Resort Zone.
• Last year, there were 139,000 skier days at Powder Mountain.

What is your impression of our new neighbors?  

Who will be the first to opine?

Weber County Commissioners Consider Action on Rezone Request at Powder Mountain November 13

Guest Post by Shanna Francis

The Weber county Commission will consider action on a rezone request at Powder Mountain on Tuesday, November 13 at 10:00 a.m. in the Commission Chambers located in the Weber Center, 2380 Washington Blvd. in Ogden. 

The rezone petition is being requested by Steven H. Nielsen II (Pronaia Capital) representing Western America Holding, LLC, which is requesting a rezone to approximately 4,297 acres located at Powder Mountain Resort from Forest Residential-3 (FR-3), Forest Valley-3 (FV-3), Commercial Valley Resort Recreation-1 (CVR-1), and Forest-40 (F-40) to FV-3, CVR-1, and F-40.  In addition, they will consider a Zoning Development Agreement between Weber County and Western America Holding, LLC as part of Zoning Petition 2006-18

A staff report on the Weber County web site, found at https://miradi.co.weber.ut.us/projects/view/511_Powder provides a brief background to the petition and states the following:

“On June 1, 2010, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Weber County and Western America Holding, LLC was approved as a precursor to a formal Zoning Development Agreement between the parties regarding development at Powder Mountain Resort.  The MOU promoted the creation of a Development Agreement that would establish the basic development parameters for Powder Mountain and cause the withdrawal of the Powder Mountain Town Incorporation Petition and litigation associated therewith.  Negotiations on the Development Agreement began soon after the MOU was approved and have continued until the parties recently reached an agreement.  The agreement has been patterned after the County’s development agreement with Snowbasin Resort.

“One of the main reasons that the Development Agreement has taken so long to finalize is that Western America Holding, LLC Began negotiating the sale of Powder Mountain Resort during the Development negotiations.  The potential buyers needed additional time to review the agreement and the negotiation process slowed down to accommodate this.  The Planning Division, County legal counsel, and Western America Holding, LLC have now agreed in principle to the October 29 draft of the Development Agreement.

“Each section of the MOU is addressed in the development agreement as are many of the principles that make up the Ogden Valley Planning Commission’s 19 conditions recommended in 2007.  The County worked hard to incorporate these principles into the Development Agreement and the only conditions not addressed in some form are the number of limitations on hotel and commercial development, and the commencement of development with a multi-family/commercial village. . . a public hearing is not required to take action on this Development Agreement.

“If the Agreement is signed by both parties, all pending litigation will be dismissed, and Western America Holding, LLC shall immediately withdraw the Powder Mountain Town Incorporation Petition that had been stalled.  The county will then rezone the property as described in the application request (visit Weber County’s web site to read a copy).  This Agreement will then supersede the MOU.  If any amendments are sought by either party, they must go before the Planning Commission for a public hearing.”

The approval of a request to rezone the resort to a Destination and Recreation Resort Zone (DDR-1) would require the approval of a new Development Agreement where the developer would need to show that the resort can meet the rezone application requirements.

The Weber County Planning Commission is recommending approval of the Zoning Development Agreement.  The Agreement is based on the provisions of the MOU and takes into account most of the Ogden Valley Planning Commission’s earlier mandated 19 conditions.

Rumors abound over possible sale of Powder Mountain Resort - UPDATED

It was assumed by many that when the owners of Powder Mountain purchased the property a few years ago, they likely planned to get their property rezoned to maximize the number of building lots then flip the property to make millions.  Our readers will remember the tumultuous times over the last few years with the Powderville saga.  Ultimately, the owners worked out a deal with the Weber County Commission whereas Powder Mountain Town plan would be dropped in exchange for increased zoning.

Well, the day of flipping may be near.

We first heard strong rumors of a potential sale a few weeks ago, but kept quiet.  As time went on, we began to hear more and more rumors from many reliable sources.  Reliable enough that we will share some of the rumor but will note that Powder Mountain is staying quiet for now.

The word on the street is that a group of young (under 30), wealthy entrepreneurs are interested in purchasing Powder Mountain as a site for a retreat.  A place where they can gather, share ideas, and do great things.  Apparently these investors care about communities, give millions to charity and believe in partnering to do good things to protect the environment.

The rumor goes on to state that the group has been in the valley the past few weeks and have put down a very large sum of money on the property and has submitted a letter of intent to purchase the property.  Supposedly, their desire is to build a few homes (substantially less than the 5,000 or so that was approved), construct a retreat or convention center, and keep the rest of the mountain relatively status quo.  In other words, preserve the land.

This sounds like a potential win for Ogden Valley, and we are crossing our fingers (and a couple of toes) in hopes that at least part of the rumor is true - especially the part about preserving the land.

Have others heard about the rumor?  Who will be the first to comment.

UPDATE:  2/17/12 @ 10:40 AM  Several of our humble readers have added to the rumor mill, and we will share some of it here:

The Summit Group or Summit Series is rumored to be the "investor."

Here is their web site.

One of the Summit Series founders was at Pow Mow last weekend.

This verifies it- scroll down to see someone (presumably Josh) on a Pow Mow Snowmobile.

http://joshzabar.tumblr.com/

Word is that there is a balloon payment of some sort due in April for one or more of the current investors.  There are several interested parties and the Summit Group is one.  

Rumor also has it that Gregg Greer, Powder Mountain CEO, attended a meeting in Squaw Valley put on by this group last month.

Snowbasin Rezone Unanimously Approved

The Weber County Commission Unanimously approved Snowbasin's extensive rezone request.  Freshman Commissioner Kerry Gibson approved his first big project during the Tuesday meeting.  Read the entire story from the Standard Examiner here: 

Snowbasin rezone unanimously approved

We will include the article in its entirety below:

OGDEN -- Weber County Commissioners on Tuesday approved a rezoning request initiated by Snowbasin Resort Company.
The resort asked to rezone approximately 3,808 acres in Weber County at Snowbasin from forest valley land to the Ogden Valley Destination and Recreation Resort zone, which would allow the land to be developed for homes, condos, hotels and golf courses.
The unanimous decision by commissioners to approve the rezone request came several months after the initial request was presented in a public hearing in October 2010.
At the end of that meeting, commissioners asked the planning staff to prepare an ordinance and zoning development agreement, which passed during Tuesday's regular commission meeting.
In the request, Snowbasin Resort Company said it will limit resort developments to about 20 percent (755 acres) of the overall project area and avoid construction in sensitive lands.
It also will help protect wildlife by designing the resort in cluster development and compact areas, leaving just more than 3,000 acres of the overall project area as open space.
Weber County Planner Scott Mendoza said during the meeting that a reinvestment fee covenant will also be put into effect. That means Snowbasin will add a 1 percent fee to all initial sales of residential properties -- including lots, homes and condos -- that will be put into an account used to fund recreational amenities in the development.
"It will commit or obligate each person to reserve 1 percent of the purchase price," he said. "Then those funds are directed to benefit the community as a whole, like to use funds to possibly construct a park."
Commissioners asked few questions and expressed few concerns during Tuesday's meeting, and all three commissioners voted to grant the request.
"I think what we have come up with is good for everyone and should work," Commissioner Craig Dearden said after the request was approved.
The development plan also covers 8,000 acres in Morgan County, making the entire project nearly 12,000 acres.
It is estimated it could take at least 50 years to develop the project, and building will depend on market demand.

Snowbasin has become the darling of the commission, which wasn't all that big of a feat following the Powder Mountain Town fiasco.  While Snowbasin is the big player in town wielding the big guns and will ultimately get any concessions they ask for,  Snowbasin chose to at least make an honest attempt to work with the County officials and residents within the framework of the ordinances.   That's kind of how government is supposed to work.

What say our Ogden Valley Faithful?

Snowbasin Unveils Development Plans

2400 more units in Ogden Valley!

The Weber County Forum is on the ball with the late breaking story.  Read it before it hits the Standard Examiner's news stands Saturday morning.

Read the latest here:

Standard-Examiner: Snowbasin Suddenly Gets Back Into the Resort Development Game 

Rudi offers his expert analysis along with some savvy and cranky advice for the Ogden Valley-ites.

"Fifty years"? My ass. This new development will be in the forefront immediately.

If Ogden Valley residents thought they had a tough time with Western America Holding (WAH), wait until they get a load of the heavyweight Sinclair Oil, while it jockeys for position to overdevelop its mountain to the hilt.

For those Ogden Valley residents who still desire a rural mountainesque atmosphere, we'll suggest they might consider buying land in Montana... or maybe Alaska. Even Siberia, maybe.

Sadly, with the cowardly buckling of the Weber County Commission, it's likely that the die is cast; and that the bucololic Ogden Valley of our recent memories may soon be no more.

While we are at it, we will put in a gentle plug for one of our favorite Ogden Valley Books entitled "Bargaining For Eden" by Stephen Trimble.  The book is Mr. Trimble's rendition of how Earl Holding was able to acquire the SnowBasin land in the first place with a little help from his friends.   Amazon is practically giving the book away and it is displayed in our left sidebar.

Be sure to weigh in on this riveting late breaking development news from Earl's Lodge.

Powder Mountain (aka Powderville) Update; Let's Talk Extortion!

By Ima Believer

LET’S TALK EXTORTION

Just my opinion, but I think what happened at the WC Commission meeting last night may have been the commission caving in to a well-orchestrated plan of extortion. I’m not a Utah lawyer; fact, I’m not even a lawyer, but I know a little about extortion, and I think we may well have seen it here. Here’s some random stuff from the net (in no particular order):

Answers.com

n, 2. Illegal use of one’s official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority (emphasis added here and elsewhere)

Columbia Encyclopedia

In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear….

Law Encyclopedia

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened…fear, or under color of official right.

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim’s friends or relatives may also be included.

Under the common law and many statutes, an intent to take money or property to which one is not lawfully entitled must exist at the time of the threat in order to establish extortion.

American Lawyer.com

n, Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim’s property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of right….

Criminal.findlaw.com

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1)violence, 2)property damage, 3)harm to reputation, or 4)unfavorable government action.

Utah Code Ann. 76-6-406 Theft by Extortion

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercise control over the property of another by extortion and with a purpose to deprive him thereof.

(2) As used in this section, extortion occurs when a person threatens to:

(b)Subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint;….

Utah Code Ann. 76-8-104 Threats to influence official or political action.

(1)A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he threatens any harm to a public servant,…with a purpose of influencing his action, decision, opinion, recommendation, nomination, vote, or other exercise of discretion.

(2) As used in this section:

(a)”Harm” means any disadvantage or injury, pecuniary or otherwise, including disadvantage or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare the public servant…is interested.

So here’s the deal: it appears that the essence of extortion is a threat to do something, even something the extortionist may otherwise have a perfect right to do, for the purpose of obtaining something the extortionist has no right to have (in this case, zoning density well beyond what’s on the property when it was bought, if the Pronaia boys or their predecessors had taken the time and trouble to look.)

In fact, in some other states, extortion can occur when that threat is made even if the extortionist has a right to the property sought and the right to take the action that is threatened! Remember, it’s the threat that’s bad. Here’s how that works. Let’s say A writes B a bad check. B has an obvious right to the money, and can sue A for it, civilly. B also has the right to go to the prosecutor and file bad check charges against A. What he does NOT have the right to do is to threaten A that he will go to the prosecutor unless A pays the money. That’s extortion.

If, having gone to the prosecutor, B receives an offer from A to pay the money, or even if B receives payment and drops the criminal case, no problem. But if B says to A “I’ll only drop the charges if you agree to pay me twice what you owe me,” that’s extortion. Isn’t this fun?

Are we getting the picture, here? Now, once again, that may not be the way things work here in Utah, where the law isn’t quite as well developed as in other states, but then again, it may be. Either way, it sure leaves a bad taste when it happens, doesn’t it? And when the Pronaia boys threatened to continue their campaign to establish their town and hold the citizens captive, without a vote, unless the county commissioners gave them more than twice the density to which they were entitled, the commissioners didn’t say: “Hey, that sounds like extortion!” They said: “That sure sounds reasonable to us.”

Wonder what they’ll demand next?

Predictable Outcome for Ogden Valley

Last night at the Weber County Commission public hearing on Powder Mountain it was no surprise when the Weber County Commissioners voted to accept the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) submitted by the Powder Mountain developers with a unanimous vote. The County Commissioners stated this was just a beginning, with much more work

to be done.

Despite the numerous Ogden Valley residents who spoke sincerely of their opposition to the MOU, citing the General Plan and fairness issues, it was clear in the end, that their well documented and logical points had negligible influence with the Weber County Commissioners.

To be sure, there were supporters of the MOU at the meeting and they spoke of their reasons for support. Most said they were affected homeowners who want to be free of the incorporation threat. They feel caught in a vise between the developers and Weber County. They must have forgot who put them there in the first place.

Commissioner Dearden spoke at length about the poorly written bill (HB466) that was passed in the state legislature and how these things happen. What he failed to address was the fact that when the bad bill was replaced a year later by a revised bill on incorporation, the specific section that generated this entire anti-incorporation uproar was left in place in an intentional and calculated move by the legislature.

Of interest was the presentation of Mr. Pierce of Pronaia when he said that in his investigation of the use of Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) around the country, TDRs have not been found to be successful. Not so much as a whimper was heard from the three Weber County Commissioners despite the fact that these same Commissioners have directed the GEM Committee and others to evaluate the use of TDRs for implementation in Ogden Valley, involving many hundreds if not thousands of hours of study and reports in recent years. Yet the Commissioners had no reaction when Mr. Pierce questioned the value of TDRs. This does not bode well for open land preservation in the future for Ogden Valley.

In addition, it was obvious that the Commissioners are dismissive on the issue of consistency regarding the 3 acre restriction that other developers and land owners have followed in Ogden Valley for the last twelve years.

Mr. Pierce also did his best to lay the blame for problems on the initial Powder Mountain developers (WAH) due to their approach and strategy. While he may have a point, Pronaia’s hands are tarnished as well for continuing to use the threat of incorporation to achieve their goals.

Mr. Pierce may feel this is somewhat unfair. Accordingly, The Ogden Valley Forum challenges Mr. Pierce and Pronaia to drop the incorporation with no strings attached to demonstrate good faith, and to continue this process using the offices of the Weber County Commission and the Weber County Planning Department to work out a non leveraged and equitable deal on the development at Powder Mountain.

Memorandum of Understanding Between Powder Mountain and Weber County Passes Unanimously

Late Breaking News

More will follow, but this evening Weber County Commissioners unanimously approved the Memorandum of Understanding between the Powder Mountain Developers and Weber County.  After deliberation on the issue with Commissioner Bischoff speaking in favor of the MOU, Commissioner Zogmaister made the motion to approve and Commissioner Dearden seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.

Thanks to Dan S. who provided live play by play blogging during the meeting in the comments section of the Weber County Forum.

UPDATE June 2, 2010 @ 4:00 AM:

The Standard offers an overview this morning in the Di Lewis article:

Residents, developers pack public hearing; lawsuits to be stayed regarding proposed Powder Mountain Town
 Be sure to watch the video on the right sidebar while you are there.  Near the end of the recording, County commission candidate Drew Johnson offers a heartfelt plea to the developers urging them to drop the plans for a town.

On the beautiful and calm Memorial Day before storm tomorrow evening at the Weber County Commission chambers, we will direct our humble readers to this morning's Di Lewis article:

Divided opinions on plans for Powder Mountain

Many Valley-ites are quoted with the majority of those quoted being opposed to the Memorandum of Understanding that will be before our humble group of all-star commissioners Tuesday evening at 6:PM (of course, get there early to get a seat).


From today's Di Lewis article:

Valley residents worry that increased traffic and the development of 2,800 units at the resort will turn their home into a polluted suburb.

"It goes far beyond the community this time," said Eden resident Sharon Holmstrom. "This time, they have the homeowners in a vise from which they cannot escape.
"If a development agreement is not reached, then homeowners are stuck with the incorporation and expense and horror of that. But if they go along with that agreement, then they undermine the general plan for the rest of the valley."
Eden resident Kirk Langford is concerned that allowing higher than normal density at the resort in order to reach a resolution will open the door for future developers to demand density variances.

Langford and Holmstrom, along with many other landowners, lost two-thirds of their development rights in the down-zoning of the valley in 1998.
Now they are worried the move the landowners hoped would preserve the valley will be pointless if the resort is allowed to have more than its allotted development rights for the amount of land.

"I'm for Powder Mountain being developed," Langford said. "I think they should get every single entitlement that they had on the land when they bought it. ...
"But I've watched people go to build one house up here, and if they're a quarter acre short, too bad, they can't build. So why should they (the resort) be able to get 1,600 more (units)?"

It's about fairness, said Eden resident Steve Clarke.
"The thing I focus on right now is the fairness issue that people who own a considerable amount of property surrendered property rights and went from 1-acre zoning to 3-acre zoning," he said.

"I feel like it's unfair for the county to give density to a resort that other people gave up willingly years ago. It's important for the county commission to acknowledge the contribution of these landowners."

But some residents believe the memorandum, with recent changes, might be the best plan they can get to end the problems in the valley, said Darla Van Zeben, an Eden resident within the incorporation boundaries and one of the residents involved in the lawsuit against the county.

The revised memorandum, now available on the county website http://www.co.weber.ut.us/commission/public_hearings.php, limits the resort to one golf course, creates a 1.5 percent fee for improvements and removes the developers' ability to withdraw from the agreement after action is taken on a neighboring development with common ownership.
Van Zeben said those were the issues creating the most worry among homeowners.
Most potential town residents don't think it's a perfect solution, she said, but it's one they can live with.

"There are parts of this deal that are tough to accept, but we're all in a tough situation and this new MOU might just be the best deal the Ogden Valley is going to get," Van Zeben said.

She said they are worried that if the incorporation is ultimately approved, it would allow unbridled development across more than 20,000 acres, rather than controlled development over 4,200 acres.

Because the incorporation petition was possible through a short-lived law, Van Zeben said she doesn't think other developers would be able to demand higher density.

 As a bonus today, we will include several letters to the editor of the June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News.  It is posted below this article so be sure to scroll down.

As an enhanced bonus, we will link to this morning's Weber County Forum Post on the subject:

Standard-Examiner: Divided Opinions on Plans for Powder Mountain

In true Rudi-esque Fashion, he has created a "cribsheet" of various articles that have appeared on the subject in recent weeks.

Before we run off to 'Vegas Baby' to roll the dice on tomorrow's outcome, we will give all a chance to join in our straw poll that is located near the top of the right side bar.

As Ron Burgandy would say during signoff, "Stay Classy Ogden Valley."

Letters To The Editor of The Ogden Valley News regarding the Powderville Hostage Crisis

The June 1, 2010 issue of the Ogden Valley News was stuffed with letters from residents concerned over the outcome Powderville.


We have scanned all of the letters and will include them below in no particular order.  We will, however, post the "Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley" first, as it is signed by several of the Powderville hostages.

An Open Letter to the Citizens of Ogden Valley
By Dan VanZeben,
Darla Longhurst-VanZeben
Taylor Satterthwaite
Jim Halay
Deja Mitchell
Kathy Dowell
Suzanne Amann
Eden

Community Being Asked to Weigh in on Controversial County Decision on Powder Mountain Development  (note:  this is not a letter to the editor but a cover story written by one of the editors of the Ogden Valley News)

By Shanna Francis

A Bad Deal For Ogden Valley
By Kimbal Wheatley
Huntsville

What Is To Happen To Our Valley
By Larry Zini
Huntsville

Courage Needed To Face Powder Mountain Developer
By Frank Cumberland
Huntsville

A Community Worth Saving
By Laura Warburton
Huntsville

Powdervillains Hold Hostages
By Sharon Holmstrom
Eden

Valley Citizens Should Not Drink the Cool-Aid Offered by Powder Mountain Developers
By Richard C. Webb
Liberty

Unlink Eden Heights development from Powder Mountain MOU
By Steve Clarke
Eden


Don't Sell the Utah Supreme Court Short!
By Sharon Zini
Huntsville

Please Attend County Commission Hearing to Indicate Support Against Powder Mountain Proposal
By Edward A. Adair
Eden

Attend Public Hearing on June 1 - Democracy works best when people participate
By Kirk Langford
Eden

After perusing the twelve letters (probably the most letters the OVN has ever printed in one issue on a particular subject), we were able to break them down into three categories:

• In Favor of the MOU         1
• Against the MOU              10
• Neutral (come together)    1

Comments on Powder Mountain Draft MOU

Submitted by Dan Schroeder, Conservation Chair, Ogden Sierra Club

May 28, 2010

Dear Commissioners:

Thank you for providing this opportunity to comment on the draft “Binding Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU) between Weber County and the owners of Powder Mountain (WAH). These comments are submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club and our more than 300 members who live in Weber County.

Before getting into the MOU itself, I would like to express our gratitude for your courageous position on the matter of appointing the Powder Mountain Town Council. It is a fundamental American principle that our leaders should be chosen by the people, not merely appointed by a particular commercial interest or by those who own the most land. This principle is enshrined in the Utah Constitution and is supported by the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ogden Valley residents of all political persuasions have now rallied behind this principle, and we have every reason to expect that the courts will agree. Weber County is therefore engaging in the present negotiations from a position of strength

With this in mind, here are the Sierra Club’s concerns with the draft MOU:

1. The MOU fails to protect the Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area.

First among the Sierra Club’s concerns is that there is no language in the draft MOU to provide any protection whatsoever to the Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area (WMA). As you know, the WMA borders the Powder Mountain property on three sides, and provides critical habitat for elk and many other wildlife species. Earlier proposals from the Powder Mountain owners have vividly shown their intent to place private home sites along much of the WMA boundary. This would threaten the WMA by enabling unauthorized entry, trail construction, motor vehicle use, and poaching. These problems already occur in other remote areas of northern Utah where private residential properties adjoin public lands. The Powder Mountain boundary is similarly remote, making law enforcement impractical.

Fortunately, there is an easy way to prevent these problems. The development plan should include a buffer zone that separates private lots from the WMA, with a trail along the entire boundary that would give law enforcement personnel access to this critical area. The trail might also be used for public recreation, to whatever extent is consistent with the overriding goal of protecting wildlife habitat.

I therefore request that if you go forward with the MOU, you add a provision for a buffer zone and other necessary protections for the WMA. It would be prudent to consult with the Forest Service and the Division of Wildlife Resources regarding the details of these provisions.

2. The traffic safety/impact study should not be delayed.

The draft MOU inappropriately postpones the initiation of the traffic/impact study until many years in the future, after nearly 1500 units have already been constructed on Powder Mountain. This delay would create long-term uncertainty over the ultimate impact of the development on the rest of Ogden Valley, including the question of whether a second access road would ever be built. It is unfair for the residents of Ogden Valley to have to live with this uncertainty for so long. Instead, the traffic/impact study should be completed before any MOU or development agreement is finalized.

3. The MOU would allow Phase 2 to proceed before safety recommendations are met.

Although Section 2.3 of the MOU requires WAH to pay for the traffic safety/impact study and to “begin implementation” of the study’s recommendations before proceeding with Phase 2, it does not actually require that the safety recommendations be fully (or even mostly) implemented. If this loophole is not closed, it will almost certainly lead to unsafe conditions and/or additional litigation.

4. The MOU is an invitation for future litigation.

WAH has already demonstrated its eagerness to go to court to get what it wants. Entering into a “binding” memorandum of understanding would give WAH additional grounds for future litigation, tying the County’s hands whenever it might seek to impose additional requirements that are not explicitly included in the MOU.

Conclusion:

While an informal MOU might serve as a useful guide for future negotiations, I am not convinced that a binding MOU would be in the best interest of the County under any circumstances. Instead, I would urge you to bring forward an actual development agreement that spells out the County’s requirements in much more detail.

Should you nevertheless choose to go ahead with this binding MOU, I urge you to amend it to address the concerns described above.

Sincerely,

Dan Schroeder

Amy Wicks meets the GEM Committee

Amy Wicks, one of the two candidates for the Weber County Commission seat B this November was the guest at the GEM Committee meeting at the Huntsville Town Hall last night.

Amy said she works for a private firm that provides support to abused children. She has also been elected to two terms as an Ogden City Council member.

Amy appears to be a straightforward, self confident candidate, and easily fielded questions on many wide ranging subjects about Ogden Valley and Weber County.

Ms. Wicks stated she is a supporter of private property rights, but also of long range planning and zoning. She indicated she is not a supporter of Eminent Domain where government agencies can simply take peoples’ land when they deem it is appropriate.

When asked about Ethics Reform, Amy stated it is needed in Utah and she does support meaningful ethics reform for our legislature.

She was asked her opinion about the MOU Powder Mountain has before the Weber County Commissioners. Amy said she did not see any compromise on the part of Powder Mountain in the MOU.

Amy was asked about the difficulty of running as a Democrat in Weber County. She responded that she has been mostly nonpartisan in her political career on the Ogden City Council, and it is difficult to get the financial campaign support needed running as an independent. She plans to address most issues with a nonpartisan approach.

Details of the great Ogden Valley Sellout available on Weber County's web site

The staff report for the upcoming Public hearing (aka, the Great Sellout of Ogden Valley) is available on the Weber County web site.

Click here to study this 26 page masterpiece

In it, you will find a time line of the events related to Powderville and some really cool maps.

To remind us all of the date, we have included this handy countdown clock.



Maybe the commissioners need to move the meeting over to the Dee Events Center.

Let's pack 'em in next Tuesday!

Powder Mountain Update: The Standard Examiner Sez "Compromise Appears Close" - UPDATED

Updated with Questions posed from an Eden resident with answers from the Weber County Planning Director.  Scroll Down to view...

We will take the easy way out this morning and leave the commentary up to the folks at the Weber County Forum.

Don't miss Rudi's rundown:


Powder Mountain Update: The Standard Examiner Sez "Compromise Appears Close"

Be sure to read Rudi's commentary carefully, especially near the end of item 1 where he states:

Whether the developer kicked up its demands during the litigation phase of negotiations we don't know; but based on the original proposed numbers, it would appear to us that the only compromising that's occurring with respect to the original "density" proposal would be on the Weber County Commission's part.

Jan Zogmeister says she wants citizen comments, so give her your comments:

I really am at a wait-and-see point," said Weber County Commissioner Jan Zogmaister.  "I've watched the whole thing progress for a couple years, so I am willing to hear it, but I also really would like to hear the input from the citizens who will be directly affected by this. ...   The whole thing has been to represent the citizens in this agreement."

 Contact Ms. Zogmaister and her friends at:

CommissionerJan Zogmaister
Commissioner Craig Dearden
Commissioner Ken Bischof

Shelly Halacy, Administrative Assistant to the Weber County Commission

(801)399-8401

Weber County Commission
2380 Washington Blvd. Suite 240
Ogden, UT 84401

UPDATE:  May 25, 2010 @ 10 PM

One of our humble Eden residents asked Weber County for answers to a few questions.  Here is the response:

Original Message-----
From: Scott, Robert
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 5:55 PM
To:
Cc: Pierce, Nate; Bischoff, Kenneth A.; Dearden, Craig; Zogmaister, Jan M.
Subject: RE: Powder Mountain Rezone

xxxx,

Here is the information you requested regarding the Powder Mountain Rezone.

1.    Was the “draft MOU” prepared by the applicant or Weber County?

The initial draft was prepared by the applicant.

2.    Was the “draft MOU” prepared with any input from Weber County staff or Commission?

Negotiations were conducted with the County Commission with staff input.

3.    Will the Planning office please provide the citizens of Weber County a simple chart showing density differences between the current zoning and that which is being proposed by the MOU.

A staff report is being prepared that will have some comparative information.

     Robert O. Scott, AICP

     Weber County Planning Director

    

Powder Mountain Memo of Understanding available - UPDATED

The Powder Mountain Memo of Understanding is now available for downloading at:

http://www.co.weber.ut.us/commission/public_hearings.php

While we have not had a chance to dissect or digest it completely,  we wanted to make sure our expert readers have a chance to analyze the MOU.  Our preliminary analysis indicates they are asking for substantially more than double the current zoning (housing units).

We will highlight three important sections:

2.1 Phase 1: 

1,477 units, meaning single-family dwelling units with hotel
rooms being counted as the equivalent of one-third 1/3 of a single family
dwelling unit. In other words, a 100 unit hotel would count as 33 units.
Commercial development is not included in the density number.
Recreational and commercial uses shall be developed as needed to
support the resort (ski lifts, lodges). Phase 1 may proceed in
accordance with this Memorandum and adoption of the DA, which shall
not otherwise impair, burden or delay implementation of Phase 1 as long
as the development complies substantially with the approved concept
plan.

2.3 Phase 2 Density. 

Upon meeting the requirements specified in 2.2 above
and the conditions and benchmarks to be specified in the DA, WAH shall
be entitled to proceed with Phase 2, an additional 1323 units, which
shall include SDUs, MDUs, and hotel rooms. Hotels, commercial and
recreation uses shall count as described in 2.1 above.


7. Eden Heights and Additional Powder Mountain Zoning. Eden Heights
consists of approximately 1,500 acres, as more specifically described in Exhibit
B to this MOU. Eden Heights is adjacent to Powder Mountain and has certain
common ownership with Powder Mountain. The Parties anticipate that Eden
Heights will be filing an application for rezoning with Weber County in the near
future.

In 1998, Ogden Valley residents forfeited 2/3's of their development rights when Weber County changed minimum zoning from 1 acre to 3 acres.

Snowbasin is using the Resort zone to preserve open space on the valley floor while gaining extra density at the resort.

Powder Mountain is agreeing to release the "Powderville hostages" in exchange substantial increases in density.

Two things appear obvious:

1. Powder Mountain doesn't really want to force incorporate a small group of hostages who don't want to be forced into a company town.
2. Powder Mountain is wary of the outcome of the Supreme court case.

The June 1 public hearing is likely just a formality of a deal done long ago, but if ever there was a time for our ELECTED officials to draw a line in the snow, the time is now!

What say ye, Ogden Valley?

UPDATE:  5/21/10 @ 8 am

The Weber County Forum  has some interesting posts and comments about the contentious Powder Mountain issue.

We suggest that you check it out in preparation for the June 1st meeting in the
Commission chambers. 

Be sure to read the analysis by Frankc.
• Frank C. comments 5/20/10