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!

Realtor donations to Utah Gov. Herbert reach $100K - Is Ethics reform needed?

Utah Association of Realtors (UAR) has a firm grip on politics in Utah

Be sure to read Curmudgeon's latest:

Standard-Examiner Flinches On Herbert Campaign Finance Headline

Curm exposes some headline changes at the Standard with regards to the more than $100K in donations to Hebert's campaign from the Utah Association of Realtors.  Don't forget to read the comments as well.

Regular readers of this forum will remember nearly three years ago when "Minor Machman" exposed the Utah Association of Realtors.  

From the UAR  in 2007:

LEARNING CURVE: Percentage of Utah legislators receiving perfect scores from the Utah Association of Realtors
1999: 6%
2000: 8%
2001: 24%
2002: 31%
2003: 56%
2004: 53%
2005: 60%
Source: Utah Association of Realtors

 Interestingly, the numbers correspond closely with the Realtor/Developer takeover of the legislator which culminated with former UAR President Gary Hebert becoming the Governor of Utah in 2009.

We think Peter Coroon is looking better every day.

Say No to the UEG Petition? Local Resident Thinks We Need To

The Ogden Valley Forum has been calling for Ethics reform for some time.  We have also been promoting the Utahn's For Ethical Government Petition.

Ogden Valley resident Laura Warburton offers a counterpoint in her essay,  


Why We Need to Say NO to the UEG Ethics Petition.

Warburton lists many supporting points and in her conclusion, she states,

The above is just a spattering of unethical aspects of this insidious petition. The UEG ethics petition is nothing more than a (UEA) Utah Educators Association coup. It’s a cleverly disguised weapon to gain power over the Utah state legislators; something they’ve longed for.

We know the results of the Utah Association of Realtors coup, so maybe a UEA coup would not be so bad.

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

OGDEN VALLEY BALLOON FESTIVAL POSTPONED TO 2011

Organizers cite RAMP up time, unfavorable economic conditions & date conflicts

Organizers of the 2010 Ogden Valley Balloon & Artist Festival voted today to postpone the event to mid-August, 2011, citing unfavorable economic conditions, timing with sponsor and grant funding as well as issues with the event dates.


The Board, which consists of community volunteers, had hoped to recruit a dedicated person to solicit corporate sponsors. When that person did not materialize through outreach efforts, Board members felt that the results required from this effort could not realistically be achieved. 2010 Chairperson Gladys Mundelius commented, “We all dedicate hundreds of hours organizing the event, and none of us could take on the additional responsibility.” Timing was also a factor. “The key to raising funds from corporate sponsors and the various entities that offer grants such as the Weber County RAMP tax is to get the fundraising effort started in the fall for the following year. By postponing this year’s event, our Board will be energized to take on this effort come fall. We’re usually exhausted after the August event and need a few months to re-group. That won’t be the case this fall.”

Date conflicts with several Valley and regional events caused delays in organizing efforts but on a very positive note, all the organizations attempting to schedule events tried very hard to work together. “That was great to see” noted Mundelius “We were touched by the efforts our neighbors underwent to try to work through the date conflicts.” By getting an early start for 2011, we can publish our dates well in advance to notify other event organizers.”

The Board is also pursuing teaming up with other Valley organizations to help improve the event and add much needed manpower to the event planning efforts “If all goes as planned, this breather will result in a really fantastic event in 2011 that offers increased community involvement.”

“Our Board of Directors made the fiscally responsible decision. We are a non-profit organization that is fully funded by the support of our sponsors for organizations expenses. We felt the postponement was the only fiscally responsible thing to do. As a non-profit volunteer organization, we simply don’t have the purse to fund the event, which costs in excess of $50,000 to produce.”

For updates on planning for the 2011 Festival, please bookmark www.ogdenvalleyballoonfestival.com and check it periodically.

Huntsville Proceeds with toll booth

In today's Standard we read that Huntsville is proceeding with a toll booth on the road that leads to Cemetery Point.  Be sure to read this Di Lewis article:

Huntsville only town with two tollbooths around

From the article, Mayor Jim Truett stated:

Traffic from summer recreationists is damaging the road and Huntsville doesn't have money to pay for repairs, he said, adding that the road has been a problem for years and is getting to the point where the town has to take action.

"We do not want to do this, but we have absolutely no choice," Truett said. "It's really sad that AL&L will not work with us because of the damage caused by the motorists."

First Street leads to Forest Service land, access to which is restricted by a tollbooth run by American Land & Leisure. The toll is $10 for access to the popular boating area.

Truett said the town council has asked for help from the Forest Service and AL&L, and the best plan is to add $2 to the toll AL&L charges to go to a First Street perpetual road fund.

He said AL&L has rejected that plan, though, so the town is ready to create its own toll booth, which would charge $3, with the extra dollar to pay the booth operator. He said the booth would be operational when Cemetery Point opens.

 We discussed this issue in March and we understand the booth is under construction and will open in the next week or so.

What is so bad about the idea behind Powder Mountain being developed?

Guest comment by JRP  - a comment in response to our  post:

Public Hearing on June 1st about Powder Mountain

JRP asked some questions early this morning and we wanted to make sure the questions were not overlooked by our humble readers.  We copied and pasted the post below unedited.

Can anyone help JRP out?

Forgive my ignorance, but what is so bad about the general idea behind Powder Moutain being developed. I know that there are certain restrictions and limitiations but those are arbitrary, right? I mean, they can be undone just as easy as they were implemented. In fact, some people would argue that the current zoning rules regarding Ogden Valley are biased or skewed toward a thype of unfounded protectionism.

I also, find it interesting that people don't seem to look at how this will benefit the local and general Utah economy. The quintessential objection to any type of development (helipad etc...) is "NIMBY" (not in my back yard). I think that holding such as stance reduceds the objector to a mere hypocrite, as per the objector argues that the developers are egotistical yet is he not being equal?

I would like to know, economically and morally, why the basic idea of allowing Powder Moutain is reprehensible.

Public Hearing on June 1st about Powder Mountain --- UPDATED

On June 1st, 2010 at 6 PM, a public hearing regarding the Powder Mountain rezone and development will be held in the Weber County Commission Chambers, 2380 Washington Blvd. in Ogden.

We submit that it is important that all concerned Northern Utah and Ogden Valley residents attend this hearing in substantial numbers to be heard and to demonstrate to the County Commissioners that a reasonable and fair resolution is an important issue to all of us.

We know that recent negotiations between Commissioner Dearden and the Powder Mountain owners/developers were encouraged by a minority of the Utah State Legislative leaders who, for some unfathomable reason, would not undo the egregious civil rights damage of HB466 passed in 2007.

Ogden Valley residents are concerned about any “deal” between the County Commissioners and the developers that would exchange the town incorporation for increased density (dwellings) numbers for Powder Mountain that would destroy the Ogden Valley General Plan‘s density numbers produced in 1998.

We are also concerned that such a deal will ignore the need for a second road access and the 17 other conditions regarding the development and rezone outlined by the Ogden Valley Planning Commission during the initial petition process.

Click here to read the call for involvement from Kirk Langford, longtime Valley resident and activist


UPDATE:  May 17, 2010 @ 5 PM

Be sure to read today's Weber County Forum where Rudi encourages his humble readers to attend the meeting.

Is the ACLU relevant in Utah?

Whilst sitting down this morning to post a  story about this morning's Standard Guest commentary by Larry Zini, we realized that Rudi had gotten up a bit earlier this morning and penned this most excellent rant.

Standard-Examiner Guest Commentary: Is the ACLU Relevant in Utah?

Where the hell has the Utah ACLU been during the entire several year pendency of the Powder Mountain matter?

We can't say it any better than that; however, Zini makes many good points and we will highlight just a couple:

In many other areas of the United States this would be just the kind of issue the ACLU would be ready to actively support, but despite repeated attempts to get them involved on the side of the affected Powder Mountain homeowners, the ACLU has made no effort to investigate or help.

There could be reasons that the ACLU has ignored the plight of the Powder Mountain homeowners. First, the affected homeowners are not minorities, but simply citizens who have been denied equal protection under a flawed law passed in the Utah State Legislature.

It is also possible that the ACLU is intimidated by the power structure in the State of Utah and is reluctant to get involved in a high profile case that may embarrass some state politicians. Either scenario is unacceptable.

 We note that the ACLU has jumped right in on the high profile Arizona immigration issue.

What say ye Ogden Valley-ites - Is the ACLU relevant in Utah?

Guest Post from an Ogden Valley Resident

May 4, 2010

I attended the Ogden Valley Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, April 27, 2010. The reason I went was to get an update on the “Conditional Use Permit” for a heliport at the Red Moose Lodge. The update was the last item on the Commission’s agenda. Before getting to the heliport item, we listened to a presentation on the Blacksmith Village development, in downtown Eden. This presentation was well prepared; information was comprehensive and very explicit. Ultimately, the Blacksmith Village was approved. There was some apprehension though from one of the Commission members. The concern was over whether to allow curbing as part of the development “as it may detract from the rural atmosphere” of the valley. Some thoughts that came to my mind were that I don’t recall any detailed presentation from the Heliport CUP applicants and there was no discussion on how the heliport operation could “detract from the rural atmosphere.”

The Heliport CUP update from the commission was basically this. There were four main issues they were to try to resolve in the previous 60 days.

· Helicopter refueling from a public road

· Impacts on wildlife

· Safety

· Agreement on flight frequency

Of the four issues, they resolved the issue of refueling from a public road. They will not do this anymore. They will pull the truck into the parking lot to refuel – I guess. The wildlife issue is still pending on a response from the State Department of Natural Resources. They contacted the FAA and their response was that they had no requirements for this type of activity. My understanding is that any safety issues or requirements are the responsibility of the local government – in this case the county. That was the extent of the safety issue. As far as flight frequency there was no resolution on that issue yet pending more discussion with the CUP applicants Diamond Peaks and Wolf Creek (RLR Properties LLC/JCA Properties). They mentioned that there was some discussion on alternate flight paths and using other locations – but no apparent resolutions on these.

There wasn’t much detail given in this update. My impression was that the Commissioners really didn’t want to discuss it too much and that it would somehow disappear through some sort of economic attrition process. Public comment on this issue was not allowed. One commissioner said that maybe a better option for them would be to use the Cache county side for their heliport. I rest my case.

The point I am making here is that I think the Commissioners need more input from the public. They realize that the current heliport has many negatives. These negatives were pointed out to them in the original meeting on this issue in addition to letters they received from the public. The one big issue that was mentioned was the future potential development of the property surrounding that area. Unfortunately, I think that has more impact than the noise, safety, or wildlife impacts. Looking at the zoning regulations – CV-2 allows for a conditional use Heliport. So given this is one of the few CV-2 zones in the area, I think this may end up being the permanent heliport and hub of additional helicopter activities, if the CUP is allowed.

I encourage you to write to the Planning Commission. I think the emphasis should be on finding a solution. This may include 1) encourage the commission to find a better alternate site ( a site that wouldn't require a flight over the entire valley) 2) Emphasize the detrimental impacts on future development in that area along with your safety, wildlife and rural detraction concerns.

I spoke with the Planning office manager Sherri Sillitoe and she said that you could send comments to her email; she will compile them and give them to the Commissioners. Her email is ssillito@co.weber.ut.us. There is also a link to her email in the Planning minute’s site on the right side of the page.

http://www.co.weber.ut.us/wiki/index.php/Ogden_Valley_Agendas_%26_Minutes

Other options are to fax the comments to 801-399-8862 or mail comments to:

Weber County Planning Division

2380 Washington Blvd., Suite 240

Ogden, Utah 84401

Guest Post From Ron Tymcio

Kerry Gibson Meets the GEM Committee

Kerry Gibson, a candidate for the Weber County Commission seat B, was a guest speaker at the GEM committee meeting on Wednesday night. The GEM committee plans to host all candidates (Amy Wicks, Drew Johnson and Jan Zogmaister) for the Weber County Commission seats at later GEM meetings this election year.

Mr. Gibson, who lives in West Weber County, came across as a affable yet serious man at the meeting. He is a Dairy Farmer by trade and has served 6 years in the Utah State legislature. He has also formerly served on the West Weber County Planning Commission.

Mr. Gibson talked about his political philosophy and emphasized his commitment to private property rights. His wife’s family lives in the Ogden Valley and he indicated he is aware of the ongoing development issues that concern Ogden Valley residents. He stated he had been briefed on the ongoing Powder Mountain rezone issue.

The Ogden Valley Forum intends to submit written questions to all candidates for the Weber County Commission seats to ascertain their positions on important issues such as Ethics, property development, helicopter activity in the Valley and Ogden Valley zoning changes that will impact our Valley in the future. The candidates responses or lack of responses to those questions will be published on the Ogden Valley blog.

If you have any questions for candidate Kerry Gibson, you may reach him at : gibson@gmail.com.