No request to increase overall Valley density has been approved for many years. Until the legal, precedent-setting implications of approving the PM request are well understood, no action should be taken. It is quite likely that awarding additional density to Powder Mountain will open the floodgates for similar requests that will be difficult to deny (because of precedent) and turn an 18,800+ unit problem into a 30,000 unit problem.
Below are basic questions as well as detail for the conclusions I reached:
Discrepancies in the fundamentals – until various inconsistencies are understood and resolved, no one can really decipher the true density impact of the PM proposal.
1. There are huge discrepancies between the “existing zoning” acreage in the Powder Mountain (PM) “density tables” and the analysis in the Recreation Element of the General Plan (RE). Either BioWest or PM (or both) are wrong in computing base density by zone.
2. The zoning maps in the planning office show no FV-3 zones in the PM project area, but the PM “existing zoning” table shows 582 acres.
3. There are also huge discrepancies between the build-able acreage computations in the PM proposal and RE.
4. Existing zoning density claimed in the FR-3 zone doesn’t match up with the requirements in the FR-3 ordinance. PM claims existing density in FR-3 of 20 units per build-able acre. However, FR-3 requires 6,000 square feet for single family and 7,500+ for multi-family (plus 2,000 ft per unit in excess of two). This means the maximum density in this zone is 7.26 units/acre for single family, 11.62/acre for two-family, 15.15/acre for 4-plex, and 17.87/acre for 8-plex. Even 16-plex buildings don’t reach the 20 units/acre.
Missing critical information – rationale and assumptions underlying the PM request must be complete to properly consider the proposal.
5. The PM proposal provides no justification for the bonus densities indicated in their density tables. Their “existing zoning” density is based on bonuses of 20% in F40, 30% in FR-3, and 30% in FV-3. In their “proposed zoning” table, the F40 bonus is computed at 20% and FV-3 at 25%. The RE tables for PM indicate 0% bonus in FV3 zones. Justification must be provided for any bonus assumptions.
6. Only about half of the PM property in the RE analysis is included in the PM proposal. This leaves 4,259 acres in an unknown. Perhaps PM intends to propose another 2800 units on this property…or maybe they will place it into open space. In any case, an honest master plan must include the other half of their holdings.
7. The PM proposal only shows a few units in Cache county, but there is reason to believe the Cache county portion is much larger. Since 100% of the traffic will end up traversing Ogden Valley, the impact of the proposal cannot be understood until the whole project is understood, regardless of the county it is located in.
8. The PM proposal requests their CVR-1 acreage be increased from 24.8 to 125 acres, increasing units in this zone from 350 to 1940 units plus commercial space. The square footage of commercial space proposed must be included.
Thank you for considering my views.
Kimbal L. Wheatley, East Huntsville
