OCR Text |
Show Volume XXII Issue XI The Ogden Valley news Page 3 August 1, 2014 Editor’s View Guest Commentary Our Community’s Vision for Ogden Valley? What happened! Weber County’s Accessory Apartment Ordinance a Bad Idea An agenda item on the Ogden Valley Township Planning Commission meeting held July 22 included a presentation by Weber County principle planner Charlie Ewert. The presentation addressed a study recently completed—Ogden Valley Maximum Zoning Density Study—that provides an estimate of Ogden Valley’s maximum density at build out—approximately 24,117 units. Currently, there are about 3,600 units (homes, condos, etc.) Valleywide. To visualize what build out might look like, times the number of existing homes, cars on the road, level of pollution and noise, and the overall current urban footprint by almost seven, and you will have a general idea of the Valley’s future complexion if current planning practices are not redirected. You can also add to this growth, a heavy increase in the number of visitors as populations on the Wasatch Front continue to expand, and successfully calculated marketing strategies continue to be implemented and ratcheted up to specifically bring traffic into Ogden Valley, courtesy of local business groups such as the Ogden Valley Business Association (OVBA) and the Ogden/ Weber Chamber of Commerce, the state’s organized ski industry, the Utah Office of Tourism, and even our own tax-supported Weber County Commissioners, who are all striving diligently to stimulate and attract business and traffic to our “rural” community. Other players who work hard and invest heavily—nationally and even internationally— in trying to drum up excess interest in and traffic to the Valley include developers and land speculators. Our Weber County Commissioners— and even our Weber County School Board— are even subsidizing and backing development with financial guarantees, sadly, on critical and sensitive lands. In contrast, our elected officials should be working to protect our critical wildlife habitats and, even more importantly, our prime watershed, which almost a hundred thousand individuals, or more, rely on for potable, secondary, and/or recreational waters in both Cache and Weber Counties. They could learn from former public servants who worked to protect other watershed areas ringing Ogden Valley, which, in years past, were restored and protected through county, state, and federal land acquisitions and partnerships around the Wheeler Creek, South Fork, and North Fork drainages. Unfortunately, in regards to a watershed that supports a much larger contingency of wildlife, agriculture, and urbanization, no such concerted effort has been orchestrated within the drainages radiating down from Powder Mountain. During his recent presentation, Weber County planner Ewert asked a critical question to be kept in mind by every Valley resident during the planning process as a new General Plan is developed for Ogden Valley, “Are we comfortable with growing at status quo, or are changes needed?” He reminded the audience in attendance that planning will occur in Ogden Valley . . . even if it is by default due to a lack of proactive, weighted and intelligent planning. He also noted that planning also involves winners and losers—it is inevitable. However, so does a lack of planning. Unfortunately, losses from poor or limited planning—which can happen quickly—are often irreparable. Or, if not irreparable, extremely cost prohibitive to mitigate or minimize. Ewert’s comments took me back to my years of studying Public Administration and Urban Planning. Central to administration and “planning” is . . . of course . . . planning, which always starts at square one with the question being, “What are you trying to accomplish as you plan; what is the purpose of your efforts; where do you want to be in 10, 20, or 50+ years, i.e., what is your vision for the future. Vision . . . you have to have a vision . . . . How many times have we all heard this mantra? Ogden Valley has a vision—a vision statement, which the community gathered and met together to develop. This Vision Statement, which is part of Ogden Valley’s current General Plan, which was adopted in 1998. It states, “Ogden Valley is a place which values and protects its natural beauty and natural resources, cherishes and maintains its rural atmosphere and rural lifestyle, and empowers its citizenry to take part in decisions affecting the Valley.” The Vision Statement narrative continues, “The residents of Ogden Valley care deeply about the Valley they call ’home.’ They enjoy their rural lifestyle and the natural beauty that surrounds them. They are justifiably proud of the unique characteristics of Ogden Valley, its timeless mix of pioneer heritage, agricultural lands, recreational opportunities, abundant wildlife, scenic vistas, and quiet living. Visitors to the Valley are struck by its unspoiled character and its unassuming charm. The people of Ogden Valley value these qualities and recognize that protecting preserving and fostering these qualities requires foresight and wisdom. Their shared affection for the Valley and their hopes for its future guide them as they embark on this planning process.” The narrative also reads, “Water nourishes the Valley’s inhabitants. The North, Middle and South Forks of the Ogden River meander slowly through the Valley and finally converge at Pineview Reservoir. . . . The waters collected in Pineview and Causey Reservoirs lap quietly against the shore, glistening in the brilliant rays of the summer sun, bathing in the icy glow of the winter moon.” Other points associated with the General Plan’s Vision of the Valley, and accompanyEDITOR’S VIEW cont. on page 13 Seize The Opportunity! Five 5-plus acre, truly private, panoramic, wooded, view lots starting at $275,000 Ten minutes north of Eden. Weber County has implemented changes to Section 108 of the County Code for unincorporated Weber County, effectively vacating any current single family subdivision that has been platted and recorded. The change for subdivisions in A-1 and A-3 zoning of unincorporated Weber County allows as a permitted use, accessory apartments as large as 25% of gross livable floor area of a currently built home. Subdivisions are recorded after being approved for the number of homes desired by the developer, review by the planning staff, discussion and recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission with changes usually made to the number of homes allowed, applying “bonus” densities for open space and amenities in the planned subdivision, and, finally, approved by the County Commissioners. Current Zoning allows for a “mother-inlaw” apartment, and no one would argue with such an arrangement; however, Weber County has decided to allow accessory apartments as a conditional use in unincorporated Weber County subdivisions as a tool for addressing a need for moderate income housing. With little or any consideration given to the fact that these developments were planned and built as single family housing that initially attracted the owners who purchased into these subdivisions, and having done so with the expectation of the zoning stipulated for a single family subdivision at that time. Weber County should address the moderate income housing need in another manner. If a developer can plan for and make a development viable for moderate income housing, whether in an apartment or lower cost multiple family housing format, that should be pursued. The Market should determine the course of action to be pursued for a fix to the issue so it is not foisted upon property owners in single family subdivisions who will, after-the-fact, have to live with the burden of this intrusion. By this change, which adds this conditional use to any A-1/A-3 subdivision, even if they have in place an active HOA and CC&R’s having specific language prohibiting dwellings from being occupied by anyone other than owners, members of the immediate family, or rented to a single family user, is a trampling of rights that were protected under previous zoning that conveyed an economic and property right expectation. Weber County concerns and action taken for addressing the moderate income housing issue are admirable; however, the multidimensional downside, of the approach taken, to any subdivision is easily seen by current property owners. Will the homeowner who has been granted the conditional use permit ensure increased insurance coverage for the accessory apartment, assuming liabilities that could occur including damage or loss to adjacent properties because of actions by the renter? This was not a consideration as a condition of approval by Weber County in its actions here. This is a concern of the owners in the affected subdivision. Will the HOA members be held liable if a renter is injured on privately owned HOA common area property? Should the HOA be forced to amend their CC&R’s to include an increase of liability coverage for the HOA (now required under State HOA Law changes), or make changes to the CC&R’s specifically barring an accessory apartment occupant from using HOA common area property since the renter is not a guest or relative of the property owner, but a paying occupant of the rental apartment only. With an occupant having no vested interest in maintaining fences, weed control, or other common area needs, this would seem a fair solution. Any subdivision is the sum of all its parts concerning overall home values. A home having an accessory apartment may cause adjacent properties to suffer a loss of value. If so, this loss of value will become demonstrable and quantifiable; therefore, recompense of that loss could be pursued. If the HOA determines the loss is sufficient enough to impact the subdivision as a whole, any actions taken could be for recovery of a considerable amount. Accessory Apartments may be viable for other A-1/A-3 zoned home sites not built in already recorded subdivisions, and this would not cause a detrimental impact to homeowners who have made a sizable investment in a single family subdivision with the reasonable expectation that the subdivision would remain a single family neighborhood. Weber County should reassess and rescind the change that now allows accessory apartments as a conditional use in A-1/A-3 zoning for existing subdivisions, and apply the conditional use only to homes that are not part of any existing and established single family subdivision in unincorporated areas of Weber County. Bill Siegel, Eden Inspirational Thought “Our doubts are traders and make us lose the good we oft might win by daring to attempt.” -- William Shakespeare |