General Growth

General Growth

Housing & Employment

Housing & Employment

Transportation & Infrastructure

Transportation & Infrastructure

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Recreation & Trails

Recreation & Trails

Coordination

Coordination

Acknowledgements & Table of Contents

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint

Implementation Toolkit

58

Envision Bear Lake Valley

57

47

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint

47

46

Building a Legacy Together

46

ii

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint

iii

2

Introduction

3

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint

39

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint

9

Public Process

8

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint

The Vision

44

26

The Vision

41

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint and Toolkit Building a Legacy Together

Acknowledgements

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint Funding Sponsors

Project Partners

Rich County, Utah

Bear Lake County, Idaho

Bear Lake Regional Commission

Funding Sponsors

Anonymous (1)

Bear Lake County, Idaho

Bear Lake Memorial Hospital

Bloomington

Envision Utah

Farmland Reserve

Garden City, Utah

George S. & Dolores Doré Eccles Foundation

Laketown

Lawrence T. and Janet T. Dee Foundation

Marriner S. Eccles Foundation

Montpelier, Idaho

MSL Family Foundation

Nebeker Family Foundation

Norman C. & Barbara L. Tanner Family

Rich County, Utah

Richard K. & Shirley S. Hemingway Foundation

Robert A. Patterson and Barbara M. Patterson

 Family Memorial Foundation

Rocky Mountain Power

Schmidt Family Foundation

Span Foundation

Suburban Land Reserve

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

 Saints Foundation

The Cottle Consortium – David and Claudia

 Cottle

Zions Bank

Bear Lake Lodging: in-kind

Bear Lake Regional Commission: in-kind

Bear Lake Watch, Inc.: in-kind

Bear Lake Valley Executive Committee

Lori Haddock, Co-Chair

Duane Robinson, Co-Chair

Claudia Cottle

Bill Cox

Carolyn Nebeker

Reed Peterson

Mitch Poulsen

Vaughn Rasmussen

John Spuhler

Bear Lake Valley Steering Committee

Amy Bishop

Roy Bunderson

Martha Burbidge

Mary Ann Cassell

Randee Cornia

David Cottle

Claudia Cottle

Zac Covington

Bill Cox

Greg Critchfield

Evan Curtis

Marcy DeMillion

Jack Draxler

Dennis Duehren

Art Fanconi

Nancy Florence

Marc Gibbs

Lori Haddock

Kerry Haddock

Travis Hobbs

Judy Holbrook

Bill Hopkin

Brian House

Dana Jacobson

Christy Jensen

Jordan Jensen

Krista Klein

Montain Kunz

Dan Kurek

Brent Lewis

Gary Mckee

Norm Mecham

Ronda Menlove

Gene Merrick

Alan Michaelson

Diane Miskin

Rosa Moosman

Kip Motta

Carolyn Nebeker

Bryce Nielson

Bret Oxborrow

Dan Peart

Reed Peterson

Marden Phelps

Mitch Poulsen

Les Prall

Vaughn Rasmussen

Cathy Rey

Duane Robinson

Eldon Robinson

Demar Romrell

Alan Schwab

Craig Showalter

Kent Sorenson

John Spuhler

Craig Thomas

Bob VanCleave

Stuart Wamsley

Jessica Ward

Gene Watson

Paul Webb

Norm Weston

Sim Weston

Anita Weston

Clark Willis

Charlie Winder

George Winquistm

Thanks to all steering committee members and funding sponsors for valuable contributions to the Bear Lake Valley Blueprint! Most of all, thanks to community leaders and the public who, through the Blueprint process, created a vision for the future of Bear Lake Valley.

Thanks to those who made the printing of this document possible.

Project Facilitator

Christie Oostema, Deputy Planning Director

Envision Utah

Photo Source: www.flickr.com/photos/griffithtami

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

• Introduction • Process • Population Projection

Chapter 2: Public Process

• Committees • Baseline Development • Workshops, Results, & Analysis • Alternative Growth Scenario Maps & Analysis • Survey Results & Vision Development

8

Chapter 3: The Bear Lake Valley Vision

• Vision Statement • Vision Principles • Vision Benefits • Vision Maps

26

Chapter 4: Building a Legacy Together

• Realizing the Vision • Creating an Action Plan • Progress to Date

46

56

Chapter 5: Implementation Toolkit

• What is a Toolkit? • Tools

Visioning is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take a long-range look at a region and envision what it could become as the future unfolds. Unique from typical planning processes, including general planning, land use code development, and permitting, visioning enables residents to take a fresh look at the future, to explore newly relevant ideas, and to examine past trends. Most important, visioning is a public process, in which broad participation is invited and encouraged.

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8430129@N06/

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Bear Lake Valley Blueprint is an opportunity to explore growth-related issues and to think together about what we want the Bear Lake area—both Rich County, Utah, and Bear Lake County, Idaho—to be like in the future.

What is the Bear Lake Valley Blueprint?

Because this is a grassroots-up process, its goal is to create a vision that reflects the values of the public, the voice of the public, and the vision of the public. Broad public participation is invaluable as, together, we build a legacy for future generations.

Increasingly, Bear Lake County and Rich County are becoming an interdependent region, with Bear Lake at its heart. Political boundaries like county or state lines are important in many respects, but regions often transcend lines on a map. We drive the same roads, share economic challenges, and enjoy the same natural resources. Many of the decisions that we make locally affect everyone regionally.

As the decisions that we make today affect neighboring communities, the decisions that we make also affect future generations. We help shape much of the future—from employment opportunities and public infrastructure to recreational options and natural resources—now. The Bear Lake Valley Blueprint enables us to ask the questions: What legacy should we leave behind for future generations? What kind of future do we want to create for our children and grandchildren?

The Blueprint captures a common dream for the future while respecting the private property rights of landowners. With this dream in mind, we can move beyond asking, “What do we want?” and move toward answering, “How do we get there?” The broad public participation of this process makes the Vision and implementation strategy politically actionable. The Blueprint represents a legacy that can be created for future generations, as citizens and community leaders work together toward common goals.

Background

A steering committee of local citizens guided the Bear Lake Valley Blueprint process, and Envision Utah, a nonprofit that pioneered regional visioning, facilitated the effort. Committee members committed to a transparent and public process in which citizens could explore the challenges and opportunities associated with growth and work toward the creation of a long-term vision for the region. Participants explored such issues as growth locations and patterns, private property rights, water quality, recreation, job growth, housing, and agriculture.

Assumptions:

Residents have the right to choose their future—public officials should serve that vision. The “public” will make good choices if presented with real options.

Preserving our quality of life as a community and protecting individual private property rights is essential.

Implementation is local. A regional vision enables cooperation and the exploration of potential implementation strategies. Citizens and their leaders determine in their own communities which strategies make the most sense to implement at a local level.

Process

The Bear Lake Valley Blueprint was designed to achieve a broadly-supported, publicly created vision of how residents want the region to grow. It is a scenarios planning process that enables residents to create, examine and test several alternative growth patterns to better understand the impacts of today’s decisions on our future quality of life. Basic steps include:

•

Forming a broad, representative steering committee to guide the process.

•

Researching recent and projected population and land use trends.

•

Developing a baseline scenario, a picture of the region that projects recent land use trends into the future.

•

Engaging citizens and stakeholders in activities that explore growth issues and choices through eight workshops and an online survey.

•

Developing a range of alternative growth scenarios based on public preferences that explore growth issues and choices. Each scenario is a “snapshot” illustrating and testing various growth options.

•

Exploring the consequences of various land-use decisions in each scenario.

•

Engaging citizens and stakeholders in evaluation of the scenarios and their components (three town hall meetings and an online survey).

•

Creating a vision statement, vision principles that reflect public values, and an illustrated vision map.

•

Developing a plausible implementation framework and compiling an implementation toolkit for use by local communities and residents.

•

Empowering local leaders, citizens and stakeholders to implement the Vision.

“The future is not some place we’re going to, but a place we are creating. The paths to it are not found, they are made.” –Jane Garvey

What Could the Bear Lake Area Be Like in 2060?

State and county governments routinely prepare population estimates and projections to improve their ability to plan and provide needed services, and these numbers are widely used by local governments, schools, and businesses. Working from a baseline year, demographers project births, deaths, and migration out to a given year to create a population projection. Unlike many parts of Utah and Idaho, which are experiencing rapid annual rates of permanent resident population growth, Bear Lake County and Rich County are not expected to add large permanent populations in the next 50 years. Projections for Bear Lake County envision a relatively stable population, and Rich County, with a significantly smaller current population, is expected to double its population. Across the counties, the overall permanent resident population is projected to increase from about 8,000 to 10,000, but population estimates and projections are only part of the picture.

When we examine housing trends and projections, it is clear that part-time residents, who are not captured in population projections, will play a significant role in the growth of the Bear Lake area. While the region’s full-time population is growing modestly, housing stock is increasing rapidly, largely due to the increase in part-time residents. The Blueprint process examined housing units developed between 1990 and 2010, or roughly two economic cycles. Rich County’s housing stock grew from 1,573 units in 1990 to 2,782 units in 2010, and Bear Lake County grew from 2,583 units to 3,595. Today, 61% of our housing stock is second homes. By 2060, second homes are projected to comprise 74% of our housing stock.

Given the likelihood of growth, it is helpful to examine recent development patterns in detail to discover what life might be like if the Bear Lake area continues growing as it has. The Blueprint includes the development of a “baseline scenario,” or picture of what the region may look like if growth continues both where and how it has in the past. Simply put, the baseline projects the patterns of the last 20 years into the future. It does not necessarily project the most likely future, but it does provide a baseline to which other ideas—ideas that come from the public—can be compared. In the Blueprint process, the baseline helps residents ask themselves if the region is heading toward the future they desire or if some changes are in order.

As in many regions in the United States, our population is growing, but our land use patterns are also changing. Nationally, we develop almost two million acres per year. Over the past two decades developed land has increased almost 50%, while our population has increased less than 25%. In general, our urbanized land area is growing at a faster rate than our population. We are building on larger lots than we used to. The Blueprint explores not only population growth, but also how we use our land. How we grow makes a difference.

Region-wide Share of Housing

39%

Primary Residences

2010

61%

Secondary Residences

26%

Primary Residences

2060

74%

Secondary Residences

Population & Projections by County

8,000

7,000

6,044

6,000

5,000

4,147

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

1970

2000

2020

2060

2030

2040

2050

1980

1990

2010

Source: US Census, Utah Governors Office of Planning & Budget, and Bear Lake County

Housing Units Built and Projected: Primary and Secondary Residences by County

10,000

9,517

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,159

5,000

4,000

3,376

3,000

2,000

1,742

1,000

0

1990

2000

2010

2050

2060

2020

2040

2030

Source: Bear Lake County Assessor, Rich County Assessor, Utah Governors Office of Planning & Budget, and Envision Utah

Photo Source: Bear Lake Realty

Photo Source: http://posterous.com/explore/tag/bearlake

Chapter 2: Public Process

Citizens from all nine municipalities as well as unincorporated areas of Bear Lake County and Rich County participated in the Bear Lake Valley Blueprint process, making possible the creation of a regional vision created by the public. Workshops enabled residents to craft maps expressing their ideal future, town hall meetings provided opportunities to evaluate ideas proposed by the public at prior events, and online surveys provided another way to provide feedback. More than 1,000 people were involved in the creation of the Blueprint.

The Bear Lake Valley Steering Committee

The steering committee is composed of a diverse group of citizens, community leaders, and elected officials. Charged with guiding the visioning effort, the steering committee ensured a transparent process that encouraged and welcomed public participation, giving citizens the opportunity to explore the challenges associated with growth and express preferences leading to the creation of a publicly supported regional vision. Envision Utah facilitated the process under the direction of the steering committee.

The Baseline Scenario

The Blueprint is a scenarios planning process. A scenarios planning process enables a region to explore and test several alternative growth patterns to better understand the impact of today’s decisions on future quality of life. Scenarios planning begins with an analysis of what the future could be like if recent trends continue. The 2060 Baseline Scenario represents this projection.

The baseline scenario was created by examining development patterns of the last 20 years (1990-2010)—two complete economic cycles—to understand how much and where growth has occurred, and what development patterns, including average lot sizes, it has followed. This information was used to create a picture of our region in the future if trends continue. When we project housing trends forward, we see significant growth in both counties, with about 13,400 new homes built. About 10,800 of them would be second homes, and 2,600 would be primary residences. There will be almost three times as many houses in 2060 as there are today, and more than 40,000 acres of land will be affected.

Is the baseline the most likely picture of the future? No. It’s simply a plausible projection of a 20-year trend, without speculating about demographic shifts, the economy, or changes to land use plans. While it is not necessarily the most likely future, it does provide a sense of where the region may be headed if past trends continue. It also provides a point of reference to compare ideas generated by the public.

While it is interesting to speculate about how much we will grow, it is most helpful to examine how we grow. In reality, we don’t know for sure how much we will grow, but if we know how we want to grow, we will be prepared for whatever growth comes.

Public Workshops and Survey

Community events are the heart of the visioning process. These events capture public values and preferences regarding growth to create a citizen-supported long-term vision. Public workshops are the first step in this process. Citizens participated in eight workshops and an online survey in August and September 2010. Workshops were held in Fish Haven, Garden City, Georgetown, Montpelier, Paris, Randolph, and Salt Lake City. An additional meeting was also held for all local leaders and elected officials. Participants explored how growth could occur in future years, and those at the workshops worked collectively to create 32 maps illustrating their ideas regarding jobs, housing, transportation, conservation, and recreation. These preferences, along with information from a survey conducted at each workshop and on the Internet, were analyzed and used to develop alternative growth scenarios.

Analysis of Public Ideas and Preferences

Following the workshops, the steering committee and project facilitators reviewed the maps and survey results to identify common values and themes and to ensure that the voice of the public guided subsequent steps.

Survey results generated a list of ideas that helped to express the region’s values. Among a wide range of possible goals, community members identified the following as important or very important to future quality of life:

•

Maintain/improve air and water quality (90%)

•

Preserve scenic beauty (90%)

•

Preserve wildlife habitat (86%)

•

Conserve water (84%)

•

Coordination of local governments to address growth issues (80%/84%*)

•

Provide access to outdoor recreation (77%)

•

Retain viable agricultural land (76%)

•

Provide more trails for walking and biking (62%)

•

Create a trail around Bear Lake (59%)

•

Reuse underutilized land and buildings (infill and redevelopment) (53%)

•

Maintain/expand strong downtowns or centers (51%)

*Repeated question in scenarios survey

Some of the features related to the above goals are tied to land use and can be measured across alternative growth scenarios. Later in the process, these measures enabled citizens to compare the growth scenarios against common values.

Analysis also included examining the citizen-created maps and observing the choices participants made regarding critical lands conservation, housing, employment, recreation, and transportation. The purpose of this discussion was to shape three alternative growth scenarios from broadly supported ideas. Some questions included:

•

What land use patterns emerge across many maps?

•

How is housing arranged?

•

What is the job mix like?

•

What transportation focus appears repeatedly?

•

Which lands are identified for conservation and why?

•

What recreation goals are apparent?

Blueprint

What might future growth look like in the Bear Lake Valley area?

Existing Growth: Future Growth:

Bear Lake looking Southwest

Garden City, UT looking Southwest

Fish Haven, ID looking Southwest

Montpelier, ID looking Northeast

Western Shore (UT) looking Northwest

Western Shore (ID) looking Northwest

St. Charles, ID looking Northwest

Randolph, UT looking Northwest

Georgetown ID looking North

Photo Source: Envision Utah © 2011

Citizens created 32 maps at eight workshops. They expressed their ideas and preferences for growth using markers to identify valued critical lands, colored tape to identify trails and desired transportation routes and modes, and paper squares to identify patterns and locations for housing and employment.

What Themes Appeared on the Maps?

Housing Trends

Citizens glued paper “chips” onto the maps to identify housing preferences. When housing units were tallied, 58% of those used were in mixed-use developments, with the remaining 42% in single-use subdivisions. In general, citizens envisioned growth that is more mixed-use and more compact than what has been built in recent decades.

Roads (Percentage of Maps Including This Feature)

•

41%: paved the road through Dingle

•

33%: bypass or grid in Garden City

•

33%: improvements to Hwy. 89

•

33%: better access to the airport

Public Transportation (Percentage of Maps Including This Feature)

•

38%: route between Laketown and Montpelier (or portions of thereof)

Trails and Recreation

•

100%: trail around the lake (50% identified a separated, paved trail)

•

44%: new/enhanced marinas

Conservation of Natural resources and Agriculture

•

Federal Lands (National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, and BLM)

•

Water Quality Areas (lakes, rivers, wetlands, riparian corridors, and municipal well protection)

•

Agricultural Lands (north, south, and along the lake)

•

View sheds/corridors (along state roads and the lake)

What Is Mixed-Use? In mixed-use development, compatible land-uses (residential, retail, commercial, and civic uses) blend to create a pedestrian-friendly design.

Mixed - Use Illustration (See Page 5 ECV Report)

Civic

Commercial

Residential

Mixed-Use Neighborhood

Ranch Estate (20-acre lots): 1%

Ranch (10-acre): 1%

Ranchette (5-acre): 2%

Large (1-acre): 9%

Medium (1/2-acre): 10%

Small (1/4-acre): 6%

Townhome: 8%

Hospitality: 5%

Single Use

42%

Mixed-Use

Cluster (50% open space): 1%

Mixed-Use Neighborhood: 7%

Compact Mixed-Use

Neighborhood: 14%

Town Center: 23%

Hospitality-Oriented

Town Center: 13%

58%

Analysis Maps

The “Average” Map

When the workshop maps are aggregated, some of the ideas to test in alternative growth scenarios become apparent. The average map includes the following features:

•

Twenty-acre lots accommodate less than 1% of the population, but account for almost 25% of the total developed acreage.

•

Light industrial jobs account for 25% of all jobs.

•

Town centers accommodate 36% of the population and account for about 8% of the total developed acreage.

•

A trail system loops Bear Lake.

The analysis maps (two are shown here) compile all of the chips placed across 32 maps at the public workshops, exploring broad trends and public preferences.

What is a chip?

At the workshops, citizens used paper chips and maps of the Bear Lake area to identify preferred development locations and patterns. Each chip identifies a specific land-use (i.e. one-acre house lots, and office park, a town center) and associated dwelling units and/or jobs. The chips are scaled to the map, so the land area they cover on the map represents the actual land area they would cover on the ground.

Workshop Analysis

Most Common Chip

Includes only those cells where two or more similar chips were placed.

Workshop Analysis

Chip Frequency - All Chips

Includes any cells where at least one chip was placed.

Alternative Growth Scenario Development

Based on themes explored by the public, growth scenarios explore alternatives to baseline scenario growth patterns. All scenarios assume the same number of new homes and jobs; however, the scenarios differ in significant ways: location and type of growth, transportation investments proposed, recreational amenities suggested, and the conservation of natural resources and agriculture. The next section describes the ideas and concepts used in the four scenarios.

Scenario A: Baseline

The Baseline Scenario projects recent growth patterns out to 2060. It reflects the path we are currently pursuing. Lots are typical in size and location to what has been built in the last 20 years. Overall, housing is dispersed, with some pockets of compact growth in towns. Most lots have large back yards. Shopping, jobs, and recreation tend to be away from houses.

Housing and Employment:

•

Dispersed development

Conservation of Natural Resources and Agriculture:

•

Federal lands (National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management)

Public Transportation:

•

No additions

Roads:

•

Road enhancement between Montpelier and Bear Lake through Dingle

Trails:

•

No additions

General Legend

Scenario B: Estate Lots

The Estate Lots Scenario explores a dispersed development pattern along the region’s hillsides and road corridors, paired with mixed-used neighborhoods in some communities and a hospitality town center in Garden City.

Housing and Employment:

•

Some mixed-use development in towns

•

Dispersed hillside/corridor development

•

Emphasis on light industry, some office parks and retail/commercial strips

Conservation of Natural Resources and Agriculture:

•

Federal lands (National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management)

•

Water quality areas (lakes, rivers, wetlands, riparian corridors, municipal well protection)

•

Agricultural lands (outside lake area)

Public Transportation:

•

No additions

Roads:

•

Road enhancement between Montpelier and Bear Lake through Dingle

•

Major bypass from Garden City to Fish Haven

•

Hwy. 89/30 expansion to four lanes from Logan Canyon through Georgetown

Trails:

•

Paved trail within road right-of-way around Bear Lake

General Legend

Scenario C: Farm Towns/Recreation Villages and Clusters

Scenario C explores modest growth in most communities as a means to strengthen existing farming communities and recreation areas. Most growth is in a mixed-use pattern, providing access to goods and services within most communities.

Housing and Employment:

•

Mostly mixed-use

•

Centers and services in all towns

•

Centers and services on east side of lake

•

Hillside clusters

•

Light industrial parks; more office, retail, and commercial integrated into town and neighborhood centers

Conservation of Natural Resources and Agriculture:

•

Federal lands (National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management)

•

Water quality areas (lakes, rivers, wetlands, riparian corridors, municipal well protection)

•

Agricultural lands (outside lake area and some agricultural land along the lake)

•

View sheds/corridors (many along state roads, some along the lake)

Public Transportation:

•

Laketown to Montpelier

Roads:

•

Road enhancement between Montpelier and Bear Lake through Dingle

•

Garden City street grid with minor bypass at west edge of grid, providing multiple ways to get through town

•

Highway 89 expansion to add turn lanes and some center lanes from Logan Canyon through Georgetown

Trails:

•

Paved trail within road right-of-way around east side of Bear Lake

•

Separated paved trail around west side of Bear Lake

Other:

•

East side sewer development

•

Addition of new marina on north or east side

General Legend

Scenario D: Recreation Town/Main Street, USA

In Scenario D, Garden City and Montpelier absorb most of the region’s growth, as Garden City emerges as a recreation destination and Montpelier focuses on workforce training and job creation to revitalize its historic downtown.

Housing and Employment:

•

Mostly mixed-use

•

Mostly in Garden City and Montpelier

•

Montpelier: recreation center, senior housing, community college extension

•

Light industrial parks; most office, retail, and commercial integrated into town and neighborhood centers

Conservation of Natural Resources and Agriculture:

•

Federal lands (National Forest, National Wildlife Refuge, Bureau of Land Management)

•

Water quality areas (lakes, rivers, wetlands, riparian corridors, municipal well protection)

•

Agricultural lands (outside lake area and more agricultural land along the lake)

•

View sheds/corridors (many along state roads, many along the lake)

Public Transportation:

•

Laketown to Montpelier

•

Montpelier to Soda Springs

•

Garden City to Beaver Mountain and Logan

Roads:

•

Road enhancement between Montpelier and Bear Lake through Dingle

•

Garden City street grid with minor bypass at west edge of grid, providing multiple ways to get through town

•

Highway 89 expansion to add turn lanes and some center lanes from Logan Canyon through Georgetown

•

Enhanced access to the airport

Trails:

•

Separated paved trail around Bear Lake

•

Paved trail within road right-of-way region-wide beyond the lake (Highways 89, 30, and 16)

Other:

•

Expansion of existing west side marina

•

Night sky protection

General Legend

Comparing the Growth Scenarios

Many of the measures selected to evaluate the scenarios reflect the issues that residents said were most important at the public workshops. When scenarios were compared, residents gained a sense of some of the potential impacts of growth choices. Single homes on large lots have more yard space but consume more land. Townhomes have smaller yards but cost less. When land uses are separated and farther apart, more miles of roads and other infrastructure are required, increasing public costs. When land uses are blended and closer together, fewer miles of infrastructure are needed and more walking tends to occur.

Land-use decisions generally have long-term impacts. Evaluating these impacts ahead of making choices on the ground can help guide growth into patterns that yield outcomes desired by citizens. Each of the scenarios include the same number of homes and jobs, but they test different decisions regarding conservation priorities, housing and employment patterns, recreational amenities, and transportation investments. Envision Utah tested the scenarios using its IMPACS model.

New Local Infrastructure Costs

(Today’s dollars: Local road construction and maintenance, culinary water, sewer, storm water)

Land Conservation

New Housing

Water Quality and New Water Consumption

Local and Regional Transportation

Annual Cost (Millions)

$6.2

$5.3

$4.8

$4.5

Baseline

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Cost Per New Dwelling

$21,995

$19,099

$17,022

$16,040

Scenario C

Scenario B

Baseline

Scenario D

Total Developed Acres

41,470

26,864

3,573

3,478

Scenario B

Baseline

Scenario C

Scenario D

Total Conserved Acres

(Relative to Baseline)

37,992

37,897

Total Cost (Millions)

14,606

0

$308.0

Scenario C

Baseline

Scenario B

Scenario D

$267.4

$238.3

$224.6

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Baseline

Water Demand (Acre Feet)

20,130

15,163

Housing Mix

7,594

7,017

18%

24%

Single Use Detached

Single Use Attached

Mixed Use

21%

60%

20%

Baseline

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

17%

56%

60%

Average Annual New Storm Water Flow

23%

Represents flows through stormwater systems, not an increase in water yield.

cfs - cubic feet per second

6,987 cfs

Scenario D

Scenario C

Scenario B

4,249

Acres Redeveloped

(Percent of Total New Housing Development)

1,792

1,696

5.9%

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario B

Baseline

4.0%

0.3%

Scenario C

Scenario B

Scenario D

Local Roads: New Miles

Average Housing Density

(Units per Developed Acre)

225

4.0

3.9

152

77

64

0.5

0.3

Baseline

Scenario D

Scenario C

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Baseline

Scenario B

Local Roads: Construction Costs

(Millions - Excluding Maintenance Costs)

$152.1

$136.4

$125.0

$115.9

New Impervious Acres

Scenario B

Baseline

Scenario C

Scenario D

3,035

2,226

Regional Roads: Construction/Improvement Costs

1,380

1,353

$147.0

(Millions - Excluding Maintenance Costs)

Scenario D

Baseline

Scenario B

Scenario C

$18.6

Impervious surfaces represent impenetrable surfaces (pavement, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.) that severely hamper or prevent water to penetrate thereby reducing nature’s ability to filter and clean water and absorb stormwater.

$12.6

Scenario B

Scenario D

Scenario C

Town Hall Meetings and Survey

In November 2010, citizens participated in three town hall meetings, held in Garden City, Montpelier, and Salt Lake City. At these meetings, the baseline scenario and the alternative growth scenarios were presented and compared. Participants evaluated the scenarios and expressed their preferences regarding general growth patterns and the elements of the scenarios they most favored. These elements included housing and employment patterns and recreation and conservation priorities. A companion online survey was available November 2010 through February 2011.

What Did the Public Say?

Bear Lake area citizens examined the alternative growth scenarios and expressed their preferences for future growth.

General Growth

Quality of Life/Most Appropriate Pattern for Future Growth

42%

37%

16%

Housing and Employment

Transportation and Infrastructure

Natural Resources and Agriculture

Recreation and Trails

Coordination

Vision Development

Following the town hall meetings and online surveys, the steering committee and project facilitators brought together the meeting recommendations and survey results to identify the publicly-supported themes. These themes served as the basis of the Vision statement and vision principles. The preferred components of the growth scenarios are reflected in the Vision map, one plausible way that the region could grow if the Vision principles are implemented. The steering committee reviewed and refined the Vision, which is featured in the following chapter.

Local Leaders Forum

The visioning process is really just the beginning, a first step toward realizing the vision that Bear Lake area citizens desire. In April 2011, local leaders, including mayors, councils, commissions, and planning and zoning boards from the cities and counties, convened to hear the steering committee’s report on the visioning process, explored the Vision, and discussed the process of implementation.

Vision Summit

The culmination of the public events surrounding the Blueprint process, the Vision Summit, held in May 2011, enabled citizens, community leaders, and elected officials to review the Blueprint process, and, most importantly, its results: The Bear Lake Valley Vision.

5%

Scenario A

Scenario D

Scenario C

Scenario B

General Growth Pattern

The communities and the county should strongly encourage growth to happen inward; communities should not grow into one another over time.

40%

Communities and the counties should allow dispersed development; it’s okay for some communities to grow into one another over time.

19%

33%

It’s okay for growth to happen in areas adjacent to existing development, but communities should encourage inward growth.

8%

Communities should be allowed to grow outward, but only in areas adjacent to existing development.

Preferred Strategy to Encourage Desired Growth Pattern

Allow/encourage through codes and ordinances.

34%

No strategies should be used.

6%

12%

Purchase development rights from outlying land owners and build them in centers.

48%

Provide incentives to encourage infill and redevelopment.

Photo Source: http://posterous.com/explore/tag/bearlake

Preferred Scenario: Employment

Preferred Scenario: Housing

39%

43%

37%

35%

18%

15%

7%

6%

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario D

Scenario A

Scenario A

Scenario B

What Should Zoning Allow?

Update zoning even more, so most housing assumes a mixed-use development pattern, providing the largest range of housing options and mix of uses.

30%

Maintain existing zoning and build about the same mix of housing types that have been built in the last two decades.

10%

20%

Update zoning somewhat, so the majority of new housing is similar to what has been built in the last couple of decades, and some new mixed-use neighborhoods provide more housing options.

40%

Update zoning more, so more mixed-use neighborhoods and centers provide a wider range of housing options and mix of uses.

Employment and Shopping Preference

Employment and shopping within Bear Lake and Rich Counties should decrease.

3%

Employment and shopping within Bear Lake and Rich Counties should increase.

66%

31%

Employment and shopping within Bear Lake and Rich Counties should remain about the same.

Photo Source: www.flickr.com/photos/8430129@N06/

Preferred Scenario When Considering Development Patterns and Associated Infrastructure Costs

42%

36%

17%

6%

Scenario A

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario B

Preferred Highway Enhancements

Highway 89/30 expansion to four lanes from Logan Canyon through Georgetown.

15%

Highway 89 expansion to add turn lanes and some center lanes.

72%

13%

Do not make highway enhancements.

Preferred Way to Handle Traffic in the Garden City Area

Add a major bypass between Garden City and Fish Haven.

24%

Enhance and expand the Garden City street grid with a minor bypass along the west side of town.

67%

9%

Do not make changes to address traffic along the lake.

Preferred Scenario: Conservation Priorities

46%

27%

16%

11%

Scenario C

Scenario D

Scenario A

Scenario B

Preferred Agricultural Preservation Strategies

Provide incentives to encourage landowners to cluster development on a small percentage of their land, thereby reducing impact on agriculture.

33%

No strategies should be used to preserve working farms and ranches.

13%

38%

Provide incentives to encourage landowners to transfer their development rights and build in a city or town instead of on their property, thereby minimizing the impact on agriculture.

16%

Use a bond or tax revenues to help preserve working farms and ranches.

Preferred Strategies for Preserving Critical Lands (i.e. floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes)

Not strategies should be used to preserve critical lands.

1%

Use a bond or tax revenues to purchase critical lands.

12%

59%

Restrict development through codes and ordinances.

27%

Provide incentives to encourage developers to avoid developing on critical lands.

Preferred Scenario: Trails

47%

32%

Photo Source: www.bearlake.org/bear_lake_photos.html

17%

7%

Scenario A

Scenario B

Scenario C

Scenario D

Most Important Trail-Related Goal

Trail completion region-wide beyond Bear Lake (Hwys 89, 30, and 16).

31%

Trail completion along the west side of Bear Lake.

44%

24%

Trail completion along the east side of Bear Lake.

Exploring a Tax or Bond to Purchase Land or Easements for Trail Construction

Strongly approve

18%

Strongly disapprove

15%

45%

Approve

23%

Disapprove

Addressing Demand for Marina Service

Expand both the existing marina on the west side and add a new marina on the east and north side of the lake.

41%

Expand the existing marina on the west side of the lake.

32%

27%

Add a new marina to the north and east side of the lake.

Importance of Local Government Coordination to Address Growth Issues

Not important 2%

Somewhat important

8%

71%

Very important

19%

Important

A vision is not just a picture of what could be; it is an appeal to our better selves, a call to become something more.

—Rosabeth Moss Kanter

Photo Source: www.flickr.com/photos/8430129@N06/

Chapter 3: The Bear Lake Valley Vision

Bear Lake Valley Blueprint: Building a Legacy Together

The Bear Lake Valley Blueprint is a historic effort by citizens and community leaders to listen and identify a common, voluntary framework for decisions that will affect our future. The result is the Vision statement and twelve companion principles to guide future growth. As cities and the counties apply vision principles in specific actions tailored to the unique needs and characteristics of each community, the Vision will be realized.

Vision Statement

Neighborly communities. Matchless recreation. Agricultural heritage. Unparalleled natural resources. Together, we grow our legacy.

The Bear Lake Valley provides a matchless quality of life, nestled among the mountains, with Bear Lake at its heart. Bear Lake County and Rich County offer a unique mix of communities, natural resources, working landscapes, recreational opportunities, and innovative and resourceful people.

Together, we value our rural lifestyle, characterized by our close-knit towns and cities as well as our natural surroundings and nearby agricultural lands. We will invest in our communities while enhancing farming and ranching opportunities, safeguarding natural resources, and growing recreational assets. We encourage the creativity and resourcefulness of our people, whose innovation will foster economic growth.

3. Focus growth. Encourage focused growth within existing communities.

We value our existing towns and cities and encourage investment in them and commitment to their health. We support walkable, more compact growth in Garden City as it grows into a recreation destination. We encourage the revitalization of Montpelier’s historic downtown as the community focuses on workforce training and job creation. Recycling and re-imagining underused or unused spaces in the hearts of our communities is a priority. When growth does occur away from existing communities, we encourage clustered development for minimal impact on natural resources, working lands, and views.

4. Be proactive. Implement tools to foster quality growth within our existing communities while safeguarding our natural resources and working lands.

With a publicly supported vision identified, we recognize our responsibility to act. We encourage communities to proactively implement tools that encourage what is possible and what people want.

5. Develop our strengths. Cultivate innovation that makes the most of our unique regional assets.

We support innovation as we enhance our existing enterprises, such as agriculture and recreation, and as we endeavor to diversify and expand our market. We support increased educational and workforce training opportunities and business development to meet the needs of locals and visitors while growing the economic reach of our region. We encourage an environment of entrepreneurship and creativity, balancing resource development and stewardship.

6. Develop job centers. Focus compatible employment in existing town centers and new mixed-use neighborhoods while encouraging nearby industry.

We support compatible business investment within our town centers and new neighborhoods because businesses contribute to resilient places that are used and enjoyed in a variety of ways. We encourage identifying and improving sites for compatible industry, providing opportunity for businesses that create their own synergy in the context of industrial parks.

7. Cultivate variety. Encourage mixed-use neighborhoods and town centers that provide housing and convenient access to shopping, recreation, services, schools, and jobs.

Neighborhoods and communities that blend compatible land uses create vibrant, people-friendly spaces that welcome a variety of people and activities. We encourage cultivating these spaces that already exist in our communities and desire a blended pattern of development when new growth occurs. We encourage updating policies where appropriate to create more neighborhoods and centers that blend housing, shopping, recreation, services, schools, and jobs.

8. Provide housing choices. Support a range of housing options to accommodate people of all ages and stages of life.

We desire neighborhoods that cultivate community character and blend a variety of housing options, meeting market and demographic demand, and providing choices for everyone, including primary residents, second home owners, the young, the old, and the workforce.

10. Be efficient. Invest in efficient infrastructure systems to serve existing communities and future growth. These systems manage such services as transportation, water, wastewater, energy, and communications.

Transportation and the cost of other infrastructure are significant municipal and regional burdens. The cost of infrastructure should be reduced by maximizing existing infrastructure and building new development more compactly, in a fashion that requires fewer miles of roads, pipes, and wires.

11. Encourage transportation choices. Support limited regional road network expansion, enhanced local road networks, public transportation, bicycle routes, and pedestrian pathways.

We encourage strengthening and building on our local street grids as an efficient means of providing multiple ways to get around and to handle seasonal traffic. We envision strategic but limited investments, such as the addition of turn lanes and center lanes, to regional highways to improve traffic flow and safety. We encourage exploring public transportation options for seasonal visitors and workers as well as to better connect the region to employment and recreational opportunities. We support planning for multiple modes of mobility in existing and new communities, and exploring enhanced regional access to transportation options like the airport.

1. Safeguard natural resources. Preserve and protect water quality, wildlife habitat, and the scenic beauty of Bear Lake and the Bear Lake Valley.

We encourage the use of tools to protect, maintain, and improve the quality of riparian areas, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and scenic beauty. Natural resource networks should be maintained and improved, and tools to focus growth in existing communities should be used to reduce the pressure to develop on sensitive lands and to preserve our quality of life. Such resources as our night sky, the scenic views around Bear Lake, and the views along our scenic roadways should also be protected.

2. Sustain agriculture. Support innovative practices and policies that keep agriculture viable.

To strengthen viable agriculture, we encourage exploring practices to increase long-term profitability, such as identifying direct markets, value-added services or processing, tourism, and rangeland management. We support preserving and protecting agricultural lands and the lifestyle they represent by implementing tools to encourage the preservation of working farms and ranches.

9. Play more. Expand access to and opportunities for recreation for local residents and second home owners, and to support our growing tourism industry.

We value the many recreational opportunities in our area, including those associated with Bear Lake, nearby landscapes, and local communities. We encourage local governments to embrace and enhance those recreational opportunities in a way that protects critical natural resources for the benefit of residents and visitors alike. We support developing a regional trail system, including a trail around Bear Lake, trails beyond Bear Lake to connect the communities in our region, and trails to provide access to public lands. We support exploring a tax or bond to purchase land or easements needed for trail construction. We encourage investigating additional recreational facilities and options, including the expansion of the existing marina on the west side of Bear Lake, developing a new marina, exploring four-season recreation opportunities, and building a recreation center in Montpelier.

sustain

AGRICULTURE

Photo Source: Envision Utah © 2011

safeguard NATURAL RESOURCES

Photo Source: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Natural Resources & Agriculture

support existing

communities

focus

GROWTH

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/highpeaksresort/

Photo Source: http://realtyinidaho.com/

be

PROACTIVE

walkable

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/grantkelly_d50/

General Growth

BE PROACTIVE

cultivate

VARIETY

develop

OUR STRENGTHS

provide

HOUSING CHOICES

develop

JOB CENTERS

Employment / Economy & Housing

Photo Source: Bear Lake Convention & Visitors Bureau

play

MORE

Photo Source: Bear Lake Convention & Visitors Bureau

Photo Source: Bear Lake Convention & Visitors Bureau

Recreation & Trails

be

EFFICIENT

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22392855@N08/

encourage

TRANSPORTATION CHOICES

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbjelloid/

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebuzzer/

Transportation & Infrastructure

save taxpayers

dollars

work

TOGETHER

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/

Photo Source: http://www.lostinbowland.com/

12. Work Together. Empower local governments, agencies and citizens to support the Bear Lake Valley Blueprint and to meet regional and local goals.

Ensuring a high quality of life for future generations will require close coordination among local governments and agencies, and ongoing citizen involvement. An implementation framework should encourage the realization of the Blueprint and equip local governments to take locally appropriate action. Together, leaders and citizens should explore and implement policies and incentives that encourage growth into efficient and attractive patterns that save taxpayer dollars and safeguard the natural resources on which we depend. Together, we grow our legacy for future generations.

Vision Benefits

How does the Bear Lake Valley Blueprint measure up? When measured against our region’s baseline, which projects recent growth trends into the future, benefits of the Vision are apparent. Our region will be rewarded with lower infrastructure costs, more focused and vibrant community centers, reduced water consumption, more housing options, greater land conservation potential.

New Local Infrastructure Costs

(Today’s dollars: Local road construction and maintenance, culinary water, sewer, storm water)

Land Conservation

New Housing

Water Quality and New Water Consumption

Local and Regional Transportation

Coordination

Annual Cost (Millions)

$6.2

$4.6

Baseline

Vision

Cost Per New Dwelling

$21,995

$16,126

Vision

Baseline

Total Developed Acres

41,470

4,195

Baseline

Vision

Total Conserved Acres

(Relative to Baseline)

37,275

Total Cost (Millions)

0

$308.0

Vision

Baseline

$226.0

Baseline

Vision

New Impervious Acres

Housing Mix (Vision)

3,035

Impervious surfaces represent impenetrable surfaces (pavement, sidewalks, parking lots, etc.) that severely hamper or prevent water to penetrate thereby reducing nature’s ability to filter and clean water and absorb stormwater.

Single-Use Detached

27%

Mixed-Use

59%

1,320

14%

Single-Use Attached

Vision

Baseline

New Housing - Percent of Total Acres Consumed (By Type)

Water Demand (Acre Feet)

20,130

Redevelopment

7.4%

New Development (Greenfield)

92.6%

7,311

Baseline

Vision

Average Housing Density

(Developed Acres - Units per Acre)

Average Annual New Storm Water Flow

3.5

Represents flows through stormwater systems, not an increase in water yield.

cfs - cubic feet per second

6,987 cfs

1,623

0.3

Baseline

Scenario B

Vision

Baseline

Local Roads: New Miles

225

73

Baseline

Vision

Local Roads: Construction Costs

(Millions - Excluding Maintenance Costs)

$152.13

$119.20

Baseline

Vision

Local Roads: Construction Costs

Photo Source: Envision Utah © 2011

$18.6 Million

Vision:

(Excluding Maintenance Costs)

Vision Maps

The vision maps on the following pages illustrate one of many plausible ways that growth could unfold as the vision principles are implemented. The first map highlights general growth patterns, housing, employment, and transportation. The second map explores recreation and trails, as well as the types of natural resources and agricultural lands valued by the public.

Best viewed as a story rather than a prediction, the purpose of the maps is to highlight ideas embodied in the vision principles, from focusing growth primarily in existing communities, to safeguarding our natural resources and agricultural land. The maps are not intended to be prescriptive. Individual communities could implement the vision principles in many ways to achieve both local relevance and regional benefit.

Finally, mapping one way that growth could occur as vision principles are implemented enabled comparison with the baseline scenario, providing the snapshot of potential benefits outlined in the section above.

Vision Maps

General Growth Patterns, Housing, Employment, and Transportation

Rural Cluster:

Concentrates growth on a small percentage of a parcel in order to permanently preserve land with conservation values (agricultural land, recreational opportunities, or critical lands).

Mixed-Use Neighborhood:

Includes a wide range of single-family homes on a variety of small to large lots. Parks, trails, a place of worship, a school, and perhaps a small market or café are within walking distance.

Compact Mixed-Use Neighborhood:

Includes a wide range of single-family homes on smaller lot sizes. Parks, trails, a place of worship, a school, and perhaps a small market or café are within walking distance.

Town Center:

A walkable area blending small businesses, civic buildings, compact housing (some above businesses), and perhaps a small plaza. The edges are composed of single-family homes, townhouses, parks and trails, places of worship, and schools.

Hospitality Town Center:

Features the same characteristics of a town center, with the addition of hotels, lodges, and time-shares.

General Map Legend & Scale

MIXED-USE DESCRIPTIONS

LAND USE KEY

Residential: A range from large estate lots to townhomes.

Employment: Jobs per acre (Office parks are most intense, followed by retail, heavy industrial, and light industrial).

Mixed Use: Blends varied housing types with compatible shopping, employment, and other compatible uses.

Hospitality: Hotels, lodges, or time-shares

TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE

Road Enhancements

Transit Enhancements

Road & Transit Enhancements

REGIONAL TRAIL (Conceptual)

WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS, AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

Over time a regional trail can become the foundation of a regional trail network.

Wetlands

Riparian Areas

Wildlife Habitat

Vision Maps

Natural Resources, Agriculture, Recreation and Trails

General Map Legend & Scale

PRIME FARM LAND (If Irrigated)

Vision without a task is only a dream. A task without a vision is but drudgery. But vision with a task is a dream fulfilled.

—Anonymous

Photo Source: www.flickr.com/photos/8430129@N06/

Chapter 4: Building a Legacy Together

You’ve got to think about big things while you’re doing small things, so that all the small things go in the right direction.

— Alvin Toffler

Working Together to Realize Our Vision

The Bear Lake Valley Blueprint process identified public preferences for future growth. The Vision and principles highlight these ideas, tying the public process to a guide for future decisions. Because of broad public participation, the visioning process provides local leaders with a basis for action. Each vision principle could be implemented in a variety of ways to address local needs and challenges and to enhance the region as a whole. The Vision becomes reality as cities and the counties apply the principles in the incremental choices they make over time.

Creating an Action Plan: Implementing the Vision in Regionally Significant and Locally Relevant Ways

Because the Vision provides local leaders with a basis for action, creating action plans is the next step toward realizing our legacy. The steps below illustrate a way to create local or regional action plans for implementing the Vision.

To Do List

1.

Assess Past Trends

If our region and our community grows as it has in the past, what will it be like? (It may be helpful to look back at the baseline images on page 8.) What impacts, both positive and negative, will there be? What challenges will we face? How do recent trends compare with what is envisioned for the future?

2.

Identify Priorities

Which vision principles are priorities for our community, to help prepare for growth and create a desirable future?

Check Top Priorities

3.

Access Current Activities and Policies

Examine the principles you have prioritized. In light of your priorities, what’s working well in our region and community? What’s not working well?

4.

Create an Action Plan to Address Priority Principles

Generally, what will further current successes and address emerging challenges?

More specifically, what action steps are needed to address priority principles? The chart below highlights ideas from the toolkit (chapter 5) that could be used to address regional and local priorities. Which tools should be explored or implemented?

5.

Add a Timeline and Measure for Accountability

Add a timeline to your list of priorities and your action plan, developing short-term, medium-term, and longer-term plans. Identify a plan for accountability. Who is accountable? How will success be measured?

6.

Schedule Regular Times for Revisiting Priorities, Action Plans, and Timelines

Determine, both regionally and locally, how priorities, action plans, and timelines will be revisited. Some ideas for maintaining momentum for vision implementation appear in the chart below:

Progress to Date

Local leaders are responding to the publicly created vision. We are moving forward together! Some examples:

•

An economic development summit is planned for fall 2011 to examine and develop plans for small business development, attracting industry, and building on existing recreational and agricultural sectors.

•

Planning for the Bear Lake Legacy Pathway, a regional trail network, is underway in partnership with the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program. First phases include creating a concept plan for a trail along Bear Lake with later phases connecting the trail to other municipalities near the lake. The City of Montpelier will organize a trail committee and begin trail planning.

•

Utah State University’s Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Department will provide a week-long planning charette in Fall of 2011. The charette will focus on Vision implementation options and will consist of up to 150 students looking at various planning and design issues in the Bear Lake Valley.

•

Garden City’s planning and zoning has dedicated time toward vision implementation at each of its monthly meetings.

•

Montpelier is planning an annual retreat where vision implementation will be a focus.

•

The Rich County Coordinated Resource Management Sage-grouse Local Working Group is examining public lands management and is exploring ways to provide better wildlife habitat and conduct sustainable grazing.

Draft Pathway Vision: A safe, non-motorized pathway system encircling Bear Lake that connects to trails on public and private lands and provides opportunities for year-round recreation, fitness, health, alternative transportation, and economic development.

The draft Bear Lake Legacy Pathway map and trail standards are examples of progress toward realizing our vision.

Chapter 5: Implementation Toolkit

Photo Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jstephenconn/3174998193/

General Growth

Housing & Employment

What is a Toolkit?

The Bear Lake Valley Vision could be implemented in a variety of ways to meet both local and regional objectives. Because implementation is voluntary, and opportunities for implementing the Vision will vary across jurisdictions, the toolkit assumes that implementation tools and techniques will also range widely from one jurisdiction to another. A community can select and adapt tools that best fit its unique situation.

In general, vision implementation is more likely with a combination of tools that provide more flexibility and choices than currently available. The toolkit is a starting point, and can expand over time as jurisdictions adapt tools and create new ones. The intent of the toolkit is to provide an initial set of resources: a range of tools that are used successfully in other communities to achieve similar goals to those of the Bear Lake area. The tools on the pages that follow generally include a description of the tool, a case study, and a list of resources for more information. Tools can often be applied to address multiple vision principles.

Many websites contain additional resources, sample codes, and toolkits. Utah’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), for example, maintains “Super Tool: The State of Utah Planning and Education Resource” at http://planning.utah.gov/super/

Transportation & Infrastructure

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Recreation & Trails

Coordination

General Growth

Accessory Dwellings

Accessory buildings in a residential context are separate dwelling spaces within the same lot as the primary dwelling and include a kitchen and bathroom. Accessory dwellings include, but are not limited to, basement apartments, above the garage living spaces, and separate, smaller structures on the same property. The benefits of accessory dwellings, both to the individual and the community, are multiple.

Accessory buildings help accommodate a growing population in neighborhoods without the addition of apartment buildings or other multifamily attached structures. Detached “granny flats” and basement apartments allow multi-generational family living situations. Aging parents or adult children can live nearby while helping to make house payments. Such structures also provide opportunities for the elderly to age in place and live near their children. Young families can help pay the mortgage with additional income from a student renter. Accessory buildings also benefit municipalities. Often they do not require additional water, sewer and electrical connections, allowing a community to grow without additional infrastructure costs.

Nationally, regulations regarding accessory buildings range from strict prohibition to express allowance in residential zones. Rapidly growing municipalities with growth boundaries, such as Santa Cruz, California, and Portland, Oregon, expressly permit accessory dwellings in all residential zones. Many regulations limit the number of people allowed in the accessory unit. Some regulations state that the occupant of an accessory unit must either be related to or a caregiver of, the resident of the primary dwelling. In many cases, the owner must occupy the main structure, a measure designed to preserve a neighborhood’s character and stability. A municipality must consider its own character and the sentiments of its citizens when creating an accessory dwelling unit policy.

Like many other programs that increase overall density and provide increased housing options, allowing accessory residential units may raise fears about the character of a neighborhood. More renters have the potential to change quiet, family-oriented neighborhoods. However, a nationwide study conducted in Canada in the 1990s (Research Division of Canada Mortgage and Housing) concluded that more than half of accessory unit occupants were either friends or family of the primary occupant. The study also showed that most residents of accessory units had moved into them because they wanted lower-cost housing in quiet, family-oriented neighborhoods. In Vancouver, where some 30% of lots contain an accessory unit, family-oriented residential neighborhoods remain pervasive.

The Canadian study also demonstrates that as communities age, accessory use increases. Unregulated, illegal accessory uses may pose hazards to their occupants. Legalization helps to ensure the quality and character of accessory buildings and spaces by ensuring code enforcement. Neighborhood character can be further ensured by requiring that the primary dwelling be owner occupied. Tenants are less likely to be problematic when their landlords live next door.

Accessory dwellings provide an additional housing option without greatly increasing the cost of municipal services or altering the character of neighborhoods. As the Bear Lake community grows, accessory dwellings may provide a housing option that creates little burden on municipalities and counties. It may also fit nicely in the context of summer and growing year-round tourism.

Case Study: Aspen, Colorado

The City of Aspen Colorado has a long-standing reputation as a world-class recreation destination. Property values are among the highest in the nation, and such a market effectively prices out the necessary work force to sustain a resort community. Aspen has taken steps to create affordable housing. One of these steps is the expressed allowance of accessory dwelling units and carriage houses.

Requiring that accessory units be “incidental and subordinate” to the primary dwelling (legal phrasing common to accessory units), Aspen stops short of the requirements common to many accessory units. There are no family or caregiver requirements, nor is there a parking requirement. Accessory units in Aspen can even be sold independent of the primary residence.

Aspen cites three reasons for expressed allowance of accessory units. First, they help to fulfill the necessity of affordable housing in a very expensive market. Second, they are part of the historical development pattern of the area. Third, accessory units contribute to the “critical mass” of density required for a vibrant main street area.

Aspen has tailored their zoning code very specifically to the needs of a resort community. The relaxed laws for accessory dwellings allow Aspen to increase density and affordable housing without sacrificing the historic character of the town.

Online Resources

City of Aspen, Colorado Municipal Code Section 26.520 (Accessory Dwelling Units)

http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerk/municode/coaspent26-500.pdf

City of Arlington, Virginia. Zoning Ordinance Elements of Accessory Dwellings

http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/housing/pdf/file65473.pdf

Research Division of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accessory Apartments: Characteristics, Issues and Opportunities (1991)

http://ginsler.com/sites/ginsler/files/socio003.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study (2008)

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/adu.pdf

City of Santa Cruz, California. Accessory Dwelling Unit Manual

http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pl/hcd/ADU/PDF/ADU_Manual.pdf

City of Portland, Oregon. Accessory Dwelling Unit Program Guide

http://www.portlandonline.com/BDS/index.cfm?a=68689

Housing & Employment

Transportation & Infrastructure

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Photo Source: In photos from internet folder

A small “carriage house” at the rear of a primary dwelling.

Recreation & Trails

Coordination

General Growth

General Growth

Affordable Housing

The generally accepted definition of affordable housing is living quarters that require less than 30% of median household income. In many instances, it is students, civil servants and teachers who require affordable housing. Sometimes citizens fear that an increase in lower income households will lower property values and increase crime; however, the availability of affordable housing means that one’s children can grow into adulthood in the same community in which they were raised, or others can downsize as they age without leaving their neighborhood and support structure.

Zone for More Housing Options

Perhaps the easiest way to create more affordable housing is to update the zoning code to include a more diverse set of housing options. By allowing developers to create more housing options in their projects, by being more flexible with accessory structures, and by mixing attached and detached residential units, more diversity is achieved. The townhomes, apartments and accessory dwellings that come from this process are often more affordable than the single family detached units that are the norm. Such action also has the benefit of allowing, rather than prohibiting, a solution that reduces government intervention in the marketplace. Finally, blending various housing types has a stabilizing effect in a community and is a better alternative to creating concentrations of low-income housing in a single area.

Affordable Housing Mandates

A more proactive approach to providing affordable housing is to mandate a percentage of new and redeveloped residential property to be a certain rental or purchase price. This price is usually determined by calculating 30% of the lower end income in the area. While sometimes controversial, one advantage of this type of legislation is that it spreads low-income homes throughout the community instead of isolating them into small areas, thus reducing or eliminating any negative effects.

Affordable Housing Bonus Density

A mandate is not the only means to achieve a higher percentage of affordable housing. Many communities offer density bonuses to developers when they include a certain percentage of affordable housing units in new developments. Such legislation removes the heavy handedness associated with mandates, while still providing more economic diversity. Bonuses, however, are less effective than mandates when it comes to creating sheer numbers of affordable homes.

Demonstration Projects

In some cases, legislation and bonuses do not provide the degree of affordable housing a community is seeking. In this case, demonstration projects are a useful tool in jump-starting a community’s affordable housing program. Demonstration projects are joint ventures between government and local builders. The organizations work together to find cost-cutting measures that result in lower-cost homes. Though there is usually not any federal funding for such projects, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the National Association of Home Builders have a great deal of advice to offer for affordable housing demonstration projects. Once a demonstration project is complete, the community has not only a vision, but a road map to future affordable housing projects.

Often, young people, empty nesters, and the elderly desire or require different housing options than what is readily available. Our teachers and firefighters provide better service when living in the communities they serve. By creating more options for more affordable housing, we can create cohesive communities where individuals can live out the course of their lives.

Online Resources

City of Lake Forest, Illinois. Affordable Housing Code

http://www.cityoflakeforest.com/pdf/cg/affhsg_2.pdf

State of Florida. Density Bonus for Affordable Housing (Code)

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0420/SEC615.HTM&Title=->2009->Ch0420->Section%20615#0420.615

State of Utah. Low Income Housing Tax Credit (Code)

http://www.livepublish.le.state.ut.us/lpBin22/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0

State of Idaho. Idaho Housing Trust Fund (Code)

http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title67/T67CH81SECT67-8101.htm

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. The Affordable Housing Demonstration: A Case Study

http://www.toolbase.org/PDF/CaseStudies/affordable_house_demonstration.pdf

Housing & Employment

Transportation & Infrastructure

Transportation & Infrastructure

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Recreation & Trails

Recreation & Trails

Coordination

Coordination

General Growth

Agricultural Cooperatives

Agricultural cooperatives, known as farmer’s co-ops or growers’ collectives, fall into two categories: agricultural production cooperatives or agricultural service cooperatives. Agricultural production cooperatives, those where resources, land and labor are shared to produce a crop are relatively rare. Agricultural service cooperatives, those where the burden of services such as distribution and marketing are shared among a group of farmers, are much more common and the subject of this tool. Cooperatives can range from thousands of farmers uniting under a brand name to a handful of farms making bulk purchases of fertilizer.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), co-ops in the United States have been responsible for innovations in fertilizer, breeding, mechanization and new sources of energy. Further, they have the potential to strengthen the social fabric and economic well being of rural communities. These larger social benefits are in addition to economies of scale, access to value adding processes, and local control over prices and production.

For many cooperatives in the United States, the goal of the co-op is achieving economies of scale. Simply put, an economy of scale is achieved when something can be bought cheaper if larger quantities are purchased. Bulk seed or fertilizer purchases would be the most obvious way to achieve an economy of scale in an agricultural setting, but collaboration can take many forms. For example, unifying under a cooperative, Mountainland Apples in Utah County markets one brand name for a large number of growers. Simply by selling product under one name, this saves on graphic design, marketing and advertising

Value-Added Options

Value-added agriculture involves an additional processing, packaging or marketing step in the agricultural process. For example, gourmet cheeses can sell for more than a commodity like milk. Wine taps a specialty market. Locally made raspberry jam may command a higher price than unprocessed raspberries. In forming a co-op, source producers may join with value-adding industry to create a hybrid growing and processing operation. Such collaboration can reduce concern about fluctuation in prices and availability of crops and, through marketing, can foster market expansion and/or increased tourism.

In forming a co-op, there are a few practical considerations. One popular model is the creation of interest shares in the co-op. This allows the buying of shares by new members and creates a general fund for the institution. Another consideration is whether the cooperative should be a for-profit or nonprofit institution. Obviously, the farmers and processors need to make a profit to survive, but there are many advantages to existing under a not-for-profit umbrella organization. The USDA has an online resource (listed below) that lists the pros and cons of profit versus not-for-profit as well as legal and regulatory information for those interested in beginning a co-op.

Cooperatives are not a cure-all for farms and ranches. Many farmers and ranchers love what they do because of the self sufficiency of their farms and ranches. Cooperatives can increase price stability, streamline value addition and cut down overhead costs. They can also create dependency on neighbors and organizations and make an individual farmer answerable to a larger organization. The formation of a co-op is not to be taken lightly; however, if enough trust exists among individuals, it can be a very sound business decision.

Online Resources

Wikipedia article on agricultural co-ops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_cooperative

State of Missouri information on how to form a co-op

http://www.sos.mo.gov/securities/pubs/AgriCoOp.pdf

USDA report on agricultural co-ops

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir-60.pdf

USDA legal and practical resources for co-ops

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=cops&topic=landing

Mountainland Apples (Utah County co-op)

http://www.mountainlandapples.com/1home.html

Tennessee Agricultural co-op (Agricultural input purchasing collective)

http://www.ourcoop.com/ourcoop08/main/default.aspx

Housing & Employment

Transportation & Infrastructure

Photo Source: http://cityhomecountryhome.blogspot.com

Local branding or processing can add value to agricultural products.

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Photo Source: http://atasteoftheearth.blogspot.com

Picking raspberries.

Recreation & Trails

Coordination

General Growth

Agriculture: Creating Direct Markets

The vision for the Bear Lake Valley includes a continued agricultural presence in the area. Agriculture is a critical part of the region’s economy and is a part of the region’s rural lifestyle and way of life. Forming direct markets for agricultural products can reduce risk for farming ventures, provide increased access to fresh food, and help brand the area.

Farmers Markets

Farmers markets provide products directly to consumers. When a municipality hosts a farmers market, it usually provides space (most often outdoor but covered) and advertising. Picking a location that is central to a large number of citizens or other nearby destinations boosts participation. Advertising may include a flyer in utility bills, signs at a market location and other high traffic areas, and notices in newspapers and newsletters. While farmers markets are an inexpensive way to both build community and support local farmers, it is important to secure a number of interested farmers before starting a market. A short growing season in the Bear Lake Valley suggests that a farmers market may be limited to a few months out of the year. Targeting a market to the tourist season may increase sales and attendance.

Farm-to-School Programs

The Jordan School District in the Salt Lake Valley has created a farm-to-school program that puts locally produced items in the cafeteria each week. Expanding beyond the obvious nutritional benefits for students and profit for farmers, the program extends to the curriculum. In the classroom students learn about where the food came from and how it was grown, as well as the nutritional benefits. Schools are a great place to direct farm-sourced products, but they are not the only one. Encouraging area restaurants to adopt farm partnerships is a common practice.

Community Sponsored Agriculture

Farmers can set up community sponsored agriculture programs (CSAs). Participants of CSAs pay up front for a growing season, and receive a weekly share as products are harvested. CSAs guarantee a farmer needed cash at the beginning of a season and provide residents with the freshest food possible. City and county governments can aid CSAs by advertising for them on websites, in newsletters and via utility bills.

Marketing

Municipal and county governments often have means to disseminate information favorable to farmers. A county tourism organization may offer maps of pick-your-own farms and roadside stands. “Buy Local” campaigns highlight the products of specific farms and help to advertise local products. Local label regulations may stipulate what must be contained in a product with a certain name. Individually, these small cooperative measures may seem trivial, but they create needed connections among farmers, their representatives, and their customers. These connections have tremendous potential for creating successful farm protection measures.

Buy Local and Regional Branding

Many areas create “Buy Local” campaigns that showcase local businesses or create a directory of local products and services. Bear Lake raspberries are already well known. Highlighting not only raspberries, but also other Bear Lake products with an official Bear Lake logo could let consumers know that they are getting a locally sourced product whose community stands behind it. Regional branding is successful in nearby Cache Valley and other regions. Buy-local campaigns promote not only quality products, but also local independence.

Case Study: Drake Family Farms, West Jordan, Utah

Drake Family Farms, a goat farm founded in 1880, is still operational. The organization sells cheese and soap as well as the goats themselves. Careful attention to the flock under ideal conditions produces sought-after artisanal goat cheese. Both the cheese and the soap are sold at local outlets and farmers markets. Drake Family Farms benefit their community by maintaining a family business and preserving agricultural land in an increasingly urban area, in addition to providing a healthy, locally sourced food product. The farm benefits from Utah’s buy local campaign and various farmers markets hosted nearby. A history of the farm as well as a list of businesses that market their products are available can be found on their website.

Online Resources

Drake Family Farms’

http://www.drakefamilyfarms.com/index.html

Renewing the Countryside Success Stories: Drake Family Farms

Southwest Marketing Network

http://www.swmarketingnetwork.org/

Western Rural Development Center

http://wrdc.usu.edu/

USDA National Resources Conservation Service

Utah: http://www.ut.nrcs.usda.gov/partnerships/RC_D/index.html

Idaho: http://www.id.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/rcd.html

USDA Rural Development

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/ut/

Farm to School: Jordan School District

http://www.farmtoschool.org/UT/programs.htm

Farm to School Idaho Contact:

http://www.farmtoschool.org/ID/

Farm to School Utah Contact:

http://www.farmtoschool.org/state-home.php?id=69

Regional CSAs

Utah: http://www.csautah.org/

Idaho: http://www.gardens.com/go/browse/csa/Idaho/all/

Cache Valley Products

http://www.cachevalleydairy.com/

Utah First (Utah’s buy local campaign)

http://www.localfirst.org/

Idaho’s Bounty (Idaho’s local campaign)

http://www.idahosbounty.org/buy-local.php

Housing & Employment

Transportation & Infrastructure

Natural Resources & Agriculture

Recreation & Trails

Coordination

General Growth

Agritourism

Agritourism refers to uses of a working farm or ranch which are for the entertainment or education of the public at large. Such activities may include pick-your-own, farm stands, petting zoos, dairy demonstrations, vineyard activities and horseback rides. A bed and breakfast or a wedding and event site on a working farm is usually thought of as agritourism as well.

Aside from the obvious additional income to farmers and ranchers, agritourism has several benefits. Adding unique tourism opportunities to an area with an existing tourist economy can draw new visitors and add to the experience for those who come already. Agritourism also has the potential to create agricultural advocates among urban residents who would not normally be concerned with agricultural issues. Tourism operations can also be a valuable marketing tool for the farm’s agricultural product. Such operations coincide with existing farms and ranches and can be a great way to increase revenues without changing the character of the area.

Obstacles to creating a successful agritourism operation are both practical and legal. A survey of agritourism operators in California showed that the most significant challenges were regulatory and liability issues. A few simple adaptations to codes can eliminate some of the major obstacles to operating an agritourism business.

State

At the state level, codes dealing with agritourism often deal with liability. In Utah, state code frees agritourism operators from liability as long as warnings are posted and activities are within the limits of normal agricultural operation. Such laws allow for operators to have a clear idea of what kind of liability they face and what insurance to purchase accordingly.

City and County

Agricultural operations are often in more rural areas and subject to county rather than city zoning code. County code is often much less specific than city code and this can be both a blessing and a curse for agritourism. Adding specificity to code can help an agritourism operation in two ways. First, by creating an agriculture-only zone, code can create a dedicated space where agritourism is allowed (see link to Mariposa County, California, AEZ zone). Second, by expressly permitting agritourism uses in the code, a potential operator avoids confusion and conflict. By creating an agricultural zone and specifically citing such uses as trail rides, pick-your-own operations and farmstays, a city or county can facilitate rather than inhibit agritourism.

General Plans

Encouraging agritourism through general plans can be helpful if such uses are desired in the future of an area. By setting aside specific areas for agritourism, a general plan can reduce conflicts of interest and disputes. A general plan is also a great way to set out implementation measures for creating agritourism in the area (see attached Sacramento County, CA plan excerpt).

Specific uses will encounter their own legal issues and must be addressed by the operator. Laws governing a farm stand will obviously be much different than those dealing with a running of the bulls or a winery. If an area sees the need for a specific type of agritourism operation, preparing a guide in addition to specifically permitting the use can be a helpful tool (see attached link to the farmstay guide for Marin County).

For an area with an existing combination of tourist and agricultural economies, agritourism is a great way to boost both. The Bear Lake area already offers a renowned harvest festival and numerous produce stands. The addition of more agritourism businesses could boost revenues, bring more tourists, and help to preserve the area’s agricultural heritage.

Online Resources

State Codes:

South Carolina Agritourism Code (State Code)

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t46c053.htm

Utah Agritourism Code (Liability Protection)

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78B/htm/78B04_051200.htm

County Codes:

Mariposa County, CA Agritourism Code and resources (County Code, AEZ zone)

http://www.mariposacounty.org/index.aspx?NID=894

Mariposa County CA Agriculture Exclusive Zone

http://www.mariposacounty.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=5821

Cavaleras County, CA (Permitted Uses)

http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/filelibrary/5327/31935.pdf

General Plans:

Sacramento County General Plan Agritourism Excerpt

http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/agritourism/planners/SacramentoCoAgritourismplandraft.pdf

Further Resources: