City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, January 6, 2015 Page Minutes of the Joint Study Session of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 5:32 p.m., in the Council Work Room on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Richard A. Hyer Vice Chair Caitlin K. Gochnour Council members Bart E. Blair (arrived at 5:34 pm) Neil K. Garner Doug Stephens Marcia L. White Amy L. Wicks (arrived at 5:34 pm) Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Executive Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Finance Manager/Treasurer Laurie Johnson Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Deputy Community and Economic Development Manager Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Joint Study Session was to review agenda items for the City Council and Special Redevelopment Agency meetings which begin at 6:00 p.m., and discuss Council and Board business. RDA Agenda Review Board Executive Director Cook and other members of the Board staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agenda for the special Redevelopment Agency (RDA) meeting. Board Deputy Director Eller-Smith noted just prior to this meeting she received a revised copy of the Master Land Transfer and Development Agreement for the Trackline project and she asked Deputy Community and Economic Development Manager Cooper to summarize the changes in the document. Chair Hyer inquired as to the types of things that are not included under the term ‘material changes’, meaning what could change in the agreement or in the project that the Board or Council would not be informed of. Ms. Eller-Smith responded a change in process, typographical error corrections, or corrections to legal descriptions or square footage calculations are some of the items that may not be considered material changes. Mr. Cooper stated he has included examples of material changes in the resolution; any item that deals with funding or funding sources or any item that deals with property ownership are considered material changes and would need to be revisited by the Board or Council. He reiterated minor changes are typically not considered material changes and would be handled administratively. He reviewed a map with an overlay illustrating the situation of the development upon the land in relation to the proposed new trail as well as the existing trail and river in the area. He identified the parcel of property that will be sold first and indicated the building outline represents the design, square footage, size, and location of the building that will be constructed on that parcel. In this area there is not a lot of room for the trail to move to the east or west so the dimensions included on the map will likely be maintained. He stated the location of the trail on the north side, however, can be adjusted depending upon the location of improvements and how the movement relates to historical features. He added there is not much consideration relative to the first building shading the river or the river bank, but shading would be considered on the northern side where the distance to the river will be closer. He anticipated the first building will be a single level warehouse with elevation undulations and parapet treatments. Vice Chair Gochnour noted there was a discussion yesterday during the leadership meeting regarding whether consideration is being given to setting an open space policy specific to the area; that policy would encompass more than river shading and setbacks. Rather, the policy would be the City’s opportunity to declare that open space and the trail system is important and valued. She stated she wants to know how to accomplish declaration of such a policy. She referenced a section of the agreement that addresses the sale of open space and noted it indicates the Agency will not sell or otherwise transfer open space without first receiving written approval from the developer. She asked if the Board would review such an open space sale proposal. Mr. Cooper responded a lot of work has been done to ensure the development will be harmonious with the existing trail system and the future trail system as well as the river and no new building will be any closer to the river than the buildings currently located on the subject property. The things that will be done to the site will enhance access to the river and trail systems; the improvements will also draw more people to the area. The point at which the Board will directly be able to affect the design guidelines will be discussed in more detail during the business meeting using a flow chart that illustrates the entire approval process for the project. Board member Garner stated the Board is very focused on protecting the open space in the project area and it is correct that any new building will be located a further distance from the river or trails. Vice Chair Gochnour added that may not be saying much because when the existing buildings were constructed no thought was given to open space; anything that the City does now may be better than what exists, but she wondered if it will be enough. Mr. Cooper answered enough is a relative term and his goal is striking the balance between being too close and not close enough to the river. He indicated the most dramatic changes to the agreement are related to open space; an open space parcel has been defined in the agreement as everything north of the northern subdivision line. The parcel is naturally open with native vegetation and foot paths. The parcel was identified in the agreement for a specific reason: when the property is conveyed, the RDA will retain the open space parcel and will ultimately convey it to the City for a park; maintenance of the open space parcel will be the responsibility of the City and access to the open space parcel to the common area will be done by way of a public access easement granted by the developer at the time of subdivision platting. Not only will the parcel be platted as an open space parcel, it will also carry the open space O-1 land use designation, which carries certain restrictions and rights. He noted he has worked with Planning and Legal staff and they feel this will allow the City to retain the most control of the open space, but provide access to not only the occupants of the park, but the public as well. Board member Wicks asked what the access points will look like. Mr. Cooper stated there will be dedicated public access roads in the area and public access easements will be granted the common area near the open space; visitors will have access to on-street parking from which they will access the trail systems. The trail will have access points that will provide connectivity from the paved trails to the park area. Board member Wicks asked if signage will be used to differentiate the public access trails from business access roads in the development. Mr. Cooper replied there will be a difference in width between the two paved areas and it will be obvious for users to tell they are using a trail; there will also be directional and interpretive signage to provide information regarding the history of the site. Board member White addressed building setbacks and asked if minimum or maximum setbacks are defined in the agreement. Mr. Cooper answered no and stated the agreement being considered tonight only addresses project incentives and not development design guidelines. He noted the issues of setbacks will be addressed at a future step in the development process. Ms. Eller-Smith added that there was discussion about including design guidelines and restrictions in the agreement considered this evening, but staff felt it was more appropriate to include those guidelines in the zoning ordinance for the development; the property will not be conveyed until it is rezoned. Mr. Cook likened the proposed agreement to a parameters resolution related to financial bonds; the document includes high level information with the understanding that more detailed actions will be necessary at future dates. He reiterated Ms. Eller- Smith has created a flowchart that identifies all future steps and the role the RDA or City will have in each of those steps. Vice Chair Gochnour referenced changes in the agreement and she asked if ‘Agency’ means the RDA when discussing the sale of open space. Mr. Cooper responded the disposal of open space would qualify as a material change that would require action by the RDA. Ms. Eller-Smith added the RDA also has an agreement with the Mayor that requires Board approval prior to the sale of transfer of any property owned by the RDA. Mr. Cooper added that there are also restrictions against conveying property zoned O-1. City Attorney Williams stated it is important to note that the RDA was originally presented with a proposed agreement that has since been amended; in order to consider approval of the amended agreement tonight, the Board will need to make a motion to substitute the original agreement with the amended agreement. City Council Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled to follow the special RDA meeting. Mr. Cook also reviewed the topics for the work session scheduled to follow the Council meeting. The meeting adjourned at 5:58 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: March 17, 2015