City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, November 10, 2015 Page Minutes of the Joint Study Session of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency, also acting as the City Council, held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 5:31 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 Marcia L. White Board members Bart E. Blair Neil K. Garner Caitlin K. Gochnour – excused Doug Stephens Amy L. Wicks (arrived at 5:38 p.m.) Board Administrator Bill Cook Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Joint Study Session is to review agenda items for the Special City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m.; discuss the proposed residential infill ordinance amendment; the proposed assisted living facility in PI zone amendment; and Council and Board business. Residential Infill Ordinance Amendment Council Policy Analyst Symes explained the proposed amendment expands the City’s residential infill ordinance to areas zoned R-1-5 and R-1-6 outside the East Central community area. The residential infill ordinance was written to allow flexibility to encourage infill development of inner block parcels throughout the historically large 10 acre blocks in the East Central community area. The proposal would expand the applicability of the ordinance to other parts of the City. Petitioners Rhonda Bachman and Carl Oldham are looking to develop an infill project near Chester Street (850 North) and Washington Boulevard. The area is zoned R-1-6 but is not within the East Central area specified in the residential infill ordinance. The petitioners are proposing that the ordinance be expanded to include R-1-5 and R-1-6 areas throughout the City. Planning Manager Montgomery provided a brief background regarding the development of the infill ordinance, explaining it was initially developed to provide guidelines that would allow some flexibility when trying to develop inner block areas in the East Central area. The ordinance allows some narrowing of streets and allows for smaller setbacks in some cases. Any proposed development that takes place under this ordinance must be reviewed closely and may be approved only if it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Since the ordinance was written originally for the East Central blocks, this size tend to have areas within the block that are underutilized and not always maintained. Although the ordinance was written with the East Central area in mind, inner blocks throughout the City remain underutilized due to the same conditions that exist in the East Central area. Mr. Montgomery reiterated Mr. Symes’ explanation of the basis of the petitioner’s request and indicated that Planning staff and the Planning Commission feel the proposed ordinance amendment is consistent with the General Plan in creating additional options for development and it will not adversely affect the Zoning Ordinance. There are neighborhoods throughout the City – outside of the East Central neighborhood – that have vacant centerpieces that remain unusable and undevelopable according to present development standards and it makes sense to apply the infill provision to those areas. Vice Chair White inquired as to the number of parcels in the City that would be eligible for the infill provision, to which Mr. Montgomery answered between 25 and 30. Council member Stephens asked if the ordinance amendment would make the infill provision available to all zoning designations. Mr. Montgomery answered no and stated that it would only apply to the R-1-5 and R-1-6 zones throughout the City. The reason that it was not extended to the R-1-8 and R-1-10 zones is that newer developments in those zoning designations have not created middle remnant parcels. Council member Stephens inquired as to the number of units that could be built in an infill project. Mr. Montgomery stated that would depend on the size of the property for a given development, but the petitioner’s development would likely contain eight single family homes. The development would have a small access point onto Cross Street and a small access point onto Washington Boulevard. Council member Stephens noted Cross Street is very narrow. Mr. Montgomery agreed, but added there will be no on-street parking on Cross Street associated with the petitioner’s proposed development.  Mr. Symes commented that an applicant would need to secure a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to proceed with an infill development and he asked Mr. Montgomery to discuss the process for securing a CUP. Mr. Montgomery stated that the CUP process for this type of development will carefully examine a projects compatibility with the existing neighborhood. There will be flexibility relative to individual lot shape and size as well as building height for the homes to be built on the lots. Chair Hyer asked if there will be flexibility relative to lot size and setbacks. Mr. Montgomery answered yes, but added that streets providing access to the development must be public streets; however, the developer may receive a waiver for sidewalks on those streets. Council member Stephens stated he would prefer that developers be required to build sidewalks. Chair Hyer noted there are some areas of the City where streets with sidewalks on only one side function very well. Council member Stephens agreed. Mr. Montgomery concluded that the CUP process will allow the City to examine each project on a case-by-case basis and determine what improvements are needed and desired by the neighborhood. He pointed out that some residents do not want sidewalks in their neighborhood and he has not seen a concept plan for the project that could potentially be developed by the petitioners. Assisted Living Facility in PI Zone Amendment Mr. Symes explained the proposed amendment would eliminate the cap on the number of individuals permitted in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or retirement home in the Professional/Institutional (PI) zone. The special regulations listed in the PI zone for this use include lot size requirements relating to the number of occupants in addition to the overall cap of 30 individuals. As Planning staff reviewed the ordinance, it was determined that the lot size and other related restrictions serve to provide appropriate regulation and that the overall cap on individuals is not needed. Mr. Montgomery explained that as the original petitioner, Spencer Wright, was looking for potential locations for an assisted living facility, he was considering the former IHC Behavioral Science facility at 5030 Harrison Boulevard. As he reviewed the ordinance, he felt that the cap of 30 individuals should be removed as there were other site restrictions present in the ordinance that could serve to provide proper regulation regarding the appropriate number of individuals in the facility. As the Planning staff reviewed this, they also felt that the cap could be removed. In addition to the site specific restrictions, the Planning staff had also reviewed the potential sites in the PI zone on which such a facility could be placed and felt that the majority were built out and that the removal of the cap was not likely to cause an issue in the future on any of these sites. Mr. Wright is no longer pursuing the facility at that location; however, the Planning staff still feel that the amendment should take place. Mr. Montgomery noted that staff investigated the history of the ordinance and could not find justification or reasoning behind placing the residency cap in the ordinance and they felt it appropriate to amend the ordinance to remove the cap and allow for the square footage requirements to dictate the design of the project. He added all state regulations pertaining to assisted living facilities will still be in force. Redevelopment Agency Agenda Review Board Administrator Cook and other members of Board staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agendas for the Redevelopment Agency meeting and Special City Council meeting. Council Business Calendar Review: Mr. Cook reviewed the Council calendar, with a brief focus on the meeting scheduled for the remainder of the month and items included in the agendas for those meetings. The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: January 5, 2016