City Council

Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 22, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Community & Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery City Recorder Tracy Hansen At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. A moment of silence was observed. Approval of Minutes Council member Stephens stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 22, 2015 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Hyer stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Closed Session of December 1, 2015 and the Work Session of December 8, 2015 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Vice Chair Blair stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 8, 2015 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 19, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. He added that he also reviewed the minutes of the Joint Work Session of February 4, 2016 and requested two corrections: Council member Nadolski was not present at the meeting and the meeting was held at the Ogden City School District Offices. Council member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Study Session of February 2, 2016 and the Closed Session of February 9, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Ordinance 2016-20 granting an electric utility franchise to Rocky Mountain Power A memo from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding the Rocky Mountain Power Franchise Agreement came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated in 1990, the City entered into a 25-year franchise agreement with PacifiCorp, now known as Rocky Mountain Power (RMP). The franchise agreement allowed Rocky Mountain Power to utilize the public right-of- way for its poles and other electric infrastructure. In exchange, the City received franchise fees and was able to control how the right-of-way was used by the power company. Rocky Mountain Power would now like to extend the franchise agreement for an additional 25 years. It is proposed the council adopt an ordinance recognizing the essential terms of the proposed Rocky Mountain Power franchise agreement. The franchise continues to allow Rocky Mountain Power the non-exclusive use of the City-owned right-of-way to maintain electrical facilities with the following conditions: • Term: 25 years • The City retains the ability to control its rights-of-way and to grant franchises to other entities. • Newly annexed land will also be subject to the franchise rights and obligations.  The franchise agreement further details how the City right-of-way will be managed: • RMP is subject to road moratoria or other roadway restrictions imposed by the City. • RMP will indemnify the City for damages due to its activities. • RMP will obtain right-of-way permits and coordinate its annual construction schedule with the City Engineer. • RMP will maintain its property in accordance with City standards. • RMP will allow the City reasonable use of its power poles for City purposes at no cost to the City. • RMP will relocate power lines when City projects are constructed. • RMP will follow the City's arboricultural standards. • RMP will consult with the City if the City engages in small power cogeneration. • RMP will renegotiate the agreement if the Utah Municipal Energy Sales Tax Act is terminated. During the term of the expiring franchise agreement, State law changed with regard to the collection of franchise fees. The same fee that was previously charged as a franchise fee is now collected by the State of Utah through the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax Act. As a result there is no fiscal impact associated with adopting a new franchise agreement. Deputy City Attorney Stratford summarized the memo and answered inquiries by the Council. Council member Stephens stated the packet materials for this item indicate there is no fiscal impact associated with the franchise agreement. Mr. Stratford indicated that is correct; in 1990 the franchise fee charged for RMP was six percent. When the State of Utah enacted the Municipal Energy and Sales Tax Act, the Act included the same amount; that amount has not changed since 1990. The franchise agreement does not actually govern the payment of those fees. Rocky Mountain Power will continue to pay the six percent. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-20, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City granting to Rocky Mountain Power and its successors an Electric Utility Franchise within Ogden City; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” A copy of the proposed ordinance was deposited with the City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinance. No persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-20 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. The Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Proposed Resolution 2016-10 noticing the general public of the intent to create the Ogden City Central Business Assessment Area No. 3 for the purpose of continued promotion of business activities in the Central Business District A memo from Community and Economic Development regarding the proposed creation of Central Business Assessment Area No. 3 came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the Assessment Area Act in Utah State Code authorizes municipalities to create Special Assessment Areas (“SAA”) to promote economic activities. (SAA’s were previously referred to as Special Improvement Districts or SID’s). Accordingly, the creation of an assessment area is a lengthy and complex process having numerous noticing provisions, public hearings, and other requirements that involve a variety of City Council actions and public input. Several changes were made to State Law in 2015 under House Bill 190, including lengthening the process and requiring more detailed assessment methodology. On October 26, 1993, the City Council established the Ogden City Central Business Improvement District No. 1 (“CBID 1”) as a mechanism to assist in the promotion of economic activities in Ogden’s Central Business District. Prior to 1993, funding for economic promotion in Ogden was generated from a 50 percent surcharge on business licenses. Based on the recommendations of the business community, the City shifted the funding source from businesses to commercial property owners, thus creating CBID 1. The improvement district was re-established in 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (the re-establishments in 2010 and 2011 were for a one-year period). The previous assessment area, Ogden City Central Business Improvement District 2, expired in August, 2015. The Administration wishes to initiate another assessment area, the Ogden City Central Business Assessment Area 3 (“CBAA 3”), by September 2016 to continue the collection of marketing, promotion, and execution of downtown promotional activities that will continue to accrue to the benefit of downtown property owners, downtown businesses, and citizens of Ogden City in general. These downtown promotional activities include cultural events, festivals, markets, holiday lighting, amphitheater events, and other special events. In addition, funds are used for promoting business investment, developing marketing publications, and coordinating public and private efforts to improve the atmosphere and experiences in the downtown area. The levy within CBAA 3 is placed upon commercial properties only. Residential, tax- exempt, and commercial properties with levy amounts of $30.00 or less per year are exempt. The boundaries of CBAA 3 are generally the Ogden River on the north, 28th Street on the south (including properties fronting 28th Street), Adams Avenue on the east (including properties fronting Adams Avenue), and Wall Avenue on the west (including properties fronting Wall Avenue). Economic promotion and revitalization of Ogden’s downtown business district is a priority for the Council and Administration. Ogden City enjoys numerous quality downtown events, programs, activities, and promotions each year. Multiple fund sources, including the City’s general fund, are being drawn upon in order to accomplish this important objective. Some of the major promotional events and activities and their annual budgets include:  Farmers Market program - $12,000  Programming and management of the Amphitheater and Plaza for the Arts - $124,300  Administration of the Ogden City Arts program - $88,975  General management and promotion of downtown activities and marketing - $13,125  Special Events Coordination - $23,000  Twilight Series - $24,000  Pioneer Days Fireworks - $5,000  Christmas Village - $263,600  Jupiter Train - $5,000  Area Beautification - $25,000  In-kind contributions / soft costs (police, public works, etc.) - $100,000 The total budget of these major downtown promotion activities is estimated to be over $684,000. Revenues from CBAA 3 would fund up to $161,018 (23%) of the total estimated budget with the remainder being funded by the City (77%) out of general funds and other approved sources. The assessments within CBAA 3 are levied against the properties that may be directly or indirectly benefited by such economic promotion activities, which benefits need not actually increase the fair market value of the properties to be assessed. In no event will the City assess more than the total annual aggregate amount of $161,018 against the properties benefitted within CBAA 3. Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Cooper summarized the memo and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution is to notify the general public of the intent to create CBAA3 for the purpose of continued promotion of business activities in the CBD. He discussed the activities outlined in the staff memo that have been conducted in the Central Business District historically, after which he noted the money to be generated would fund approximately 25 percent of the costs associated with these activities. He then reviewed the proposed boundaries of the CBAA3, noting it is essentially the same as the boundary that has been in place since 1993. He noted that assessments will only be levied against commercial properties within the boundaries; residential and other exempt properties will not be assessed and, in addition, staff proposes that any property with an annual assessment of $30 or less be exempt. He then summarized the schedule to proceed with implementation of the CBAA3, noting that the process includes a public hearing on April 26 before the City Council; property owners within the proposed CBAA3 will receive formal notification of that public hearing. The process could ultimately conclude on June 28 when the Board of Equalization will share the information they have received from the public regarding the CBAA3; the Council could then consider the information and take action on the creation of the CBAA3. He emphasized the action before the Council tonight is a resolution that gives public notice of the intent to create the CBAA3 and it is staff’s recommendation that the City Council adopt the resolution. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-10, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council noticing the general public of its intent to create the Ogden City Central Business Assessment Area No. 3 for the purpose of levying assessments against properties within the assessment area to continue to promote business activity and economic development in the Central Business District of Ogden City.” Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed resolution. No persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Public Comments Michael Flaherty, 1376 North Monroe Boulevard, stated he has lived in his home for 10 years and he has had problems with high school students racing on Monroe Boulevard. He cited a fatal accident that occurred at the corner north of the cemetery several years ago and stated that students have since changed the racing route to avoid that area. He has contacted the Police Department and they do what they can, but he lives at the edge of the Department’s service area and he is the last to be taken care of. He stated the City has located cameras on 25th Street to catch illegal activity, but the racing is occurring on Monroe Boulevard on a weekly basis and he asked that a camera be installed on Monroe Boulevard to photograph the students participating in the races in order to notify them that they are being watched and that their activity is illegal. He stated he is unsure the cost associated with this proposal, but there are two light poles in the area that could be used to mount radar equipment. He stated if the students are informed that they are being watched, they may stop the activity. He noted that he followed one of the students back to the high school one day and reported his activity, and it stopped for a while, but it has resumed. Mayor Caldwell reported there are some regulations on the use of radar equipment and cameras. He asked that Mr. Flaherty meet with City Administration following the meeting to provide his contact information in order for his complaint to be forwarded to the Police Department. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell encouraged everyone to participate in their local caucus meeting this evening; this is a unique election year and tonight is a chance for everyone to get involved. Typically, votes from the State of Utah are not meaningful in a presidential election year, but that is not the case this year and he asked that everyone express their opinion and let their voice be heard by voting. Council member Comments Council member Hyer echoed Mayor Caldwell’s comments about the uniqueness of the current election cycle; what is happening across the nation is unprecedented and it will be interesting to continue to watch. He stated he is hopeful that voters get involved and make their voice heard. Proposed Ordinance 2016-18 amending the Ogden City General Plan and the Southeast Ogden Community Plan to allow R-1-10 and R-1-8 zoning for properties generally located on Harrison Boulevard between 5100 South and Shadow Valley Drive; and Proposed Ordinance 2016-19 reclassifying as Single Family Residential Zone (R-1-8) property generally located north of Shadow Valley Drive at 5172-5190 Harrison Boulevard. A memo from the Community and Economic Development (CED) Department regarding a proposed amendment to the Southeast Community Plan and subsequent rezone came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated a petition has been submitted for an amendment to the Southeast Ogden Community Plan and for a subsequent rezone of property located at 5171- 5190 Harrison Boulevard. The proposed community plan amendment would allow an option of either R-1-8 or R-1-10 zoning on approximately 10 acres of property on the east side of Harrison Boulevard north of Shadow Valley Drive. The current community plan language limits the zoning of the property to R-1-10. The petition also includes a proposed rezone of the same property from its current R-1-10 zoning to the R-1-8 zoning. The zoning change cannot be approved until and unless the community plan is amended allowing the R-1-8 option. The current proposal is to amend the Southeast Ogden Community Plan to allow the R-1-8 zoning option in addition to the current R-1-10 zoning for property located at 5100 South and Shadow Valley Drive. The amendment includes both a text amendment and a map amendment showing the specific area that would have both zoning options available. The proposal also includes a rezone of the subject property from the R-1-10 zone to the R-1-8 zone. If the community plan amendment is not approved, any rezone of the property to a zone other than the R-1-10 zone would create an inconsistency between the City’s general plan and the zoning of the property. The rezone does not include the approval of a specific design or concept for a PRUD, nor does the approval allow the Council to conditionally set a density yield for a PRUD (e.g. approve the rezone but limit the development to X number of units). The density yield, or number of units that may be built, is determined using calculations included in the PRUD ordinance. The memo concluded the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the meeting of January 6, 2016 and made a recommendation to approve both the community plan amendment and the rezone. The Commission recommended approval of the community plan amendment with the finding that that there have been changing conditions in the community and amending the community plan is consistent with the overall development trends and community plan objectives. The recommendation was made with a 5-0 vote. The Commission further recommended approval of the rezone of the property from R-1-10 to R-1-8 with the finding that the R-1-8 zoning option is consistent with the community plan and zoning policies. The recommendation was made with vote of 4-1. Commissioner Schade voted against the recommendation stating that he felt the R-1-10 zoning was more consistent with the development patterns than was the R-1-8 zoning. Two individuals spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. Kent Anderson expressed concern about the buffering along the east side of the development area, and Bud Toliver stated concerns regarding privacy and security for his horses to the east. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and stated during the Planning Commission’s discussion of the two proposed actions, they focused on the changes that have occurred in the vicinity of the subject property, which they ultimately felt warranted the requested Plan amendment and rezone. They discussed the topography and isolation of the property from Harrison Boulevard and felt the requested land use would be suitable. The rezoning action would allow the developer to increase the density of the project in order to aid in financing the improvements to the property. The R-1-8 zoning would allow up to 45 units versus the 36 that would be allowed within R-1-10 zoning. He indicated there is R-3 zoning to the north and south of the subject property and the Planning Commission felt R-1-8 zoning would be a good buffer between that zoning and the single family homes located further to the east. They recommended the zoning of the subject property be changed, though one Planning Commissioner voted against the recommendation. Council member Stephens asked for details as to why Commissioner Schade voted in opposition to the rezone. Mr. Montgomery stated Commission Schade voted in favor of amending the Community Plan to provide additional zoning options for properties located within the Plan area, but he felt the R-1-10 zoning was more appropriate for the subject property. Council member Stephens asked if R-1-10 zoning would comply with the Community Plan. Mr. Montgomery stated it would comply if the Council voted in favor of amending the Community Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Council member Nadolski stated the Council has heard from citizens who are concerned about the change and he thanked Mr. Montgomery for submitting a memo to address those concerns; he asked him to review the memo that discusses issues like traffic impacts and utility service to the subject property. Mr. Montgomery noted the first concern raised deals with traffic associated with the proposed development. He noted the property is currently zoned R-1-10 and he examined the differences in traffic that could occur between the R-1-10 and R-1-8 zoning designations, knowing that the only access that will be available for vehicular access to the property is from Shadow Valley Drive. The traffic count maximums between the R-1-10 and R-1-8 zoning designations is 72 vehicles per day, which is a fairly insignificant amount considering over 30,000 vehicles travel on Harrison Boulevard per day. Another factor to consider is the future traffic pattern shifts associated with the extension of Skyline Drive; many people living in the area will use that road to travel north and south rather than using Harrison Boulevard and in reality the traffic impact associated with the development will be less noticeable. He then addressed the City’s ability to provide utility services to the property; the City has adequate water and the present problem in the area is the water lines dead-end. The proposed development would allow for the extension and looping of water lines, which will not only provide adequate water for this development, but will improve water capacity for other developments in the area. Sewer service is available on Shadow Valley Drive and the lines are adequate to handle the sewer that will be generated by the project; however, there are some service issues where the line crosses into South Ogden, but the City is trying to work with South Ogden City to address those maintenance issues. There is no storm water system in the area and it will be necessary to retain water on-site and that would be addressed in the design phase of the project. He noted an additional concern was raised, but it relates to an issue outside of the City limits; the concern was related to the proximity of Birch Creek to homes in the area and how the potential project would impact children that play in that area. He stated the development has no relationship and impact on that area and such concerns would need to be addressed by South Ogden City. Council member Nadolski addressed the projected increase in traffic associated with the project and stated that while he recognizes the number of trips is small when considering it in the context of the total trips on Harrison Boulevard per day, but he asked if staff has considered how the traffic will impact congestion in the cul-de-sac onto Shadow Valley Drive. Mr. Montgomery stated it will be necessary to ensure an adequate landing area is included in the project to provide enough room to wait for traffic to move. He stated the traffic should not conflict with other uses in the area that typically generate increased traffic during peak driving times. There will be increased traffic on Shadow Valley Drive, but it will likely flow onto Skyline Drive. Council member Stephens inquired as to recent traffic counts on Shadow Valley Drive. Mr. Montgomery responded the traffic count is approximately 3,000 to 4,000 per day, but he pointed out that the road currently dead-ends in both directions. He noted that once the road is extended to Weber State University, the traffic levels will increase. He added Shadow Valley Drive was built to handle a capacity of five times what will ever occur there. Council member Stephens asked if the water lines in the area will be extended to improve service regardless of the zoning of the property. Mr. Montgomery answered yes. Council member Nadolski thanked Mr. Montgomery for preparing the memo to respond to resident concerns. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinances 2016-18 and 2016-19, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden City General Plan by amending the Southeast Ogden Community Plan to provide certain zoning options of R-1-10 and R-1-8 for properties generally located on Harrison Boulevard between 5100 South and Shadow Valley Drive; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the zoning map of Ogden City, as adopted by Section 15-3-3- of the Ogden Municipal Code, to reclassify as single-family residential zone (R-1-8) property heretofore classified as single-family residential zone (R-1-10), generally located north of Shadow Valley Drive at 5172-5190 Harrison Boulevard as more particularly described in the body of this ordinance; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” Copies of the proposed ordinances were deposited with the City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinances. Travis Campbell, 5147 Taylor Avenue, stated he lives near the subject property and he asked if the proposed development will include single family homes or townhome units; he indicated he is comfortable with the development as long as it is not an apartment complex. Larry Brunson, 5201 South 1550 East, stated he lives in the Birch Creek area on a dead-end street just below Harrison Boulevard. There are many elderly residents that live in that area and they currently have difficulty accessing Harrison Boulevard and he wondered how the new proposed development would worsen those problems. He said there is no traffic signal at 5100 South and Harrison Boulevard and the visibility in the area is low. He asked that his concerns be taken into consideration when making a decision on the matter. Policy Analyst Symes indicated the petition was present; Chair White then invited the petitioner to speak on the matter. Petitioner Vaughan Jacobsen approached the Council and stated he appreciates the concerns that have been raised and the opportunity to address them. He indicated he has been working with the Planning Division of the City on this development for a number of months and he appreciates their willingness to work with him to make the project possible. He addressed Council member Stephens’ comments about water lines in the area and indicated they will be extended regardless of whether the zoning designation for the property is R-1-8 or R-1-10; he noted there is a cost to developing the land that the increased density seems to mandate and that is why he asked for the R-1-8 zoning to be granted. He then reviewed a concept plan for the project to illustrate traffic patterns associated with the project. He noted the lot sizes for property on the north end of the project that abuts the Intermountain Health Care (IHC) property. If the R-1-10 zoning designation were to be maintained and the property were developed for traditional single family living, the traffic count would be much higher than for a development that will attract those of retirement age. He acknowledged the property to the east of the subject property has horses and some concerns have been expressed about the compatibility between that property and his property. He stated property to the east of the horse property has been developed with no problems and he does not anticipate this situation will be any different. He has worked with the owner of the horse property to keep them apprised of the status of his project and ensured that he will do all he can to protect their privacy. Council member Stephens asked if the homes to be built in the development are of the single family. Mr. Jacobsen stated the homes are twin-home style, but single family in nature. The wall between the garages will be shared between the two units. He added that the minimum square foot per home is 1,700. Council member Nadolski stated he is happy to hear that Mr. Jacobsen is working with adjacent property owners to protect their privacy. He referenced conversations that took place during the work session and stated it is his understanding that the City will be considering a development agreement for the property before final approval is granted. Mr. Montgomery stated that if the developer chooses to proceed with a Planned Unit Development (PUD), such application would be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a conditional use and ultimately be considered by the Mayor. The Council would not take any additional action on the project since the Planning Commission and Mayor would take into consideration current ordinance requirements that would govern the project. Bud Toliver, no address given, stated he is virtually the only neighbor of the property; the developer has kept him apprised of what he is doing on the property and he only has a couple of concerns. He stated he has been convinced that the property will ultimately be developed and if he owned the property he would also want to develop it with the highest density allowed. He stated that one of his concerns is the traffic on Shadow Valley Drive; he acknowledged that it is not the developer’s problem and if the City indicates the road can handle the increased traffic he cannot complain, but currently when accessing Shadow Valley Drive from Harrison Boulevard there is a traffic signal in one direction only and he feels the Utah Department of Transportation should improve the intersection to make traffic stop in all directions to address problems. He then referenced the concept plan for the project and identified the home that would be located nearest his property; when he moved to the area he was the only person living there and he liked that very much. He is not really happy to have too many neighbors, but he does not feel the development proposal is unreasonable; however, he would like for the home that would be located closest to his property to be shifted in the other direction slightly. With caveats that the traffic be addressed and that the home nearest him be moved, he supports the project. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ORDINANCE 2016-18 WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-18 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ORDINANCE 2016-19 WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-19 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS. Council member Stephens offered an explanation for his no votes; he is concerned about traffic in the vicinity of the subject property. He stated he hopes the development is successful, but he is worried about the traffic impacts on Shadow Valley Drive and Skyline Drive. He is hopeful arrangements can be made to ensure the roads can accommodate traffic now and in the future. Council member Nadolski stated that he is also concerned about traffic, specifically entering the subdivision from Shadow Valley Drive and how that movement may delay existing traffic flows in the area. He stated he voted to support the Community Plan amendment and rezone, but he is hopeful City Administration can work to address the traffic concerns that have been expressed. The Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:27 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ TRACY HANSEN, MMC CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: September 13, 2016  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, March 22, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 5:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Board members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Board Administrator Bill Cook Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Executive Director Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Community & Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery City Recorder Tracy Hansen Approval of Minutes Board member Hyer stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 8, 2015, and the Joint Study Sessions of December 8, 2015 and January 12, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Vice Chair Blair stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 22, 2015 and the Regular Meeting of December 2, 2015 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Board member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 5, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Board member Stephens stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Closed Executive Session of January 5, 2016 and found them to be accurate. Board member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Work Session of January 5, 2016 and the Joint Study Session of February 9, 2016 and found them to be accurate. Board member Nadolski stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 2016 and found them to be accurate. BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed resolution 2016-9 approving the guaranty of a $2,000,000 loan between the Ogden Industrial Development Corporation and OBE Vision, LLC A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding a loan guaranty between Ogden Industrial Development Corporation and OBE Vision, LLC came before the Board for consideration. The memo gave background regarding the proposal, stating on April 23, 2013 the Board adopted the Trackline Economic Development Project Area Plan. This plan was created to replace the legacy Golden Spike Redevelopment Plan and created a new project area of approximately 122 acres of land in West Ogden in the general vicinity of the Ogden Union Stockyards. On January 6, 2015 the Board approved a Master Land Transfer and Development Agreement (MLTDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and OBE Vision, LLC. The agreement set forth the terms and conditions under which the developer would acquire land within the project area from the Agency, as well as certain conditions in regards to the development and re-sale of the Ogden Business Exchange subdivision. The memo outlined that financing for the project consisted of both public and developer funds. Public funds include: CIP Funds $237,000 Future CIP Funds $1,000,000 ($250,000 over four years) HUD 108 Loan Funds $3,340,000 CDBG Grant Funds $550,000 EDA Grant Funds $2,380,195 Tax Increment Up to $10 million  The memo indicated all public funds, with the exception of tax increment and $750,000 of Future CIP Funds have been allocated to the project. Developer funds are described as follows: Developer Cash Contribution $100,000 Developer Loan $6,000,000 The developer has allocated and expended all of the cash contribution and instead of obtaining a loan for the $6 million as originally intended in the MLTDA, the developer has raised and expended $3 million from private equity sources. The developer has also raised an additional $1 million from equity sources; however, the $1 million has not yet been expended. The memo reported as originally required by the MLTDA, the developer is still obligated to provide the full $6 million towards eligible project costs. Conventional bank financing has proven to be difficult due to the speculative nature of the project. The memo explained it was for this reason City Staff introduced the developer to the Ogden Industrial Development Corporation (OIDC). The OIDC is a local 501(c)(6) corporation whose mission is “supporting economic development in the Weber County area.” Through a formal application process, the OIDC approved a loan request from the developer for a $2 million development loan and as a condition the OIDC requires the Agency provide a guaranty. The OIDC loan, along with the available $1 million and the $3 million already expended puts the developer in compliance with the requirements of the MLTDA and provides the remaining funds necessary to complete the project. The memo indicated according to the MLTDA the Agency contemplated the necessity of providing security for a developer loan. In the unlikely event of a default by the developer and since the property will already have been pledged as security for the loan, the OIDC would have the right to commence a foreclosure action against the property. In such an event, the Agency would take all steps necessary to prevent completion of the foreclosure of the property. The agency would either renegotiate the terms of the loan, or make arrangements to pay off the balance. The memo explained the agency would then seek damages against the developer as provided under the terms of the MLTDA. Providing a written guaranty would not increase the risk to the Agency, the only risk to the Agency would be the lack of funding and the project stalling. Community & Economic Development Deputy Director Cooper summarized the memo and indicated the resolution before the Board would approve the guaranty of a $2 million loan to advance development of approximately 51 acres in the Trackline Economic Development Project area. He stated it is the recommendation of Administration the resolution be adopted. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-9, entitled: “A resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of Ogden, Utah approving the guaranty of a $2,000,000 loan between the Ogden Industrial Development Corporation as lender, and OBE Vision, LLC as the borrower for the development of certain real property of approximately 51 acres located in the Trackline Economic Development Project Area in the general vicinity of the Ogden Union Stockyards.” BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARNER, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. There being no further business to come before the Board, BOARD MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 5:25 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ TRACY HANSEN, MMC CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: August 16, 2016  Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 22, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:30 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 Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Planning Manager Greg Montgomery City Recorder Tracy Hansen The purpose of the Joint Work Session was to review the agendas for the Special Redevelopment Agency and City Council Meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. and receive presentations and have discussions regarding the following: Dinosaur Park Foundation; Council-Mayor discussion; Planning update: and Board and Council business. Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook briefly reviewed the agendas for the Council and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) meetings scheduled to begin at 5:15 p.m. Central Business Assessment Area No. 3 - Chair White inquired as to how property owners in the proposed area will be informed of the intent to create the area. Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Cooper noted that pending tonight’s decision, City staff will send formal notice to all property owners within the proposed assessment area to inform them of a public hearing scheduled for April 26, 2016. Advertisements will also be placed in the local newspaper for four consecutive weeks. Once the area has been established each property owner will receive an additional letter to inform them of the levy that will be assessed against their property and the creation of the Board of Equalization that would hear any appeals of the assessment. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith stated Council staff needs to know which Council members are able to serve on the Board of Equalization; she facilitated a brief discussion about the schedule of Board of Equalization meetings, after which Mr. Cook indicated that Council leadership will make the appointments to the Board of Equalization. South East Ogden Community Plan Amendment - Council member Stephens stated he is concerned about the impact the proposed development will have on the area, specifically related to traffic. Planning Manager Montgomery clarified that the property will not be accessed from Harrison Boulevard; the only access will be from Shadow Valley Drive. Council Policy Analyst Symes added that the property currently carries the R-1-10 zoning designation and could be developed according to the standards of that zone; a development that meets the R-1-8 zoning standards would not dramatically increase traffic over what would currently be allowed on the property. Presentation from Dinosaur Park Foundation Casey Allen, Dinosaur Park Director, noted this is the fourth year he has provided the Council with a presentation according to the terms of the Park Management Agreement between the Foundation and the City. He used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with information about activities and advances at the Park over the past year. He reviewed the Park’s mission statement as follows: “The Ogden Dinosaur Park & Museum Foundation strives to secure and provide resources to develop and maintain dinosaur natural history exhibits, educational and recreational activities and expand facilities and programs to service people of all ages.” In 2015 the Park hosted 16,683 students who visited the Park on field-trips, which is an increase over 2014. He then noted adult and child admissions in 2015 increased by 28 percent and 19 percent, respectively, and membership purchases at the Park increased. One attendance decrease the Park experienced was related to events and that is specifically related to Summer Saturdays supported by Recreation, Arts, Museum, and Parks (RAMP) proceeds; in the past the Park has had three Summer Saturdays where the Park was open to visitors for a full day, but in 2015 the Park was only open half day to Summer Saturday visitors. He discussed some of the special events held at the Park during 2015 including the Halloween Carnivore Carnival, the Easter Egg Hunt, Summer Paleontology Lecture Series, and RAMP Summer Saturdays and he referenced some of the many sponsors that assist in making those events possible. He then reviewed the operational income and expense report for the Park, noting net operations increased to $57,888 in 2015 from $13,205 in 2014. The increase is associated with an increase in memberships and general admissions, though there was a decrease in gift shop revenues. He stated he would like to use the increased revenues to address infrastructure needs and add new exhibits to the Park. These activities can also be augmented by grant funds. He then discussed laboratory projects that were completed or underway in 2015, noting the Park benefitted from 4,455 volunteer hours by 42 trained paleo technicians; they completed 59 specimens and conducted 214 lab tours. This year Park lost Mr. Green who was an iguana that had lived at the Park for many years. Founding member of the Ogden Natural History Museum Liz Rudd, was also lost; she was very important to the education aspect of the Park. Her husband is in his 90s as well and experiencing some health issues and both are missed at the Park. He then discussed renovations completed at the education building last year; the building experienced damage associated with a flood and that damage was remediated. The building now features six new full operational science experiment stations and a meeting space for up to 60 and a full functioning kitchen. The building will be reopened this coming weekend in conjunction with the 2016 Easter Egg Hunt event. He discussed other projects currently underway at the park including new bridge and trail repairs, an indoor quarry, rock hounding, repairs to dinosaurs, construction of restrooms in the playground area, and the dinosaur discovery display. The Foundation is also planning for projects to be completed in 2017 including updating signage, improving the laboratory, upgrading museum lighting, development of the earth history exhibit, a new geology exhibit, and a new spinosaurus exhibit. The strategic plan of the Park has been addressed by the Foundation to consider ongoing issues in the Park. The key intent issues include:  Issue 1-Expand offerings to combat Seasonality of the Park  Issue 2-Address Stagnant Exhibits, Inside Museum and Outside in Park  Issue 3-Address aging infrastructure  Issue 4-Audience development  Issue 5-Volunteer Development  Issue 6-Staff Professional Development Mr. Allen then noted the Foundation is in the process of negotiating to renew the operational management contract; a five year term has been discussed. He reviewed the several accomplishments made during the first five years of the operational management contract, including:  Repaired and repainted every dinosaur in the park  Construction of the Living Dinosaurs building and Amphitheater  Expanded scientific educational offerings for field trips, and the general public  Laboratory: improvements to space and paleo tech training program  Overhauled animatronic dinosaurs  Welcomed nearly 500,000 visitors in 4 ½ years of management  Recovered and redeveloped Education Center  Built the Hard Rock stage and presentation area  Installed new bridge  Made all City operational payments Mr. Allen concluded by indicating he is willing to answer any questions the Council may have for him. Council member Garner stated last year Mr. Allen talked to the Council about refurbishing some of the dinosaur sculptures with a skin or some sort of outer layer that may last longer and he inquired as to the progress of that project. Mr. Allen responded that he has been testing some samples of different products that would accomplish that goal. All future sculptures will be coated by elastomer products to offer protection, especially during the winter months. Council member Stephens asked if the Dinosaur Park networks with the dinosaur facility at Thanksgiving Point. Mr. Allen commented that the facility at Thanksgiving Point is a for-profit facility and they do not have much interest in collaborating with the Dinosaur Park. The entity that collaborates the most with the Dinosaur Park is the Natural History Museum at the University of Utah. Mr. Allen briefly recognized members of the Foundation’s Board of Directors and thanked the Council for their attention to his presentation and for their support. Council-Mayor Discussion Council member Garner requested an update regarding the Union Station renovation project. Mayor Caldwell reported the City has sent letters requesting the 99-year lease for the facility be extended. The City has also been informed that Union Pacific Railroad may be interested in selling the building to the City, which would be a great benefit and would likely make the capital campaign for the project more successful. Management Services Director Buxton has been assigned to the project and has been updating him weekly regarding its progress. The Council had a brief discussion regarding implications of the transfer of ownership of the building, with a focus on other entities that could benefit from the sale of the asset, after which Council member Stephens asked if the City is currently responsible for some repairs to the facility. Mayor Caldwell stated the City has assumed responsibility for much of the maintenance of the building and will be taking over more duties in January of 2017. Much work is needed to rehabilitate and repair various infrastructure and utility components at the facility. Mr. Buxton now has a seat on the Board for the Union Station Foundation and he is very aware of the problems at the facility and the Foundation’s needs. Council member Garner then asked for updates regarding various economic development projects at sites throughout the City including 32nd Street and Harrison Boulevard, 17th Street and Wall Avenue, 12th Street and Wall Avenue, 17th Street and Washington Boulevard, the Trackline Project, and 26th Street and Monroe Boulevard. Mayor Caldwell answered the Community and Economic Development (CED) Department is working diligently to incentivize redevelopment of 32nd Street and Harrison Boulevard, with a focus on how the proposed bus rapid transit line will relate to the site. He then stated unique developers have expressed some interest in 17th Street and Wall Avenue and asked CED Director Christopulos to provide a more thorough report. Mr. Christopulos remarked a number of different large scale users are considering the property and they are following through the due diligence requirements to determine feasibility of project. He added the City will be represented at the International Commercial Shopping Center (ICSC) and staff will make proposals to potential developers, but there are currently no solid leads for the property. He then discussed development prospects for 12th Street and Wall Avenue, specifically the old Fred Meyer building, which will be seeing major demolition activities in the next 30 days, with additional updates to follow. He then reported that the construction of an auto parts store is currently underway at 17th Street and Washington Boulevard. He referenced the Trackline Project and noted CED staff is working to finalize contracts with additional tenants at the project. Mayor Caldwell added that progress is continuing on the EnVe building and it looks fantastic; a number of different people have contacted the City about the project as a result of seeing what is occurring with the EnVe project. Council member Lopez discussed the project to be completed at 26th Street and Monroe Boulevard; the plan is to build a 12,000 square foot building at the site for educational programs. Mayor Caldwell added the City purchased the old Stimpson’s sign that was associated with the business on the property and it will be repurposed in the downtown area to preserve the history of the business. Mayor Caldwell then reported on the top five items or issues that have taken the majority of his time. He stated he recently visited Taiwan on a trade mission where he generated three significant leads for businesses interested in North American distribution. He is hopeful the trip will pay dividends and will also strengthen the City’s relationship with Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCUtah) and the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED). He then reported last week CNBC produced six different stories regarding Ogden City and he will provide Council staff with a copy of the links to the stories. They provided great talking points about Ogden and this kind of national media attention is very valuable and is a testament to the hard work that has been done and is now paying off. The reporter indicated to him that she feels the City has found a unique way to collaborate and cooperate on projects that is not seen in other communities. He stated the City has developed key partnerships as a result of the efforts of staff and elected leaders of the City and that has paid off. He added one problem all the great media attention has created for the City is that other cities are trying to ‘steal’ City employees in order to have great things happening in their communities as well; it is a credit to Ogden City having great and solid employees, but it is a challenge to find ways to keep them incentivized and to compensate them fairly. He hopes to be able to retain the best and brightest employees and this is something that he discusses regularly with all Department Directors. He then reported on a discussion held yesterday during the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Board meeting regarding transient room tax and the manner in which tax revenues are used to measure tourism in the community; revenue in the County has increased 34 percent compared to the same time last year and revenue for Ogden City has increased 54 percent compared to the same time last year. The City has been great at developing or adding to special events that create a great draw for tourists or outdoor recreation sports participants. He then concluded by stating he participated in a ride along with the Police Department on Friday morning and the first call they responded to was a house fire at 566 24th Street; it was devastating for the residents of the home and the community lost a great Victorian home. However, he wanted to offer his gratitude to the City’s emergency responders; it was great to see the Police and Fire Departments come together to control the scene and offer aid to the residents with great sensitivity. The experience increased his pride in the Departments. Council member Hyer stated he completed a four year term of service on the CVB Board and he feels they do a great job and offer a great benefit to the City, especially considering the amount of money the City dedicates to the cause. He inquired if the City could benefit more by offering more funding to the CVB. Mayor Caldwell stated the majority of the revenue generated by tourism taxes is funneled through Weber County and the CVB gets a percentage of the total revenue; that practice will continue and the CVB may get even more money as new revenue streams continue to be developed. Council member Hyer stated CVB Director, Sara Tolliver, is excellent at her job and he would hate to see her leave as a result of lack of resources. Mayor Caldwell agreed and noted that he is supportive of increasing support for the CVB and their staff. Tourism can be a great economic driver for the City and increased tourism will only offer greater relief to year-round residents of the City. Council member Lopez inquired as to whether the City is hosting international or national tourists. Mayor Caldwell stated the City is attracting tourists from everywhere because of the ski market and summer business travel opportunities. The State of Utah is a great draw in general because of the State Parks located here. Chair White asked if Uber has been successful in Ogden. Mayor Caldwell stated he is not sure of the success Uber has seen in Ogden, but it is a unique business model to watch. He stated it is his understanding the model is more successful in more dense cities, but it could continue to grow in Ogden. Council member Nadolski asked for a report on the 2016 Legislative session. Mayor Caldwell stated he missed the last day of the Legislative session while traveling to Taiwan, but Chief Administrative Officer Johnson was in attendance. He noted he feels as if the majority of the session was spent trying to kill bad legislation that could have been very detrimental to Ogden. Council member Hyer asked if there was any legislation dealing with the City’s liability relative to the condition of sidewalks throughout the community. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson answered no and indicated he does not feel there is support in the legislature for such a bill that would release cities of such liability. He then reported the City focused on legislation that would have offered new or increased funding to various programs in the City, but there was not much success on that front. He discussed legislation regarding funding for half-way houses in the community and indicated additional work is needed to increase such funding provided for that purpose. He reported City Attorney Williams did a great job for the City, specifically relating to legislation regarding Police body-cameras and public accessibility to footage taken on those cameras. He stated overall there was not a lot of great new legislation, but there were not many harmful bills passed either. Council member Nadolski inquired about legislation relative to Adult Parole and Probation (AP&P) and the funding for a new full time employee for the entity. Mr. Johnson stated that AP&P could not lobby for additional funding during the session, but the City was told that the entity was given enough money that they should be able to staff a new position for a pilot program in Ogden in conjunction with the recommended amendments to the City’s Good Landlord Program. Chair White asked if money was allocated for the 24th Street Interstate-15 interchange. Mr. Johnson answered no. Council member Lopez referenced a recent visit with the Peruvian Ambassador and stated there were a couple of businesses in attendance at the meeting that discussed business ties they have with Mexico and Latin America and he inquired as to Mr. Johnson’s take-away from that meeting and if he feels there are opportunities in the future to explore business and tourism partnerships with countries in Mexico and Latin America. Mr. Johnson answered yes; the City would need some help to proceed, but it is something the City would be foolish not to take advantage of. He stated he felt the Ambassador was interested as well, but such a transaction will require dialogue amongst needed people. Council member Lopez stated that he will do whatever he can to aid in such efforts. Mayor Caldwell stated that he is also supportive of developing opportunities in Mexico and Latin America, especially given the demographic of the City and the surrounding communities. Council member Lopez stated that he is happy to see the City building good and needed business partners with companies overseas, but Mexico is much closer and is the third largest economic partner to the United States behind Canada. Council member Stephens asked if a sister-city relationship with a city in Mexico would further the efforts. Mayor Caldwell stated he is unsure, but he is interested in developing trade relationships with Mexico. Council Executive Director Cook added that at the conclusion of the meeting with the Peruvian Ambassador the City agreed to investigate opportunities in Peru; he believes Salt Lake City has a sister-city relationship with a Peruvian city and that relationship is being evaluated. The meeting recessed briefly at 4:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:55 p.m. Planning Update Planning Manager Montgomery explained each quarter the Planning Division provides the Council an update of the various projects that are being worked on. This report informs the Council of projects that may be coming forward and of activities taking place in the community. Gibson Community Plan: The Gibson Community Plan public hearing is scheduled for April 6, 2016 with the Planning Commission. The last public open house was held on January 20, 2016 at the Ogden Preparatory Academy at 1415 Lincoln Avenue. The information from the open house has been reviewed by the Planning Commission in two separate work sessions. The Planning Commission will not only be looking at the Plan but also considering rezoning and ordinance amendments as part of the community plan. Those recommendations will then be forwarded to the City Council once the Commission has taken final action. Lester Park Design Charrette: The Council received information on the progress of the design competition after the meetings that were held during February. Editing to the booklet that will be used for those who want to participate in the design are now being made. The booklet is so the designers can understand the neighborhood’s expectations as they develop their plan. The time frame is as follows:  May 16 Competition launch  June 15 Registration deadline  August 4 Entry deadline  August 18 Finalists announced Council member Lopez inquired at what point it would be appropriate to discuss a petition for a potential name change for the park. Mr. Montgomery stated it is his opinion it would be most appropriate to consider such an action after the design competition has concluded. Council member Lopez stated his question is related to whether a suggested name change should come from the City Council or City Administration. Mr. Montgomery stated that there are two ways a park name could be changed: first is a recommendation from the City Council and second is a citizen petition. He is aware there may be some interest from the Council in changing the name and he feels it would be most appropriate to consider that after the design of the park is complete. Mr. Montgomery stated Lester Park was named after a former City Mayor, but it was originally named Liberty Park. Council member Lopez stated he is aware there are many citizens interested in the name change, though he has not heard there is a particular name in mind. He feels the name change is a great idea and would like to discuss it further. The Council discussed the appropriate process for considering a name change. International Directional Sign: The Arts Commission received design proposals for the project on March 11, 2016. The selection on the design will be made next week so the project can move forward. Harrison Boulevard Pole Signs and LED Signs: The Planning Staff has been looking at the number of pole signs that have been going up. Since the last update we have included the need for regulations on LED display signs. A work session with the Planning Commission on this item is scheduled for March 16, 2016. 24th and 2550 South Zoning in West Ogden: The West Ogden Community plan talks about the potential rezoning along these two corridors and how the development of a full interchange will cause an increased demand for mixed uses. It is important to create zoning and standards that will allow the desired uses now rather than latter so that this corridor can reflect the desired impression when people travel into central Ogden. It is anticipated the Planning Commission will be looking at this item in May of 2016. Downtown Parking Master Plan: Planning Staff has been working on collecting block by block analysis on parking in the downtown area and projecting the likely needs as well as potential constraints for each block. The next step in development of a plan is to take the projections and establish suggested strategies, general parking policies, ordinance changes, and implementation strategies for the plan. This was placed behind other projects that keep coming up. The need for the overall plan is important as the county is also facing parking concerns with their parking garage. National APA Conference: April 2-4, 2016 is the National American Planning Conference. The planning staff proposed a session at this year’s conference and was selected to present. Ward Ogden, Justin Anderson and Greg Montgomery will be making the presentation on the unique way Ogden has developed over the last 15 years. Public Transit Shelters For The 603 Route: The next 5 shelters should be going up on the 603 route this next week. This has been an extended process for these needed improvements but it will have a long term benefit. Replacement of Rick Grover: The final interview for Deputy Planning Manager Grover’s replacement will take place this week. Originally interviews of 14 qualified candidates took place, after which the list was narrowed down to 5 candidates. Preservation Week: The annual architectural scavenger hunt is coming up in advance of the preservation activity on May 19, 2016. Brochures should be available in late April. This year’s event will focus on the 17th Street and Canyon Road area. Staff has been working with a class at Weber State to collect some history of the area and they will present that information as part of the activities. As a side bar the planning staff nominated Thaine Fisher to receive an award for the work done on the Star Noodle Building. The Utah Heritage Foundation approved the nomination and he will receive an award for the work at the Heritage Foundation Thursday evening dinner in Salt Lake. That event will be held March 31, 2016. Council member Hyer inquired as to Mr. Montgomery’s strategy for dealing with accessory dwelling units (ADU) in the East Central and Mount Ogden communities. Mr. Montgomery stated planning staff is considering conducting an internet poll to solicit the feelings of residents living in those communities. The feedback provided will use to proceed with discussions and a proposal regarding the topic. The meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m. ________________________________________ TRACY HANSEN, MMC CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: August 9, 2016