City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, May 24, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency and Municipal Building Authority, held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 3:31 p.m., in the Council Work Room located 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 (arrived at 3:34 p.m.) Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Excused: Council member 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: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Management Services Director David G. Buxton Assistant City Attorney Melvin Smith Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler The purpose of the Joint Work Session is to review the agenda for the Special Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and City Council meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m.; review the proposed FY2017 budgets for the RDA and MBA; discuss Gibson Community Plan; Gibson Plan – M-2 to M-1 for the area generally located west of the railroad tracks; Gibson Plan Rezone – M-1 to R-1-5 for the area generally south of 17th Street fronting on Gibson Avenue and Center Street; Gibson Plan Rezone – M-1 to C- 3 for the area generally west of Wall Avenue between 15th and the Ogden River; Gibson Plan Rezone – M-1, M-2 and CBD to O- 1 for the area generally adjacent to the Ogden River and the 21st Street Pond; proposed amendment to the C-3 zone eliminating the Truck Terminals use; Refugee Resettlement; and discuss Council Business. Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agendas for the Council and RDA meetings. Community and Economic Development (CED) Director Christopulos provided more detailed information about the items listed on the RDA agenda dealing with the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area; most notably, he indicated City Administration is recommending that the Board postpone the blight hearing relative to the project due to an overwhelming negative response from residents and property owners in the project area. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith indicated Council staff has received several calls regarding the issue as well and in working with City Administration they have determined it would be appropriate to recommend removing the blight hearing from the RDA agenda and inform any residents in attendance of public outreach plans relative to the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area. Mr. Christopulos stated that CED staff will hold an open house on June 24, 2016 at the James Madison Elementary school from noon to 8:00 p.m. and residents will have the opportunity to meet individually with staff to ask questions or express concerns. Discussion centered on the methods of communication staff has used to inform property owners of the work being done to create the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area, and specifically the scheduling of the blight hearing. Mr. Cook noted that the Refugee Resettlement item listed on the work session agenda will be rescheduled for a future work session meeting due to time constraints this evening. Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Redevelopment Agency Budget Council Executive Director Eller-Smith indicated the packet for the meeting includes a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed FY2017 RDA budget. She noted the reduction in the overall RDA budget is due to the expiration of three redevelopment areas in 2015: St. Benedicts Manor Redevelopment Project Area, Union Gardens Redevelopment Project Area, and Washington Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. She asked Comptroller Stout to provide a brief overview of the budget. Ms. Stout reviewed the summary spreadsheet, which includes detailed information about revenues and expenditures within the RDA budget. She noted that due to the nature of the RDA budget with several different redevelopment area budgets, there are many transfers throughout the year and the loss of three redevelopment areas results in a loss of increment revenue as well as a decrease in transfer revenue. She referenced areas of the spreadsheet highlighted in yellow, which are the haircut districts within the RDA budget. There are agreements in place for each of those haircut districts whereby the district will contribute a certain percentage of increment to the Central Business District (CBD) Mall debt that was incurred to construct the Solomon Center in The Junction. She identified the portion of the revenues that must be transferred for debt service and indicated the money cannot be used for anything other than that purpose. The St. Benedict Manor and Union Garden districts were haircut districts and expiration of those districts results in a reduced transfer of haircut monies. She then explained that five percent of increment can be taken from districts for administration costs, but 20 percent must be dedicated to housing; this money is used for grant matching and other housing expenses. She concluded the majority of the revenues generated in the overall RDA budget is increment, with the exception of the CBD Mall district, which receives haircut transfers. She then explained that each year the Finance Division staff works closely with CED staff to develop the tentative RDA budget based upon expected growth in each district. However, each year the budget is relatively ‘flat’ due to increment trends. All debt in the RDA has been accounted and budgeted for and sufficient revenues are generated to cover all debt service. She added that as districts expire the City is able to capture property tax revenues, which is very exciting and is the return on investment made by the CED staff over the span of several years. She briefly reviewed a schedule highlighting expiration dates for various districts. Ms. Stout used the West 12th Street district as an example, which is located in the northwestern part of the City, and indicated it is scheduled to expire in 2018. The increment currently received in that district is $1.9 million, but upon expiration of the district the City should receive $550,000 in additional property tax revenue. She noted she wanted to conclude by discussing any significant activity that could occur over the coming fiscal year. Mr. Christopulos provided a brief report of activities occurring in various RDA districts throughout the City. Work within the Kiesel District is underway and the main project in that district will be in full swing in the coming fiscal year. The old Dee School will be demolished as soon as school adjourns for the summer. The Village Center project will begin in the fall of 2016 and the Airport feasibility study will be completed before the end of the year. Fiscal Year 2017 Municipal Building Authority Proposed Budget Deputy Finance Manager Cook indicated the Municipal Building Authority (MBA) was created to account for the bond debt issued for the renovation of the Municipal Building, the Public Safety Building, the Municipal Gardens, Lindquist Stadium, and Public Services Facility. Approximately $12,000 of the $550,475 budget is reserved for insurance and fees and the remainder is dedicated to debt service. The MBA is funded by the General Fund and utility funds. Council member Nadolski inquired as to when the debt will be paid off. Ms. Cook stated the Public Works Facility bond will be paid off in 2021 and the Stadium bond will be paid off in 2028. Proposed amendment to the C-3 zone eliminating the Truck Terminals use Council Policy Analyst Symes explained that in 2005, the Utah State Legislature made significant changes to the standards cities could use to make determinations on the approval or denial of conditional uses. These changes have made the denial of a conditional use much more difficult. As a result, Ogden continually reviews its zoning ordinance to identify conditional uses that may not be appropriate in certain zones. In reviewing the City’s C-3, or Regional Commercial zone, it has been determined that the truck terminal use is not an appropriate use even as a conditional use. The proposed amendment would eliminate the truck terminal use from the list of allowable uses in the C-3 zone. Truck terminals remain an allowable use in some of the City’s manufacturing zones. Planning Manager Montgomery stated a truck terminal is a facility that a motor freight company uses to dispatch, transfer, and receive goods via truck; terminals are also used to store vehicles and goods. He reiterated Mr. Symes’ comments that it can be more difficult to deny conditional uses in the City and there are concerns about whether truck terminals are conducive to commercial zoning in the City. Most of the C-3 zones in the City are located on Washington Boulevard, Wall Avenue, and 36th Street. These are very high visibility areas and usually more intense, compact uses are desired in these areas. Truck terminals are very expansive and they are not a good fit for high traffic commercial corridors. He pointed out that truck terminals are not permitted in the M-1 zone, but they are a conditional use in the C-3 zone. He stated that a temporary regulation has been in place since January 2016 to allow the staff and Planning Commission to study this issue and the Planning Commission has made a recommendation to amend the ordinance to remove truck terminals as a conditional or permitted use in the C-3 zone. He briefly discussed other permitted uses in the C-3 zone. Discussion centered on the proposed ordinance and whether it deals with truck parking in residential zones, with Mr. Montgomery noting truck parking in residential zones and regulation of truck terminals are independent of one another and the former is not addressed by the proposed ordinance. Gibson Community Plan Mr. Montgomery used the aid of a power point presentation to summarize the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council regarding the Gibson Community Plan. The City has been divided into 14 distinct communities and the Gibson Community is the last community for which a Community Plan is being developed. He noted Community Plans address issues and needs of a specific area and are unique to their respective community. Community Plans also serve as the application of the General Plan into specific areas of the City. He then reviewed the boundaries of the Plan area, noting it makes up six percent of the total City land area and it only includes three zoning designations: M-2, M-1, and C-2. However, the area contains service uses, manufacturing uses, residential uses, transportation uses, governmental/institution uses, sales uses, and vacant parcels. The zoning in the Community Plan area does not recognize many of these uses. He summarized the approach staff took to developing the Community Plan for the Gibson Community. Community values and issues were identified through an initial open house event held January 21, 2015 at the Ogden Prepatory Academy. When considering attendance of open house meetings on a per capita basis, the Gibson Community Plan open house was the most well attended meeting by citizens. He then noted a steering committee was created and was made up of those interested in discussing comments received and create the groundwork for the Plan. Mr. Montgomery discussed the noticing procedures used to get the word out about the development of the Community Plan. Notices were mailed to mailing addresses listed on Weber County tax records, but they were also mailed to all physical addresses in the Community Plan area. He reviewed maps that illustrated the properties for which notices of tax hearings were returned as undeliverable. Additional maps illustrated the participation in the open house by property as well as location of the properties owned by those serving on the Steering Committee. He briefly summarized the issues raised at the initial open house, including:  Improve community image.  Encourage Quality Development.  Need for maintenance of properties.  Impact of Junk and Salvage Yards.  Removal of Homeless Camps near river.  Screen and buffer residential uses from manufacturing uses.  Enhance trailhead and protect river corridor.  Invest in area infrastructure to encourage development.  Encourage commercial development along Wall.  Create residential development near river. A second open house was held on January 20, 2016 at the Ogden Prepatory Academy and attendees were given the opportunity to comment on ideas and maps being considered for inclusion in the Community Plan. The Planning Commission then considered the comments received during a subsequent work session and worked to develop a draft Community Plan. The general topics identified included: community identity, land use, open space and pathways, and transportation. Relative to community identity, the Plan places an emphasis on improving the perception and image of the Gibson Community by encouraging maintenance of properties, removing blight and encouraging investment, exploring options to upgrade or relocate salvage yards, increasing interaction with community Police, dismantling homeless camps, and renaming the community “Ogden Riverside”. The Plan also encourages improving the quality of developments by revising building material standards for industrial and commercial buildings, creating residential architecture standards, encouraging the use of masonry screening walls between land uses, increasing screening effect of landscape buffers, placing additional restrictions on use of barbed wire and chain-link fencing, requiring monument signs throughout the community, and demonstrating water conservation through the use of drought tolerant landscaping. Mr. Montgomery discussed the objectives and strategies relating to land use. The Plan focuses on separating high impact uses from housing and other low impact uses by utilizing zoning to create additional land use designations and to maximize the potential of the area and amending ordinance language to create buffers between incompatible uses. There is also a focus on exploring opportunities for additional land use designations and development in the community. The Plan includes a recommendation to rezone property along Wall Avenue as C-3, rezoning unused Utah Transit Authority (UTA) property south of 18th Street and from Gibson Avenue to Center Street to R-1-5 with a future mixed use zoning option in order to increase community population. There are also recommendations to rezone the area along the Ogden River corridor and around the 21st Street pond to O-1, rezone all land west of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to M-1, and allow for future M-2 zoning options on property suitable for the expansion of Fresenius. Throughout discussions of the draft Plan there was a focus in increased enforcement efforts to prohibit illegal activities, environmental contamination, and the lack of property maintenance; this includes regulation of non-licensed business activities. He added that the Steering Committee also placed an emphasis on the need to make additional efforts to educate property owners about responsible land use and upgrading, expanding, or otherwise addressing non- conforming properties. The Plan addressed opportunities for expansion of Fresenius and other job producing uses in the community; responsible expansion of Fresenius is encouraged and the Plan calls for improved landscape buffers on Gibson Avenue and 17th Street associated with such expansion. He reviewed a map to identify the property currently owned by Fresenius as well as the properties that could be used for an expansion. He then discussed the objectives and strategies relating to open space and pathways. The Plan focuses on developing a multi-use park and trailhead at the south end of Gibson Avenue and the Ogden River; this includes developing an improved parking area for the trailhead, installation of appropriate amenities for a park and trailhead, maintain the River and Crystal Wave Kayak Park as the focal point of the trailhead and park, and adding a playground or other facility to contribute to the Ogden River Parkway. The Plan also calls for protection and enhancement of the River corridor, especially west of the train tracks by ensuring that businesses protect the natural environment and increasing Police presence on the trail system. The steering committee also recommended the extension of the trail system to connect with Business Depot Ogden; this could be done using a vacated rail right of way or other connectivity options and the extension is consistent with the recently adopted Bike Master Plan. Mr. Montgomery discussed the objectives and strategies relative to transportation, noting the Plan calls for the investment in area infrastructure that is severely lacking with a high priority placed on sidewalk installation, requiring curb and gutter with new development in the area, widening travel lanes along Gibson Avenue, Center Street, Pacific Avenue, 17th, and 18th Streets, adding overhead lighting in areas that are lacking lights, considering development of an area storm drain system to mitigate environmental contamination, exploring options for a pressurized secondary water system, and improving culinary water pressure. An additional goal is to seek opportunities to develop multi-use rights-of-way; this could be accomplished by the implementation of the Bike Master Plan and installation of sidewalks on at least one side of each residential street in the community. The Plan also calls for planning for the development of traffic routes that would minimize neighborhood impacts; this includes exploring a new road between 14th and 17th Streets to service commercial uses, the vacation of 13th and Center Streets for Fresenius expansion, reducing the ‘kink’ in lower 17th Street, directing commercial traffic to 17th Street, 14th Street, or Wall Avenue, engineering roadways to handle heavy truck traffic, lowering area speed limits and including better signage. He stated there was a significant amount of discussion regarding delays caused by train traffic at 14th Street and 17th Street and the Steering Committee discussed a possible overpass on 12th Street as well as encouraging train management at 17th Street. He then noted that one question that arose during the process of drafting the Gibson Community Plan is the Plan’s compatibility with other plans, such as the General Plan, other community plans, district plans, and various corridor plans. Mr. Montgomery stated there are many common goals among the multiple plans and there are no major conflicts between the Gibson Community Plan and other plans that are already in effect. Minor conflicts can be addressed and relate mainly to land use. He then stated the Plan proposes so many changes and he summarized the reasons for those changes as follows: homes in the area have been nonconforming for 50 years and have remained; the river should be used as a resource rather than a dump; better utilization of the land is needed; and commercial development occurred along 12th Street once it was rezoned and community members feel the same will happen upon rezoning of certain parcels in the Gibson community. He reviewed a map illustrating community development in the Gibson community under the present zoning designations. An additional map illustrated present property values for properties in the Gibson community. Mr. Montgomery discussed nonconforming uses; nonconforming means that at one point a land use was legal, but due to changes in regulations or zoning a land use is no longer permitted. The rights to continue the land use would be lost if the use were abandoned, which can be defined as being vacant for one year or voluntarily removed. Rights can also be lost if the owner is ordered to repair or make a structure habitable and the owner fails to comply within six months. He reviewed photographs of three properties in the Gibson community that are nonconforming and noted that the owners of those properties would be allowed to continue the land use as long as they maintain or repair their properties. Nonconforming status is not lost with a change of ownership and owners can expand the land use on their original property. One nonconforming use can transition to another nonconforming use upon following a specific approval process and nonconforming uses can be reconstructed if destroyed or damaged by a disaster. There is a difference between residential and commercial nonconforming uses; if a home becomes vacant there are no options for reusing it whereas commercial buildings have reuse provisions even if they are abandoned. Mr. Symes asked Mr. Montgomery to offer an example of a situation in which a nonconforming use may be denied. Mr. Montgomery answered by briefly reviewing the review process for nonconforming uses used by the City. In order for an expansion of a nonconforming use to be granted, the use must not adversely impact its surroundings, it must be compatible with the area, the expansion must not create new nonconformities, and the use must remain on the original lot. When converting one nonconforming use to another the criteria for approval is that the new use would not create more impacts than the present use, the new use will not intensify use of the site, it will not alter a building unless the alterations are upgrades, and the site development must meet present design standards as much as possible. Mr. Symes stated there are currently a large number of nonconforming uses in the community and it is likely that more will be created upon rezoning of properties in the community. Discussion briefly centered on the fees associated with expanding or converting nonconforming uses. Mr. Montgomery then discussed concerns raised about salvage yards in the Gibson community. The majority of the concerns centered on environmental issues associated with recent dumping into waterways and the Steering Committee recommended improving standards or amortizing uses. He discussed implementation of the Plan with a focus on why he recommended rezonings should be implemented at this time. He stated that there is vacant ground in the Gibson community and implementation of the Plan is dependent upon that land developing. If the land develops contrary to the Plan because of failure to implement it, it will be much harder to correct those issues and implement the Plan in the future. Zoning is the main issue addressed by the Plan for the future of the community; this includes buffers, appropriate uses, and removal of nonconformities. He added a temporary regulation was enacted for the time frame January 26, 2016 to July 26, 2016 to place a moratorium on zoning and development in the Gibson community until a Community Plan could be finalized. He continued discussing implementation of the Plan and noted there are four key zoning changes being recommended; the first is rezoning the area west of the railroad tracks from M-2 to M-1 and he briefly summarized the uses allowed in the M-2 zone that are not allowed in the M-1. Existing land uses in the area include six salvage and junk yards, four single family homes, one kennel and one home, four vacant parcels, and two contractor shops. Infrastructure is needed for development of the area and there is no sewer line in the area. Chair White asked that the discussion of the Gibson Community Plan and implementation of certain zoning changes be delayed until a future work session meeting. Mr. Symes stated that continued discussion of the Plan is slated for the June 14, 2016 work session meeting in anticipation of potential final action on the Plan during the July 5, 2016 Council meeting. There was discussion about existing land uses in the Gibson community, specifically residential uses and the potential for residential property owners to sell their property for higher values based upon plans to rezone the properties for commercial use. Council member Nadolski thanked Mr. Montgomery for paying close attention to the public process and community outreach as he facilitated the development of the Gibson Community Plan; he has found community outreach to be important to the City Administration and Council staff. No public outreach process is perfect, but it is very important. Mr. Montgomery agreed. Council Business Council Calendar: Mr. Cook briefly reviewed the Council calendar for the remainder of the month of June and July, with a brief focus on items included on agendas for upcoming Council meetings. Refugee Resettlement: Chair White asked for a brief update regarding refugee resettlement. Mr. Cook stated he attended a meeting last night regarding the subject and it was very well attended. Council member Nadolski added that Catholic Community Services provided a presentation regarding the State resources that will be dedicated to refugee families. There is still a great amount of uncertainty, though the Ogden area should receive approximately 20 refugee families. The makeup of those families is unknown, but social service agencies will respond once more information regarding the families is available. The intent of last night’s meeting was to communicate to the community that refugee families will be coming and what their needs may be. The meeting recessed at 5:36 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:42 p.m. Historic Jefferson Community: Council member Lopez reported on his attendance at a meeting that was held to discuss recent criminal activity in the Historic Jefferson Community. The meeting was well attended and the City was represented well. The meeting was very educational and he appreciated the proactiveness of the residents and City staff, specifically the Police Department. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson stated the Police Department followed a lead today and executed a search warrant on a home that was believed to be connected to the criminal activity. Council member Nadolski stated he was also very happy to see the way the residents in that area of the City responded; there have been eight break-ins in a half-block radius and many people feel victimized. He is also pleased with the manner in which the City responded. Priorities/Projects: Chair White asked that each Council member submit their priorities and projects to Council staff so that they can prepare a document including input from all Council members for future discussions. The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: September 13, 2016  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, May 24, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:00 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 Excused: Council member 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 Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler 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. Proposed Ordinance 2016- 28 rescinding the prior designation for the Allen Joseph Stout home as a local historic resource on property located at 885 12th Street A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding removal of the Stout home located at 885 12th Street from the Local Historic Register came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the current proposal is to remove the Allen Stout home from the Ogden City Register of Historic Resources. Only the home was designated as a historic resource as no part of the lot or location was found to be historically significant. The removal of the designation would remove the encumbrance on the title for the property. The Landmarks Commission reviewed the proposal at the March 24, 2016 meeting and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Council with a 6-0 vote. The recommendation was made with the finding that the property no longer retains architectural and neighborhood significance. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with additional information regarding the proposal. He stated the property is located at 885 12th Street and was placed on the historic register in 1986 by the owner. The home is of the “I” style from the mid-Atlantic region and is typical of early farm homes in Utah. The original owner was Allen Stout and he built the home in 1882. The home was damaged by fire in 2010 and it was eventually demolished in May of 2011. When a property is placed on the local historic register, a note is recorded on the title of the property, but now that the building has been demolished the reasons the home was originally placed on the register are no longer valid. An ordinance is required to authorize the removal of the home from the register as there is no longer a structure of architectural significance and the property no longer has community significance. The Landmarks Commission has recommended removal of the property from the historic register. The Chair then called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 2016-28, entitled: “An ordinance of the Ogden City Council rescinding the prior designation for the Allen Joseph Stout Residence.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard Examiner on the 15th day of May, 2016, specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed ordinance would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. There being no persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-28 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 – NONE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. 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 Ordinance 2016-29 amending section 15-22-1 of the Municipal Code to increase the maximum height requirements in M-1 and DDR zones A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding a petition to amend maximum height limits in the M-1 and DDR Zones came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the current proposal is to amend the maximum building height limit in the DDR zone from 40 feet to 50 feet and to amend the maximum building height limit in the M-1 zone from 40 feet to 50 feet except when adjacent to a residential zone. When an M-1 zone is adjacent to a residential zone, the maximum building height would remain limited to 40 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the meeting of April 6, 2016 and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Council with a vote of 8-0. The recommendation was made with the finding that the amendments will meet the needs of a changing market demand, that the change will not be out of character with the surrounding development and the zone characteristics, and that the change is consistent with the other manufacturing zone standards. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with additional information regarding the proposal. He stated the Planning Commission has considered the petition to amend maximum building heights in the DRR zone and they have forwarded a recommendation regarding that petition, but they also expanded the petition to include M-1 zone. The petition was initially based on a concern that a 40-foot height restriction in the DDR zone would not allow for new racking systems used in warehousing and distribution uses and could ultimately reduce the market edge currently present at Business Depot Ogden (BDO). He briefly reviewed maximum building heights in other manufacturing zones throughout the City, noting that the 40-foot building height restriction in the MRD zone is only in effect when property is located within a certain distance of the Ogden Nature Center. He expounded on the Planning Commission’s decision to expand the petition to the M-1 zone, which originally did not include a maximum building height restriction. Most M-1 property is located adjacent to M-2 or commercial property, but there have been concerns about protecting some residential properties located adjacent to M-1 zoned property. The Planning Commission felt it would be possible to protect the character of residential neighborhoods located near manufacturing uses while meeting the needs of current development trends. He then discussed concerns relative to increasing the maximum building height for properties located adjacent to the Nature Center. BDO has worked closely with the Nature Center and the two parties have developed an agreement to ensure that the Nature Center will not be negatively impacted; the agreement preserves visibility, existing trees, and restricts buildings direction adjacent to the Nature Center property to a maximum of 45 feet in building height. He summarized the Planning Commission’s ultimate recommendation to allow for a 50-foot building height in the M-1 zone except in instances where M-1 property is adjacent to a residential zone, in which case the maximum building height would be 40 feet. They have also recommended increasing the maximum building height in the DDR zone to 50 feet. Chair White asked if the recommended change to building heights in the M-1 zone will apply to M-1 property City-wide. Mr. Montgomery answered yes, but reiterated that the 40-foot building height will be enforced for M-1 properties located adjacent to residential properties. Council member Nadolski stated that he serves on the Board of Directors of the Nature Center and on behalf of the Board he wanted to thank BDO General Manager Blake Wahlen for his willingness to be a good neighbor to the Nature Center and being proactive in reaching out to them regarding this petition. Council member Hyer asked if adjacent means properties directly abutting one another. Mr. Montgomery answered yes. Petitioner Blake Wahlen reiterated Mr. Montgomery’s explanation of the initial reason for the petition. He stated the increased maximum building heights in the DDR zone would provide BDO with additional flexibility in marketing property to potential tenants. He clarified there is no DDR zoned property adjacent to the Nature Center and all property located next to the Nature Center is actually zoned MRD; the maximum building height in the MRD zone for property located directly adjacent to the Nature Center is 40 feet. He concluded the DDR and MRD zones are specific to BDO. Chair White thanked Mr. Wahlen for working closely with the Nature Center to address their concerns. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-29, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Section 15-22-1 to increase the maximum height requirements in the M-1 and DDR Zones; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” A copy of the proposed ordinance was deposited with the Deputy 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 LOPEZ, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-29 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 - NONE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. 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. Public Comments Brian Nestrick, 676 East 21st Street, stated that at 30th Street and Harrison Boulevard there is a turn lane, but no turn signal and when travelling north bound on Harrison Boulevard it can be very difficult to make a left hand turn on 30th Street without blocking the intersection and creating a dangerous situation. He stated he rides Utah Transit Authority buses on a regular basis and two dedicated bus routes turn at that location; 30th Street is also a feeder to both Interstates 15 and 84 and traffic can be very heavy. He stated this is a problem and a safety concern. It does not make sense to have a dedicated turning lane with no dedicated turn signal. Jonathan Woods, 2515 Fowler Avenue, stated that in the area he lives there are many families with children who play outside and there are streets upon which motorists travel very fast; this includes 2550 South and Fowler Avenue near Rancho Market. He stated he has been asking for a solution for the last three years and it has not happened. The heaviest traffic is north and south on Fowler Avenue. Council member Lopez asked how Mr. Woods has sought to have the issue resolved. Mr. Woods stated he spoke with the Police Department over the past three years and they have not addressed the problem. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell reported that Harrison Boulevard is a Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) road and he will pass Mr. Nestrick’s concerns about the lack of a turn signal on to that entity. He added he will also ask staff to look into the concerns raised by Mr. Woods. He then thanked the Get Out And Live (GOAL) organization, City staff, and the army of volunteers that made the recent Ogden Marathon a success; the weather was very difficult, but 10,000 runners participated and the community came together to support the event. Council member Comments Council member Lopez stated he can attest to the difficult conditions at 30th Street and Harrison Boulevard; his office is located on that corner and he is very well aware of the difficulty in making a turn off of Harrison Boulevard onto 30th Street. He asked that Mr. Nestrick leave his contact information with City staff so that he can be kept apprised of any progress made with UDOT. Council member Nadolski stated he wanted to thank his fellow Council members and members of Administrative staff who helped to support a group of neighbors in his neighborhood who have faced recent challenges related to crime. The group of residents asked for support from the City and a team of Council members and Administrative employees as well as representatives of the Police Department met with them to consider how to address the problems. Council member Garner also thanked everyone who supported the Ogden Marathon event; he indicated the runners of the race are heroes as they completed it in heavy rain and 40-mile per hour winds in Ogden Canyon. Chair White echoed the comments made about the Ogden Marathon. Council member Hyer stated that the 2016 growing season is nearing and it is his understanding that Weber Basin Water Conservancy District has a rebate program that Ogden City residents are eligible to participate in. If a resident purchases and uses a smart water sprinkler timer the District will rebate half the cost of the unit, up to $150, to the resident. He stated this type of timer can save a lot of money for water users. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:23 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: September 13, 2016  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, May 24, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:23 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 Excused: Board member Doug Stephens Board Administrator Bill Cook Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler Consideration of proposed Resolution 2016-10 making a finding regarding the existence of blight in the proposed Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area; consideration of proposed Resolution 2016-13 selecting the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area in the Oak Den Survey Area and authorizing the preparation of a draft project area plan, including a draft project area budget, pursuant to section 17C-2-102(1)(b), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department (CED) came before the Council to consider resolutions finding the existence of blight in the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area and authorizing the preparation of a draft Project Area Plan. The Administration contracted with Bonneville Research to conduct the study. Based on the findings of the blight study, City Administration is requesting the Council hold a public hearing on the blight study and make a finding of blight for the Oak Den Survey Area. The Administration is also requesting that the Board authorize the completion of a Draft Plan and Budget. Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos summarized the memo and stated that nearly a year ago the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative was developed and part of the implementation of the program included the creation of a larger than normal redevelopment district between 23rd Street to 26th Street and Madison and Jackson Avenues; there are over 400 properties in the district. He noted he attended a meeting last night and heard several concerns expressed by property owners in the district and many of the concerns deal with individual properties that are negatively impacting property values throughout the area based on increased crime and other factors. He stated he believes CED staff and many residents in the district have common goals relative to the improvement of the neighborhoods. The City has followed the statutory requirements for noticing of a blight hearing to all property owners in the district, but it is clear that the notice did not fully communicate the message intended or the goals and intent of the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative. Because of the inability to communicate the intent of CED staff and the RDA Board for tonight’s hearing, staff is recommending that additional time be given to clarify what the City hopes to accomplish through the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative. There has been some misinformation and misunderstanding that has contributed to concerns and many members of the community have expressed those. In order to fully address the concerns, City Administration has decided to pause the Oak Den Urban Renewal Area process by postponing the hearing scheduled for tonight. The hearing should be continued to an undetermined date to give staff time to spend time with the residents to clearly communicate the intent of the actions that would have otherwise been considered tonight. Staff has scheduled an open house for June 2, 2016 at the James Madison Elementary School from noon to 8:00 p.m. and staff will have time to meet with any resident or property owner in the area to answer any question they have. Additional open houses may be necessary, should the need arise. He provided his email address for the record so that any resident or property owner in the area can contact him directly. Board Executive Director Cook stated that a flier has been distributed that indicates the time for the open house is 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Mr. Christopulos stated the time has been expanded as previously mentioned and a new flier will be distributed advertising the expanded time. Chair White called for a motion to remove this item from the agenda. BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White reiterated that the public open house regarding the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area will be held June 2, 2016 from noon to 8:00 p.m. at James Madison Elementary School. Any resident or property owner can visit with staff during that time or contact Mr. Christopulos via email at any time to discuss the project. Public Comments Kyle Crookston, 764 25th Street, asked for assurance that property owners in the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area would have future opportunities to address the RDA Board regarding their concerns. Chair White stated that the item has been removed from tonight’s agenda at the request of City Administration. It sounds as if the Administration plans to postpone the study for the area and that they will hold an open house to try to resolve any concerns residents may have prior to presenting the study to the RDA Board for further consideration. Mr. Crookston stated that the largest concern the residents in the Project Area have relates to the possibility that the City may use eminent domain to take properties; it is his understanding there are other options for addressing redevelopment without the threat of eminent domain and he would be interested in feedback regarding the motivation behind the use of eminent domain. Chair White encouraged Mr. Crookston to address those questions to CED staff during the open house or directly to Mr. Christopulos. Board member Comments Chair White thanked those in attendance this evening and indicated she appreciates their involvement. Board member Lopez thanked City Administration for recognizing the public’s interest in gaining a clear understanding of the process to create the Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area and for their decision to postpone the public hearing that was scheduled tonight. Board member Nadolski echoed Board member Lopez’s comments. Board member Garner encouraged residents and property owners in the Project Area to attend the open house scheduled for June 2, 2016 to ask questions and seek to have their concerns addressed. There being no further business to come before the Council, BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:36 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: August 16, 2016