City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of City Council of Ogden City, Utah, September 6, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 3:33 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 (arrived at 3:34 p.m.) Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski (arrived at 3:49 p.m.) Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Comptroller Lisa Stout Public Services Director Jay Lowder Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure The purpose of the Joint Work Session was to receive presentations and have discussions regarding the Ogden Nature Center; PI Zone Adult Daycare Amendment; Short-term Residential Vacation Rentals; and Council and Board business. Ogden Nature Center Ogden Nature Center Executive Director Mary McKinley presented information to the Council regarding the successes at the facility so far in 2016. She referred to an audit performed by Wood Richards and Associates, which indicates that the Center has a surplus of $149,000. The Center has been very busy over the past year installing a system of solar panels that has generated enough power to support the entire Center since July. An additional project completed this year was the construction of new enclosures for the eagles at the Center. She indicated the eagles are a great draw and bring many visitors to the facility. She discussed the growth of the education programs and noted that the facility is extremely committed to the education of Ogden City school children. Ms. McKinley stated the Center provides free field trips for up to 2,000 students per year. The field trips meet core curriculum requirements for science, social studies, and language arts. Many of the trails and other amenities at the Center have been designed specifically for school children, but many other educational programs and events are available to all demographics of the area. She briefly discussed project planning for the coming years, focusing on improving water accessibility at the Center. She concluded by reviewing photographs taken of various areas, amenities, and wildlife at the Center. Council member Stephens asked when the Ogden Nature Center was established. Ms. McKinley answered 1975 and went on to say the Center has enjoyed a great relationship with the City since its establishment. She added the Center also receives great support from many volunteers in the area and the events hosted at the facility would not be possible without such volunteerism. Council member Stephens asked about the program that allows members of the Center to visit local schools with birds of prey. Ms. McKinley replied the Center has an outreach program that can be provided with or without animals. More often than not the schools prefer to come to the Center, but in-school presentations reach up to 18,000 people per year. The program is offered across northern Utah; it is not restricted to the Ogden area. The bald eagles and other birds of prey are very popular for these presentations. Chair White asked if the Center works closely with the Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. Ms. McKinley answered no. Chair White asked if Business Depot Ogden (BDO) continues to be a good partner with the Center. Ms. McKinley responded yes and stated BDO management is very supportive and accommodating of the Center’s needs. She added many of the businesses in BDO are very supportive of the Center as well. Chair White asked if the Center has a good relationship with the Internal Revenue Service. Ms. McKinley stated the relationship between the Center and the IRS has been better in some years than other, but it is currently nonexistent. The Council expressed their gratitude to Ms. McKinley for her presentation and for continuing the relationship with Ogden City. Ms. McKinley stated the Center is available to enhance the quality of life in Ogden City. PI Zone Adult Daycare Amendment Council Policy Analyst Symes explained petitioner John Larsson has submitted a petition to amend the allowed uses in the Professional/Institutional (PI) zone to allow adult daycare facilities as a permitted use. Daycare facilities are currently allowed in the PI zone; however, the code limits them to the care of children. If approved, the amendment would allow daycare facilities for both children and adults. Planning Manager Montgomery used a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with more information about the petition to allow adult daycare centers in the PI zones of the City. The City defines adult day services as “care and supervision for adults without a guardian for periods of less than 24 hours.” An adult daycare is a transitional facility from home caregiver to assisted living center and such centers typically provide necessary care at a much lower price. The centers also provide necessary relief to home caregivers. They offer care for those with frailty and physical dependence issues, memory impairment, stroke effects and Parkinson’s disease, or those dealing with isolation and depression. He reviewed a map of the City to identify the properties in the City that currently carry a PI zoning designation. Mr. Montgomery reviewed the proposed ordinance language change and stated the term “daycare” would be amended to read “an establishment in an enclosed building with or without an outside area for activity, which provides less than twenty-four (24) hour-a-day care for children or adults, e.g. daycare, nursery, adult daycare.” He concluded the Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment on a seven to one vote. Council member Hyer asked if it would be appropriate to clarify that child daycare centers and adult daycare centers should not be located in the same facility as they are not compatible uses. Mr. Montgomery replied that is currently specified in the ordinance. Council member Stephens asked if there are other zones in the City in which adult daycare centers would be appropriate. Mr. Montgomery responded that he feels the PI zone is the most appropriate. Mr. Symes explained staff will include an action item on the next Council meeting agenda for action on the petition. Short-term Residential Vacation Rentals Mr. Symes explained the Planning Division has been researching the issue of short-term vacation rentals, or the renting of a residential unit for a period of time less than 30 days, in Ogden as the popularity of this use has increased over the last few years. The Planning Division developed a proposal and presented it to the Planning Commission which provided a recommendation of approval to the Council. The proposed ordinance would provide regulations for vacation rentals with regard to spacing, occupancy, off-street parking, maintenance, garbage collection, appearance, signage, management, and other specifics related to a residential unit’s use as a vacation rental. The proposal would limit residential vacation rentals to multi-family zones with vacation rentals allowed in single-family residential zones if the owner is reducing the number of non-conforming units within the structure. At this point, the Council has received a great deal of information about vacation rentals. This has included varying proposals and options for how to manage and define vacation rentals, reviews of what other communities have done, analysis on existing conditions in Ogden, extensive background materials and correspondence regarding vacation rentals, and general and targeted public input. The Council needs to determine if the proposal from the Planning Commission should be formally considered. If there are alternative proposals the Council wishes to explore, those options should be articulated and expressed to allow Administrative Staff and Council Staff to work through those alternatives. If no other alternatives are agreed upon by the Council, the proposal from the Planning Commission should be placed on an agenda for consideration. Planning Manager Montgomery used a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with additional information regarding vacation rentals and short term rental residences. A vacation rental is the use of a dwelling unit for temporary lodging (less than 30 days) by anyone other than the owner, where compensation is provided in any form. The use of a home for this purpose is generally booked on-line. There is a variety of ownership and management styles for vacation rentals, such as owner occupied and owner managed, private owner and owner or management company managed, and multi-site owner and management company managed. Mr. Montgomery discussed several reasons vacation rentals have become more popular in recent years, after which he reviewed the types of uses currently permitted by City ordinance. Those permitted uses include hotels/motels, temporary residences, bed and breakfast uses, and boarding houses. Vacation rentals are presently a permitted use in the C-2, C-3, and CBD zones since they fit the definition of a hotel/motel; however, they are presently illegal in all residential zones, the MU zone, and manufacturing zones. He summarized the discussions the Planning Commission and City Council have had over the course of the last two years regarding the land use and indicated that if the Council understands the goals for Ogden’s residential neighborhoods, it may be possible to base decisions on those goals rather than in reaction to public clamor. City Administration is focusing on creating neighborhoods of choice, stability, owner occupancy, neighborhood improvement, and increased property values. He discussed the purposes for regulating short-term vacation rentals and stated it is necessary to consider opposing issues and determine a fair standard for all in the hospitality industry. He discussed the following changes that have occurred across the country since the Planning Commission initially forwarded a recommendation to the City Council:  Anaheim, California enacted a city-wide ordinance to phase out the land use over the next 18 months; however, they have enacted a new home-sharing program.  Austin, Texas has also removed non owner-occupied single family rental units as an allowed use and amortize all existing that are in that category.  Boulder, Colorado has enacted a law that permits vacation rentals only in single-family owner-occupied dwellings. This was approved based on a ballot measure that will allow the city to charge a tax of 7.5 percent on  vacation rentals to pay for enforcement of the regulations and any excess to be contributed to affordable housing development. Mr. Montgomery stated staff feels it is appropriate to explore the use in the R-1 and R-2 zones for owner occupied properties only with a limit on the total number of people that can stay in a residence. It is also important to clearly define owner occupancy. Other ideas include creating a City site of licensed facilities and contact names. He noted the Planning Commission has proposed an ordinance for allowing vacation rentals in residential zones. The ordinance would include a definition since it is different than a residence and a family occupying the residence. The ordinance also sets standards that would not be detrimental to the neighborhood nor create potential life and safety hazards to occupants. An annually renewed permit for the use would be required and the owner would need to provide their floor plan detailing room uses, parking availability, their State issued sales tax license, and whether the property is owner-occupied. He concluded by briefly reviewed a new proposal that would allow short term vacation rentals in residential zones if owner occupied, as well as the penalties for violation of the ordinance. Mr. Symes asked if the Planning Commission may want to weigh in on the issue again since there have been so many changes in the way other cities manage the land use since their initial recommendation was provided. Mr. Montgomery replied he feels the Planning Commission would simply like to see a decision made. The Council discussed the concept of permitting vacation rentals, with a focus on the definition of owner-occupancy. Discussion also centered on properties throughout the City that are currently being used as vacation rentals. Mr. Montgomery noted that the Planning Commission would like for the City Council to take some kind of action that either makes those uses legal or illegal. If the uses are declared illegal, City staff needs enforcement tools to address the situation. He reviewed the section of the ordinance dealing with violations of the ordinance and associated penalties. Assistant City Attorney Stratford indicated that staff is recommending the maximum penalty allowed for violation of the ordinance, which is $500 for a class C misdemeanor. Discussion regarding the implications of the proposed ordinance continued with a focus on whether the Council should proceed with the original Planning Commission recommendation, alter the recommendation, or refer the issue back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and an updated recommendation. Mr. Stratford noted it is important to consider how other cities are addressing short term vacation rentals, but it is also important to keep in mind the makeup of those cities and the reasons they may or may not be permitting or encouraging the land use. It is important for each entity to determine a solution that will work best for their residents and settle upon how to exercise local control. Council member Garner stated he does not believe the popularity of short term vacation rentals is decreasing and he agrees with the Planning Commission that it is time to embrace the land use and determine how to make it functional and legal in Ogden City. Council member Stephens agreed, but stated he has concerns about the City’s ability to control the land use. The City must have guidelines and regulations in place, but it is also necessary to have the ability to enforce those regulations. Council member Hyer reported his greatest concern is whether to allow the use in the R-1 zone. The Council spent a significant amount of time crafting the definition of family for the purpose of the R-1 zone and allowing short term vacation rentals in the R-1 zone would be in direct conflict with that definition. He feels that the land use may disrupt the fabric of a single- family neighborhood. Mr. Symes facilitated a discussion among the Council regarding the recommended changes to the ordinance since the Council’s last review of the document. He solicited feedback regarding the Council’s comfort level relative to each change and indicated he will adjust the ordinance according to the Council’s desires. He will provide two optional ordinances for the Council to consider during the meeting at which final action on the issue will be scheduled. He added that Council staff will also work to develop a communication plan regarding the issue and he will present the plan to the Council in an upcoming work session meeting. Council Business Council Calendar: Mr. Cook briefly reviewed the Council calendar for the remainder of the month of September. He discussed items included on meeting agendas for the next several weeks. There was brief discussion regarding the creation of the new Diversity Commission in Ogden City. The meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: December 6, 2016  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, September 6, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 6:01 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 Board Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Executive Director Mike Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure 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 Board member Hyer stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of February 23, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Board member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 10, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Board member Nadolski stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 7, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session At this time, the Board gave consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session pursuant to one or more of the provisions of Section 52-4-205(1) of the Open and Public Meetings Law: a. Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual b. Strategy session to discuss collective bargaining c. Strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation d. Strategy session to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property e. Strategy session to discuss the sale of real property f. Discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems g. Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE BOARD ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52-4-205(1) OF THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO - NONE. The meeting adjourned into Closed Executive Session at 6:04 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:46 p.m.  There being no further business to come before the Board, BOARD MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:46 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: December 6, 2016