City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, September 27, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 4:30 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 Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Doug Stephens Excused: Council member Neil K. Garner Council member Ben Nadolski Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Office Coordinator Mavis Hawley Also present: Chief Administrative Office Mark Johnson Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson The purpose of the joint work session was to discuss Council and Board business. Council Business Agenda Review: Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agendas for the regular City Council and special Redevelopment Agency (RDA) meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. There was a brief focus on the item related to building heights in the 12th Street Overlay Zone; the Council asked staff to provide an explanation of the manner in which building heights are measured and the overarching implications of the proposed text amendment. Planning Manager Montgomery used an illustration to explain how building heights are measured on flat properties as well as hillside properties. Building height is traditionally measured from the lowest point of the building that is exposed to the highest point of the building regardless of the orientation of the building. In order for a developer of property in the 12th Street Overlay Zone to build a building with four stories, they would need to provide underground parking as a tradeoff for additional building height. Council member Stephens noted that he has heard concerns from residents who own property above the property owned by the petitioner; they are concerned about how petitioner’s development of his property could impact their view. They are also concerned about the impact the development could have on a canal that is located at the top of the hillside. Mr. Montgomery stated he will address those concerns during the regular Council meeting and he will also explain the additional development review steps that he would need to move through to gain approval of the development he desires. He noted the petitioner has indicated he would like to build multiple buildings on this property, but he is unsure of the unit count the petitioner desires. Projects under a certain unit number can be approved by staff, while any project with more than 30 units or that are greater than 40,000 square feet of commercial use would require Planning Commission approval. He clarified that the petitioner does not currently own the property, but he will proceed with acquisition if his petition is granted. Continued discussion centered on the petitioners plans for the property and the land use authority responsible for granting approval of the project. Mr. Montgomery stated it is important for the Council to understand the type of development that is presently allowed in the Overlay Zone in order to make a comparison with what the petitioner is requesting. He stated if the Council does not feel the type of land use that would be permitted upon approval of the petition is consistent with the Overlay Zone they should vote against approval of the petition. It is best to take a broad approach and determine if what is being requested meets the goals and objectives of the zone. The Council then refocused on the concerns that have expressed by property owners within the 12th Street Overlay Zone, which led to Council discussion of whether flat roofs should be allowed on residential buildings. Council Policy Analyst Symes noted the Council could proceed with granting the petition, but remove the provision allowing flat roofs from the proposed ordinance. Council member Lopez stated that he is hesitant to vote on the proposal tonight and he understands Council member Nadolski had concerns about the issue as well. Chair White stated the Council has an option to table the item, but a valid reason for tabling is needed; she is unsure the absence of a Council member is a good reason to table. Council member Hyer agreed and noted the Council is charged with considering the legitimacy of arguments against the proposal that have been expressed by other residents. He stated that concern about loss of view or about development occurring in a resident’s ‘back yard’ is not a legitimate argument. Council member Stephens agreed, but noted he still feels the Council should carefully consider whether pitched roofs should be required on any building that may be developed on the petitioner’s property. Mr. Montgomery then re-focused the discussion on the petition and summarized the four criteria that would need to be met in order for an applicant to gain approval of a building taller than 50 feet in the zone. He then noted if the City Council decides to grant the petition with an amendment to the ordinance to disallow flat roofs, they should strike Section 5b(1) from the ordinance.  Ms. Eller-Smith then concluded her review of the Council agenda. Intergovernmental Reports: Council member Hyer used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation created by the Ogden Weber Chamber of Commerce to provide the Council with information about operations at the Chamber and goals for 2016. The aim of the Chamber is to create prosperity. The 2016 objectives for the Chamber include: 1. Improve Chamber Value and Member Benefits 2. Expand Chamber Membership 3. Implement a Member Relations Program 4. Expand Chamber’s Influence as No. Utah’s Business Leader 5. Move the Chamber Office and Solidify Location 6. Rebrand the Chamber 7. Enhance Committee Work 8. Enhance Community Partner Relationships 9. Improve Internal Operations 10. Develop a Customer Focused Organization Member benefits offered by the Chamber include: • Spiker promotion: ribbon cuttings, special promos • Weekly e-newsletter w/event promotions • Social media promotion • Chamber directory listing w/hotlink • Member mailing list in Excel format • Committee participation • Business discounts • Employee discount card • $50 new member referral credit Council member Hyer then discussed some of the fundraising events produced by the Chamber and noted the events provide members opportunities to make valuable connections with other businesses and residents. He concluded by summarizing the 2017 targets for the Chamber: • 650 active member organizations (605) • Two (2) new members each: Bronze/Silver/Gold/Keystone • One (1) new Cornerstone member • 2,000 Facebook Likes (1,147) and 300 Instagram (123) • 3,000 Email/Newsletter Addresses (1,800) • New “Welcome to Weber” Business Introduction Program • New membership database w/online member portal • New integrated accounting system • New annual Member Satisfaction Survey (Jan) • New Economic Forecast (Jan) Council member Stephens then provided a report regarding his participation with the Weber Mosquito Abatement District. The District is focused on prevention of West Nile Virus and they will participate in their annual convention this coming weekend. Council member Lopez provided a report regarding transportation; the last time he participated in a meeting regarding the subject there was a focus on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, which is still in the design phase with plans to commence construction in 2019. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson reported the he and the Mayor, as well as representatives of Utah Transit Authority (UTA), met with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in Denver to discuss the project and submit a funding application. He stated the project was well received and he is hopeful the project will receive funding from the federal government. Council member Lopez added that the transportation group will also work with local entities to secure additional funding for the project while continuing the public involvement process relative to the project. Chair White provided a report on her participation with the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB). She reported that Transient Room Tax (TRT) collections are up 17.5 percent compared to the same time frame last year and Ogden’s share of the TRT revenue is up 18.5 percent. The average daily rates have also increased for both the County and the City. The CVB is in the process of developing their budget for next year in order to submit to the Weber County Commission. Council member Stephens asked if the CVB will continue to provide the ski bus program. Chair White answered yes, but noted that UTA will pay for the busses for the program and they plan to add two new busses. Vice Chair Blair stated that Council member Garner asked him to report that the recent action considered by the Weber Morgan Health Department regarding diesel emissions passed on a 10 to zero vote. There was then a brief discussion about the several small working groups in which Council members participate. The meeting adjourned at 5:36 p.m.  ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: January 17, 2017  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, September 27, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, September 27, 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 Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Doug Stephens Excused: Council member Neil K. Garner Council member Ben Nadolski Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Council Office Coordinator Mavis Hawley Also present: Mayor Mike Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Public Ways and Parks Manager Perry Huffaker Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. Chair White welcomed the following Boy Scouts present from Troop #379, who were working on their Civics Merit Badge: Jonathan Saul, Matt Consuela, Brandon Smart, Braxton Butler, Jackson Smart, Anthony (no last name given), and Jacob James. A moment of silence was observed. Consideration of an appointment to the Civil Service Commission A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the appointment of Dennis Gay to the Ogden Civil Service Commission came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF DENNIS GAY TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, WITH HIS TERM TO EXPIRE JUNE 30, 2022. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Council members Garner and Nadolski were not present when this vote was taken. Consideration of appointments to the Christmas Village Committee A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the appointments of Holly Suisse and Stephanie Billings to the Ogden Christmas Village Committee came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENTS OF HOLLY SUISSE AND STEPHANIE BILLINGS TO THE CHRISTMAS VILLAGE COMMITTEE, WITH THEIR TERMS TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2019. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Council members Garner and Nadolski were not present when this vote was taken. Proposed Ordinance 2016-54 amending Subsection 15-45-4.L to increase maximum residential building height and to allow for flat roofs in certain areas A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding a petition to amend the 12th Street Overlay Zone came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the petitioner, Eric Stevenson, has submitted a petition to amend the 12th Street Overlay Zone building height regulations. The petitioner originally requested a change from a maximum building height of 38 feet to a maximum of 60 feet. After review, the Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation to amend the maximum building height to allow a height of 45 feet, or 50 feet if certain conditions are met, as well as the option of allowing flat roofs. The amendment would be specific to multi-family residential buildings on the north side of 12th Street between Monroe Boulevard and Harrison Boulevard. The Commission made its recommendation with a vote of eight to zero. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with additional information regarding the petition and the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The petitioner’s request is to change the residential building heights allowed in the 12th Street Overlay Zone so that multi-family buildings of three stories can be constructed. The existing regulation allows a three-story residential building with a maximum height of 38 feet from the peak of the roof to the ground level. He reviewed an illustration to explain the manner in which building height is measured, noting that a multi-family dwelling unit could not be constructed according to the existing regulation. He then provided general information about the 12th Street Overlay Zone, which was approved in 2006 to provide options for developments with higher design standards than the underlying zone. Current height restrictions in the zone are 38 feet and three stories maximum for residential uses, 30 feet for commercial uses, and 45 feet and three stories maximum for mixed use/office uses. A review process for developments in the overlay zone has been identified; if a project contains 30 or less dwelling units or commercial or office use is to be constructed on land less than 40,000 square feet in size, it can be approved by staff. The Planning Commission will review any project that exceeds either of the afore mentioned standards; this review considers traffic impacts and parking area, whether the development adversely impacts the use and privacy of existing adjacent single-family homes, and resolves case by case design impacts with adjacent properties. He then refocused on the current petition, which initially included a request to increase the maximum building heights to 60 feet. Through the public review process for the petition the Planning Commission formulated the recommendation that is before the Council tonight. He discussed those things that the petition does not entail:  Does not approve a specific site design or say if concept design is even possible.  Does not determine if the property is buildable.  Does not get into site specific issues that are considered during a development proposal. Mr. Montgomery then discussed the issues for Council consideration; the Planning Commission has recommended limiting the height variation options only to the area on the north side of 12th Street between Harrison and Monroe Boulevards. The reason for this recommendation is topography of the area, which the Planning Commission felt can mitigate height impacts to neighboring properties. Additionally, the Planning Commission considered distance of properties in the overlay zone from existing homes and existing vegetation to the north between homes and properties with development potential in the overlay zone. He reviewed a map to illustrate the boundaries of the overlay zone as well as the existing tree line between the overlay zone and properties to the north on Henderson Drive. He then reviewed illustrations that show the manner in which buildings of varied heights would impact neighboring properties to the north due to hillside elevations on Henderson Drive, after which he revisited various building heights allowed in the overlay zone. For multi-family developments with a 38-foot building height, a 6:12 gable or hipped roof is required. For commercial uses, 30 feet is the maximum height and the building must have a gable, hipped, or flat roof if the building is over 10,000 square feet in size. For a row house, the maximum building height is 38 feet and a 6:12 gable or hipped roof is required, and for a mixed-use development the maximum building height is 45 feet and a gable, hipped, or flat roof is allowed if the building is over 10,000 square feet. The Planning Commission voted to recommend a revision for the area between Monroe and Harrison Boulevards on the north side of 12th Street as follows:  Maximum height three stories and 45 feet for townhomes and multi-family  Four stories and 45 feet maximum building height if parking is located under the unit on property not adjacent to 12th Street.  Flat roof or pitches less than 6:12 for multi-family or townhomes. Mr. Montgomery noted the thought behind recommending consideration of a flat roof was to reduce the building height. He added the Planning Commission also provided recommendation regarding the manner in which building heights are measured. Building height is typically measured from the midpoint of the ground elevation to the midpoint of a pitched roof. For the overlay zone, the Planning Commission is recommending that building height be measured from the lowest exposed point of a wall to the peak of the roof; this means a 38-foot building in the overlay zone would be shorter than in other zones. Council member Hyer inquired as to the reasoning behind the adjusted measurement method. Mr. Montgomery responded the intent was to give residents an accurate depiction of the type of development that could be located near their property in terms of actual height. He then concluded the Planning Commission’s final recommendation is to increase the maximum building height for properties off 12th Street to 50 feet if the following four criteria can be met:  Adequate distance and vegetation to screen views of building.  Building elevation design and materials are compatible with surroundings.  View shed analysis shows proposed building heights have minimal impact on views from adjacent residential homes when compared with permitted heights.  Hill side profile shows that existing topography is utilized to lower the building height. Mr. Montgomery noted any application made for a building with a height of 50 feet would be considered by the Planning Commission; they would be responsible for determining if the four criteria can be met. He concluded that this evening the Council has the opportunity to either accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation, modify the recommendation by revising changes that are felt to be more appropriate for the zone and its surroundings, or deny the request to make any amendment to the 12th Street Overlay Zone. Council member Stephens inquired as to the process the petitioner would follow to seek approval of a development if the Planning Commission’s recommendation were approved tonight. Mr. Montgomery stated the applicant would need to commission a geologic study to determine the limitations of the site relative to construction. The item before the Council tonight would simply set the rules and regulations for development of the property. Upon additional study the applicant would determine if a project on the property would be feasible. Council member Stephens stated he was particularly interested in clarification of the type of development that can be approved by staff rather than the Planning Commission. Mr. Montgomery reiterated that any development with 30 or less residential units could be approved by staff. Council member Stephens then asked if a mixed-use development would contain an office or commercial use on the main level with residential uses above. Mr. Montgomery answered yes. Petitioner Eric Stevenson complimented Planning Staff and the Planning Commission for their detailed attention to his petition. He stated the property he is interested in developing is unique and challenging and there is much work to be done to determine if a feasible project can be built upon it. He stated he will follow the process outlined by Mr. Montgomery to determine the feasibility of the project and he wants to assure the Council and residents in the area that he desires to build a quality project that will blend with the neighborhood and provide a benefit to the area. He plans to build a high-end gated apartment complex with all the amenities that modern apartment complexes contain. Council member Lopez asked Mr. Stevenson to expound on the amenities that would be included in the project. Mr. Stevenson stated that the project will include a pool, clubhouse, and high-end finishes in each apartment. He stated he lives in the Ogden Valley and he would have liked to complete this type of project there, but property zoning in that area does not permit this type of project. He stated he has tried to find a piece of property that is as close to the mouth of the Ogden Canyon as possible upon which he could build this type of project. He stated the existing trees in the area make the property attractive and as long as he can get through the hurdles and challenges associated with the property, he will proceed in providing a quality development. Council member Stephens inquired as to the number of buildings that would be built on the property. Mr. Stevenson responded that it depends largely on the soils report for the project, which will determine the buildable area, but he would like to build between 132 and 160 total units contained in approximately seven buildings. Council member Lopez inquired as to the size of the largest unit that will be included in the project. Mr. Stevenson answered that the largest unit will be just under 1,200 square feet and will contain three bedrooms and two bathrooms; the smallest unit would be 900 square feet with one bedroom and bathroom. Council member Stephens inquired as to the proposed height of the buildings. Mr. Stevenson replied that also depends upon the topography; he plans to build buildings with three stories and a hipped roof. The topography of the property is challenging and there are two natural levels on the property upon which building could occur, but he also needs to provide adequate parking. He has done some engineering work on the project, but he has decided not to proceed any further until the Council acts on his petition. He does not want to build buildings with a flat roof as he feels use of a hipped roof would make the project more attractive. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-54, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Subsection 15-25-4.L to increase maximum residential building height and to allow for flat roofs in certain areas; 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 Chief 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. Brad Naisbitt stated he is one of the owners/managers of the property. He has owned it for the past four years after purchasing it from Farr West Bank. He has analyzed several different development options for the property and he believes that a high-end apartment complex is suitable for the property. He stated he has worked closely with Mr. Stevenson, who has been diligent in researching and investigating all development options. He is pleased that Mr. Stevenson is willing to work with the City and design a project that conforms with land use regulations for the property. Council member Stephens inquired as to the relationship between the property and an adjacent canal. Mr. Naisbitt said he has been working with the canal company and the Police Department relative to people trespassing on the property to dump items near the canal or participating in other illegal activities. The canal company is piping the canal in phases, but he is not opposed to leaving the portion of the canal that traverses his property left open and including a walking path along the side of it. He stated that could serve as a green space buffer between the existing structures and the proposed development. Kent Hales, 1149 Henderson Drive, stated that he knew that the subject property would eventually develop, but he is concerned about the development of low-end apartments. He commented that his property value was recently increased and he pays a lot of money in property taxes and he wants a peaceful place to live without a bunch of neighbors; now it appears there will be several apartments adjacent to his property and he does not want them to be low-end. He needs a guarantee that the apartments will not be low-end and that there will be no illegal activities taking place there that could reduce his property value. He asked for assurance that the development will be nice and will not detract from his property. Chair White asked Mr. Montgomery if the property could be developed with an apartment complex under the existing zoning regulations. Mr. Montgomery answered yes, but noted the building height would be limited to two stories or 38 feet. Council member Lopez reiterated that the action to be taken by the Council tonight will not result in approval of any type of development and that any future development will need to follow the City’s development review process, during which neighboring property owners will have the opportunity to express their opinions and concerns. Mr. Montgomery stated that is correct. He added the 12th Street Overlay Zone was implemented to require higher design standards in terms of materials used and the minimum size of dwelling units. Council member Stephens asked if the zone is in line with the objectives of the 12th Street Corridor Plan. Mr. Montgomery answered yes; the Plan actually called for the creation of the overlay zone. Council member Stephens then noted the Council received written comments from residents living near the subject property who were concerned about building heights and the potential impact the development may have on the view from their property. He asked Mr. Montgomery to address those concerns. Mr. Montgomery responded that if the tallest building allowed were built on the property as close to the property line as possible, there may be some view obstruction or someone living in the top unit of one of the buildings could possibly look into the backyard of the existing residences, but that depends on several factors and discussion of those issues at this point would be pure speculation. He added, however, that type of thing could happen in any zone in the City and unless someone owns all the property around them, they are unable to control development and limit construction of a building that may differ from their own. Chair White commented she is concerned about the section of the proposed ordinance that would permit flat roofs on residential buildings. Council member Hyer stated he shares that concern and planned to strike that provision from the ordinance before moving to adopt. He stated he feels a hipped roof would improve the quality of any project. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED BY STRIKING 5-B-1 AND THE LANGUAGE IN 5-B-1-5 TO ELIMINATE THE OPTION FOR FLAT ROOFS; ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-54 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council members Garner and Nadolski were 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. Council member Stephens wished the developer well in his endeavors to develop the property. He stated he is concerned about the information that was shared about illegal activities that may be occurring on the property and noted that he feels development of the property may help to address those problems. Council member Lopez stated he was pleased to hear that the developer plans to build a high-end apartment complex and he looks forward to viewing the design of the project if the developer finds it feasible to proceed. Proposed Ordinance 2016-53 to amend Sections 5-8D-2, 5-8D-4, 8-8D-6, and 5-8D-7.E regarding the definition of a controlled parking lot, notice of towing affixed to a vehicle, allowing impound yards used to be located outside of City boundaries, and modifying towing signs used on private property A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding proposed amendments to the non- consensual towing ordinance came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated that in June of 2016 the Council adopted Ordinance 2016-35 which established new towing requirements, regulations and fees. These proposed regulations provided additional requirements for:  Uniform signage and sign locations  Documentation of parking violations  Waiting period before towing can occur  Notice to vehicle owners when a vehicle has been towed  Ease of retrieval after a vehicle has been towed The proposed regulations also made it unlawful for property owners and towing operators to share proceeds of tows or otherwise be incentivized to authorize or conduct towing operations. Since the adoption of the ordinance, property owners and towing companies have contacted the City with suggestions on how to improve the City’s ordinance without modifying the overall intent. The purpose of this agenda item is to allow City Administration to summarize requested amendments to address the concerns that have been raised. . Assistant City Attorney Stratford summarized the memo and further explained City Administration’s proposal to amend the ordinance in response to concerns that have been raised by members of the towing community. It is proposed to make amendments to specific conditions regulating when a vehicle may be towed from private property without the vehicle owner’s consent when signage is not posted; the structure of the proposed amendment still calls for property owners and towing companies to follow strict requirements if towing takes place within a shorter period of time. He referenced the section of the City Code to be amended as follows: 5-BD-2 - The ordinance continues to allow quicker towing from what is defined as a "controlled" parking lot. A controlled parking lot is one that should be readily apparent is intended to be used by a limited number of people. One type of a controlled lot currently requires all parking spaces to have numbers or letters painted on the ground. • It is proposed to recognize on residential properties with more than four dwelling units the use of letters or numbers on a carport or covered parking above the parking stall rather than on the ground at the front of the stall. • Additionally, the maximum width of any opening in the perimeter barrier to be forty-two feet (42') to follow other approved City road standards. 5- BD-4 - The ordinance currently allows for towing a vehicle after 24 hours if a notice has been placed on the windshield of the vehicle. • It is proposed to amend Section A, Subsection 6 to allow the written notice to be placed on the windshield or front driver's side window. Many companies place an adhesive notice on the driver's window so that it will not obstruct the driver's vision if the vehicle is moved. 5- BD-6 - The ordinance currently requires all impound yards to be within the city limits. • It is proposed to allow vehicles being towed to be taken to a State approved impound yard within Ogden City limits or within one mile of the city limits. According to a State impound yard directory last updated  2014 there would only be four impound yards outside this requirement in the Weber County area. This allows for greater use of tow companies that are reasonably near the city boundary where vehicle owners could pick up the vehicle. 5- BD-7 - There has been some concern expressed about how large a sign would need to be in order to accommodate certain font sizes. • It is proposed that for Section E, Subsection 1.b individually marked spaces in an uncontrolled lot, the signage text requirements be amended and clarified. All general text to be at least one inch (1") in height and at least two inch (2") in height for "unauthorized vehicles may be towed". Additionally, in Section E, Subsection 2 to recognize the written notice to be placed on the windshield or the front driver's side window. Council member Stephens asked if it may be possible to require all tow yards accepting vehicles towed from the City to register with the City. Mr. Stratford reported tow yards are licensed by the State of Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and that entity maintains all information about the location of the yard. The signs erected by businesses or towing companies should have the location of the tow yard, but also instructions to a motorist for how to access the UDOT database to find their vehicle. City Administration has not proposed requiring tow yard to register with the City because doing so may be a duplication of efforts and all information about tow yards is immediately available to the City’s Police Department. Council member Hyer asked how the City can address bad actions of a tow yard that is not located in or licensed by Ogden City. He asked what enforcement leverage the City may have to prevent the tow yard from continuing operating in violation of the City’s ordinance. Mr. Stratford responded a tow yard in that scenario would be subject to civil penalties defined in the ordinance; those civil penalties can be assessed and collected in the same manner as for a tow yard that is located in Ogden City. Council member Hyer asked if the City could also levy fines against a tow company operator or property owner that may be working with the tow yard. Mr. Stratford answered yes. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-53, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Section 5-8D-2 to adjust the definition of a controlled parking lot; amending Section 5-8D-4 to provide for notice of towing affixed to a vehicle; amending Section 5-8D-6 to allow for impound yards used to be located outside of City boundaries; amending Subsection 5-8D-7.E to modify towing signs used on private property; 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 Chief 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 HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-53 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council members Garner and Nadolski were 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. Presentation of Fleet and Facilities Management and Operations Study completed by Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. The Fleet and Facilities Management and Operations Study came before the Council for consideration. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with information regarding the study and the process that was used to complete the study. According to the scope of work for the study, the consultant was asked to analyze policies and procedures of the Division, analyze management and operations, review management structure, review staffing levels, evaluate efficiency and effectiveness of day-to-day operations, and determine the sufficiency of supporting data management tools and data collection. The methodology used to complete the scope of work included in-person interviews with staff, interviews with other Departments and users, comparison of existing policies and procedures to best practices, and identification of strengths of the division. Some of the recommendations provided in the study include: • Develop and Adopt a Strategic Plan • Develop Comprehensive Mission, Values and Goals Statements • Use Cartegraph to Its Fullest Extent • Develop Standard Operating Procedures • Institute Preventative Maintenance Programs • Transition to Full Internal Service Fund Charge Program • Require All City Departments Use Warehouse • Eliminate Office Manager Positions (<$64,000>) • Add Two Maintenance Technicians and Appoint One Lead Technician ($116,000) • Increase Facilities Training Budget ($4,000) • Discontinue On-call Pay for Stores Clerks (<$17,000>) Ms. Eller-Smith concluded the study document will be posted on the City’s website for viewing by residents.  Chair White inquired as to how long it may take to implement the recommendations of the study. Ms. Eller-Smith replied that some of the recommendations are already being implemented, but others may take some time to implement. Council member Stephens commented he is hopeful the study and implementation of the recommendations is as effective as a similar process that was used in the Fire Department. VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FLEET AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS STUDY FOR REVIEW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council members Garner and Nadolski were not present when this vote was taken. Public Comments Brad Naisbitt stated that he is present to discuss the conversion of pole signs to monument signs. He has owned the property at 42nd Street and Harrison Boulevard for over 50 years and has been negotiating with a large pharmacy for development of the property. He has purchased additional property around his current property to facilitate the development and he brought City engineers to the property to talk about his development plans. An existing monument sign on the property has been useless and causes safety issues for motorists. He moved the sign to another location and raised it 10 feet to make it more visible; he also improved the appearance of the sign and will continue to make improvements. He is not opposed to using a monument sign, but he would like to be grandfathered under the existing ordinance to be allowed to use his sign for another 30 years. He has invested over $80,000 in the sign and he will have long term tenants on the property. He has been told by sign companies that according to new ordinances he cannot change the sign and that is not acceptable to him. He stated the Mayor should be familiar with this situation. Matt Consuela stated he is the manager at Evco House of Hose and he wanted to comment on the Fleet and Facilities Division by saying he has always had a great working relationship with them. He commented on the recommendation to hire two new mechanics in the Division and he stated he feels that should be done as soon as possible before the winter months begin. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell stated he would like to publicly thank staff and volunteers for their support of large special events that have occurred in Ogden over the past two weekends. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:14 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: January 17, 2017  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, September 27, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 7:15 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 Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Doug Stephens Excused: Board member Neil K. Garner Board member Ben Nadolski Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Board Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Board Office Coordinator Mavis Hawley Also present: Executive Director Mike Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Public Ways and Parks Manager Perry Huffaker Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson Public Comments A citizen, (no name or address given), stated that relative to grandfathering signs, Reagan Sign has a five-foot by 25-foot strip between a pharmacy and the old Zion’s Bank building. He stated he met with the Mayor regarding his attempt to purchase the propriety and Reagan was very difficult to work with. Since that time, they have doubled the size of their sign, though that should have been disallowed by the City’s ordinance. They also have not installed landscaping as required, the sign is not straight, and the sign pole is not painted. He stated grandfathering existing uses does not always work and some people will always try to take advantage of the situation. Board Executive Director Comments Board Executive Director Caldwell commented that he appreciates the points raised by the first citizen and indicated he will look into the issue. Board member Comments Board member Lopez also thanked the first citizen for his attendance and for the comments he made. 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 LOPEZ, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO - NONE. Council members Garner and Nadolski were not present when this vote was taken. The meeting adjourned into Closed Executive Session at 7:18 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:02 p.m.  There being no further business to come before the Council, BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 8:02 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: April 11, 2017