Planning Commission

Minutes of the regular work session of the Ogden City Planning Commission held April 17, 2024. Meeting was conducted by Chair Sandau and began at 5:32pm. Members Present: Jenny Sandau, Chair Cathy Blaisdell, Vice-Chair Andrey Akhmedov Rick Safsten Mandy Shale Jeremy Shinoda Rick Southwick Members Excused: Jordan Aaberg Michelle Williams Staff Present: Barton Brierley, Planning Manager Brandon Rypien, Sr. Planner Jannette Borklund, Administrative Assistant III James Tanner, Assistant City Attorney 1. Discussion of Zone Ogden Code update Attachments: a. Steering Committee Agenda b. Slide Presentation Mr. Rypien recapped the progress in reviewing the “Zone Ogden” process in developing a unified development code, indicating the assessment portion has been completed and the next few steps are to engage the public with an open house scheduled for April 24th and then a kick-off meeting scheduled for June 26th,. He reviewed current processes and indicated flow charts would be created for each of the specific approval types to better guide development. He reviewed the current code and practices of noticing items which are to be discussed at public meetings and identified noticing requirements for particular agenda items, indicating that when required, postcards are mailed to property owners within a 300’ radius of the project to be discussed and signs are placed on the property. He asked the Commission if they felt these practices are adequate. Commission discussed the use of signs, stating while they often become damaged or lost, they serve a purpose in identifying a particular property. They felt while maps on the postcards are helpful, it is often difficult to determine which property is on the agenda and a sign better identifies the particular location. Mr. Brierley indicated Staff is pursuing the option of lawn signs which are much cheaper and would typically be a single- use sign. He then reviewed some existing and potential ordinances and asked for input from the Commission. Building Height in Residential Zones Should height be measured by the mid-point of a pitched roof as current standards indicate, or to the top of a roof, whether flat or pitched, or by the number of stories. Page | 1  • Commission felt the current standards to measure to the midpoint of a pitched roof is appropriate, stating if homes were measured to the peak of the roof, the pitch might be reduced so much that they would not fit with existing neighborhoods. It also was indicated this is the practice in most cities in the County and it is known throughout the building community. They felt the height is better measured in feet, stating 35’ is appropriate, and no consideration for the number of stories as there is no defined story height limitation. Multi-Household Dwellings: These are distinguished by lot size which limits the use: Lots between 10,000 square feet and two acres are limited to twin homes, duplexes, fourplexes and attached townhomes with density determined by the underlying zone. Lots over 2 acres allow those same uses as well as stacked flats in buildings not exceeding 200’ in length. Lots greater than two acres in the MU zone are required to include a commercial component with the development. Common issues identified with multi-household buildings are height, density, transition standards, building orientation and building design. • Commission felt latitude in regulations would serve to fill in the missing middle housing. Commissioner Southwick asked if there is a way to emphasize properties be platted so they can have individual ownership. It was felt the building design is often more important than the density. Commissioner Safsten questioned the need for commercial components in large developments, stating increased density is important to encourage commercial uses. Mr. Rypien indicated the amount of commercial vs. residential space would be further defined in the General Plan, stating changes in traffic patterns alters the need for commercial space. The Plan will consider what areas could be supported by housing, transportation and other components of the Plan. • Commission felt a graduated height or some transition standards between multi- family and single-family uses is important but also indicated buffering between zones is almost as important as setbacks. • It was felt each project should provide its own recreation or open space and not just a number of residential units. Gathering spaces in neighborhoods are important Building Design What standards create more attractive buildings. Staff suggests standards identifying building materials, projections and/or recesses and architectural details, including a covered entry, front-facing door and/or porch, and location of garages. • Commissioner Blaisdell felt rear-loaded garages are preferable so long as access can be provided, but it was noted this often reduces rear yard play areas. Chair Sandau stated garages can face the street if they fit with the architecture of the home. Commissioner Southwick stated Ogden has much variety in architectural style which adds interest, and felt building material such as brick makes buildings more compatible with other uses. He voiced concern about new buildings being consistent with existing architecture, suggesting it be changed to compatible rather than consistent which would add more variety. He felt many of the older brick apartment buildings still exude charm, and felt the newer materials such as stucco and metal won’t maintain this type of charm as they age. Page | 2 Open Space and Recreation Mr. Rypien indicated some zones require up to 40% open space for multi-family uses and suggested this could be reduced to 15-20% so long as the open space is functional and usable for all tenants. He felt better designs for open space would make it more attractive and used by tenants. • Commissioners discussed items which also could count as open space such as plazas, exercise rooms, a clubhouse, balconies or patios. Mr. Rypien noted projects often define both private open space for individual tenants as well as common open space which is usable by all tenants. While a private fenced back yard is useful for the tenant, the overall gathering spaces within a project should not be eliminated. Chair Sandau suggested a percentage of common open space should be identified. Commissioner Southwick noted there is a challenge in creating usable open space for individual tenants, particularly if designed as rear-loaded garages. Because of the need for access and backing space, the rear yards are asphalt with no play area. Mr. Rypien stated the recently revised group dwelling standards allow a front fenced-in patio to count towards the percentage of usable open space. He also identified grassed side yards as an example of open space which is not functional, noting however if widened with a walking path giving access throughout the development, it might be counted as more functional open space. Mr. Brierley added that indoor recreation space such as a gym, pool or clubhouse would also count towards usable open space. Mr. Rypien there is a need to protect existing trees and these should be designed around if possible. This would pertain to larger healthy trees and not to trash trees. • Commission noted while there have been ordinance standards to protect existing trees for some time, it has been difficult to enforce, stating fines are inadequate to give incentive for developers to make any effort to preserve trees. Flexible Subdivisions Mr. Rypien then asked for input relating to ideas to create some special standards to allow more options for infill development or other vacant or underutilized property. These might include Planned Developments containing neighborhood scale commercial uses, townhomes, duplexes or twin homes where they currently are not allowed as well as allowing infill as a means to increase density. He asked Commissioners to respond using the QR code as to what items are most important for these types of developments, with options being open space & recreation, building design, transition in height, setbacks and identify what flexibility should be offered to address these items. Response: Usable open space Building design • Commissioner Southwick expressed concern that the recently adopted R-2S zone was intended to be used City-wide, but some specific community plans limit development with language to protect single-family neighborhoods. He felt there should be a mechanism which would allow the development of the missing middle housing. Residential Infill Subdivisions: These might also include cluster subdivisions, infill projects, lot size averaging, subdivisions with private streets and commercial and industrial parks. Response: Building design flexibility Page | 3  Lot averaging Open Space Use of Flag Lots to address infill areas: This concept would allow up to two residential lots with a single access, with lot area equal to the zone requirement but may reduce setbacks. Depending on the length of the access road, a turn-around for fire code may be required. Could these also be allowed on smaller lots? These would be limited to smaller vacant properties with minimal frontage. Commissioner Southwick preferred this concept over cluster subdivisions. Commissioner Blaisdell stated there is a similar project in her neighborhood, and it works well, except for the narrow access which limits the view of oncoming traffic. Mr. Rypien indicated standards for a minimum access width could be adopted. He also stated the required rear setback of any existing home must be respected in identifying the location of common property lines. Chair Sandau noted this is an instance where the new homes should be compatible with existing homes, stating if the front home is single-story, those in the flag lot should not be allowed to be 35’ in height. She felt the new homes should match the height of the surrounding neighborhood. Discussion continued relating to whether a flag lot might allow more than two homes if adequate space is available. There also is concern about care and maintenance of the access road and trash removal as it would be private property. Commission then discussed the options of subdivisions on a private lane or private right-of-way. This would be an extension of the flag lot concept but would allow more lots on a deep parcel. Owners would be responsible for maintenance of the road or right-of-way. Mr. Rypien indicated he had contacted the fire marshal who indicated lots with more than a 150 access may be allowed without a turn-around if they were to have fire sprinklers. Commissioner Southwick favored the concept but felt there should be a written agreement between the interior property owners to address care of the access road. Cottage lots were introduced in the R-9 area which allows lots on 1,500 square feet of property to be created from an existing lot if it has frontage on a public street or alley and can meet setback standards. Could these also be allowed in other areas? Established Neighborhoods Mr. Rypien indicated last year’s legislature adopted a law which prohibits cities from implementing design standards for new single-family and duplexes unless they are in what they term as “established neighborhoods”. These are then defined as neighborhoods which were developed prior to 1950. He identified existing neighborhoods in Ogden which fit this criteria and stated new construction should be designed to fit with the existing scale, mass and building materials as the surrounding community. Items such as front porches, entrances addressing the street serve to make these communities more walkable. Other features such as eaves, a covered porch and garage at the rear of the property create a sense of community. He showed slides of existing homes in the East Central community which are not identical, but are compatible. Commissioner Shale felt the architectural style also should be compatible with the surrounding community. Mr. Rypien stated the intent is to identify established neighborhoods and adopt specific building standards for each of these areas. Mr. Brierley indicated where there are areas just under 50% established prior to 1950, Staff intends to seek comments from residents relating to whether specific standard should be established. Page | 4 Mr. Rypien thanked the Commission members for their input and indicated these comments would help him prepare for the open house on April 24th. He again invited the Commissioners to be a part of that meeting and to bring neighbors and friends. Mr. Brierley indicated Staff has been working with am Urban Planning class at WSU and they have prepared research relating to infill residential development. Their class presentation will be held April 18th at 3pm at Lindquist Hall Room 212. Mr. Brierley stated terms of three commission members will expire in July and asked them to contact him as to whether they desire to be reappointed. The annual Planning Commission dinner will be held ibn May 15th at Senora Grill at 6pm. April 29th will be a recognition for Jannette Borklund who will be retiring on May 1st. There being no additional business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05pm. Respectfully submitted, Jannette Borklund (May 29, 2024 10:04 MDT) Jannette Borklund, Administrative Assistant III Approved: 5/1/2024 ________ (date) Jenny Sandau (May 28, 2024 18:46 MDT) ____________________ Jenny Sandau, Chair Page | 5