|
NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2009
The North Ogden City Council convened in an emergency session on August 5, 2009 at 5:30
p.m. at the City Offices. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was delivered to each
member of the City Council, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to
the Utah State Website on August 4, 2009. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published
in the Standard-Examiner on December 28, 2008.
PRESENT: Gary A. Harrop Mayor
Martha Harris Council Member
Richard Harris Council Member
Carl Turner Council Member
Ronald Flamm Council Member
Jed Musgrave Council Member
STAFF PRESENT: Edward O. Dickie City Administrator
Annette Spendlove City Recorder
Debbie Cardenas Finance Director
VISITORS: Robert Napoli Dave Hulme
Brent Taylor Wade Bigler
Julie Anderson Dale Anderson
Bill Bernard Polo Afuvai
Gary Kerr Mel Blanchard
Joan Brown Rachel Trotter
Nick McIntosh
WELCOME
Mayor Harrop welcomed those in attendance. Annette Spendlove gave the invocation and led
the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
1. Work Session to discuss 2009-2010 Budget.
Mayor Harrop reviewed why this special meeting was called. He stated that there is a shortfall
of revenue.
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder certified that Council Members, Richard Harris, Ronald
Flamm and Jed Musgrave (majority of the quorum) called the emergency meeting. Mrs.
Spendlove stated this meeting was called in accordance with all laws concerning the open
meeting act.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 2
Ed Dickie, City Administrator, reviewed with the Council his and staff’s concerns. Since
adopting the tentative budget the city is facing a $93,363.00 shortfall. Staff recommended
looking at Cherry Days.
Council Member Martha Harris stated that North Ogden historically has tried, as much as
possible, to pay as you go. When the report came out in the newspaper that we had a surplus, it
was not entirely correct. We had a surplus, but the City had encumbered money for some
expenses that we already had. We look closely at whether things are nice to have or essential to
have.
Council Member Richard Harris asked Debbie Cardenas to explain the City’s current financial
situation.
Debbie Cardenas, Finance Director, reviewed the options with the Council. She started with the
last paragraph on the bottom of the handout. She said that the staff spent Wednesday morning
finding the $93,363 in their budgets. $897,993 has already been cut from the budgets which is
13% of the total budget. That does not include the $93,363 that needs to be cut now. Option A
includes the recommendation that the city does not budget $71,363 for the 2010 Cherry Days
celebration. The remaining $22,000 to be cut includes the following: $10,000 from street lighting
where we anticipate eliminating our contract with Rocky Mountain Power, $5,000 from
elections, $3,000 from the Christmas party and $4,000 from building maintenance for the new
Community Services building. We are hoping that this works to balance the budget but this is
just tentative.
Council Member Musgrave likes the idea of cutting a little from a lot of budgets. He stated that
he has thought that the budgets for the queen pageant and fireworks have gotten excessive. He
suggested doing away with those or having them totally funded outside the city. He prefers
option C and some line item cuts from the Cherry Days budget. He thinks doing away with
Cherry Days entirely would be a mistake.
Council Member Richard Harris wants to make sure we go through all the options before making
any decisions. We need to discuss whether we will have Cherry Days at all in the future. The
private sector is in a lot of trouble which has caused us a lot of trouble. Do we want to continue
to have Cherry Days? He thinks we need to look at cutting some things because we can’t count
on the private sector to fund Cherry Days.
Debbie Cardenas stated that the staff was able to get $20,000 this year for the Cherry Days
events. We hope to be able to do that again. Ed Dickie stated that the City will continue to try to
get sponsors.
Debbie Cardenas reviewed option B. This option includes cutting $2,000 from the Halloween
event, and $5,363 from the Strike Force account. She explained that we have an officer in the
Strike Force now and are not required to make the annual donation but that officer may be
coming out this year. The hope is that the Strike Force will not require us to make the full
payment this year because the officer was kept in for another year. She went on to explain that
the two league meetings that the council attends cost about $12,000. The thought is that the
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 3
council should decide whether to continue going to both or cut one of them to bring that budget
down to $6,000. That leaves $13,363 to add to the $22,000 from option A and get the remaining
$58,000 from the Reserve. This will leave us at approximately 8.6%, we are required to have
5%; however, we know that the Council likes to have 10%.
Option C is to leave the Cherry Days budget in there, leave the Reserve alone and have the staff
come up with more cuts. The cuts would include $45,000 from the general plan, $900 from
Planning travel and training, $900 from the Making Life Better campaign, we are hoping to
maintain the $3,000 lower phone bill, $1,000 from CERT, $1,000 from Police Department
supplies, $2,000 from the Youth Council, and $1,000 from health insurance for the Cobra
expense. This totals $93,363 to balance.
Option D includes $10,900 from a one day mandatory furlough for all employees and various
other cuts totaling $82,463 to balance the budget.
Council Member Richard Harris stated that we, as a City, have mid and long range plans. We
can delay those plans without canceling them. He thinks that the general plan is one thing that
can be delayed for a year. It is time to update it but we can delay for one year. He agrees with
Council Member Musgrave that we need to keep Cherry Days going. In the past we have come
close to cutting the queen pageant due to too few contestants. He can see perhaps not cutting but
delaying the pageants for a year. He is worried about the fireworks as they are not connected
directly with Cherry Days. He suggests delaying the general plan update, the queen and little
miss pageants and fireworks.
Ed Dickie stated that Miss Cherry Days is tied in with the float. The float is about $10,000 total
for all the parades. Do we also want to look at doing away with the float?
Council Member Richard Harris thinks we could have the float without the queens.
Council Member Flamm likes option C. As far as cutting Cherry Days goes, if we look at option
C we have some time to determine what could be cut and/or added back in. To get us by right
now he feels good about option C with the counsel that the administration come back with
specific suggestions to reduce the cost of Cherry Days.
Council Member Martha Harris is not in favor of a 4-10 work schedule. She stated that the
Halloween event has evolved over time and it originally was not a city project. She thinks it
needs to be self sustaining or privately funded. She agrees that the Community Services activity
guide is one of those things that is nice to have. Their events are posted in the city newsletter
and they have a very nice website. The redundancy with having the special newsletter is
something we could do without. She likes the idea of the $4,000 set aside for Christmas
decorations going to the Parks department for a 4-wheeler to be used for clearing sidewalks. She
questions what it costs to run Movies in the Park and the Battle of the Bands. The movies are
donated but there are other costs involved such as staffing. She would like to see Cherry Days
stay in some format but it has definitely gotten out of hand.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 4
Council Member Flamm stated that a 4-wheeler with a winch cannot be purchased for $4,000.
He offered to let the city use his for a bit to see if it really would work for clearing the sidewalks.
These ATVs don’t push the snow as well as you might think.
Ed Dickie recommended option C with the thought that when February comes around we can see
where we’re at and look at parts of Cherry Days that could be sponsored out or cut.
Debbie Cardenas stated that although, the 4-10 work schedule is not very popular it needs to be
considered with the ongoing savings. She doesn’t see the economy bouncing back in the next
year.
Council Member Flamm stated that we have two new businesses coming into town within the
next few months. He asked if that will affect any income to the city. Debbie Cardenas said yes,
sales tax, but not much.
Council Member Musgrave asked if we have obligated ourselves to pay the fee for the fee study.
Debbie Cardenas stated that we have. She added that most of the study is complete. She went
on to explain that the cuts in option C are not guarantees, they are what we are hoping to be able
to save. If the officer comes back from the Strike Force we are hoping we can save that money.
Those are not guaranteed cuts.
Council Member Richard Harris asked how much do we owe to get the guarantee for fireworks
for next year. Ed Dickie stated that we have until the end of this month to get the 20% increase
if we pay half up front.
Mayor Harrop stated that Pleasant View has their fireworks a week before North Ogden. He
suggested that perhaps we could combine them and share the show. Regarding the general plan
he would like to scale it back not eliminate it. He also recommended not getting rid of Cherry
Days but agreed that it could be scaled back.
Council Member Martha Harris noted that option C is getting some support from the Council.
She thinks that it is good to look at that. The Council is asking the employees to make drastic
changes. She likes the idea that the Council should also make some changes. The training
received at the league conferences is excellent. If they can choose one conference or the other or
scale down how it is funded she would like to do that for this year. The Council can tighten our
belts like we have asked the employees to do. She suggested having the city pay the registration
fees but funding their own rooms.
Ed Dickie explained to the visitors that the training being discussed is required for the Council.
He suggested going with option C and holding off until February to start messing around with
Cherry Days. The issue of fireworks needs to be decided now as it has to be paid in the next few
weeks. He needs direction today.
Council Member Musgrave wants to commit to the fireworks show but cut it back some. He
would hate to change that tradition.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 5
Debbie Cardenas said that the point is that we have to make a commitment to them now and pay
half now.
Council Member Musgrave would like to budget $15,000 and try to get sponsors for anything
more.
There was general discussion regarding the fireworks and music as we have had in the past and
other options.
Council Member Turner stated that he did not realize when he ran for Council, that the Council
members got paid. He would not be opposed to not getting paid. He feels that if we could do the
fireworks like last year it would be great but if it were eliminated that would be ok too.
Council Member Richard Harris suggested option C, leaving enough room to make adjustments
to Cherry Days later on, budgeting $20,000 for fireworks and eliminating the Community
Services activity guide.
Council Member Musgrave agreed.
Council Member Martha Harris will support that as well. She feels that it is premature to dip
into the fund balance now and she would prefer not to do that. She would like to go with Option
C, eliminating the activity guide and begin working on the Halloween activity to ensure that it is
not a city subsidized event.
Ed Dickie asked whether they want music with the fireworks. The Council stated yes.
Debbie Cardenas asked if travel and training should be reduced to $6,000. The Council stated
yes.
Council Member Flamm does not have a problem cutting the Council pay.
Ed Dickie stated that the Council members will need to work that out with Annette and reminded
everyone that there will be a public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 to adopt the budget.
Council Member Flamm stated that normally there is time set aside for public comments. He
would like to add that to the agenda.
Council Member Richard Harris appreciates that staff and is grateful for the information.
Council Member Flamm appreciates everyone being here this evening on such short notice.
Julie Anderson, 940 E 2600 N, appreciates the City getting the information out so the public
could find out about the problem. She suggested approaching Lee’s now to ask about sponsoring
the fireworks for next year. She feels that the Queen pageant Director should be given a budget
and made to live within it. The recycle pit is a pet peeve; it used to be free but now residents
have to pay. She suggested that it be closed and people can just go to Weber County.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 6
Bob Napoli, 816 E 2750 N, has spent a lot of time traveling to other communities. He feels that
we should start looking at hosting soccer or softball tournaments to bring money into the city.
The Cherry Days Queen pageant used to be about North Ogden and now is open to Pleasant
View and Harrisville. He is not sure there still needs to be $4,000 in the Mayor’s public relations
fund. He added that Building Permit revenue is low and he doesn’t think it will be worse this
year than it was last year.
Dale Anderson, 940 E 2600 N, stated that an event could be held at the arena and he feels that
Cherry Days could be self sufficient.
Dave Hulme, 513 E 1700 N, doesn’t understand why the budget cuts in the police department are
a good idea. He would rather see Battle of the Bands and Movies in the Park gone. He
appreciates that the community services guide will be cut.
Council Member Musgrave stated that the Battle for the Bands is paid for by America First
Credit Union and Movies in the Park is sponsored as well.
2. Adjournment
Council Member Musgrave moved to adjourn the Council Meeting. Council Member
Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion
Council Member Richard Harris yes
Council Member Martha Harris yes
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
Motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 6:59 pm.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 24, 2009 - 5:30PM AMENDED
505 EAST 2600 NORTH
NORTH OGDEN CITY, UTAH
Welcome, Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Carl Turner
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Action to approve the Council Meeting Minutes for March 10, 2009.
2. Action to approve business licenses.
3. Action to approve the conditional acceptance of the Hidden Willow Estates Subdivision.
4. Action to approve the final acceptance of the Ranchview Townhomes PRUD Phase I.
5. Action to set Public Hearing on April 28, 2009 to approve Tentative Budget FY2009-
2010.
AGENDA
6. Public comments.
7. Discussion and/or action on Deer Meadows Water concern.
Presenter: Kent Jones, City Engineer
8. Discussion and/or action on Ordinance #2009-03, an ordinance amending Chapter 11-
9-6 of the North Ogden City Zoning Ordinance (Hillside Protection).
Presenter: Craig Barker, Community Development Director
9. Discussion and/or action on the request by the Legacy North Home Owners’
Association (HOA) for the City to assume the ownership of their roads.
Presenter: Curtis Smout, Vice President of the Legacy North HOA
10. Interviews of applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy.
Presenter: Mayor Gary A. Harrop
11. Public/Council comments.
12. Adjournment.
NORTH OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 28, 2009
The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a special meeting on January 28,
2009 at 6pm in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 East 2600 North, North
Ogden, Utah
COMMISSIONERS:
Brian Bott Chairman
Jon Bingham Commissioner
Joan Brown Commissioner
Bruce Catanzaro Commissioner
Mike Belnap Commissioner
Lee Crittenden Commissioner
EXCUSED:
Gary Kerr Building Official
STAFF:
Craig Barker Community Development Director
Kent Jones City Engineer
Julia LaSeure Community Development Secretary
VISITORS:
Rachel Trotter
Ivan Barker
SPECIAL MEETING
Chairman Bott called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Craig Barker explained that some members of the Planning Commission expressed an
interest in looking at this more in depth. One thing that was obviously missing in the
ordinance is the slope information. Hillside Development is not a new thing; safety in the
hazardous areas has been considered for a long time. The kinds of slopes in urban
environments have been looked at a lot. A lot of the information was tied to soils found
on those slopes. Some soils are more stable than others. Regarding manufactured slope,
he stated that just before you hit the mouth of Ogden Canyon on the north side of Smith’s
there was a constant slope in the range of 25-30%. The Developers just went in and cut
benches in and put houses on them. That was pretty common practice. When they
started looking at manufactured slope they looked at the unintended consequences? This
2 Planning Commission has been going on for 30 years. There are a lot of different slope numbers that come out
in ordinances. Outside Utah there are some that state no development on slopes greater
than 15%. Weber County was one of the first to develop guidelines in the mountainous
areas. They adopted a slope ordinance that was a subject of scrutiny from many other
areas. He described the slope requirements in more detail for the Commissioners. The
North Ogden City North Hillside Development Study recommends no development on
slopes greater than 20%. Because it was in the study we tended to want to use that as the
rule; no development on slopes greater than 20% natural slope. The Commission has to
make some decisions. If we say 20% slope is the maximum development on a lot we
have to look at grading on that kind of slope. Will we allow cutting roads across slopes
that exceed that to get to areas to develop? Some Communities say you cannot cut across
because of the cuts and fills. Once the Commission makes some decisions staff will draft
an ordinance amendment. There was general discussion regarding the consequences of going with the stricter 20%
maximum slope. Kent Jones stated that if it is not in the HP ordinance now it needs to be added.
Commissioner Bingham thinks they should go with no development over 20% realizing
that it doesn’t really affect much of the city and doesn’t place a lot of restrictions on
people developing their land. Kent Jones stated that the White Rock Subdivision looks okay but there are some areas
on some lots that are over the 20%. They are manufacturing a slope so those lots will be
in compliance. He asked if manufactured slope is acceptable or is anything over 20%
non-developable? Commissioner Bingham is more comfortable saying that they can’t
manufacture the slope. If there are lots with portions over 20% slope those portions need
to be restricted for no disturbance. Kent Jones asked whether those areas can be part of
the lot. Commissioner Bingham stated yes as they did that for Randy Marriott.
Kent Jones stated that there is no problem with restrictions on the lots. Commissioner
Bingham suggested that if the zone requires a minimum 10,000 sq ft lot we should
require that 10,000 sq ft to be under the 20% maximum. The ordinance needs to state
that the minimum lot size must be under 20%. There was general discussion regarding the location of the HP-3 zone limits.
Kent Jones stated that on some developments the City has required a detailed grading
plan and site plan approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. That is
something that could be required in these areas as well. Kent Jones stated that in Pebble Beach and others there is an overall grading plan where
the grading plan is manufactured as a whole to make it easier for the individual lots to
line up. With an overall grading plan you take everything within the boundaries and
show how the whole thing is going to work. They have seen more success in the pre3
Planning Commission 012809 graded situation. Chairman Bott asked if the plan would indicate the grades on the lots.
Kent Jones stated that it will create a building pad for each lot.
Ivan Barker stated that Mason Cove is an example of what California is doing on every
subdivision. They will all be like that before too long. They are just naked lots right now
but once the landscaping goes in it will look different. Kent Jones stated that it works
better that way. Ivan Barker gave a presentation on cuts and fills to give the Commissioners a visual of
how it all works. He stated that he does not feel 20% is restrictive enough.
Kent Jones stated that the ordinance doesn’t have enough verbiage to explain what we
want the developer to do. It needs to be clearer; we need to require an overall grading
plan with a detailed grading plan for each lot including the driveway and any other
structures. Commissioner Bingham agreed and added that it lets the developer know up front that
they can’t leave big cuts and fills and the expense isn’t left to the homeowners to put in
the retaining walls. Kent Jones explained that the front setback is currently 30’. He suggested that it could be
reduced to 20’. A lot of other cities are doing that to minimize the grading. Craig stated
that some communities are narrowing the roads or allowing split roads also.
Kent Jones stated that we need to get the verbiage in about the slope for sure. He
suggested verbiage that if there are good reasons they can come to the Planning
Commission for a variance. He can foresee areas that would need that as an option in
order to make a better subdivision. It would all fall into the overall grading concept. He
will work with Craig Barker on verbiage. Commissioner Catanzaro asked if 20% is the magic number.
Commissioner Belnap stated that there are areas that are trying to mitigate the dangers.
He asked whether slope of less than 20% will mitigate the landslide hazard. Craig stated
no. Commissioner Bingham stated that there is more than just slope; there are soils and water
as well. There was more discussion regarding the mitigation of some of these hazards. Kent
Jones stated that a lot of the stories in the newspapers are due to poor construction or
design. These days there are geotechnical studies available and we know what the soil
conditions are. 4 Planning Commission 012809
Craig thinks that on the next agenda we should have an ordinance amendment that just
talks about maximum slope to get that going. He suggested moving on to discuss some of
the other topics. Craig briefly explained that Geomorphology is basically looking at the terrain to
determine what types there are in an area. Those terrain types are listed in the HP study.
When a developer comes in we can look at the maps and tell them what they need to look
at for a certain area. Kent Jones stated that the HP Study is a guidance document. It just tells us that a detailed
study needs to be done on certain criteria.
There was general discussion regarding landslide and avalanche hazards and mitigation
as well as the development guidelines stated in the HP study.
Commissioner Bingham would like to see these development guidelines put in the
ordinance. Craig stated that staff will do that.
Commissioner Bingham would like to make it clear what the hazards and development
guidelines are. Craig moved on to Geology and explained what has been done to mitigate that hazard in
the past. The potential hazard is debris flows. He reviewed the development guidelines
for debris flows. Kent Jones stated that if a proposed development is in the constraint areas the developer
will need to do a study and mitigate the hazards that exist.
Chairman Bott thanked Ivan Barker, Craig Barker and Kent Jones for their input.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 - 5:30PM
505 EAST 2600 NORTH
NORTH OGDEN CITY, UTAH
Welcome, Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Ron Flamm
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Action to approve business licenses.
2. Action to approve minutes for the August 12, 2008 Council meeting.
3. Action to set September 23, 2008 as a Public Hearing to receive comments on the
proposal to rezone 2175 N. to 2225 N. between 450 E. and 250 E. for highly profitable
properties.
4. Action to approve conditional acceptance of the Valley View Estates Subdivision.
5. Action to approve North Ogden City��s Seasonal Activity Guide.
AGENDA
6. Public comments.
7. Introduction of new employees, Breanne Carter and Mary Kay Robb.
Presenter: Department Heads
8. Discussion on the Country Boy PRUD Site Plan.
Presenter: Craig Barker, Community Services Director
9. Discussion and/or action on design standards for commercial development.
Presenter: Craig Barker, Community Development Director
10. Discussion and/or action on the land donation by the partners of Ranch View
Development.
Presenter: Edward Dickie, City Administrator
11. Discussion and/or action to set September 23, 2008 as the date for the Public Hearing
to receive comments on the amended annexation application of property located south
of 2700 North and west of Washington Boulevard.
Presenter: Annette Spendlove, City Recorder
12. Discussion and/or action to approve the Wastewater Treatment Contract Agreement
with the Central Weber Sewer District.
Presenter: Bruce Evans, City Attorney
13. Public/Council comments.
14. Adjournment.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 1
NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 2, 2008
The North Ogden City Council convened in regular session on September 2, 2008 at 5:30
p.m. at the City Offices. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting were delivered
to each member of the City Council, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office
and mailed to the Standard-Examiner August 29, 2008. Notice of the annual meeting
schedule was published in the Standard-Examiner on February 17, 2008.
PRESENT: Gary A. Harrop Mayor
Ronald Flamm Council Member
Martha Harris Council Member
Richard Harris Council Member
Carl Turner Council Member
EXCUSED: Jed Musgrave Council Member
STAFF PRESENT: Edward O. Dickie City Administrator
Annette Spendlove City Recorder
Bruce Evans City Attorney
Sue Richey Deputy Recorder
Craig Barker Community Development Director
Gary Kerr City Building Official
Laura Barker Court Clerk
VISITORS: Dave Hulme Susan Schmehe
Norm Schmehe Mary Kay Robb
Breanne Carter Brenda Nelson
Cindy Quescie Jeff Grunon
Reed Hepler Paul Bryner
Ben Kunz Robert Meyer
WELCOME
Mayor Harrop welcomed those in attendance. City Administrator Ed Dickie gave the
invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Action to approve business licenses: True Living Taxidermy, Carlie’s Pet Portraits,
C&K Specialties, Philomena Soap Works and Sensory Technology Consultants;
Commercial – Sports and Orthopedic Physical Therapy of Kaysville.
2. Action to approve the minutes of August 12, 2008 City Council meeting.
3. Action to set September 23, 2008 as a Public Hearing to receive comments on the
proposal to rezone 2175 N. to 2225 N. between 450 E. and 250 E. for highly
profitable properties.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 2
4. Action to approve conditional acceptance of the Valley View Estates Subdivision.
5. Action to approve North Ogden City’s Seasonal Activity Guide.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Council Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
AGENDA
6. Public comments.
No comments.
7. Introduction of new employees, Breanne Carter and Mary Kay Robb.
Laura Barker, North Ogden Justice Court Clerk, introduced Mary Kay Robb, the new
Deputy Court Clerk and Sue Richey, Deputy City Recorder, introduced Breanne Carter
an assistant in the front office to the Council and the Mayor.
8. Discussion on the Country Boy PRUD Site Plan.
Craig Barker reviewed this item for the Council. Aaron Mueller and Bruce Hazen have
proposed changing the zoning in the area of 1700 N. and 100 W. from Residential R-1-8
to Residential R-4. They requested this change because the zoning for the property on
the east side of this area was changed to Commercial C-2 at the request of the Hancock
brothers. The developers of the area of 1700 N. and 100 W. felt that because this area
would now be adjacent to a potentially large commercial development, it would be less
desirable for single family homes. The zoning change to an R-4 would provide a buffer
for the single family homes to the west of this area. Residential R-4 would allow for a
multifamily project developed as a Planned Residential Unit Development (PRUD).
Mr. Barker told the Council that in the City’s General Plan for this area it allows median
density close to Washington Blvd. then lower density as you move west. He told the
Council the area rezoned as Commercial C-2 is one of the last remaining areas in the City
that could attract commercial development. The City is hoping for a large development
in this area.
Mr. Barker told the Council that Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hazen had met with the Planning
Commission and the City Council to discuss their concept plan. The proposed plan
changed and evolved as the discussion progressed. The developers met with the Planning
Commission and submitted a plan calling for a zoning change to Residential R-4. They
felt this change would best meet their objectives. The homeowners adjacent to the
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 3
property under discussion were notified of the proposed zoning change. A Public
Hearing was held to receive comments on the change. During the Hearing, neighboring
homeowners provided information to the Planning Commission that they were not aware
of and as a result the Commission rejected the developer’s rezoning proposal.
The developers asked to be placed on the Council agenda so they could discuss this with
the City Council. Council Member Turner said he was concerned about the density of
housing permitted in a Residential R-4 zone. Mr. Barker said the developer has reduced
the proposed density to 143 units with 4 single family building lots. He told the Council
the commercial zoning change had impacted Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hazen’s development
plans. They didn’t feel that a Residential R-1-8 development would be viable in this area
because it will be bordered by this very large commercial development.
Council Member Martha Harris said she had the same question she has had every time a
PRUD is brought before the Council in the last year. What is the advantage to North
Ogden City in allowing this particular PRUD? What does it do to enhance North Ogden
City? She would like any developer who comes before the Council to have a very good
answer to this question and the answer isn’t that it makes the land more marketable for
them.
Mayor Harrop expressed his feelings that he did not like the concept plan when it was
first presented to him and he doesn’t like it now. He also said he felt the proposed culde-
sac would be very hard to plow. He doesn’t like the high density being proposed.
Erin Mueller, 3650 Taylor Ave., told the Council that since the last meeting with the
Planning Commission, they had reduced the proposed number of units to 143 with 4
building lots for single family homes. He said he felt the Residential R-4 would provide
a buffer between the proposed commercial area and the existing single family dwellings
to the west of his development. There would be a buffer with the wetlands and canal
between the Residential R-4 development and the high-end homes to the west in
Harrisville. He told the Council the Planning Commission had indicated they felt good
about going forward with the current plan. It conforms to the R-4 zoning requirements
with 5.3 units per acre. Mr. Mueller said he felt this plan would provide lots of open
space. He said he couldn’t imagine having a Residential R-1-8 development in this area
with the commercial development next door to the east.
9. Discussion and/or action on design standards for commercial development.
Mr. Barker reviewed this item for the Council. The purpose and intent of the design
standards and regulations are to preserve property values, enhance the economic viability
and aesthetic value of commercial properties, and to provide a quality environment for
both citizens and visitors. The scope of the standards would apply to all developmental
proposals in Commercial or Manufacturing zones. Mr. Barker told the Council these
standards are being presented in ordinance form. If this proposal is approved it will
become part of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and commercial developers will be required
to conform to these standards. Council Member Turner said he complimented Mr.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 4
Barker on this document. He asked Mr. Barker how it could be amended when new
building materials become available. Mr. Barker told Mr. Turner the document had been
developed by a committee composed of City staff and volunteer residents with expertise
in building standards and landscape architecture. There are avenues to amend the
standards with Planning Commission and City Council approval. Mr. Barker said the
attempt of the committee wasn’t to be so tight that there is no lee way. There is some lee
way in this document. Staff has been in contact with some potential developers and has
given each copies of this. Mr. Barker explained that if the City and developers can meet
in discussion early enough in the process, the developers are usually very cooperative
concerning design standards. However, sometimes a development such as a Target store
comes to the City with a full blown plan, having invested a great deal of money in the
designs. It is then that they become resistant to these types of standards. Mayor Harrop
expressed concern about this type of situation, which could happen in the case of a
Smith’s expansion. Mr. Barker told the Council that Smith’s has been given a copy of
these standards.
Council Member Rich Harris thanked the committee and told Mr. Barker he also was
very impressed with the work done to create these standards and regulations governing
commercial development in the City, but he didn’t see a Development Theme for the City
stated in this document. He would like a development theme that would apply
throughout the City. He would also like to see more visuals and samples of the standards
so the developer understands what City requirements are in the area of commercial
development.
Mayor Harrop said he likes berms, for example the one in front of Smith’s, is a good
place to throw your blanket to watch the 4th of July parade, but it also a good place to put
trees. He would also like trees planted in the parking lots. It would be a nice visual
variation. Mr. Barker told the Mayor City Ordinance already requires a certain amount of
interior landscaping in commercial developments. He would have to review that before
he could say how much. The committee is also looking at redoing the berm standard. If
you look around the City, the height of berms is not consistent.
Council Member Flamm said he would like the City to require more trees in business
parking lots, not just around the sides, but also have green areas with small plots of grass
and have trees intersperse throughout the lots. This would give the owners more space to
put snow in the winter as they plow their lots. Mr. Barker told Council Member Flamm
that this had been discussed by the committee.
Council Member Rich Harris asked Mr. Barker if the committee was using standards
from the Envision Utah publication. Council Member Rich Harris said he agrees with
some of the ideas in publication but North Ogden doesn’t lend itself to any of its
proposals because the City is so spread out. Bruce Evans, City Attorney, in response to
Council Member Rich Harris’ request for a theme, said a paragraph could be inserted
describing an overarching theme for the design standards with examples and illustrations
in the back of the document. He also mentioned that while realizing there is a vision the
Council, Planning Commission and staff are trying to capture for North Ogden, there are
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 5
other concerns that will have to be addressed. One is the potential economic costs these
standards would impose on commercial developers. Another is safety issues where
drivers may tend to go too fast because they are unhappy with the landscaping that didn’t
allow them easy access to a store. The other consideration is the Storm Water Phase II
permit that requires the City to maintain proper control of water run-off. Also, as a
municipality, the City has certain water conservation requirements it must comply with as
provided by the EPA and the State of Utah. Mr. Evans told the Council that if the City
imposes certain water intensive landscaping plans, it runs counter to the efforts of the
City and State to conserve water. This means there will have to be trade-offs.
Council Member Turner stated that he didn’t want to see this drawn out forever. He
would like these standards adopted as soon as possible. Then if developers come and the
standards are in place, if amendments need to be made those can be addressed. Council
Member Flamm suggested taking pictures over the next two weeks of developments that
have the look that the Council and staff like and add them to the document. He said he
felt that would provide a better understanding for developers of what the City wants. Mr.
Barker said staff will do that.
Council Member Turner asked what the next step is. Mr. Barker said he will take the
minutes of this meeting and what notes he has taken back to the committee. The
document will be refreshed with this information and then emailed it to the Council for
comments. Once this is completed, it will come back to the City Council for discussion.
The draft ordinance will have to go to the Planning Commission first for their
recommendation. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and then the
Council will hold one. Mr. Barker said the City does have some commercial developers
who have expressed an interest in North Ogden and staff will probably send these
standards out to them for their comments. Council Member Turner expressed approval of
that idea.
10. Discussion and/or action on the land donation by the partners of Ranch View
Development.
Mr. Dickie presented this item to the Council. He told the Council the City was under the
impression that the donation from the Ranch View development would be 2-acres.
However, he has learned the donation stands at 1-acre. Mr. Dickie told the Council it
was staff’s recommendation that the donation be declined because of its size. The City
would have to improve the land and maintain I,t but the area isn’t large enough to be
efficiently utilized.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to decline the land donation given to the
City by the partners of Ranch View Development. Council Member Rich Harris
seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 6
Motion passed.
11. Discussion and/or action to set September 23, 2008 as the date for the Public Hearing
to receive comments on the amended annexation application of property located south
of 2600 North west of Washington Boulevard.
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, told the Council the annexation application had been
amended because the original application had left an island of unincorporated land. The
City’s annexation declaration states that the City can’t leave an island. The landowner
Mr. Howells agreed to annex that section of his property into North Ogden. The required
notice has gone into the newspaper and includes the island as part of the annexation. The
This will be brought back at a future Council meeting in ordinance form for Council’s
consideration.
Council Member Rich Harris moved to approve September 23, 2008 as the date for
the Public Hearing to receive comments on the amended annexation application of
property located south of 2600 North west of Washington Boulevard. Council
Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
12. Discussion and/or action to approve the Wastewater Treatment Contract Agreement
with the Central Weber Sewer District.
Bruce Evan, City Attorney, reviewed the proposed agreement sent to the cities, the
Central Weber Sewer District serves, for their comments and approval. He told the
Council the Central Weber Sewer Improvement District is undertaking a major
construction expansion in its sewage treatment plant. Because they are receiving a
portion of their funding for the project from the State of Utah, Central Weber is being
required to have written contracts in place with its wholesale customers, which includes
North Ogden City. Mr. Evans told the Council he had reviewed the agreement and had
found no definitions that were legally unacceptable. As a publically-owned treatment
works (POTW) there are certain requirements they have that they must pass along to their
customers. Those have been included in the agreement. There is a 50-year term on the
agreement. The agreement doesn’t create a special district. It just solidifies North
Ogden’s agreement with Central Weber to maintain the City’s sanitary sewer lines and to
carry out proper monitoring and reporting of the discharges. The City also agrees to
abide by the rules and regulations imposed on the Sewer District by the State of Utah.
There is also a payment formula contained in the agreement that is not objectionable.
Mr. Evans said he didn’t believe the terms of the agreement would change any of the
procedures the City currently employs in dealing with its sanitary sewer system. It also
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 7
allows the district to refuse service if the City doesn’t follow the required regulations.
There is also a mutual termination clause in the contract.
Council Member Rich Harris asked about the reference on page 7 to a CMOM program.
This requires the City do a self-audit on an annual basis. Will this put an unmanageable
work load on the Sanitary Sewer Division of the City? Mr. Evans said there is already
such a requirement and that he was confident that the City was in compliance. It has
been a requirement for North Ogden for some time and Mrs. Spendlove explained that
staff has been doing it each year. Council Member Rich Harris had some other questions
on the verbiage of the agreement. Mr. Evans explained that the Council could approve
the agreement tonight and then pass the resolution at a future meeting. Council Member
Rich Harris also pointed out that the agreement refers to the City Manager where North
Ogden has a City Administrator. Mr. Evans said that it is a boiler-plate agreement for all
affected cities so it is referring to City Manager/City Administrator.
Council Member Turner asked if the City had ever had an agreement like this with
Central Weber Sewer. Mr. Bruce stated that the City has had other agreements with them
and this is a replacement for the existing agreement. This new agreement was created to
fulfill bonding requirements from the State of Utah.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve the Wastewater Treatment
Contract Agreement with the Central Weber Sewer District with changes as
recommended. Council Member Carl Turner seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
13. Public/Council comments.
Jeff Granou,1588 W. 225 N. Harrisville, told the Council he had attended a Public
Hearing during the North Ogden Planning Commission meeting where comments were
heard on plans for Country Boy Estate Phase IV. He told Council he didn’t think that
meeting had been portrayed correctly. About 35 people attended the hearing, 16 spoke
and the petition that was presented to the Planning Commission had about 145 signatures.
The attendees were from North Ogden and Harrisville. There was emotion, but it was
also democracy at work. One of the concerns about Country Boy Estates Phase IV is that
when Phase II was approved, it was with the stipulation that they had to mitigate the
parcels of land along 4-Mile Creek. Mr. Granou told the Council there is a plan for
Country Boy Estates Phase III that has the entire length of 4-Mile Creek piped. One of
the stipulations agreed on by the City Council in January 2007 was that the creek
wouldn’t be piped. If the creek were piped, it would destroy hundreds of willow trees.
Many of the people attending the Public hearing were from Country Boy Estates Phases I
and II who had built upscale single family dwellings. They didn’t want a high density
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 8
development next door. Mr. Granou said residents in that area are also very concerned
about traffic flow in the area if this new development is approved. He told the Council
unless the road to the new development is extended through to 1700 North, all the traffic
from that area will have a tremendous impact on Harrisville residents. This is why
people are upset. Mr. Granou said if there is a theme in all this it is as Mayor Harrop
said, people move out to North Ogden for the single family ambiance and people were
very upset with what could be coming in behind them. Mayor Harrop said he would like
to take credit but it was Council Member Rich Harris who said that.
Council Member Turner announced his family will be welcoming a baby boy. The
Council congratulated him and his family.
Council Member Rich Harris asked if the next meeting will be canceled. Ms. Spendlove
said it would be.
Council Member Martha Harris commented on the wonderful appearance of Barker Park
and said she appreciates the efforts of the Parks department. She asked Mr. Dickie to
convey her compliments to the Park Department.
Ms. Spendlove told the Council there are two openings on the Board of Adjustment that
will need to be advertised. Candidates will be brought before the Council and Mayor for
review. A homeowner living in an unincorporated area of the County came into the City
Offices asking about being connected to the City’s water system. According to City
Ordinance he will need to come before the Council to obtain their approval before City
staff can start the connection process. The homeowner is also looking into having his
property annexed into the City. He would like to have his connection completed before
winter comes. Ms. Spendlove said she would have this on the agenda for the next
Council meeting. His address is 116 West and 2000 North. The property to the east of
his is already part of the City so this annexation would not create an island. On the other
side is Weber County and then further west is Harrisville.
Mayor Harrop thanked all those in attendance this evening. He said he understands that it
can be a challenge to balance the desires of the many against the wishes of the few. He
thanked the Council for their commitment to the City and its residents. The decisions
made in this room are not always easy. He said North Ogden will do its best to be a good
neighbor. During the next Council meeting on September 23 there will be more
information available on the status of the well drilling.
Robert Meyer, 3190 Holiday Drive, asked if he could make a few comments on the well
drilling on 450 East. He suggested the City drill along the fault line that runs through
North Ogden. When he had worked out at Thiokol, they had drilled a well along the fault
line. Thiokol was located on the site of Lampo Junction where a flowing well and a
ranch house were located in the 1800’s. Mr. Meyer told the Council he is certain that
given the artesian wells located in the City, if they drill along the fault line running from
the stump down by Lee’s Market Place and up through the Shupe property, they will find
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 9
water. He suggested having the City approach Mr. Shupe about leasing his property for a
drill site.
Council Member Richard Harris moved to recess and convene in a closed meeting
to discuss current litigation. Council Member Carl Turner seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
The Meeting recessed at 7:12 pm and Council convened in a closed meeting. The
meeting reconvened at 7:16 pm.
14. Adjournment.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Council
Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion
Council Members all voted aye.
Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 7:19 pm
|
