Wednesday, October 5, 2011 the North Ogden Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting at the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 East 2600 North, North Ogden, Utah at 6:00 p.m.

Norrth Ogden City Planning Commission Meeting

September 21, 2011

NORTH OGDEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on September 21, 2011 7 at 6:00 pm in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. 8 Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning 9 Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State 10 Website on September 15, 2011. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the 11 Standard-Examiner on January 1, 2011.

COMMISSIONERS:

Dave Hulme Chairman

Allan Dalpias Vice-Chairman

Joan Brown Commissioner

Steve Quinney Commissioner 

Ken Kiser Commissioner 

Cheryl Stoker Commissioner 

Blake Knight Commissioner

23

STAFF: 24

25

Dave Carlson City Attorney/Economic Development Director 26

Craig Barker Community Development Director 27

Gary Kerr Building Official 28

Edward O. Dickie III City Manager 29

Julia LaSeure Deputy City Recorder 30

31

EXCUSED: 32

33

Jennifer Thomas Planning Technician 34

35

VISITORS: 36

37

Gary Rands Molly Rands John Zurbuchen Robert Petersen 38

Jose Santoscoy Dylan Harper Preston Ward Kaleb Adams 39

Rod Adams Wyatt Peterson 40

41

REGULAR MEETING 42

43

Chairman Hulme called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Commissioner Quinney offered 44 the invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 45 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 2

3. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2011 46 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 47

48

The Commission requested the following changes: 49

50

Line 220 – change „be left along‟ to „be left alone‟ 51

Line 177 – capitalize north and east 52

Correct the spelling of Gary Rands‟ last name throughout the document. 53

54

Commissioner Kiser moved to approve the minutes of the August 3, 2011 meeting with 55 changes. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. 56

57

66

68

4. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 6, 2011 PLANNING 69 COMMISSION MEETINGS. 70

71

Commissioner Brown moved to approve the minutes of July 6, 2011 Planning Commission 72 meeting. Commissioner Stoker seconded the motion. 73

74

Vote as recorded: 75

83

85

5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ACTION TO RECOMMEND THE ANNEXATION 86 OF DOUBLE OTT RANCH LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 150 E. 2250 N. 87

88

Craig Barker stated this property is just west of the charter school on 2550 N. He said it is west 89 of North Shore and east of the existing multifamily. He said the present owners desire to zone it 90 Residential RE-20. It is presently horse property with one home. He said the rest of the property 91 is farm buildings and there are some horses on the property. He said the owner felt that sometime 92 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 3

in the future they may want to develop that ground, which is why they want to annex it into the 93 City. He said before the City can act on this proposal, the Planning Commission has to make a 94 recommendation on the zoning. 95

96

Commissioner Quinney asked if the property borders the City limits. Craig Barker said it does 97 enclose that area of unincorporated Weber County. 98

99

Commissioner Kiser asked if RE-20 is the right zone for that area. Craig Barker said for the City 100 at this time, yes. He said RE-20 is the least dense and where they allow agriculture uses. 101

102

Commissioner Hulme said RE-20 is a good default zone for now. He said it allows them to 103 incorporate without worrying about their animals. 104

105

Commissioner Quinney said there would have to be a good reason to deny this. Craig Barker 106 replied yes and added this will go to public hearing. 107

108

Commissioner Brown asked why now. Craig Barker said he doesn‟t know. He said the property 109 owner has changed. He said the current owner Mr. Opheikens has been in the development 110 business for a long time and he may have some reasons. 111

112

Commissioner Hulme asked if this is the property the City has decided to build the public works 113 building on. Craig Barker said no decisions have been made that he is aware of. 114

115

Commissioner Quinney moved to recommend approval of the annexation of the Double Ott 116 Ranch located at 150 East 2250 North with RE-20 zoning. Commissioner Knight seconded 117 the motion. 118

119

Voting on the motion: 120

121

129

131

6. APPROVAL OF THE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT AND BUILDING 132 PARCEL DESIGNATION LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 2543 N. 1600 E. IN 133 THE HERITAGE GROVE SUBDIVISION. 134

135

Craig Barker said Heritage Grove Subdivision is on Mountain Road. The current owner thought 136 that this was his property because the original owner had encroached upon that land and taken it 137 in with his landscaping. The current owner has been working with the City to purchase this land 138 to add it to his lot. He said State law provides that when one wants to purchase additional 139 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 4

property to add to their subdivision lot they can do that without having to file a subdivision. The 140 County Recorder will allow them to receive a single tax notice which is a change from the past. 141

142

Commissioner Hulme asked if it is recorded as one lot. Craig Barker replied it is two lots until 143 the plat is amended. This property was declared as surplus by the City so they are allowed to 144 make the sale. This will appear on the City Council agenda for approval. The property owner 145 will also have to record a building parcel designation with the County so that this piece is always 146 attached to the original parcel. Craig Barker explained that this is not a terribly unique situation. 147

148

Commissioner Brown asked how old the subdivision is. Craig Barker replied that he guesses it 149 was developed in the late 1970s. 150

151

Commissioner Kiser asked Craig Barker, this is owned by the City, does the City see this as the 152 best option. Craig Barker said yes. 153

154

Commissioner Kiser moved to approve the boundary line adjustment and building parcel 155 designation located at approximately 2543 N. 1600 E. in the Heritage Grove Subdivision. 156 Commissioner Dalpias seconded the motion. 157

158

Voting on the motion: 159

167

169

Commissioner Hulme thanked the Boy Scouts for their attendance and apologized for not 170 recognizing them earlier. 171

172

7. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PARKING OF THE CHILDREN’S GARDEN 173 MONTESSORI. 174

175

Craig Barker stated this is located in a commercial strip center near Taco Time. He said this 176 school occupies a unit in the strip mall. This is a permitted use in the C-2 zone. The only issue is 177 parking for pick-up and drop-off. He said currently there are no other uses in that building so it 178 works right now. He has witnessed very little use of the parking stalls in this lot. Craig Barker 179 said this is awkward at best and they have calculated the number of required parking stalls. The 180 parking stalls are based on the amount of square footage. He would be concerned with the school 181 taking up seven parking stalls. He said a young woman goes out and moves the cones around 182 during the pick-up and drop-off times. She may have to make some adjustments at a later time. 183

184

Commissioner Hulme asked if the parking is used for anything when the cones are not there. 185 Craig Barker said not right now, but they may have to be used in the future. Commissioner Kiser 186 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 5

asked if this is necessary. Craig Barker said no and added that the applicant has to make some 187 sort of proposal. It is pretty awkward but works for right now. 188

189

Commissioner Brown feels the applicant has done a good job with safety. Commissioner Knight 190 asked if there have been any concerns brought up. Craig Barker said no. 191

192

Commissioner Quinney asked how many kids they are talking about. Craig Barker said he thinks 193 there are about 30 kids over a morning and afternoon session. 194

195

Commissioner Quinney said he has mixed emotions. He said when you go to a business and get 196 out of your car you park and walk to the sidewalk. He asked if this is any better than just pulling 197 into a parking space. Commissioner Knight said this is safer. 198

199

Craig Barker said the Police Chief had no comment regarding safety. Commissioner Hulme said 200 this will provide a better flow. 201

202

Commissioner Knight asked if they are planning to paint any lines. Craig Barker said no. Craig 203 Barker said if this becomes an issue it will come back to the Planning Commission. 204

205

Commissioner Knight moved to approve the parking configuration with the understanding 206 that it can be revisited in the future if necessary. Commissioner Brown seconded the 207 motion. 208

209

Voting on the motion: 210

218

8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ACTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO 219 SECTION 11-10-22 "MOBILE HOMES, MOTOR HOMES, BOATS, AIRCRAFT, 220 TRUCK CAMPERS, CAMPING TRAILERS, TRAVEL TRAILERS, AND OTHER 221 TRAILERS" TO ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF TRAILERS ALLOWED ON A 222 SINGLE LOT. 223

224

Craig Barker said the Planning Commission is familiar with the discussion that has gone on with 225 this. The issue was brought up by the building inspectors who are in charge of enforcing the 226 zoning ordinance. The concern is that the present regulation is not really clear and causes some 227 consternation to the building inspectors. We are trying to clarify things. This will have to go 228 through a public hearing at the City Council level. Regardless of the Planning Commission‟s 229 recommendation it will likely still go to the City Council. Our City Attorney has taken the 230 existing ordinance and included some changes which are crossed out or underlined. Craig Barker 231 reviewed the proposed changes. Craig Barker indicated that Mr. Rands is a legal non-232 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 6

conforming use and doesn‟t fall into this category. He owns a roofing business so as long as the 233 trailers are associated with the business he can have them. The City is prepared to recognize it as 234 a non-conforming use. Whether he can store his travel trailers there is another issue which he 235 wants to discuss. 236

237

Commissioner Quinney asked what is allowed now. Craig Barker said any underlined text is 238 new. Commissioner Quinney asked if there are very many of these issues on 700 East. 239 Commissioner Knight asked whether the owners on the list provided to the Planning 240 Commission have been made aware of the issue. He said there are a lot of issues with these 241 properties. To him the perpendicular statement opens up another can of worms because there are 242 other issues that come into play here. He brought up homes where garages are approached from 243 the side. He said he is not going to get into property rights but to him these have a lot of 244 different issues. 245

246

Craig Barker said the Planning Commission can make their recommendations. He asked when 247 your actions affect your neighbors‟ actions, we have that issue already. Commissioner Knight 248 said the problem is that the ordinance puts the building inspector in a position of having to 249 handle these things. Craig Barker said people buy residential properties with certain 250 expectations. He stated this is a draft. If the language needs to be changed they can propose an 251 amendment. 252

253

Dave Carlson said we would interpret the existing statute to address these problems. He said if 254 you are storing vehicles for someone else on your property that is not a permitted use. He stated 255 their point is that it is ambiguous and rather than get into a fight, let‟s make it clear so everyone 256 knows what they can do. He said it is never permitted to use a residential lot as a storage facility. 257

258

Dave Carlson referred to the perpendicular statement and said this is another clarification. He 259 said the ordinance allows the tongue of the trailer to project 10 feet past the front plane of the 260 home. He said their interpretation is that the trailer could protrude 10 feet past the front plane of 261 the home. He said they had a home owner who stored it parallel with the front of the home. He 262 said they did not think that was the intention of the Planning Commission. 263

264

Dave Carlson said this is just a clarification; they went ahead and let him pour the pad and store 265 the trailer there. 266

267

Commissioner Dalpias said in that instance he has until 2015 to take that out. Dave Carlson said 268 no, he is non-conforming. Commissioner Knight said he would be more concerned if it were in 269 front of the house. Dave Carlson said he doesn‟t feel that it creates problems for a corner lot. 270

271

Commissioner Knight said he has issues with some of the wording such as "any and all…" He 272 said it‟s tough to make this fit three classifications. He said they have small residential lots, 273 larger lots that might be two acres, or a residential lot with an operating business. 274

275

Gary Rands, 2941 N 1050 E, asked how many people in North Ogden are out of compliance. 276 There are a lot of trailers with a business name on it in the City. They need to be friendly to 277 people here. 278 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 7

279

Commissioner Quinney said this Planning Commission didn‟t put these ordinances on the books, 280 they have talked about this before and the opinion is generally that it may not be desired by the 281 neighbors. He said he has a neighbor who parks these trailers at the home and there are issues. 282 He said that is why they are having this discussion to clarify and make it right. 283

284

Mr. Rands said if he had his side pad to park his Rands Roofing trailer he would be out of code. 285 Commissioner Kiser asked where you draw the line, would he put the front end loader and dump 286 truck beside it. Mr. Rands said if you do not have enough land then you would have to buy more. 287 Commissioner Kiser said you have to establish some guidelines. Mr. Rands asked if the City is 288 going to tell people they can‟t park their trailer at their homes. Commissioner Stoker said most 289 people do not park their backhoes at their houses. Commissioner Kiser said if a person gets an 290 inch they will take a mile. 291

292

Commissioner Quinney said what is being done is wrong, that‟s what we‟re talking about. He 293 said they need to clarify this. Mr. Rands said he is just bringing up different points. He said at the 294 last meeting the consensus was to leave it alone and not open this issue again. 295

296

Dave Carlson said this is not unique to North Ogden City. There are people who will try to cut 297 overhead and store these vehicles at the home. This is a standard zoning provision; commercial 298 vehicles are not permitted in a residential area. 299

300

Commissioner Stoker asked if the residents who work for the gas company and have to bring 301 their truck home; they are breaking the law. Dave Carlson said generally speaking there has to be 302 some discretion on the City on how to enforce these instances. Commissioner Stoker said 303 someone just got a warning for bringing a work truck home while they were on call. It just 304 happened. Dave Carlson said he is not aware of that and he would disagree with that. We have an 305 administrative hearing process; Commissioner Stoker said that‟s what she told him. Gary Kerr 306 said if Questar has a regular truck and someone is on call that is not an issue. He said he thinks it 307 is more like the Rocky Mountain Power trailer that would be an issue. He said that is not the 308 intent. Dave Carlson said the intent is to address those that are trying to operate a business out of 309 the home. 310

311

Commissioner Knight said when he applied for his business license there were things that he 312 could not have at the home. Dave Carlson said that is true if you come and get a home 313 occupation license you will be limited. He said as it stands you aren‟t supposed to have those 314 vehicles anywhere. 315

316

Craig Barker said he went through this with Weber County 25 years ago. He said they spelled 317 out exactly what was permitted to take home. 318

319

Commissioner Quinney said instead of going through the entire ordinance he asked Mr. Rands to 320 speak about his problem and they will go over that. Mr. Rands said if his father-in-law has a 321 trailer and he stores it at his house that is not a storage yard. Commissioner Kiser said he agrees 322 within two or three. Mr. Rands suggested limiting the number of trailers. Commissioner Kiser 323 said one of the places we looked at did look like a storage yard. Mr. Rands said he thinks this 324 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 8

ordinance needs to be based on lot size. He said there should be some allowances there. 325 Commissioner Brown agreed. 326

327

Commissioner Hulme said he was at a meeting on Saturday night and it was quoted that laws 328 should be designed to punish criminals not people who aren‟t criminals. We are creating laws 329 that restrict the activities of the normal law abiding citizens because of the hand full that are 330 creating problems. He said this doesn‟t give people the kind of freedom they ought to be able to 331 enjoy. He said he is one of the people who is not complying. So much of this is going to prohibit 332 people from doing things. He said he doesn‟t like it and doesn‟t think this ordinance has really 333 made this a better place to live. 334

335

Commissioner Knight said Dave Carlson mentioned other cities have similar ordinances. He said 336 he thinks they can be more creative than that. 337

338

Commissioner Hulme said some people may have moved to North Ogden because trailers cannot 339 be parked 10 feet past the front plane of the home. He added that there are also some people with 340 horse property who feel they are gradually getting pushed out of the City. He said a lot of the 341 rules can result in that and it is sad. He said the clarifications in this ordinance are a step in the 342 wrong direction. He said he would clarify this law by taking some of the regulations out. 343

344

Dave Carlson stated the Planning Commission can make the decision on what to do with this 345 ordinance. He said part of the Constitution is that the US Supreme Court gets to tell us what the 346 Constitution means and the Supreme Court looked at zoning back in the 1920‟s. The Court 347 allows cities to put restrictions on people and the use of their property. He said it is often said 348 that all any American wants to do is to do whatever they want on their own property and tell 349 their neighbors what they can do on theirs. He suggested looking at zoning as what is fair for 350 your neighbor to have to tolerate. North Ogden is a beautiful community; what would it look like 351 if there were no zoning? He said zoning is what gives a city its look and feel. He said the proper 352 way to look at it is from what it looks like to be a good neighbor. 353

354

Commissioner Hulme said there have to be limits. Dave Carlson said the reason for the 355 clarifications is because the ordinance is ambiguous. It needs to be clear so staff can enforce it. 356

357

Commissioner Knight said some of this is good but he is on 0.28 acres and if he chooses to live 358 in a subdivision next to a guy with three or four acres I‟m going to understand that he may have 359 horses, cows, and hay cutting equipment. This ordinance should not restrict the large property 360 owners to this extent. 361

362

Commissioner Brown said she likes the idea of having limits based on lot size. That‟s where we 363 were getting to the idea that we have to come to some conclusion. 364

365

Commissioner Stoker asked if there is a junk ordinance in place and doesn‟t that cover these 366 issues. Craig Barker said they may have been addressed but it takes a long time to get through 367 the court system. He explained that is why they have changed the enforcement of these things to 368 an Administrative process. 369

370 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 9

Commissioner Hulme said he is not familiar with a lot of decisions of the Supreme Court that 371 really increased personal liberties in this Country. He said there are a lot of things that the 372 Supreme Court says you can do that he finds morally reprehensible. He explained that he is a 373 firm believer in zoning. He said his issue here is not with zoning in general but with the line that 374 is drawn. He appreciates that pig farming is not permitted and that is his line. He would support 375 clarifying language based on what a reasonable person would do. He would like to see this go 376 back to the drawing board. 377

378

Commissioner Dalpias said he would like to see differentiation based on lot size and allowance 379 to store family member trailers. Commissioner Hulme said he agrees with that but what about a 380 best friend. He said he doesn‟t see the problem with that arrangement. He said he does not want 381 zero restrictions on him and a lot of restrictions on his neighbors. 382

383

Commissioner Knight said he thinks there are less than 7% being regulated but the rest of us are 384 paying for it. He said when they get too many restrictions people rebel. He agrees that there need 385 to be some restrictions but we have too many now. He suggested lot size provisions. 386

387

Gary Rands said he doesn‟t understand why there is a past date in the ordinance that has not been 388 approved yet. Craig Barker said that may change before final approval. Gary Rands said there 389 are a lot of people who have a trailer and do not know this ordinance is being changed. 390

391

Commissioner Hulme suggested a work session as an opportunity for people to come in and tell 392 them how they feel about this ordinance. He said he would like some additional input. 393

394

Gary Rands said he owns the property and he should be able to park there and park personal 395 trailers and business trailers. He said it should not be an issue. He would like to see the ordinance 396 adjusted for lot size. He said the North Ogden logo says Making Life Better but it seems like we 397 are just restricting people to death. He said if they are going to put the logo on the vehicles then 398 they should not restrict people to death and make it a good place to live. 399

400

Commissioner Quinney said looking at the list; these are people who are not complying right 401 now. Commissioner Knight disagreed and said he does not understand why they are considered 402 noncompliant. Commissioner Stoker agreed with Commissioner Knight. 403

404

Commissioner Quinney said some of these are already outside of the ordinance and we are not 405 changing the ordinance for these people. He said the ordinance is fine. Commissioner Kiser said 406 the intent was a list of those with more than one trailer on their property. Commissioner Quinney 407 said this list is not complete. He said if he drives down the street there are trailers every third 408 house and they can stay there. He said there are so many people doing it already. He asked how 409 many complaints have we had in the last six months regarding non-compliance to this ordinance. 410 Gary Kerr said the inspectors have stacks of complaints two inches thick that include everything. 411 He said those are only the ones who have called in complaints. If they drive around there would 412 be a lot more. 413

414

Commissioner Quinney said if his neighbor does something he doesn‟t like he isn‟t necessarily 415 going to call the City. He doesn‟t know if this is really as issue. He said there are a lot of people 416 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 10

doing this and there are not a lot of complaints. Commissioner Hulme said ordinances should be 417 enforceable, clear and concise. If nobody wants to enforce it why have it at all. 418

419

Gary Kerr said if he took a guess on parking violations he would think 30 per year. Craig Barker 420 said we react to complaints we aren‟t out looking for violations. 421

422

Commissioner Hulme suggested tabling this item and have staff continue looking at this and 423 bring it back. He said they would like to see some language that has to do with the size of the 424 lot. He said this may be months in the making. Commissioner Kiser said this is a very difficult 425 issue. Commissioner Quinney said perpendicular parking is a problem that should be looked at. 426

427

Commissioner Knight recognized Craig Barker and Dave Carlson for their efforts on this. 428

429

Dave Carlson said they do not intend to restrict things even more but rather to clarify what the 430 rules and intent of the ordinance are. He said he still has the opinion that parking vehicles on a 431 residential lot is an accessory use to the residential use and parking vehicles of someone who 432 doesn‟t even live on the property is not an accessory use. It becomes something different. 433

434

Commissioner Stoker asked if the City could put together a committee to figure this out. 435 Commissioner Hulme agreed. He said the Economic Development Committee had a lot of 436 purposes one of them was to look at the existing ordinances. Dave Carlson said that is the 437 purpose of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Quinney said we don‟t know the feelings of 438 all the people who have trailers. He said when he had a trailer he parked it on a commercial lot. 439 Commissioner Kiser said he has a trailer and parks it on a commercial lot. 440

441

There was more discussion on creating a committee to look into this. 442

443

Commissioner Hulme said the problem isn‟t only with the City; it is a problem for the property 444 owner. The property owners need to know whether they need to spend money to fix the issue. 445

446

9. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 447

448

Commissioner Knight said Gary Rands made a comment earlier about residents of North Ogden 449 not knowing that there is an ordinance or that the Planning Commission is discussing these 450 issues. Commissioner Knight discussed the lack of advertising in the newspaper. Craig Barker 451 explained the newspaper chooses which agendas to post. He explained the information and 452 agendas are on the website. 453

454

Gary Rands said he used to read the newsletter when it came with the utility bill, but it is not 455 mailed out any longer. Commissioner Hulme explained it is online for cost-cutting reasons. Gary 456 Rands responded that he understands that, but most people are not going to search the website 457 for the newsletter. 458

459

There was a discussion regarding the newsletter not being sent out to residents anymore. 460

461 Planning Commission Meeting 21 September 2011 Page 11

Commissioner Brown said the presentation on the Constitution was very good and she brought a 462 copy of the handout for each Planning Commission Member. She said it made her look at agenda 463 items differently. It made her refer to her book more frequently. She commented that it was very 464 poorly attended by North Ogden. 465

466

Commissioner Hulme congratulated Commissioner Stoker on her showing on the primary. 467

468

10. ADJOURNMENT. 469

470

472

474

The meeting adjourned at 8:04pm. 475

476

477

478

_______________________________________ 479

Planning Commission Chair 480

481

482

_______________________________________ 483

Deputy City Recorder 484

485

486

_______________________________________ 487

Date approved 488

489

490

The North Ogden City Planning Commission
NORTH OGDEN PLANNING COMMISSION 1
2
MEETING MINUTES 3
4
January 19, 2011 5
6
The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on January 19, 2011 at 7 6:00 pm in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. 8 Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was delivered to each member of the Planning 9 Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State 10 Website on January 14, 2011. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the 11 Standard-Examiner on January 1, 2011. 12
13
COMMISSIONERS: 14
15
Bruce Catanzaro Chairman 16
Jon Bingham Commissioner 17
Ken Kiser Commissioner 18
Steve Quinney Commissioner 19
David Hulme Commissioner 20
Allan Dalpias Commissioner 21
Joan Brown Commissioner 22
23
STAFF: 24
25
Craig Barker Community Development Director 26
Gary Kerr Building Official 27
Jennifer Thomas Planning Technician 28
29
VISITORS: 30
31
John Springer Carl Cook 32
Kristin Springer Joel Grasmeyer 33
Kerry Walker 34
35
REGULAR MEETING 36
37
Commissioner Catanzaro called the regular meeting to order at 6:00pm. Commissioner Hulme 38 offered the invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. 39
40
3. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 5, 2011 PLANNING 41 COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES. 42
43
Commissioner Catanzaro asked if there were any comments or corrections regarding the 44 minutes. Commissioner Dalpias said line number 335 should say “Salt Lake” instead of “Salt”. 45 He said that line number 527 has the “l” left out of aerial. He said that 92, 115, 140, 154, and 576 46
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 2
his first name is spelled wrong. Commissioner Bingham said line 164 should be deleted. 47 Commissioner Catanzaro asked if there are any other comments and if not he would entertain a 48 motion. 49
50
Commissioner Kiser made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected for January 5, 51 2011. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. 52
53
Voting on the motion: 54
55
Allan Dalpias yes 56
Steve Quinney yes 57
Ken Kiser yes 58
Joan Brown yes 59
Jon Bingham yes 60
Dave Hulme yes 61
62
Bruce Catanzaro abstain 63
64
Motion passed. 65
66
4. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL REGARDING THE APPLICATION TO 67 REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 NORTH 800 EAST FROM 68 RESIDENTIAL R-1-8 TO RESIDENTIAL RE-20. 69
70
Craig Barker told the Commission that the original rezoning happened about two years ago. He 71 said the property is surrounded by RE-20. The Master Plan states the property will be among the 72 lower density. He said the Planning Commission approved both the rezoning and the subdivision 73 plat. He said there is a small stream that flows through the property. He said the owner has come 74 back to the Planning Commission to petition for a rezone back to RE-20 because he has a 75 potential owner that wants to keep horses on it. The only two zones that allow horses are the RE-76 20 and the R-1-8AG. Mr. Barker said staff is recommending that the Planning Commission 77 approve the rezone. He said Mr. Hansen, the applicant, is not here but this is a fairly easy action 78 to put it back to RE-20. 79
80
Commissioner Hulme asked if it is a rezone and a vacation. Mr. Barker said there is no vacation. 81 He said the preliminary approval is good for up to a year until they submit the final plat. He said 82 the vacation has no status at the time. Commissioner Bingham said that he thinks that when he 83 did bring it to them it was an application to rezone and subdivide. He said the application for 84 subdivision has expired but the zone remains. Mr. Barker replied that he is correct. 85 Commissioner Bingham asked if they are only recommending this to City Council since this is 86 only a rezone. Mr. Barker replied that is correct. He said the City Council is required to have a 87 public hearing, but the Planning Commission is not. He said they do notify surrounding property 88 owners within a 300 foot circumference. He said they do have a couple who came tonight. He 89 said he hasn‟t received any phone calls and Jennifer Thomas has only received two calls that had 90 questions on the rezone. Commissioner Hulme asked if it would be an official public hearing if 91 they invited people to speak. Mr. Barker said no, they would have to announce it as a public 92 hearing. Commissioner Hulme clarified that they are allowed to accept informal comments. Mr. 93 Barker replied yes. Commissioner Quinney asked if there are any right-of-way changes. Mr. 94
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 3
Barker answered no. Commissioner Bingham said this seems pretty straight-forward since it is 95 reverting back to a lower-density zone. Commissioner Catanzaro asked for public comments. 96
97
John and Kristen Springer, 2059 North 850 East, said they were there to make sure they didn‟t 98 miss anything. They looked over the zoning descriptions online and all he could decipher were 99 density issues. He said they wanted to make sure they didn‟t end up with a condo or apartment 100 complex right next to them. 101
102
Commissioner Brown said she thinks it would improve it to rezone it back to RE-20. She said the 103 owner had originally wanted to subdivide it into three lots and it would have been more 104 congested. Commissioner Catanzaro asked for any other comments. 105
106
Commissioner Bingham moved that they recommend rezoning the property located at 800 107 East 2100 North from residential R-1-8 to residential RE-20 to the City Council. 108 Commissioner Kiser seconded the motion. 109
110
Voting on the motion: 111
112
Allan Dalpias yes 113
Ken Kiser yes 114
Steve Quinney yes 115
Joan Brown yes 116
Dave Hulme yes 117
Jon Bingham yes 118
Bruce Catanzaro yes 119
120
Motion passed. 121
122
123
5. PRESENTATION ON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PRESENTED BY CARL 124 COOK FROM BOYER COMPANY. 125
126
Mr. Barker said they have asked Mr. Cook here to discuss development to help provide answers 127 that will help with the entertainment overlay zone. He said Mr. Cook has been with the Boyer 128 development team for a long time. Mr. Barker said he had briefly discussed the entertainment 129 overly zone with him. Mr. Barker suggested that the Commission provide Mr. Cook with a 130 description of their idea of an entertainment overlay zone. Commissioner Brown asked if they 131 need to remain with the topic of the overlay or if they can extend the conversation to include the 132 property on 2700 North. Mr. Barker said that is up to Mr. Cook, but the intent of inviting him 133 here is to ask about developing an entertainment overlay zone. Mr. Barker said he explained to 134 Mr. Cook they are working to development an entertainment area that would have special 135 regulations and would have extended hours for the purposed of providing an area that would 136 attract our residents as well as people outside of our community. He said they will be discussing 137 certain entertainment uses and their standards tonight. 138
139
Mr. Cook said he is happy to be there and is reminded of the time that Smith‟s came to North 140 Ogden. He said there was a discussion 25 years ago about how to develop as a City. He said he 141 remembers that back then there was discussion about creating particular pockets where they 142 would want certain businesses. He said it seems that when a commercial project comes in usually 143 cities are allowing them to go wherever. He said instead of sticking to the Master Plan things just 144
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 4
kind of develop. He said they are working on developing a large piece of property that they think 145 of as the center of North Ogden. He said he thinks there is a good opportunity there to decide 146 what they want to have happen and to develop it in a way that will complement the surrounding 147 businesses. They are in a tough economic environment where there are not many tenants. He said 148 that also means it is a good time to plan. 149
150
Commissioner Brown asked if he is aware of the area they approved for the entertainment 151 overlay zone. Mr. Cook replied no, not entirely. Commissioner Brown said the overall concept 152 the Planning Commission is developing is a specific zone to try to bring in businesses. She 153 asked if, as a developer, is that an incentive to come into their community or is it ignored. Mr. 154 Cook replied that he thinks just having an overlay or zone in place doesn‟t significantly keep 155 developers from following the marketing trend. He said the Commission can look at Ogden as an 156 example. He said Mayor Godfrey has had a passion for downtown. He said if they can determine 157 what they want and where they want it to happen with planning and zoning and with community 158 representation; then it isn‟t just an overlay, but an active way of pursuing it. He said then they 159 would start seeing developers and tenants trying to become part of it. He said his thought is that 160 just doing it (creating an overlay zone) doesn‟t really do a whole lot. 161
162
Commissioner Bingham asked for some specifics on what type of support developers would be 163 looking for. Mr. Cook asked specifically what they were trying to accomplish with the 164 entertainment overlay zone. Commissioner Bingham asked if he would be looking for monetary 165 support or different standards like shared parking, unified look, and larger signs. He added they 166 may provide other standards that are not normally available in the other commercial zones. He 167 asked are those the type of incentives or are there others they should be looking at. Mr. Cook 168 replied that he would say it is a graduating scale. He said to make it easier they could create an 169 economic engine or an RDA. It would help if they could abate fees or create incentives. He said 170 that might encourage a business to look here rather than in other communities. He said to satisfy 171 a return; anything that can be done to help it be achieved quicker, easier, or better naturally 172 increases the chance of development. He said rather than make it all just economic, it is also 173 necessary to assemble a mass of tenants that would support each other. That would provide them 174 with much more success. He said if they could put an ice cream shop by the theater and maybe 175 some things across the street from the swimming complex, they would be bringing people into 176 one area for multiple reasons. He said creating a place where everyone benefits would create 177 more of an incentive for the developer. 178
179
Mr. Cook asked what they want North Ogden to be. Commissioner Brown said not Riverdale 180 Road. Mr. Cook said that is wonderful. He asked what the next question would be. He said they 181 really can control that. Commissioner Brown said she used to live next to the shopping center out 182 in Syracuse before the Wal-Mart went in. She said they suffered as the improvements were made 183 to Antelope Drive. She said they lost a lot of their shopping, but she does see it coming back. She 184 said she would love to see the Barker property developed for retail. She said they need to get 185 some retail in their community. Mr. Cook said Syracuse is very interesting. He said if you look at 186 it, it is developed at 1000 West and then at 2000 West there is the Walmart and then another 187 block west is a whole section devoted to entertainment. He said they probably have a large 188 amount of vacancy. He said from Syracuse to Clinton there is a lot of space that is vacant. 189 Commissioner Brown said they didn‟t have a liquor law set up for restaurants to come in and it 190
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 5
really hurt them. She said she thinks the construction went too fast and they didn‟t have the 191 liquor license to bring restaurants in. 192
193
Mr. Cook said the Barker piece could be a great community center. He said it could have maybe 194 one big box and they could have a blend of some offices and smaller retail shops with more 195 walking and restaurants and maybe more entertainment and have it be pedestrian friendly. He 196 said it could have a more downtown feel rather than just hard retail. Commission Brown asked if 197 businesses like Joann‟s ever go in on a smaller scale. Mr. Cook said they would if the location is 198 right. He said rather than the big boxes, they could have some of the electronic businesses such 199 as Best Buy or possibly Petco or a hobby store, shoe store, or the midsize retailers. 200
201
Commissioner Catanzaro said the Planning Commission is trying to get retail development and 202 create a destination. They want to get restaurants or things that would augment the theater that 203 they have. He said they want to try to make it cohesive rather than a hodgepodge of structures. 204 He said retail really helps with the tax concerns of the City. He said that they are attempting to 205 put together a plan to make it a destination. He said they don‟t want it to be like Riverdale and 206 they don‟t want it to be Park City either. He said they want to make sure their residents feel 207 comfortable living here while attracting the attention of other communities and income to assist 208 us and better the community. 209
210
Mr. Cook said he applauds their effort. There is only one North Ogden and there is no other 211 pretty place with Ben Lomond Peak. He applauds that they don‟t want it to be like some of those 212 other cities. He said they can accomplish that in a couple of ways. He said an overlay would be 213 good for an area where they want things to happen, but they also need to eliminate it in areas that 214 they don‟t want things to happen. He said someone might put their business in another area 215 where it would be cheaper. 216
217
Mr. Cook said in Park City it takes a long time to do anything there, but they really hold to 218 design standards and uses to ensure they get exactly what they want. He said the overlay would 219 be very helpful but they need to look at areas where there is not an overlay and where they don‟t 220 want things to go. Someone may come in and try to find the least expensive two acre parcel and 221 that is where they are going to try to go. He said it does take a lot of planning before hand to 222 make sure they will stand up and hold to it. He said they can really control it that way. They can 223 also provide incentives and economic dollars. They can entice them to go where they want. He 224 said that North Ogden will develop eventually. Right now it is really slow for everyone and it 225 may not be as fast as they want. He said the Barker piece will develop it‟s just a matter of time. 226
227
Commissioner Brown said they do have a Design Committee and they have implemented it. She 228 said there is a different look with the Zions Bank and the Credit Union. She said that is the theme 229 they would like to portray in the community. Mr. Cook said that is good. They participated in 230 that. He said they embrace it and endorsed it and you can really see the difference it makes. 231
232
Mr. Barker said he is thinking about the Ogden Junction. He said they have included the property 233 around the Walker Theater in the overlay zone. He asked if there is a particular driving engine 234 for those kinds of uses or that type of developer. Mr. Cook said they were the developer for that 235 area. Mr. Cook said the catalyst happened when Larry Miller decided to put his theaters 236
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 6
downtown. He said once that happened within a couple of weeks others wanted to come to that 237 area. He said they need to decide what they want in North Ogden. There is already the theater, 238 now what can they get to support it. He said he thinks they would want something different than 239 what is down at the Junction. He said they should appeal to a different set. He said it is a good 240 concept, but it needs to be downsized and right-sized for what the residents want. He said this 241 goes back to what he is saying. He said there are so many entrepreneurs and leadership people 242 that live here. He said a survey or input would be good to determine what the residents want. He 243 said that for him as a developer that would be helpful. He said he was in another community 244 today where the mayor invited him, landowners, and two or three tenants to discuss what they 245 could do. Those efforts were really good. 246
247
Commissioner Quinney said it might be a good thing to ask Mr. Walker what he would support 248 around his theater. Mr. Cook said that would be really good. Commissioner Catanzaro thanked 249 him for coming and said they are trying to figure out how they can do this and make it mean 250 something good for the community. They are looking for all the help they can get and he has 251 given them some really good ideas tonight and he really appreciates it. Mr. Cook said he would 252 love to do anything to help. He said they are tied into the Barker property. He said they met with 253 the family to discuss what is going on and they are tied into UDOT to work through some of 254 those issues. He said if he were invited to a meeting to specifically talk about that property and 255 bring representative to figure out what North Ogden really wants, those discussions are very 256 helpful. He said it might change the way he thinks about things when he is out trying to recruit 257 tenants. 258
259
Commissioner Catanzaro said they recently sent out a survey to the residents. They received 260 quite a bit of responses and should have more concrete information by February. He said there 261 were a lot of responses with the type of businesses they would like to see in North Ogden and 262 those they would not like to see here. Mr. Barker said he will call Mr. Cook at another time to 263 explain what the City is doing and possibly invite him to an Economic Development Committee 264 meeting. He explained briefly what the Economic Development Committee is and what they are 265 accomplishing. He said it may help for him to come to a meeting. Mr. Cook said he thinks they 266 are on the right track. With nothing further the Commission moved on to item number six on the 267 agenda. 268
269
6. REVIEW THE LIST OF USES CONSIDERED AS “ENTERTAINMENT USES” 270 AND DISCUSSION ON GUIDELINES FOR THOSE USES. 271
272
Mr. Barker said they had talked about identifying entertainment uses that they felt would best fit 273 within the chosen area. He said they have a copy of the list. Mr. Barker said the Commissioners 274 must realize the property that the entertainment overlay zone will be falling upon is already 275 zoned as commercial C-2. He said that all of the commercial zones will be allowed. The uses 276 included in the list would have different standards. He said some of those standards might 277 include signage standards, parking standards, and design standards. He said they may even talk 278 about exterior lighting and building heights as well. He said if the Commission will approve the 279 list they will begin with those listed and they can add to it at a later time. 280
281
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 7
Commissioner Quinney said they probably need to consider some type of walk-around instead of 282 streets; they may have limitations because of Washington Boulevard. Mr. Barker said they can 283 discuss those things when they talk about their design standards. He said they are still talking 284 with the University of Utah to see if they can get some of their students to help. He said he 285 would think that if they had someone make a proposal they would work with them to figure out 286 the initial design and how best to do that. He said they like Mr. Cook‟s idea with the property on 287 2700 north. He said Mr. Cook was right, if you can determine what they would like to see it 288 would be much better. 289
290
Commissioner Catanzaro said he has talked before about having the University of Utah 291 architecture students put together some design concepts. He said he thinks that is really where 292 this will start. Mr. Barker said they are waiting for a more detailed description of what we would 293 like from them. He said they need to sit down as a Commission and be as clear and concise about 294 what we want, so they will be able to determine if they can help. Commissioner Catanzaro said 295 that when he was in architectural school they could take a list and an aerial and show the area 296 they are talking about and give that to them. They could explain what they are trying to 297 accomplish. The students would break down into teams and they would have a competition to 298 see what they could come up with. He said they would go and interview the Planning 299 Commission and the Mayor so they could get an idea of what they wanted to make the 300 community better. He said he thinks it provided the students an opportunity to work with 301 communities and to stretch their design envelope. 302
303
Mr. Barker said the University is interested. The Planning Commission just needs to provide 304 them with the specific information on what they want them to do. Commissioner Catanzaro said 305 they can get six or eight different proposals from six or eight different teams. They can then see 306 what they like and dislike. They would then be able to take those designs to developers to give 307 them a plan of what they are trying to do. 308
309
Commissioner Dalpias said he is personally uncomfortable with having transient amusement 310 listed as a use. Mr. Barker said he thinks that came from the original list of uses created in 1926. 311 Commissioner Catanzaro said he would suggest striking that one. 312
313
Commissioner Brown said Ogden has put in a large indoor skate park where the old Pepsi plant 314 used to be and it isn‟t doing very well. Commission Bingham said there is also another skate 315 park by Harbor Freight that is doing very well. Commissioner Brown said they just don‟t want to 316 do too much of the same things. Mr. Barker said they have to remember they are not trying to 317 have an exclusive list. 318
319
Commissioner Quinney said when he lived in Brigham City it shut down at five o‟clock. He said 320 there wasn‟t anything for people in the community to do. They had to leave town. He said he 321 doesn‟t want that to happen here. Mr. Barker said it probably does to a certain degree. 322 Commissioner Quinney said they need the input from the community. He said the survey is very 323 critical in determining which direction they need to take. Mr. Barker said they should have that 324 before their next meeting. Commissioner Quinney said he would like to see that before they go 325 any further. 326
327
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 8
Commissioner Bingham asked if they want to omit circus and carnival uses can they add 328 restaurant. Mr. Barker said they talked about the complementary uses. He said they determined 329 that was a complementary use. He said they are not necessarily an entertainment use. He said at 330 the last meeting they said they didn‟t want to treat them differently from the uses in the 331 underlying zone. He said they can include them if they choose. Commissioner Catanzaro said 332 they wouldn‟t get the special regulations if they are not included in the entertainment list. He 333 said it might be worthwhile if they do include restaurants. He said if they have an Applebee‟s or 334 Chili‟s they all have a certain sign or certain building that might not comply with North Ogden‟s 335 C-2 standards, so they may not come here. Mr. Barker said some do make some changes when 336 they run into situations like that. Commissioner Brown said AutoZone made changes. Mr. Barker 337 said he does understand what he is saying. The Commission agreed to add café or sit-down 338 restaurants rather than fast-food restaurants. 339
340
Commissioner Quinney said he would like to see the survey before they decide anything. 341 Commissioner Catanzaro said he thinks they should have the results back by February 4, 2011. 342 He said he understands that many people included specific names of businesses that they would 343 or would not want to see in North Ogden in their responses. Mr. Barker said that with the list 344 they can have some proposals of standards. He said they will be discussing signs at the next 345 meeting. He said he encourages the Commission to look at Kerry Walker‟s sign on his website 346 before the next meeting. Mr. Barker said they are developing graphics to include in the 347 ordinance. That will be before them at the next meeting to consider and recommend to the City 348 Council. 349
350
Mr. Barker said the other thing they have been working on is building heights. He said they have 351 to address multi-family zones also. He said that Jennifer Thomas has created a search in the 352 ordinance to find everywhere the term accessory building was used and is making changes. That 353 way they can make sure they get all of them. Commissioner Catanzaro asked if there is any more 354 discussion. With nothing further they moved on to number seven on the agenda. 355
356
7. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY 357 ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD ALLOW KEEPING OF CHICKENS AS 358 A PERMITTED USE IN ALL ZONES. 359
360
Mr. Barker said Joel Grasmeyer has done a lot of research prior to starting up with his own 361 chickens. He said Mr. Grasmeyer was kind enough to share his knowledge and help draft the 362 ordinance. He said that instead of amending all of the zones they have added a section in the 363 chapter that talks about regulations applicable to all zones. He said they have made an exception 364 under the first section to say as otherwise excepted under 11-1D-7E. They had to include that 365 because there is a statement that contradicts the new additions. He said they talked about parcels 366 that are between one and five acres and parcels that are greater than five acres. He said that B, C, 367 and D are not affected. They have added E to include statements on the keeping of backyard 368 chickens. He said that in the RE-20 and R-1-8AG zones chickens are currently allowed only if 369 the lot is larger than one acre. They have amended those zones as well to allow the keeping of 370 backyard chickens if the lot is less than one acre in size. He said they will allow no more than six 371 hens and no roosters. He said they have proposed the distance from the coop to the house be five 372 feet and 10 feet from any property line. He said the code talks about there being a minimum 373
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 9
distance, from the main building to any other structure, of six feet, but didn‟t get a chance to ask 374 Gary Kerr, the Building Official. Mr. Kerr said usually the structure has to be three feet away 375 from any property line. He said there is nothing in the code that says a structure has to be six feet 376 from the house. Mr. Kerr said a structure that is at least six feet away from the home and is in the 377 back yard can be three feet away from the property line. 378
379
Commissioner Kiser asked if it has to be 10 feet from the property line and then 20 feet from the 380 adjacent property line; does that include the 10 feet from the property line and then 10 feet more 381 to the adjacent property. Mr. Barker replied that it could make up the 20 feet total. Commissioner 382 Bingham said they had talked about the chicken coop and run being separated as an enclosed 383 area. He said it looks like the ordinance is written so the chickens could roam the yard. Mr. 384 Barker said that was a suggestion from Mr. Grasmeyer. He said most of the ordinances require 385 an enclosed area. He said Mr. Grasmeyer uses an electric fence to keep his chickens in. 386 Commissioner Bingham said almost every ordinance said it needs to be in an enclosed area 387 unless they are on several acres of land. He said the reasoning he read is because of the cross 388 contamination and keeping them separate from wild birds and animals. He said he would like to 389 add that in our ordinance. 390
391
Mr. Barker discussed the standards for properties that are one to five acres. He said they can 392 have up to 10 chickens per acre. He said the coop must be at least 75 feet from any dwelling on 393 an adjacent lot. He said properties with more than five acres can have up to 60 chickens. He said 394 the coop must be at least 75 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent lot. He said it should say 50 395 feet from any dwelling on the same lot. Commissioner Kiser asked if it is supposed to be a 100 396 feet or 75 feet because the numbers do not match the words. Mr. Barker said it should say 75 feet 397 from any dwelling on an adjacent lot, 50 feet from any dwelling on the same lot, and 20 feet 398 from the property lines. He said they were trying to reflect section A and will make those 399 changes. He said that will also include a setback of 100 feet to any public street. 400
401
Mr. Barker said the next section is applicable to all properties. It talks about; feed, coop, location 402 of coop, chickens must be contained within the property lines, the coop must have two square 403 feet per chicken, if there is no run the coop must have six square feet per chicken, the coop must 404 be kept clean, and there must be removal of dead birds. Commissioner Brown asked what 405 „properly disposed of‟ means. Mr. Barker said he thinks that it would be putting a bird in a 406 plastic bag and into a garbage receptacle. Mr. Barker said he doesn‟t know if there are other 407 methods or not. 408
409
Mr. Barker said in the last meeting they discussed selling the eggs. He said there was a question 410 as to whether there are any state restrictions. He informed the Commission that there are no 411 restrictions on selling eggs. He said they can‟t sell them to a market because they will be 412 considered a wholesaler and there are regulations on that. He said most ordinances don‟t allow 413 the selling of eggs. 414
415
Commissioner Quinney said they were going to make it applicable to all zones. Commissioner 416 Quinney said properties should be at least 15,000 square feet to even allow them. Mr. Barker 417 said that wasn‟t what was discussed in the last meeting. Commissioner Quinney said that is what 418 he is saying right now. Mr. Barker said right now the ordinance requires an acre and it is only 419
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 10
allowed in two zones. Commissioner Quinney said in the proposed ordinance they are allowed 420 on lots that are 8,000 square feet or more. Commissioner Quinney asked if it is feasible to have 421 chickens on an 8,000 square foot lot. Mr. Barker and Commissioner Brown agreed that it is 422 feasible. Mr. Barker said it is more than feasible if you talk to the Agriculture Agent and 423 everyone else. Commissioner Quinney said he is talking about North Ogden right now. 424 Commissioner Quinney said he has a lot over 15,000 square feet and he would have a hard time 425 putting anything there according to these regulations. Mr. Barker said he disagrees with him. 426 Commissioner Quinney said his house and driveway take up a large portion of his lot. Mr. 427 Barker said he may not be able to depending on how he chooses to use his lot and that is his 428 choice. 429
430
Commissioner Bingham said they need to be more restrictive. He said he looked at the Provo 431 Animal Control Ordinance. He said they could make that work with a little tweaking. He said it 432 is a little clearer. He said he thinks Commissioner Quinney wouldn‟t like to see chickens on any 433 lot except an RE-20 or larger. Commissioner Quinney said no, he just doesn‟t see it happening 434 on an 8,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Bingham said the Provo ordinance allows two 435 chickens on 6,000 square feet lots and the number goes up with the size of the lot. Mr. Barker 436 said that wouldn‟t make sense for us to use because the smallest lots we have are 8,000 square 437 feet. Commissioner Bingham said he doesn‟t have a problem saying six chickens are allowed. 438 He said they do need to be more restrictive on how they keep those chickens. He said they need 439 to be contained and not allowed to roam the whole back yard. He said they did talk about having 440 permits. Mr. Barker said they did talk about it but failed to include it. He said they initially 441 suggested making the permit five dollars for an entire year. Commissioner Brown said the main 442 purpose of having a permit is strictly so they know where the chickens are, just in case there is a 443 disease. 444
445
Commissioner Catanzaro said that it seems the ordinance is not ready for a vote. Mr. Barker said 446 it could be if they want to suggest some minor changes. He said it seem there is a need for a 447 chicken run so they are not allowed to roam. Mr. Barker said there is a lot of language that talks 448 about runs. Commissioner Catanzaro said it seems they should have further discussion and 449 inclusion on that. 450
451
Commissioner Kiser asked about a letter they received from a resident who complained that 452 there was no public hearing on allowing chickens. Mr. Barker said City Council will have to 453 have a public hearing. Mr. Barker said they may have a public hearing if they choose to. 454 Commissioner Kiser said it will be fine as long as there is a public hearing at some point. Mr. 455 Barker said in the past it didn‟t make sense for the Planning Commission to have a public 456 hearing and then City Council to have another, which is why City Council has them now. 457 Commissioner Quinney said their public hearing will be preliminary anyway. 458
459
Commissioner Dalpias said there is enough there to add that he doesn‟t think it is ready. He said 460 they need to add the permits, the runs, and they need to still debate the minimum space. He said 461 there shouldn‟t be a minimum. Mr. Barker asked what he is talking about. Mr. Dalpias said he is 462 talking about the minimum lot square footage. Mr. Barker asked for them to discuss it now. He 463 said it makes no sense for him to come back with the same ordinance. He asked for them to tell 464 him what lot size they want. Commissioner Dalpias said he isn‟t concerned with the lot size. Mr. 465
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 11
Barker said the evidence is that 15,000 square feet is not required to have six hens. There is no 466 evidence that it is unhealthy. He said some cities have just decided that they will not allow urban 467 chickens. 468
469
Commissioner Kiser said there is a discrepancy with the number spelled out and the number in 470 parenthesis. Mr. Barker said that will be fixed. He said if there is something they want to debate, 471 please do it now. Commissioner Catanzaro asked if they are all ok with the 8,000 square foot lot 472 minimum. Commissioner Kiser replied no, but he said he isn‟t ok with any of it. He asked if a 473 convenience overrides city regulations. Mr. Barker said the City doesn‟t pay any attention to 474 those; it is owner against owner. The courts require cities to adhere to equal opportunities 475 throughout the city. Mr. Barker said that home owner association‟s regulations would not take 476 precedence over city regulations, from a city‟s perspective; but would from an owner‟s 477 perspective. 478
479
Commissioner Bingham said he is thinking about what direction to give Mr. Barker in 480 developing an ordinance. He said he likes the way he has approached it in section 11-10-7, so 481 they don‟t have to amend every zone they are looking at. They need to come to a census if they 482 want to allow it on lots of 8,000 square feet, if not then say so. Commissioner Quinney asked if 483 they know how many people want to do it. Mr. Barker said he suspects less than 1%. He said 484 there are over 5000 households in the City. He said he sees maybe 50 or so people who want to 485 do this. Commissioner Kiser said they may give it a try and then decide it‟s too much trouble. 486 Commissioner Bingham said the problem would be those who are buying three or four chickens 487 and throwing them in the backyard and letting them run wild. He said that with some regulation 488 in place a neighbor who is offended can say they need a permit and a coop. Commissioner Kiser 489 said they will solve those problems but create some new enforcement issues. Commissioner 490 Bingham said that if problems occur then they will have a way to regulate it. 491
492
Commissioner Quinney said he is ready to move forward with it with the few changes they 493 discussed and adding the permit. Commissioner Bingham said he likes the way the Provo 494 ordinance is written better than the one they received with the exception of the designated lots 495 and just saying they are allowed six hens. He said it covers everything this ordinance does, but 496 also has a permitting part that he would like to see and also talks about having the chickens in an 497 enclosed area. Mr. Barker said Mr. Grasmeyer is here if they want to hear from him. 498
499
Joel Grasmeyer, 2220 Fruitland Drive, said they are trying to come up with a reasonable set of 500 guidelines for people. He said it certainly has been done in other cities and it is possible on small 501 lots. He said they are welcome to look at the books he has brought. He said it is surprising what 502 you can do in a small area. He said the Wasatch Community Gardens in Salt Lake City holds a 503 tour every year called the tour de‟ coop. He showed the Commission a picture of a small coop in 504 a book he brought and told them that it really doesn‟t take up much space at all. He said the 505 purpose of the guidelines is to give people the right information, just like with the guidelines for 506 keeping dogs. Not just anyone can keep a dog, they have to get a permit and follow the rules. He 507 said they did propose a permit, but just didn‟t get it in the final version. He said the permit for a 508 dog is five dollars. He said a dog is allowed to roam in the backyard. He said the purpose would 509 be to give people who want to do this the freedom and right to do anything a dog owner would 510 be allowed to do, under specific guidelines for chickens, of course. He said for the people on the 511
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 12
larger acres we don‟t want to take away those guidelines. He said half a dozen of his neighbors 512 keep chickens and he keeps chickens. He said that none of the neighbors totally enclose their 513 chickens. He said he has an electric fence around his and they don‟t fly out of it. Commissioner 514 Bingham said he is speaking directly about the smaller lots. 515
516
Mr. Grasmeyer said they were trying to address minimum requirements without a heavy 517 legislative hand. He said that as long as they do not cross over to the neighbor‟s property, your 518 neighbor shouldn‟t be able to tell you what kind of fence you have to build. He said it is a matter 519 of personal freedom and what the City can regulate and what are the minimum requirements to 520 prevent problems. He said they looked at other city ordinances and a paper written by a college 521 student in New Mexico who looked at 25 city ordinances around the country. He said some 522 cities are overly restrictive and address problems that don‟t really exist. He said his chicken coop 523 smells more like pine shavings. He said a lot of the perceived problems come from a lack of 524 education and not understanding. Commissioner Kiser said that he grew up with it. Mr. 525 Grasmeyer asked him for an example of his experience with any problems. Commissioner Kiser 526 said he has a fire pit and a waterfall close to his fence. If his neighbor had a chicken coop on the 527 other side of his fence it isn‟t something he would want based on his experiences growing up in a 528 rural area with chickens around. He said that he would be able to smell it. Commissioner Brown 529 said things have changed. Commissioner Kiser said things should change. 530
531
Commissioner Quinney asked Mr. Grasmeyer if he had read through the ordinance. Mr. 532 Grasmeyer replied yes and that he helped write it. He said he proposed that the coop must be 533 kept clean and sanitary at all times so there is not any detectable odor at any property line. He 534 said if there was a problem with the odor, the neighbor could report it to Animal Control. He said 535 it would be considered a nuisance just like with dogs. Commissioner Kiser said he just hopes that 536 is effective. Mr. Grasmeyer said he proposed that the permit for keeping chickens may be 537 revoked upon the conviction of the permit holder of a violation of this section. He said that was 538 in his original proposal, but it didn‟t make it to the final draft. Mr. Grasmeyer said he thinks they 539 may have about 40 or 50 families who do keep chickens in North Ogden. He said there are many 540 in his neighborhood alone. Commissioner Kiser replied that those people are on big lots. Mr. 541 Grasmeyer said the people who originally started this live on lots that are about 10,000 square 542 feet. 543
544
Commissioner Quinney said they need to add the permit back in. Mr. Grasmeyer said he would 545 recommend adding the permit back in and the line about revoking the permit for someone who 546 violates the terms. He said originally they said on lots less than one acre the chickens must be 547 contained in the rear yard. He said they didn‟t want to over specify how they contain them in the 548 rear yard, but they shouldn‟t be visible from the street. He said it‟s almost like a dog run. 549 Commissioner Bingham said he disagrees that they should be contained within the area that is 550 allowed for the distances of the coop to property lines or neighboring dwellings. Mr. Grasmeyer 551 said he thinks that would be reasonable. Mr. Grasmeyer said these people probably just clip the 552 wings and allow them to roam around the backyard within the fence. 553
554
Commissioner Bingham said he read something from the Utah State Agricultural Department 555 about concerns with letting the chickens roam in an enclosed area that is about the size of a back 556 yard. He said almost all the other ordinances state the chickens need to be kept in an enclosed 557
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 13
area. He said that doesn‟t necessarily mean the entire backyard. He said it had the coop and the 558 run attached to the coop. He said the irony of it is when you build a run and if the chickens were 559 to congregate in one area all day every day of the year, you would have worse problems with the 560 smell. 561
562
Commissioner Bingham asked the reasoning for the mobile chicken run. Mr. Grasmeyer said it 563 might be because they have a vegetable garden. Commissioner Bingham said that it might 564 because of a neighbor who doesn‟t want the chickens wandering into their yard. Mr. Grasmeyer 565 said they do address that by saying they do not allow the chickens to cross property lines. 566 Commissioner Bingham said they are not talking about large lots they are talking about the small 567 ones. 568
569
Mr. Grasmeyer said he is not set against having the chickens enclosed in the lots that are less 570 than one acre. He is just saying they shouldn‟t over regulate. They shouldn‟t say what materials 571 they need to use for their chicken coop or how to construct it. He said there is an art to chicken 572 keeping. He said part of the art is in designing the coop and being unique. He said most people 573 don‟t just buy the standard coop at IFA. He said they take it on as a project they will do with 574 their kids. 575
576
Commissioner Bingham said they do need to regulate the enclosure on the lots that are smaller 577 than one acre. They need to say the chickens must be kept within an enclosed area. Mr. 578 Grasmeyer said he would be fine with adding that language. He said they could say that the 579 chickens need to be in an enclosure and need to be in the owner‟s rear yard. Mr. Barker said that 580 was their intent all along they just didn‟t want to affect the people who are in the AG lots. He 581 said they are already legal and the City doesn‟t say much about it right now. Commissioner 582 Bingham said he would agree with that. Mr. Grasmeyer said that sentence probably should be 583 stronger. Commissioner Dalpias said they could just add the statement that chickens must be in 584 an enclosure in the owner‟s rear yard, just for the lots less than one acre. The Commission agreed 585 with that. 586
587
Commissioner Bingham said he agrees with that and thinks they need something that states that. 588 He said right now people might get the impression they can have a coop and let them roam the 589 yard. Commissioner Kiser said if he was looking at buying a piece of property and saw chickens 590 in the neighbor‟s backyard he wouldn‟t want to buy that house. Mr. Grasmeyer said there could 591 be the exact opposite reaction to the chickens as well. He said if someone is looking at a property 592 in Ogden but they don‟t allow chickens, they may want to go to North Ogden because they do 593 want to have backyard chickens. He said it has become more of a trend lately for many reasons. 594 He said it might be because of the economy or the salmonella scare with the eggs in Iowa or 595 people may want to be more self-sufficient. He said he is sure that if you ask IFA the number of 596 chickens and chickens supplies sold have gone up. Commissioner Kiser said he thinks that is 597 more because of the people in the county. 598
599
Mr. Barker said he raised pigeons when he was growing up in Ogden. He said his grandfather 600 had chickens and he thinks that pigeons are a lot worse than chickens. Mr. Grasmeyer said that if 601 anyone has any concerns they are more than welcome to come see his coop. Mr. Barker asked 602 Mr. Grasmeyer the dimensions of his coop. Mr. Grasmeyer replied it is 12 feet by eight feet. He 603
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 14
said the chicken side of it is eight by eight and could hold up to thirty chickens. He said the coop 604 is way over designed for what his real needs are but it was a fun project. He said he uses an 605 electronic fence and moves it around every so often. He said once the chickens test it then it 606 becomes more of a psychological barrier. They won‟t try to fly over it because they don‟t know 607 how far up it goes. 608
609
Mr. Barker asked how big his fenced in area is. Mr. Grasmeyer said it could be the size of the 610 Council Chambers room but the chickens really don‟t need that much space. Mr. Grasmeyer said 611 he doesn‟t have to use fertilizer anymore; the areas within the fence are much greener than those 612 that are not. Commissioner Kiser commented that you can‟t walk around barefoot. Mr. 613 Grasmeyer said it really isn‟t that big of a deal. He said they had a fall harvest party and the kids 614 were chasing all the chickens around and they had a ball. He said there were no complaints from 615 the parents or the kids. 616
617
Mr. Grasmeyer said he has experienced the reality of keeping chickens and it has been a great 618 pleasure. He said that many of the things he is hearing just aren‟t issues. He said as an example 619 there was a property about 6,000 square feet across from Trolley Square that had two bee hives, 620 a raised garden, chickens, ducks, and turkeys. He said there wasn‟t a bad smell. He said this guy 621 is a chef in Park City and he can control the quality. 622
623
Commission Kiser asked if the ordinance allows people to butcher chickens in the backyard. Mr. 624 Grasmeyer said that was another thing they talked about and there are no ordinances for cleaning 625 fish or pheasant in your backyard. Mr. Grasmeyer said these chickens are probably not being 626 raised for meat. He said a hen will lay eggs up to five years. He said that in 95 percent of those 627 cases those hens will become the family pet. He said slaughtering a chicken is a very easy 628 process; you grab the chicken by the hind legs and you quickly snap their neck. He said it is not a 629 bloody process. He said they could throw the chicken in a plastic bag and throw it in the garbage. 630 He said most people will be discreet. He said he saw things in some of those guidelines that are 631 ridiculous. He said he wants to make sure they put thought into what they put in there instead of 632 copying and pasting from someone else‟s. Commissioner Catanzaro thanked him for his time. 633 Mr. Barker said they will bring back a revised copy. He said they never intended to affect those 634 who are doing this in a legal zone. Commissioner Catanzaro asked if there were any other 635 comments. With nothing more the Commission moved on to item number ten on the agenda. 636
637
10. PUBLIC COMMENTS: 638
639
There were no public comments. 640
641
11. ADJOURNMENT: 642
643
Commissioner Bingham moved to adjourn. Commissioner Brown seconded. 644
645
The meeting adjourned at 8:07pm. 646
647
648
649
Planning Commission January 19, 2011 Page 15
_______________________________________ 650
Planning Commission Chair 651
652
653
_______________________________________ 654
Planning Commission Secretary 655
656
657
_______________________________________ 658
Date approved 659
PRESENT: Richard G. Harris Mayor
Ronald Flamm Council Member
Martha Harris Council Member
Brent Taylor Council Member
Carl Turner Council Member
EXCUSED: Wade Bigler Council Member
STAFF PRESENT: Edward O. Dickie City Manager
Dave Carlson City Attorney
Annette Spendlove City Recorder/HR Director
Craig Barker Community Development Director
Gary Kerr Building Official
David Nordquist Community Services Director
Debbie Cardenas Finance Director
Ken Young Assistant Park Superviosr
Byron Dallinga Parks Maintenance Worker
VISITORS: Bruce Oman Rachel Trotter
Carolyn Oman Helen Taylor
Jennie Taylor Troy Nichols
Nick McIntosh
WELCOME
Mayor Harris welcomed those in attendance. He also gave the invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration to approve minutes of the May 11, 2010 Council meeting.
2. Consideration of Business Licenses: Andies Fitness, Hilight Properties, Inc. DBA At Last Restoration, Jotdowns by Rennub and Bears Den.
3. Set June 8, 2010 as the date for a Public Hearing to receive comments regarding the Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 2
Council Member Taylor moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Council Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Flamm yes
Council Member Harris yes
Council Member Taylor yes
Council Member Turner yes
Motion: Passed
AGENDA
4. Public comments.
Carolyn Oman, 2780 N. 500 E., appeared before the Council and read the following letter: “We have lived in North Ogden for about 53 years and have loved it. We’ve been in our house now for 25 years. A few years ago Gyle Hollingworth thought North Ogden needed an ordinance on trailers so North Ogden enforced it. The lot on the south of us was for sale. A couple seemed interested in it and complained about having to look out the window and see our trailer that’s on our lot, so the seller complained to the Council without talking to us first. The people decided they didn’t want the lot, so we bought it and the complaint was dropped. The trailer wasn’t blocking anyone’s view and is off the road on a concrete slab. We use the trailer two weeks a month through the summer. We need to charge the batteries and fill the trailer with water and food. We’ve been taking emergency classes and the trailer is our 72-hour kit. [Mrs. Oman explained that she and her husband are over the food for a trip their ward will be taking in the next few weeks. She said she was hoping to put the food in the trailer.] She continue to read, Gary Kerr said in order to have the trailer in back we have to have a cement or road base driveway and a cement slab for our trailer to sit on several feet from the road to make it legal. We had a builder tell us that that would cost at least $6,000. We can’t afford it. We’re hoping you would reconsider and let our trailer back on our property without threatening us. Your slogan is “Making Life Better.” This isn’t the way to do it. We have a beautiful lot that is well kept. My husband has been working hard getting the yard on the lot we bought up to our expectations of beauty and pride. When you drive around North Ogden you see a lot of real trashy yards and illegal trailer parking and you say we are in violation. [Mrs. Oman said she had sent a letter out to the Council on March 11, 2010 when they were first notified about the violation. She gave a copy of her March letter to the City Recorder.] She informed the Council that her trailer has been in storage for the past three months since the complaint.
5. Presentation of Employee Service Pins, 5-years, Ken Young and 30-years, Bryon Dallinga.
Dave Nordquist, Community Services Director, presented a five-year service pin to Ken Young. Mr. Nordquist reported that Mr. Young is an outstanding employee for North Ogden. He works 50% of the time for the Parks Department and 50% of the time at the
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 3
North Shore Aquatic Center as the engineer and technician that keeps the facility running. He has two certifications in pool operations and is extremely knowledgeable. Mr. Young is very talented and can fix almost anything and can build almost anything. He is a very positive person and a tremendous asset to the City.
Mr. Nordquist presented Byron Dallinga with a 30-year service pin. Mr. Nordquist reported that during his 30-years with the City Mr. Dallinga has mowed many thousands of miles of parks. He is an expert on the Jacobson Mower and can go places on it that no one else can. Mr. Dallinga has an incredible safety record with the City and is a very dedicated, hardworking individual. He is a great person who does his job year in, year out, day in, day out. Mr. Nordquist congratulated Mr.Dallinga on his 30 years of service to the City.
Mayor Harris also thanked Mr. Young and Mr. Dallinga for their dedicated service to the City. The Council Members congratulated them and shook their hands.
6. Discussion and presentation on the structure and procedures of the Parks, Trails and
Beautification Committee.
Council Member Turner presented this item to the Council. He passed out an informational hand-out to those in the audience. He said a few meetings ago the Council had approved combining the Parks, Trails and Beautifications Committees. For its first meeting the new committee had between 19 and 20 people who were willing to serve. Joel Grasmeyer was appointed as the interim Chair of the Committee. He and several members of the former Parks/Beautification Committee and the former Trails Committee formulated a plan to create a structure for the newly combined committee. Council Member Turner explained to the Council that the committee would like their approval to proceed with this structure until an ordinance can be written to codify this plan. The committee will have the City Attorney Dave Carlson review the draft ordinance before it is brought to the Council.
Council Member Turner described the proposed framework and structure of the new committee. There will be a chairperson, nominated and elected by members of the committee. There would be vice-chairpersons appointed who have been working on projects for the Trails Committee, Parks Committee and Beautification Committee. The Committee will be comprised of 11 members. Council Member Turner stated that there would be the Chairperson, four vice-chairs and six additional members. There would also be additional non-voting members; a Council Member, the City Forester Ken Kolb, Parks and Recreation Representative Becca Godfrey, and then a Member of the Weber Pathways Committee who comes and helps coordinate Weber County’s trails projects with the City’s trails.
Council Member Turner then reviewed the organization of the committee. The Chairperson would set the meeting agenda, the location, time and chair the meetings. The Chairperson would also ensure the minutes are recorded properly and then co-ordinate among the four Vice-chairs, the City Council and staff on all related items that
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 4
needed additional resources. The Trail Planners and Park Planners would participate in coordinating the future plans for parks and trails and participate in the revision of the City’s General Plan for parks and trails. They would also work on developing a parks and trails ordinance. The committee is working on a trails ordinance with the representative from Weber Pathways. Weber Pathways is also developing an ordinance and North Ogden’s ordinance would tie into that. The committee would also work with City staff and the Planning Commission on subdivision reviews. Council Member Turner reported that in some instances subdivisions have gone in and blocked access to some of the City’s trails The Trail Projects and Park Project Vice-chairs will also work with young men looking for work to do for their Eagle Projects and school participation projects.
Council Member Turner reported that this weekend there had been a service project up at the Lakeview Park working on the trail. The Committee will work with the Community Services Department on writing grants for both parks and trails. They will work with the City staff, City Council, youth groups, and volunteer groups on maintaining and expanding the parks and trails.
Council Member Turner then outlined the meeting format for the new Parks, Trails and Beautification Committee. He said he would like to have the Council’s blessing to begin operating the committee along these guidelines until the ordinance is completed. Council Member Turner explained that this is the perfect time of year for their projects and they don’t want to lose any time waiting for official approval of the newly combined committee.
Council Member Harris said she has been watching trails committees for several years and has never seen one this well organized. She said she would like to point out the members of this committee are all volunteers donating their time, hard work and ideas. She said she is all for this, the community will benefit greatly from all this effort.
Council Member Turner said he was impressed with City staff, who schedule their time so they can attend these meeting without accruing overtime, which would cost the City extra money. Mayor Harris said he is seeing affirmative nods from Council Members. Council Member Turner thanked the Council and stated their next committee meeting would be held in June.
Mayor Harris stated that June 5th is National Trails Day. Weber Pathways has been working with North Ogden and it has been very beneficial for the City. The Mayor also said NWH Construction the company working on the large expansion project at the Central Weber Sewer Facilities had volunteers work at Lake View Park as part of their annual party function. They accomplished a lot of good work.
7. Discussion and/or action to approve Resolution 08-2010, a Resolution creating a rule of procedure to allow a Council Member located in a remote location to participate in a City Council Meeting by electronic communication.
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 5
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, said the City Attorney had prepared this resolution for the Council’s consideration. This will allow Council Members who are not able to personally attend the bi-weekly Council meetings to attend via electronic communication.
Council Member Flamm said he supports this resolution. Council Member Turner asked for a definition of electronic communication. He asked if it is just via the telephone or can it be by email? Dave Carlson, City Attorney, said it is defined in State law as electronic communications. He said the requirements for an electronic meeting are that a person who participates from a remote location has to be able to hear what is going on in the meeting and participate with what is going on in the meeting. Mr. Carlson said North Ogden has done this by telephone and if the City had the means it could be done through video conferencing.
Council Member Taylor moved to approve Resolution 08-2010, a Resolution creating a rule of procedure to allow a Council Member located in a remote location to participate in a City Council Meeting by electronic communication. Council Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Harris yes
Council Member Brent Taylor yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
Motion: passed
8. Discussion and/or action to approve Resolution 09-2010, a Resolution approving a lease agreement for the leaf collector.
Debbie Cardenas, City Finance Director, reported to the Council that with the adoption of the tentative budget the Council approved the purchase of a leaf collector using a lease purchase agreement. City staff has requested bids for the equipment lease and financing. A company has been selected that has the lowest rate, best service and quickest response time. Ms. Cardenas said the leaf collector will be purchase from the ODB Company at the cost of $130,100. Staff is recommending the City enter into an eight year lease purchase agreement with Zions Bank at a rate of 4.62% with annual payments of $19,891.75. Ms. Cardenas reported that the City’s legal counsel has reviewed the documents and the attorney has submitted his opinion letter as required by the agreement. She said staff is recommending that the Council approve Resolution 09-2010, approving the Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement with Zions for the leaf collector.
Council Member Flamm asked if this was also a street sweeper. Ms. Cardenas said no this is the leaf collector. Ms. Cardenas explained that the leaf collector picks up what a street sweeper cannot effectively pick up, leafs. Mayor Harris said it is also able to get the leaves out of the City’s storm water collection boxes.
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 6
Council Member Taylor asked for an explanation on why leasing would be the most advantageous way for the City to finance this equipment. Ms. Cardenas explained that this will be paid for out of the Storm Water Fund. The City is planning to construct a new Public Works building in the near future and staff wanted to maintain more cash in this fund. The recommendation was made to look at an equipment lease purchase for the leaf collector. After going out to bid, this proposal looks like it is the most advantageous for the City. Mayor Harris said another deciding factor is that interest rates are currently quite low.
Council Member Harris moved to approve Resolution 09-2010, a Resolution approving a lease agreement for the leaf collector. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Harris yes
Council Member Brent Taylor yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
Motion Passed
9. Discussion and/or action to approve Resolution 10-2010, a Resolution approving a lease agreement for the street sweeper.
Debbie Cardenas reported that when the tentative budget was adopted the Council approved the purchase of a street sweeper using a lease purchase agreement. She reported that the street sweeper was purchased from Tymco, Inc., at a cost of $189,440. They also provide financing with the lowest rate so the City entered into a 5-year lease agreement with Tymco, Inc. at an APR rate of 3.89% with annual payments of $41,142.51. The agreement was reviewed by the City Attorney and he submitted his opinion letter as required by the agreement. Tymco is not requiring a resolution but staff felt consistency in these transactions would be prudent. Ms. Cardenas said staff was recommending the adoption of Resolution 10-2010, approving the Equipment Lease/Purchas Agreement with Tymco, Inc. for the street sweeper.
Council Member Flamm moved to approve Resolution 10-2010, a Resolution approving a lease agreement for the street sweeper. Council Member Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Harris yes
Council Member Brent Taylor yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 7
Motion passed.
10. Discussion and/or action to approve Ordinance 2010-07. An Ordinance amending the North Ogden City Zoning Ordinance by amending Section 11-22-2 and adding a special community wide event or activity signage definition, placement and time period.
Craig Barker, Community Development Director, stated that the Council had reviewed this item a month ago when a Public Hearing had been held to receive comments regarding this. Council had some questions about the proposed ordinance. One of these questions was how groups would be defined that are allowed to place signs. Mr. Barker said the discussion had centered on those groups with a 501-C3 designation from the State. The types of activities these groups engaged in were also discussed along with whether these groups should be limited to those that reside in the City or those close to the City. Mr. Barker said he and staff have worked with the City Attorney on the appropriate wording for this ordinance. There have been substantial changes to what was discussed during the Public Hearing.
Mr. Barker said first, there is a definition of what a community sign is. It is a temporary sign of a different type than is mention elsewhere in City Code. It will be placed on City-owned or City-controlled right of way solely for the purpose of advertising or announcing a special community-wide event or activity conducted or co-sponsored by the City. A special community-wide event or activity is one which occurs not more than twice in a twelve month period and seeks to attract donations or participants throughout the City.
Mr. Barker said North Ogden City’s policy for sponsorship of special community-wide events allows the City to sponsor or co-sponsor certain special community-wide events that build community, generate unity and preserve heritage and tradition. He continued stating that community sponsorship may range from complete support and funding of certain events to partial funding, provision of City facilities, service or by simply making City-owned right of way available for temporary advertisement of events. Only events that meet the following criteria will be considered for some form of sponsorship. (1) the event must be open to the public and enjoy broad community support and appeal; (2) the event must either enjoy a past history and tradition or be designed to promote the history, heritage or values of a broad spectrum of the community; (3) no event will be entitled to sponsorship; (4) sponsorship of events that meet the criteria set forth above may still be denied due to lack budget, prior conflicting commitments of sponsorship by the City; unavailability of City resources or public safety considerations. Groups or individuals seeking City sponsorship of a community-wide event shall make application to the Community Development Department at least 10 days in advance of the event. Applications will be received by the Community Development Department and if additional review is necessary it may include but not be limited to the City Engineer, Public Works Director and Chief of Police. Mr. Barker explained that this is the policy that the Council would adopt that would then allow the City to implement the ordinance.
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 8
Mr. Barker then went on to review the language that would be added for community signs. He read the following: community signs are permitted in all zones with a permit issued by the Community Development Department. A community sign plan and visual representations of all types of signs and their proposed locations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. These submittals shall be reviewed by the Community Development staff for compliance with these requirements. Additional review, if necessary, may include but not be limited to the City Engineer, Police Department and Public Works. In some cases, the Community Development staff may refer the proposals to the Planning Commission when issues arise with the proposed plans of the sign design or placement. Mr. Barker explained this wording is referring to design not content. No sign shall be permitted that is unsafe for vehicular or pedestrian traffic, is inappropriate with respect to location, size, or is in a deteriorated condition. Mr. Barker then went on to describe the other sign requirements as to materials that can be used, lettering and graphics allowed, size and height. Such signs may not be attached to other temporary signs or permanent traffic or business signs. The signs may not be displayed for more than 10 days before the event and more than two days after the event. Sponsor’s logos may appear on this signage. He said staff dove-tailed the ordinance with City policy in order to address this issue. Once this is adopted it will institute the City’s community signs. Mr. Barker said perhaps sometime in the future it may need some tweaking if something changes. It should, however, cover 95% of the City’s needs.
Council Member Taylor complimented Mr. Barker and other staff members on their work on the community signs. He said he felt it was very well done and provides a way for community groups to advertise their events.
Mayor Harris explained that this ordinance also applies to City signs used to advertise Cherry Days and the Civic League’s signs for the Art Festival. The Mayor said this ordinance has long been needed. Mr. Barker informed the Council that on state roads UDOT turns the space from the back of the curb to the property line over to the City for maintenance and upkeep and oversight of signage.
Council Member Harris moved to approve Ordinance 2010-07, an ordinance amending the North Ogden City Zoning Ordinance by amending Section 11-22-2 and adding a special community-wide event or activity signage definition, placement and time period. Council Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Harris yes
Council Member Brent Taylor yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
Motion passed.
11. Public/Council comments.
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 9
Nick McIntosh, 230 North Fruitland Drive, asked the Council to reconsider the proposed ATV ordinance and hold a public hearing. He said he felt there were a lot of misconceptions about the street legal ATVs. The Chief of Police had expressed concerns about kids racing up and down the streets. Mr. McIntosh said this isn’t for those types of riders. This would be for law-abiding citizens who have a valid drivers’ license with a motorcycle or ATV endorsement. Mr. McIntosh said safety concerns had been brought up. He said there are two different types of ATVs, those that are the more common four-wheeler and there are side by-sides. Mr. McIntosh said his side-by-side is basically a jeep. He said he feels it is safer than scooters that a lot of young people drive around. He said once he hits the power lines he can legally drive all the way up to the Idaho border as long as he stays off four-lane highways and uses the two lane roads that go up over Monte Cristo, the Avon Divide and other areas through the mountains. Mr. McIntosh said street legal ATVs have the same equipment as motorcycles or cars have. Owners have to have insurance. Mr. McIntosh said he has seen some interest in taking advantage of going street legal. He said the City wouldn’t have to write its own ordinance; the State has one and will allow cities to adopt it. North Ogden would be a perfect fit. He asked the Council to reconsider and hold a Public Hearing on this issue to get people’s input.
Council Member Flamm addressed the Oman’s questions and said he wondered if there may not be places where the ordinance on RV might be tweaked to accommodate people who have a situation where they have large lots and can store their RVs in areas where they would not be intrusive for their neighbors. Council Member Flamm asked if the City Attorney Dave Carlson could check to see what it would require for the City to adopt the State’s ATV ordinance. He said if the process is relatively simple then he would like to start the process with a Public Hearing to see if there is an interest in the City.
Mayor Harris recommended to Council Member Flamm that if he would like to review the City’s RV parking ordinance he should contact Craig Barker, Community Development Director and Dave Carlson, City Attorney to begin the process.
Council Member Taylor said to update the Council on the Business Development Committee there has been some very productive meetings. Its members are pleased with the recommendations that have been approved by the Committee. Council Member Taylor said there is a lot of good discussion and exchange of ideas. He is anticipating having some great recommendations sent along to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. He also said he would like to keep the Good Landlord Program on the back burner with the opportunity to bring it back before Council at a later date.
Ed Dickie, City Manager, gave the Council a brief history about the leaf collector. He said new federal regulations on storm water make it vital that the City have this piece of equipment. The Public Works Department has requested this for the past couple of years. The federal government has increased the fines to $10,000 per day for non-compliance. Currently the only way to remove the leaves from the storm drains is by hand, a very labor intensive and time consuming job. The leaf collector will enable the City remain in compliance with federal regulations. The word is the federal government will be
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 10
checking on all the cities in the next few years. Mr. Dickie said they will just call one day and come in and do an audit.
12. Closed meeting for “discussion of the character, profession competence, or physical or mental health of an individual” to be held in accordance with the provisions of Utah Code 52-4-204-5.
Mayor Harris wondered since there wasn’t a full quorum of Council Members, should the closed meeting be held at a later date. Council Member Harris said she felt that without a full Council this is not the time to recess into a closed meeting. Mayor Harris announced that item #12 was tabled.
10. Adjournment.
Council Member Flamm moved to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Harris yes
Council Member Brent Taylor yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
Motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 pm.
____________________________
Richard G. Harris, Mayor
_________________________________
S. Annette Spendlove, CMC
City Recorder
Date minutes approved.__________
City Council Meeting 25 May 10 Page 11
Gary A. Harrop Ronald Flamm Martha Harris Richard Harris Carl Turner
Annette Spendlove Sue Richey Gary Kerr Craig Barker Debbie Cardenas
Edward O. Dickie Bruce Evans Jed Musgrave
Don Mathewson Brett Hamblin Nikkie Whitely Mike Masters Jim Shaw
Nick McIntosh Jim Shupe Dave Hulme Lyman Barker Rachel Trotter
Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member
City Recorder Deputy City Recorder City Building Official Community Development Director City Finance Director
City Administrator City Attorney Council Member
Nancy Harrop Todd Whitely Dennis Shupe Jackie Masters Matt Hartvigsen Candice Mackley Scot Shupe
Brian Bott Brent Taylor Wade Bigler
Mayor Harrop welcomed those in attendance. Council Member Rich Harris gave the invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 1
CONSENT AGENDA
1.    Action to approve the minutes of August 25, 2009 City Council meeting. 2.    Action to approve business licenses: Home Occupation – Kholby Software and Services, LLC, Wood Associates, Weownamerica.us,, Pristine Clean Janitorial
Service
Council Member Martha Harris moved to accept the Consent Agenda as presented. Council Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion: All Council Members voted Aye. Motion passed.
AGENDA
3.    Public comments. Jim Shaw, 1591 N. 700 E., came before the Council to discuss concerns he had about flooding that had occurred in the area around his home. Storm water run-off from the LDS church and adjacent subdivision had flowed down a private lane close to his home and then into the ditch.    The force of the water caused the asphalt to crumble on the lane. Mr. Shaw said he had sent letter to Ed Dickie, City Administrator, on August 14, 2009, asking for help. The City’s Public Works Department came out on August 17, 2009 and said the problem was caused because the developer of the new subdivision above his property hadn’t put in the required orifice to control the water. Mr. Shaw said Mr. Dickie had authorized patching the hole in the road on August 31, 2009 but he hadn’t notified Mr. Shaw to let him know if the orifice had been installed.
Mayor Harrop asked Gary Kerr, City Building Official, if that had been done, Mr. Kerr said it had been installed and the Public Works Inspector Bruce Higley had checked on it. Mayor Harrop asked Mr. Shaw how long he had lived in his home. Mr. Shaw replied twelve years and also commented that he hadn’t had problems with storm water even after the LDS Church had gone in. It wasn’t until the subdivision was developed that a problem with the storm water run-off developed.
Council Member Flamm asked if this is a private lane should the City even be patching it. Mr. Shaw said the City gave the developers of the subdivision permission to put their storm water down the ditch. Council Member Flamm said now the orifice is in, we won’t know if the problem is solved until another big storm. Mayor Harrop said he would have staff review this when Mr. Dickie returned.
4.    Discussion and/or action on a recommendation by the City Engineer, regarding the ground water in the Deer Meadows Subdivision.
Matt Hartvigsen had been authorized by the Council to gather more information and cost estimates on the groundwater problem in the Deer Meadows Subdivision. The Council
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 2
had also authorized the EarthTec engineer to conduct additional testing and to offer recommendations on possible solutions. Mr. Hartvigsen reviewed the EarthTec report (on file) with the Council. He directed the Council to page three where possible options are discussed. Mr. Harvigsen also included a cost analysis of each option. Option #1 proposes individual foundation drains. In the opinion of the geotechnical engineer this is the best way to capture the ground water causing the problems. The drain would sit below the footings of each home and then extend up the walls on the outside of the homes. It collects the ground water and pipes it away to either a gravity land drain or to a pump that would move the water away from the home and into a pipe leading to a detention basin. The estimated cost for this option is $205,000. This option is quite expensive because the homes are already landscaped with extensive cement work in the form of driveways, sidewalks and rock walls. Option #2 proposes installing an interior sump and pump. This would require the removal of a small section of the concrete floor in the basement to facilitate placing the same type of land drain pipe as would be used in the foundation drains. These pipes would be run to separate corners of the home and then the water would be pumped out to a discharge line. The estimated cost for this option is $110,000.
Council Member Turner asked where Mr. Hartvigsen had gone for his cost estimates. Mr. Hartvigsen said he had contacted contractors who had been putting in land drain systems and foundation drains. He had also talked to someone who recently installed one after his landscaping and concrete work were already completed. Mr. Hartvigsen said pricing would really be a case by case basis depending on the amount of landscaping, driveways and other improvements, which would have to be removed to install these systems.
Option #3 proposes a land drain system be placed along the south and east boundaries of the subdivision. The land drain system should be installed to a minimum depth of 15 feet below the existing grade. This was the recommendation made by Jones and Associates when the problem was first discussed. This type of system is effective in the case of controlled aquifers. However, EarthTec reported that the ground water in Deer Meadows Subdivision appeared to be moving through thin, rolling sand seams that are interbedded in the native clay soils. The report went on to say it is assumed that the home foundations cut off the horizontal or rolling flow of water and direct it vertically down and under the homes where it collects and moves upward into the basement. This may cause the water to circumvent the land drain system and collect beyond the influence area of the land drain. EarthTec said they felt that due to this situation a land drain system may not be as effective in controlling groundwater levels throughout the affected portion of the subdivision as other options might be. The cost estimate for Option #3 is $120,000.
Option #4 proposed individual land drain systems placed on each lot to control groundwater levels within the effected portion of the subdivision. Land drains would be placed up gradient from the homes. They would be placed along the north and east property lines and should be installed to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the lowest foundation footing elevation of the home. The land drain would then be piped to a
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 3
gravity outlet line, storm sewer or detention basin. The cost estimate for this option would be about $191,500.
Council Member Flamm asked about the depth of the drains. Mr. Hartvigsen said when he is referring to shallow that is only the outfall line designed to carry the water collected by the drainage systems out to the detention basin. The systems themselves will all have to be installed below the basements of the affected homes. The collected water can be carried by deep gravity controlled lines or it can be pumped out through shallow lines to the basin. Mr. Hartvigsen said in the case of the gravity system it would depend on where it is placed. If the homeowners are willing to pump their water then it could be collected in a shallow drain at the back of each property and then discharged into the detention basin on Fruitland Drive. The cost to install this shallow drain would be approximately $35,000. A deep gravity line could also be constructed to each property to eliminate the need to pump at a cost of $108,000.
Mayor Harrop asked about the area affected, does the home at 2395 North have water problems? Mr. Hartvigsen said the home at 2395 N. Barker Parkway has a foundation drain system and so isn’t experiencing any problems. They didn’t participate in the survey. Council Member Rich Harris asked about the inspection of the sewer trenches, were they trapping any groundwater? Mr. Hartvigsen said there was no evidence that they were trapping and conducting water into the homes. Council Member Rich Harris asked if that had any significance in determining whether a land drain would be effective in controlling the water. Mr. Hartvigson said the geotechnical engineer didn’t have much confidence in the subdivision land drain system. Mr. Hartvigsen said there is a risk that the further from the home the drainage system is placed the less likely it will catch the water. However, he said he wasn’t sure the risk was as great as stated by the EarthTec engineer. Mr. Hartvigsen said he had tried to get the geotechnical engineer to come to the Council meeting with him but he had had another commitment. Mr. Harvigsen said he had some confidence in the subdivision land drain option, that it would capture some of the water that is coming from the north and from the east. Council Member Rich Harris asked about the size of the drain. Mr. Hartvigsen said the EarthTec engineer recommended a 15-feet deep drain in order to get below those basements. This is based on going behind the property on the east and south side as the Deer Meadow Drive turns down to the west.
Mayor Harrop asked about the increased cost for Option #3, the subdivision land drain. Mr. Hartvigsen said the original estimates had been lower but the current estimate is based on placing the pipe deeper in the ground. He described the process, which is much more complicated because of the depth and the additional drain rock and other material needed. This increases the cost. Mayor Harrop asked if there was time to complete this project before spring. Mr. Hartvigsen said if Option #3 is selected or any option that has the water being discharged into Lyman Barker’s field, this could be done in the winter months. Some work would have to begin later in the spring but the majority of it could be done during the winter.
City Council Meeting 22 September 09   

North Ogden City Council Member Rich Harris said EarthTec’s report also stated that part of the problem could be because of the way a property is landscaped and where roof drains discharge. Mr. Hartvigsen said that is correct. Council Member Rich Harris asked if there is any way to differentiate between these causes. He doesn’t want the City to pay for the part of the problem not connected to the City. Mr. Hartvigsen said the engineer reported that he had observed standing water from irrigation sprinklers on one of the properties. Over watering seemed to be a problem. However, he didn’t say that was the source of the water it just was a contributor. Irrigating the adjacent fields also can be a contributor. Council Member Flamm asked about placing the pipes in shallower trenches (8 to 10 feet) with the homeowners putting in drainage systems around their own homes and then pumping the water out to the detention basin. Could this be as effective in dealing with the water as the deeper trenches with gravity feed? Mr. Hartvisen said that is Option #5 that he listed in his report to the Council. This option would let the homeowners install their own foundation drains and then pump out into a shallow drain line that would take it down to the basin. The best route for this type of system would be behind their homes in the open field. Mr. Hartvigsen said one of the homeowners, using a sump pump, did have water problems when the power was out in the City for about 1.5 hours. Mr. Hartvigsen said the 15 foot recommendation wasn’t just to ensure gravity feed it was also needed to catch the maximum amount of the water flowing through the area. Mr. Hartvigsen said it is difficult to calculate costs for foundation drains versus individual land drains because each home has a different situation on regards to the landscaping and cement work surrounding them.
Council Member Martha Harris said she was taking the dollar figure from Option #3 and dividing that by the five homes. This allows $24,000 per home. Council Member Martha Harris asked if the City could decide to work either with the homeowners and with their agreement put in the deep Subdivision Land Drain System or give each a “not to exceed” dollar figure and have them do their own fix. However, if this is done then there must be an agreement signed by each homeowner that would hold the City harmless for any future problems or if the current problem isn’t solved. Council Member Martha Harris said she would like to see something that is an appropriate solution to the problem but doesn’t then hold the City responsible for multiple fixes. Mr. Hartvigsen said all of the solutions require a place to discharge the water so funds would have to be made available to construct a shallow outfall to move the water into the detention basin. The estimate for that is $35,000. Council Member Martha Harris said then the amount available for the homeowners would be less than the $24,000 mentioned.
Mayor Harrop said that in his judgment the homeowners have some responsibility and Lyman Barker also has some responsibility in this matter. Mr. Hartvigsen said there is really no way to know how much or if Mr. Barker’s irrigation contributes to the ground water problem. Mr. Barker hasn’t watered for a while and there is still surface water being seen back behind the church on Fruitland Drive. Council Member Martha Harris asked if the property owners have been informed about the proposed options. Mr. Hartvigsen said several of homeowners had asked about the report and had been given information on the options. Council Member Martha Harris said the price to try and mitigate this problem is going to be very costly and she didn’t want the City to jump into
anything without exploring all the options. She said she felt if work was going to be done on individual properties then the homeowner should contract for the work. Mr. Hartvigsen said he thought that was a good idea. In the case of the outfall line behind the homes the City could contract for this. Mayor Harrop said he would like to involve all the affected homeowners in a solution. Mr. Hartvigsen said the great difficulty is in the uncertainty of finding the most effective solution. He suggested the City have the homeowners indicate they agreed with the solution selected by the City. The outfall would serve everyone. Then whether there was a subdivision land drain system or some other option done because this is a global solution, everyone should be in agreement.

North Ogden City Council Member Martha Harris said she would like to direct Mr. Dickie to meet with the homeowners, discuss this with the City Attorney and the City Engineer and then present the options and the report prepared by EarthTec to the homeowners for their consideration. This would then be brought back to the Council with more information from all the parties involved. Council Member Rich Harris agreed that there are too many unanswered questions but sooner or later someone will need to make a decision. He said he felt the City Engineer would probably have to be that decision-maker on what is going to work and what won’t. There will be an element of risk no matter what is done. Council Member Rich Harris said this item won’t be tabled but the Council needs more information.

North Ogden City Council Member Turner said he would like to be involved in the meeting with the homeowners, the City Attorney, and the City Engineer. Council Member Turner said he would also like Lyman Barker to attend. This should and will be done as soon as possible. Council Member Flamm pointed out that dealing with this problem is going to cost the City much more than what maintaining the tax rate brought in. This is something to remember. Mayor Harrop said he would recommend holding the proposed meeting next week to come up with a solution. This is a challenge and more information from all the parties involved is needed. Mr. Hartvigsen expressed his understanding of the homeowners’ desire to have a solution as soon as possible. He said he hoped they also appreciate that the City is trying to develop and implement the best possible strategy to fix this water problem. Once the City’s participation is determined then Mr. Hartvigsen said his office could be very helpful in applying that participation in a way that is the most cost effective and has the best chance of succeeding.
5.    Discussion and/or action on an application requesting a variance from the City Subdivision ordinance on the required sidewalk, curb and gutter on 750 East from Jim, Dennis, and Scott Shupe.

Craig Barker, Community Development Director, reviewed the application for variance received from Jim, Dennis and Scott Shupe. They are proposing a five-lot subdivision on 750 E. 3000 North. The Shupes are asking to eliminate the sidewalk on the east side of 750 East from 3000 North approximately 407 feet to the south.    They are also asking for the same variance of the improvements on 3000 North Street. Mr. Barker reviewed the letter sent to the Shupes detailing the results of the Technical Review Committee meeting held on July 15, 2009. Mr. Barker stated to the Council that at the time of this meeting
City Council Meeting 22 September 09

North Ogden City under the City’s Subdivision Ordinance certain improvements must go into a subdivision. Section 12-6-3A3F stipulates in the required improvements the street width from back of curb to back of curb is 41-feet. This includes 2.5 feet for curb and gutter and 36 feet of asphalt. The standards also require a four-foot parkway and a 4.5-foot sidewalk. This is the standard right-of-way for streets and roads in residential areas in North Ogden City. Mr. Barker said this subdivision has that standard street on its west side (750 East). The street on the north side is a 50-foot wide right-of-way. This is a legal non-conforming right-of-way that is an older rural road with no curb and gutter. All the homes lining these streets were developed and built on single lots. There was a one-lot subdivision recently developed on the north side. Mr. Barker then described the configuration of the subdivision. The Shupes are asking for relief from the requirement of putting in sidewalk on the east side of 750 East and also relief from putting curb, gutter and sidewalk on 3000 North where those streets border their subdivision. The Shupes are stipulating that there are no improvements along this street (750 East) so why should they have to put them in for their development. Mr. Barker said this is part of the subdivision development standards required by the City. If they conform to the standard there would be 407 feet of sidewalk that would go in there. This may initiate further sidewalk development as other owners put in this improvement.
Mr. Barker explained that if the variance is given, this puts the future development of sidewalks onto the individual lot owners at a future date at a higher cost. The situation with 3000 North, which is an older road is less clear.    Mr. Barker said it could be the City just came in and put asphalt on an existing dirt road. This road is 50-feet wide and the required right-of way would take 5-feet off the lots on each side of the road. This would perhaps put the road closer to these homes than is normally found in a standard subdivision of today’s construction and design. Mr. Barker said a 41-foot standard street could go in a 50-foot right-of-way. What this leaves is only 9-feet which would put the sidewalk up against the curb and gutter. Mr. Barker told the Council they could consider a lesser standard since this will probably remain a dead end street. There are some engineering alternatives that would allow for sidewalks.

North Ogden City the issue with sidewalks, curb and gutters is storm water maintenance, storm water control and public safety. As the land use changes, if the improvements aren’t provided residents and their children are forced into the street if they want to walk in their neighborhood. Storm water must be managed as more hard surfaces are built that create more run-off. If there aren’t curb, gutter and sidewalks put in on 3000 North where does the storm water go? Mr. Barker said improvements can be put in for these two streets and he asked Council to think about what these improvements do for the City and for that specific area as it becomes more urban. It is usually the developer, not the purchaser of the lot, who is required to shoulder the costs of putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Barker said normally if the developer doesn’t put in these improvements then the City would put a covenant on each lot that states when the City calls for it you, the owner, agree to participate and pay your share for the installation sidewalks, curb and gutter along these streets.

North Ogden City Council Member Martha Harris asked Matt Hartvigsen, Jones and Associates, about the storm water issue. Mr. Hartvigsen said he had looked at site. The storm water that comes down 750 East is collected in a double catch basin on both sides of the road (2850 North) and then it goes to the west and eventually ends up in a storm drain line on 2600 North that comes into the regional basin across Washington Boulevard. He said there is curb and gutter on both sides of 750 East. With the construction of driveways and curb and gutter it will increase the volume of storm water going down that street. Council Member Rich Harris said there is a little stretch that goes from 750 East, east, then dead ends and then it’s about three lots wide before you come onto 900 East. Council Member Rich Harris said there is a manhole right at the end of that existing road that says storm water. He asked where this water comes from and where it would be going. Is there already a storm drain under 3000 North. Mr. Hartvigsen said the maps of the area didn’t show a storm drain in that area. He said this might be a sewer manhole. Sometimes the manhole covers get swapped out. Council Member Rich Harris said he didn’t feel storm water would be an issue in this area especially given the fact that it is doubtful further development will take place except for the Shupe development.

North Ogden City Council Member Turner asked Mr. Barker for clarification of the request for a variance. Mr. Barker said their application addresses both streets. Council Member Turner asked about the house that is on the north side of 3000 North on the east side of 750 East. It looks like there is a sidewalk there. Mr. Barker said there is sidewalk there. Council Member Turner asked if this is part of the area under discussion. Mr. Barker replied it isn’t. It is only the homes to the south of 3000 North. He pointed out the areas that would be covered by the variance. Council Member Turner said he thought there should be curb, gutter and sidewalk along 3000 North. He is not sure about 750 East.

North Ogden City Council Member Martha Harris said as she thinks about the thousands of dollars the City has put in its budget to put in sidewalks especially for the school age children and pedestrians she has a bit of a dilemma. If the City has done this for properties that have been omitted in the past, why would the Council not insist on having the developer put in sidewalks for this development. The City doesn’t want to continue paying for this. She said she didn’t see any compelling reason not to have sidewalks along both of these streets when that is something the City has really pushed in the community.

North Ogden City Council Member Rich Harris he felt there are two separate issues. He said on 750 East there is a one-lot subdivision that is a fairly recent development. There isn’t a sidewalk there. He would like to know what kind of agreement was made with that property owner. The City has made stipulations and agreements on small subdivisions that when sidewalks are required they agree to put it in at that time. This could be the case for this development on 750 East. Mr. Barker said the City has done that in consultation with the City Engineer. Council Member Rich Harris said on the other side of 750 East there are some sections with sidewalks and some sections without. He doesn’t understand how this happened. Council Member Rich Harris said he would support having an agreement that sidewalks would be required if and when the other sections of the road have sidewalks. This would fit in with what is actually happening there. Council Member Rich Harris said in the case of 3000 North that is a very old street that dead ends with very little traffic. He said he didn’t feel there needed to be curb, gutter or sidewalk along this road.

North Ogden City Council Member Flamm said it appears to him that the center section of that area has the potential to have a lot of homes go in, particularly between 750 East and 850 East. There is room for another road to go all the way up to 3000 North. If this area is subdivided with the road going through to 3000 North then 3000 North may not be a dead end street. As that is developed, kids needing to get over to the junior high will either go down to 2850 North or up to 3100 North. Long term, will the City want sidewalks with curb and gutter there. Council Member Rich Harris said if and when that happens then provide for sidewalks but put them in when they are needed. Council Member Martha Harris said then there is the question who will put them in. Is there an agreement that the City can make with the developer that he will provide the funds for the sidewalk when they are required or does the burden fall on the buyer? Council Member Rich Harris said it doesn’t matter in his mind, it is attached to the land and when the sidewalks are required there will be a legal document that says, probably, the property owner would do it. Council Member Turner said he liked the plan proposed by Council Member Rich Harris but he still thinks there should be curb and gutter installed along 3000 North.

Mayor Harrop asked Mr. Barker if the Planning Commission had reviewed this. Mr. Barker said the Commission didn’t feel they could take any action on the subdivision until the Council made a decision on the request for variance. Council Member Rich Harris asked what the legal document would be for this situation. Mr. Barker said a covenant and agreement would be recorded with the plat. This would be binding on all future owners to install the sidewalk and curb and gutter when the City requests these improvements. The owners are usually given a 60 or 90 day window to comply with these requirements. Mr. Barker said these are legal and binding documents recorded with the subdivision.

North Ogden City Council Member Rich Harris moved to approve the variance, requested by Jim, Dennis and Scott Shupe, from the City’s Subdivision Ordinance on the required sidewalk on 750 East and sidewalk, curb and gutter on 3000 North with the provision that a covenant and agreement be attached to each property that would require the property owner to put in the improvements (curb, gutters and sidewalks) when the rest of the area is developed. Council Member Turner seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris - yes Council Member Rich Harris - yes Council Member Ron Flamm –yes Council Member Carl Turner –yes
Motion passed.
City Council Meeting 22 September 09
Page 9
6.    Presentation and/or action on a Proclamation declaring September 8, 2009 as International Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Awareness Day.
Kaleigh Saunders, Miss North Ogden (2009-10), passed out information to Council on her campaign to raise awareness on the dangers of consuming alcohol while pregnant. She had come to the Council requesting the Mayor sign a proclamation, proclaiming September 9, 2009 as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Awareness Day. Ms. Saunders said she had been able to distribute over 250 packets detailing the dangers and dimensions of this problem at the Annual Utah League of Cities and Towns Convention held a few weeks ago. She said there are forty thousand children born each year affected by the syndrome. Over $5 billion is spent dealing with the wide-ranging affects these disorders cause. Ms. Saunders explained the importance of spreading this information because it is totally preventable. She thanked the Council and Mayor for their support and help as she presented this information to attendees of the Utah League of Cities and Towns Convention. Ms. Saunders said this campaign will receive additional exposure when she participates in the Miss Utah Pageant. Mayor Harrop signed three copies of the Proclamation.
7.    Discussion and/or action on the Final Acceptance for the Ranchview Townhomes PRUD Phases 2 and 3.
Gary Kerr, City Building Official, informed the Council that Cold Water LLC had completed all the subdivision improvements for the Ranchview Town homes PRUD Phases 2 and 3. Bruce Higley, the City’s Public Works Inspector, had inspected the development and after some additional work on a few items had certified that the PRUD had been completed and was in good condition. Mr. Kerr said he was recommending Council approval of this item.
Council Member Rich Harris moved to approve the Final Acceptance for the Ranchview Townhomes PRUD Phases 2 and 3. Council Member Martha Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris -yes Council Member Rich Harris - yes Council Member Ron Flamm –yes Council Member Carl Turner –yes
Motion passed.
8.    Discussion and/or action on the Conditional Acceptance of Stoneridge Subdivision.
Gary Kerr explained to the Council this was an action to approve the conditional acceptance for Stoneridge Subdivision Phases 1and 2 He reviewed the staff memo which
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 10
stated that Randy Marriott had completed all the subdivision improvements for the Stoneridge Subdivision Phases 1 and 2. Bruce Higley, City Public Works Inspector, had inspected the subdivision and found all the improvement items were completed and in good condition with the exception of the sidewalk. The developer was given a one year extension on the completion of this improvement. Mr. Kerr said this will be a conditional acceptance on all items except the sidewalk. One year from now when the developer comes in for the final acceptance, he will get a conditional on the sidewalk. The City will keep 10% of the sidewalk money in escrow. Then a year later the developer will come in for a final on the sidewalks.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve the Conditional Acceptance of Stoneridge Subdivision Phase 1 and 2. Council Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris -yes Council Member Rich Harris - yes Council Member Ron Flamm –yes Council Member Carl Turner –yes
Motion passed.
9.    Discussion and/or action on the Conditional Acceptance of Mason Cove Subdivision.
Gary Kerr reviewed this item with the Council stating this would be similar to the last item they considered except he sidewalks were installed on this subdivision. However, there was one concern. The asphalt on the roads had been cut by the Rocky Mountain Power utility as they put in their services to each lot. No excavation permit was issued because at the time of the work the City didn’t own roads. The issuance of an excavation permit provides the City with a little funding and a two year warranty on the work. The work was completed about four or five months ago. If the Council approves this conditional acceptance the warranty will only last for the 15 months attached to the acceptance. Mr. Kerr said he talked with Mr. Hartvigsen and he said the City does have one benefit. The developer has given funds to the City for the slurry seal. This can be applied and should help seal the road so the moisture won’t deteriorate the area around the repairs made to the road cuts. Matt Hartvigsen, Associate of Kent Jones, City Engineer, suggested that when the developer comes into the City for his final acceptance, staff hold some money in escrow to cover this problem for the 7 or 8 months that would normally be on the two year warranty.
Council Member Rich Harris asked about the retention basin in this development? Gary Kerr said Mel Blanchard had worked with developer to ensure the slopes have been satisfactorily completed. Council Member Rich Harris asked about the space that had been left between the wall and sidewalk? Mr. Kerr said the developer had put fabric down and then laid 2” rock to cover this space. Council Member Rich Harris asked about the light post on 3100 North and Mountain. Road. He said it hadn’t been installed very well. Gary Kerr said he was unaware of a problem with the light. He would check it at his earliest opportunity. Council Member Martha Harris asked how these items could be tied to the Council’s action so they would be completed before the subdivision received its final acceptance. Council Martha Harris said she wanted a document detailing the needed work. Mr. Kerr said he would contact the City Attorney and have a document drawn up that would detail the needed improvements. He would then get the developer’s signature and he would also sign it.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve the Conditional Acceptance of Mason Cove Subdivision contingent on the completion of the improvements listed by Council Member Rich Harris with a sign-off document completed. Council Member Carl Turner seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris - yes Council Member Rich Harris - yes Council Member Ron Flamm –yes Council Member Carl Turner –yes
Motion passed.
11. Canvas of Primary Election held on September 15, 2009.
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, reviewed with the Council the results of the Primary election. She explained the information contained on the sheet (on file). Mrs. Spendlove reported there are 11,994 registered voters in the City. The spreadsheet showed that of those registered voters 15.1 % participated in the primary election.    In the Mayor race Candidate Rich Harris received 624 votes. Candidate Gary Harrop received 550 votes and Candidate Reed Mackley received 659 votes. Rich Harris and Reed Mackley were nominated to go on to the General Election in November.
In the Council race Candidate Wade Bigler received 1,100 votes, Candidate Brian Bott received 640 votes, Candidate Dave Hulme received 324 votes, Candidate Nick McIntosh received 452 votes and Brent Taylor received 954 votes. Wade Bigler, Brian Bott, Nick McIntosh and Brent Taylor will be going on to the General Election. There were 174 absentee ballots sent out and 100 returned. Ninety-eight were counted. There were 51 provisional ballots cast and 42 were counted. Mrs. Spendlove said, “I, the duly appointed and acting City Recorder in and for North Ogden City, do by certify that the information contained in the attached September 15, 2009 Primary Election is accurate to the best of my knowledge.” She asked the Council as the Board of Canvassers to approve the results of the Primary Election and to sign Certification of the Election.
Council Member Flamm moved to accept the Canvas of the Primary Election held on September 15, 2009. Council Member Martha Harris seconded the motion.
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 12
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris -yes Council Member Rich Harris - yes Council Member Ron Flamm –yes Council Member Carl Turner –yes
Motion passed.
12. Discussion and/or action on an amendment to the Title of City Administrator.
Mayor explained that because some Council Members had questions of a personal nature on this item it should be discussed in a closed meeting. Council Member Flamm said he felt there needed to be some background work done before this was discussed. Mrs. Spendlove said she also had some information on current litigation that needed to be discussed in a closed meeting. It was decided to go on to item #13 before convening in a closed meeting.
13. Public/Council comments.
Council Member Turner said he would like to thank Craig Barker and Council Member Rich Harris for their help in providing information on the variance request. He also thanked the candidates for participating in the primary election. Council Member Turner thanked Kaleigh Saunders for her commitment to her platform and campaign. It is a very worthy cause. Council Member Turner also told Mayor Harrop how much he appreciated him.
Council Member Rich Harris complimented Kaleigh Saunders on her presentation given at the Utah League of Cities and Towns. The audience numbered about 800 and she did a great job representing North Ogden City. The audience included the Keynote Speaker Dr. Ben Carson, a foremost authority on Fetal Brain Trauma.
Council Member Martha Harris asked about the medium on 2600 North. Debbie Cardenas, City Finance Director, said staff would be meeting with Ed Dickie, City Administrator, tomorrow and will get all the updates on this project. Ms. Cardenas presented banners that would show the City’s support for local businesses in North Ogden. These banners will be hanging through out the City. She said it has been suggested asking City employees to contribute to the purchase of these banners. The Council would also be asked for a commitment to financially support this project. Ms. Cardenas showed an example of banners. The banners would be hung from the utility poles throughout North Ogden. On the other side of the banner will be a welcome message with the “Making Life Better” logo. At the bottom would be the name of the sponsor. Mr. Dickie has said he thought asking for donations would be better than using City funds to do this. Mrs. Cardenas said the banners will be 6’ long and cost
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 13
approximately $100 each. She said there are a couple of issues that still need to be addressed and then this will be brought back to the Council.
Council Member Flamm said he did have one concern. After going to the Spenditinnorthogden.com there are only a handful of businesses listed. He said if this is going to a specific website it needs to be more representative of all North Ogden businesses instead of just a few. Council Member Flamm said he would like to see all the businesses contacted so they can tie into or link to that web site. Mrs. Cardenas explained that North Ogden City is not maintaining that web site. It was created and is maintained by the North Ogden City Business Alliance. Council Member Flamm said even though that is the case if they want the City to support it then they must figure out a way to expand its coverage to all the businesses in North Ogden. Mrs. Cardenas said staff has committed to working with the North Ogden Business Alliance to ensure the site only addresses business issues.
Mrs. Spendlove reported that the Museum Committee is asking to use City’s copyright on City’s History book. Bruce Evans, City Attorney, said that would be a possibility but he has to do some research to be sure. He also asked to have the Council approved this action. The City wouldn’t be giving up the copyright it would just be on loan. She also reported October 27, 2009 is a Council meeting and there will also be early voting. This will be on the next agenda because this meeting will need to be cancelled. Mrs. Spendlove stated October 14, 2009 will be the date for the Community Services Department’s Open House for the new building. It will run from 4pm to 6pm. Council Members and their spouses are invited. Some Council Members will be asked to help on the program. The Salvation Army has asked Mr. Dickie if the City would be a kettle sponsor. There are several ways to do this, one would be to place a kettle in front of the Administration building, City employees could volunteer their time to work a kettle at another location or the City can donate money. Mrs. Spendlove asked the Council to give Mr. Dickie their thoughts on what they would like to do. September 24, 2009 is the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Deseret Industry facility in Harrisville. It will be held at 9 am and Council Members and their spouses are invited.
Council Member Rich Harris asked when early voting would start. Mrs. Spendlove said it would begin October 20 and end October 30.
Mayor Harrop thanked all the candidates for participating in the election. He also stated he applauded the Council Members for their courage and commitment to the City in making many difficult decisions. He also thanked all those who attended the meeting tonight. Mayor Harrop complimented Kaleigh Saunders on her presentation at the League of Cities and Towns. She was a great representative for North Ogden. The Mayor said he was very pleased with her choice for her platform this year; it is a very important issue facing our community and state. He said he has appreciated the opportunity to serve the City for the past 8 years. This time has given him a great chance to meet many wonderful people. The Mayor also thanked his wife who was in the audience.
City Council Meeting 22 September 09    Page 14
Council Member Martha Harris moved to recess the regular meeting and convene into a closed meeting. Council Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
The Closed Meeting began at 7:41 pm
Council Member Flamm moved to adjourn the Closed meeting and reconvene in the regular meeting. Council Member Martha Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
14. Adjournment.
Council Member Turner moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Council Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion: All the Council Members voted aye. The motion passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm.

Craig Barker - Community Development Director - 782-7211 ext. 215

Julia LaSeure - Department Secretary - 782-7211 ext. 216

Commissions & Ordinances
Planning Commission
Subdivision Ordinances
Zoning Ordinances

 Current Projects

Title: Lewis Peak PRUD 
Location: Approx. 1550 N 775 E
Description:
This project consists of 40 buildable lots on 5.98 acres. Open space consists of an additional 2.34 acres. Property is zoned R-1-8. Average lot size 5982 sq. ft. The largest lot is 8613 sq. ft. and the smallest is 4398 sq. ft. 
 

Title: Valley View Estates 
Location: Approx. 3650 N 500 E

Description:
An 8 lot subdivision located on 3.067 acres. Lot sizes range from 11,245 to 14,617 sq. ft. 
 

Title: North View Estates Subdivision 
Location: 100-700 E 3750 N to Mountain Rd.
 
Description:
350 single family lots on 182.19 acres. Zoned HP-1 and R-1-10 with a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft. Average lot size is 14,515 sq. ft. 
 

Title: North Oaks Cove Phase 14 
Location: 800 E 3600 N
 
Description:
19 lots in this phase. Minimum allowable lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. Average lot size is 16,845 sq. ft.
 

Title: The Cove at North Ogden 
Location: Approximately 3800 N 900 E
File: cove1.pdf
Description:
The Cove is a 173 lot PRUD on 128.03 acres. It includes 16.68 acres of open space as well as trails and park areas. The project is zoned HP-2 and requires minimum 12,500 sq. ft. lots although most are much larger.
 

Title: Mason Cove PRUD 
Location: Approx. 3100 N 1300 E

Description:
Lot sizes range from 12,530 sq ft to 149,065 sq ft. Hillside Protection zone. Minimum lot size of 12,500 sq ft. 31 lots Total Acreage 29.25
 

Title: Cold Water Cove 
Location: 1300 E 2600 N
File: cold_water_cove.pdf
Description:
Residential single-family minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. ft Total Acreage 5.59 Lot sizes range from 10,000 sq ft to 21, 315 sq ft. With an average lot size of 12,391 sq ft.
 

Title: White Rock Subdivision 
Location: Approx. 1400 E 3700 N

Description:
Hillside Protection zone. Minimum lot size of 12,500 sq ft. Lot sizes range from 12,500 sq ft to 45,882 sq ft. total acreage 36.58
 

City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 23, 2008
 
The North Ogden City Council convened in regular session on September 23, 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 September 12, 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
 Jed Musgrave Council Member
 Carl Turner Council Member
 
STAFF PRESENT: Edward O. Dickie City Administrator
 Annette Spendlove City Recorder
 Sue Richey Deputy City Recorder
 Craig Barker Community Development Director
 Gary Kerr City Building Official
 Matt Hartvigsen Jones & Associates
 Bill Goss Water Superintendent
 
VISITORS: Monien Clippinger Dave Hulme
 Reid Mackley  
 
WELCOME
Mayor Harrop welcomed those in attendance.  Council Member Flamm gave the
invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
 
 
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Action to approve Minutes for the September 2, 2008 Council Meeting.
2. Action to approve Business Licenses: Commercial – Hunan Village, Beauty for
the Beast and Indulgence: A Full Service Salon, LLC.
3. Action to set October 14, 2008 as the date for a Public Hearing to receive
comments on potential projects for Community Development Block Grants.
4. Action to set a Public Hearing on October 14, 2008 to receive comments on the
proposal to rezone property located at 2175 N. to 2225 N. between 450 E. and 250
E. from residential R-4 to C-2 for highly profitable properties.
5. Action to add a provision to the City Administrator’s Job Description to allow a
car allowance with an amount to be determined by the City Council.
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to pull item #5 from the Consent Agenda
and approve items 1-4 as presented with the change of date on the minutes from
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
September 23, 2008 to September 2, 2008.  Council Member Flamm seconded the
motion.
 
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris – yes
Council Member Rich Harris – yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave – yes
Council Member Ron Flamm – yes
Council Member Carl Turner – yes
 
Motion passed.
 
Discussion on Item #5 on the Consent Agenda:  Action to Add a provision to the City
Administrator’s Job Description to allow a car allowance with an amount to be
determined by the City Council.   
 
Council Member Flamm expressed some concern about having this benefit.  He reviewed
a plan where the City Administrator would keep track of his after- hours travel and then
submit a request for reimbursement.  Council Member Rich Harris said he felt since the
City Administrator serves at the pleasure of the Council and Mayor and it was already
decided that he would only use the City vehicle during business hours, he was okay with
the Council approving a car allowance of $381 a month for the City Administrator.  
Council Member Musgrave indicated he was also comfortable with this addition to the
job description of the City Administrator.  Council Member Martha Harris said she felt a
car allowance of $381 was appropriate.  Mr. Dickie told the Council this allowance
would begin after the other Administration car is sold.   
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve a car allowance of $381 a month
for the City Administrator.  Council Member Musgrave seconded the motion.
 
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris – yes
Council Member Rich Harris – yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave – yes
Council Member Ron Flamm – yes
Council Member Carl Turner – yes
 
Motion passed.
 
AGENDA
 
6. Public comments.
 
There were no public comments.
 
 
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
7. Report on the Results of the Well Drilling on 450 East.
 
Matt Hartvigsen, Jones and Associates, gave a report to the Council on the results of the
well drilling down to the 1200 foot level.  He told the Council the further investigation of
the well didn’t provide any obvious sources of water.  The question remains on how
much water can be pumped out of this well.  He told Council he wasn’t recommending
continued drilling.  There have been meetings held with City staff discussing possible
options.  Rather than abandon the site and drill elsewhere the consensus was to find out
how much water is available in the well.  The City would have to hire a specialist to
surge, test and perforate the well casing to find out the quality and quantity of water
available at this site.   
 
Council Member Turner asked why the drilling shouldn’t go deeper.  Mr. Hartvigsen
explained that was an option but based on the information available the material at the
current level is bedrock and doesn’t look promising.  Council Member Rich Harris asked
about the well up in Lakeview Heights.  The soil analysis indicates this bedrock is the
same type of material they went through when they drilled the well up there.  Mr.
Hartvigsen said the water produced in that well amounts to about 300 gallons a minute
but its quality deteriorates as the well continues to operate.  If it is operated at a lower
rate the turbidity or cloudiness decreases.  Council Member Rich Harris asked if the
anticipated rate from the well on 450 East would provide sufficient water for the City’s
future needs as it reaches build out.  Mr. Hartvigsen said he wasn’t sure on that amount.  
He said if there was a 600 gallon per minute output it would certainly help the City reach
the goal of being self-sufficient in water production. Council Member Rich Harris asked
about other alternatives, such as pumping the Lakeview Heights well and this well
together with additional storage for water?  Mr. Hartvigsen said those are all options that
can be considered.  If this well produced about 300 gallons per minute, then it would
have to be pumped in conjunction with the Lakeview Well.   
 
Council Member Flamm asked if the well casing is perforated for testing would this
prevent drilling the well deeper at a later date.  Mr. Hartvigsen said no, it doesn’t.  
However, the last 400 feet of drilling was done without a casing.  The Widdison’s who
would be doing the perforation and testing suggested putting a cement cover over that
area, which could be removed if more drilling is done.  Mr. Hartvigsen said the Council
would have to decide whether they wanted to put a casing down the last 400 feet.  These
deeper levels don’t seem to produce much water so the well driller said it wouldn’t be
necessary at this point.  The hydrologist, on the other hand, said if the City wanted to get
water out of this well it needed to be very aggressive in trying to tap any potential water
sources.  Mr. Hartvigsen said the cost for the drilling, while adding the needed casing,
would be somewhere around $40,000.  This would be done by Zimmerman Drilling who
has the specialized equipment for this type of job. Widdison Turbine estimated that to
perforate the casing, install a test pump and do a test would cost $83,000.  This should
give City staff an idea of the quantity and quality of the water from 450 East well site.  
 
Council Member Flamm asked how much it would cost to continue drilling down another
200 to 400 feet. Mr. Hartvigsen said he estimates the cost to be about $100 a foot, so
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
another 400 feet would be about $40,000.  Council Member Flamm said he would like to
have some more cost estimates on the options being discussed for the well.
 
Council Member Turner asked for a review of why this location was selected for the well.  
Mr. Hartvigsen said there was a preliminary well study done on several sites in the City.  
The best location for the well was found in the valley where the City is competing with
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District for water rights.  They feel like a well drilled in
that area will impact their wells.  The 450 East well is the next closest location.  The
study indicated this well was marginal for water production.  Mr. Hartvigsen said this
area was chosen because there is a storm drain adjacent to the site to take care of the
initial discharge as the well comes on line.  There is also a power source close by and the
City owns the property.  Council Member Flamm asked about additional costs after the
test pumping is done.  If the decision were made to drill another 400 feet, would it cost an
additional $83,000 to perforate the casing and test pump again?  Mr. Hartvigsen said it
probably wouldn’t cost $83,000 to do that again but the cost would be a portion of that
amount.  He said a rough estimate would be between $30,000 and $40,000.   
 
Council Member Rich Harris said he would almost in be favor of drilling down another
200 to 400 feet.  Mr. Hartvigsen said he could get a cost estimate on how much it would
be to continue drilling and casing as they go.  Council Member Rich Harris asked how
much had been spent so far on the well.  Mr. Hartvigsen said he thought it was about
$350,000 so far.  If the City stopped drilling and began to develop the well it would cost
an additional $600,000 to have a fully operational well.   
 
Mr. Hartvigsen said the City doesn’t need this water immediately so there is time to plan
and budget for this.  During an earlier Council meeting Kent Jones presented a cost
estimate of $300,000 a year for the City to buy water from Weber Basin.  Because of
these numbers the City felt it was prudent to begin drilling the well.  If the Council’s
decides to continue the drilling, then Mr. Hartvigsen said he would recommend asking
the two well drillers, Widdison and Zimmerman, what they would options they would
recommend.  Council Member Rich Harris asked what Mr. Hartvigsen’s recommendation
would be.  Mr. Hartvigsen said it is difficult to know but the experts have said once the
drilling gets into this type of bed rock it tends to continue for many, many feet if not
miles.  The well driller didn’t think there would be a major change if they went further
down.   
 
Council Member Flamm said he would like to know the depth of other wells along the
Wasatch Front before the Council makes a final decision.  Council Member Rich Harris
asked if there was an immediate need to make a decision on further drilling.  Mr.
Hartvigsen said there wasn’t a rush.  He did tell the Council if they wanted to continue
the drilling or case the last 400 feet already drilled then he wouldn’t recommend test
pumping the well right now.  However if after drilling the additional feet, it is found that
there really isn’t any water or the quality is bad then the City will regret spending the
extra money.  He said it is really somewhat of a gamble with either decision.  Mayor
Harrop asked for an outline of what the City Engineering staff thinks is a reasonable
approach.  He said he would hate to spend a million dollars on a well that might not come
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
in.  Mr. Hartvigsen said there isn’t a guarantee but Mr. Widdison, who has a lot of
experience drilling wells, said he thought he could get the City a well at this site.  
However Mr. Hartvigsen said there is always the possibility of failure.  He told the
Council if the drilling continues the casing will be 8 inch rather than a 10 inch in
diameter.  The smaller the hole the smaller the amount of water the well produces.  One
of the biggest costs for drilling is mobilization.  Every time another rig is brought in the
costs go up.  Council Member Turner asked how much higher is the elevation on the 450
East well compared to the Weber Basin well on 1700 North.  Mr. Hartvigsen said the
City’s well is very close to the depth of Weber Basin’s well. He said the Weber Basin
well is at 3250 feet above sea level and the 450 East well is at 3350 feet.  So the City’s
well is about 100 feet above Weber Basin’s.   
 
Council Member Martha Harris said she would like to have a recommendation on what
options are available to the City with the estimated costs.  Mr. Hartvigsen said when
talking with the well driller and Kent Jones and looking at the well logs they didn’t feel
like drilling another 400 feet would be productive.  Council Member Rich Harris said he
would agree with Council Member Martha Harris that they need more information.  He
also said he was still interested in going deeper.  Taking into account how much it would
cost to purchase water, the City could drill a lot of wells and still be ahead on long terms
costs.   Council Member Rich Harris said he would entertain the idea of committing a
few more resources to see what the 450 North well will produce.  Even if we have to go
somewhere else the City is still ahead on costs when compared with having to spend
$350,000 a year to purchase water.   
 
Mr. Hartvigsen told the Council he would provide the requested information on the costs
for further drilling and other work on the well.  He would also provide the Council with
data showing the City’s current growth rate and when additional water would be needed.  
The Council also requested information on the possibility of storing water to facilitate
water usage.  Ed Dickie, City Administrator, said he would also like more information on
the possibility of State approval for drilling in the valley.  Mr. Hartvigsen said Weber
Basin would lodge a complaint with the State on any application filed by North Ogden to
drill in the valley.  The City would have to negotiate some kind of an agreement with
them before going to the State with a drilling application.  He also told the Council that
North Ogden City is very efficient in its use of water.  The system is well maintained and
leakage is kept to a minimum.  The City’s use is very low per capita.   
 
8. Discussion and/or action on Resolution #11-2008 for Utah State Public Safety
Employee Retirement.
 
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder/HR Director, in reviewing this item for the Council,
explained that the City would like to pay 100% of the required employee contribution for
those City employees who are participating in the Public Employees Retirement System.  
She told the Council this is a housekeeping item required by the Internal Revenue
Service.  There is only one City employee who is in the contributory plan, which requires
the City to pass this resolution.
 
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve Resolution #11-2008, a
resolution authorizing an employer pick-up of employee retirement contributions.  
Council Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
 
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris – yes
Council Member Rich Harris – yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave – yes
Council Member Ron Flamm – yes
Council Member Carl Turner – yes
 
 
9. Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed Annexation of property
located west of 400 East between 2600 North and 2550 North.
 
Mrs. Spendlove told the Council the Marvin Barker Investment Company, LLC  
submitted an application petitioning for annexation on June 17, 2008 for property located
West of 400 East between 2600 North and 2550 North.  David Howell’s property located
to the west of the proposed annexation was included in the petition to prevent the creation
of an island.  Tonight a Public Hearing is being held in conformance with the Land Use
Development Management Act.   
 
Mayor Harrop opened the Public Hearing at 6:36 pm.  There were no public comments.
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to close the Public Hearing.  Council
Member Turner seconded the motion.
 
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris – yes
Council Member Rich Harris – yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave – yes
Council Member Ron Flamm – yes
Council Member Carl Turner – yes
 
Motion passed.
 
The Public Hearing closed at 6:36 pm.
 
10. Discussion and/or action on Resolution #12-2008.  A Resolution amending Part 1,
Policy 1.1 of the current Personnel Policies.
 
Mr. Dickie said he is asking Council for their permission to advertise job openings in-
house for three business days before advertising the openings in the newspaper.   This
option would not be used for Department Head positions and most supervisory positions.  
Interested employees would have to meet the minimum requirements for employment
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
and would be interviewed before any decisions would be made.  They would not be
assured of an automatic hire.  The process would be competitive and only used at the
discretion of the City Administrator.  It would help to boost morale for the City
employees by providing an opportunity for advancement.   
 
Council Member Flamm asked for more clarification on the proposed process.  Mr.
Dickie explained that this process would only be used depending on the position and
whether there is a City employee who is interested in applying.  If there is they would go
through the same type of interview process that is used when a position is advertised in
the paper.  The decision to post a listing in-house would be made by the City
Administrator.  If there are no qualified City candidates then after three days the position
will be advertised in the newspaper and other candidates would be interviewed.  Council
Member Flamm asked who would be involved in the hiring process.  Mr. Dickie said it
would be himself, the department head, the Human Resource Director and if there is
another supervisor they could be included.  Council Member Flamm said he would like to
have the Mayor or a Council Member involved in the selection decision.   
 
Council Member Rich Harris said if this is approved he would like to see this used very
sparingly.  He felt the City needs new ideas and new points of view brought into its
programs and organization.  Council Member Musgrave said at this point he would
probably vote against it also.  He felt that if the employee is the best candidate he/she will
be selected whether the job is in-house or advertised in the paper.   
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve Resolution #12-2008, a
resolution amending Part 1, Policy 1.1 of the current Personnel Policies.  Council
Member Turner seconded the motion.
 
Discussion on the motion:  Council Member Martha Harris said she agreed with the
comments made.  She would also expect this policy to be used very sparingly.  She
appreciated Mr. Dickie’s explanation on how the process would work and if it proves to
be a burden to Administration or not effective for personnel it can be changed.  Bruce
Evans, North Ogden City Attorney, said he had a potential amendment to the resolution
that might help.  A section could be added saying with the concurrence of the Mayor or
Mayor Pro-Temp as appropriate or to report to Council Members at the next meeting
whenever it is used.   
 
Mayor Harrop said he would be comfortable including the Mayor, Mayor Pro Temp and
the Council.  Council Member Martha Harris said if there are going to be amendments to
the resolution she would withdraw her motion so it can be brought back in its final form
to a future Council meeting.  She thanked Mr. Evans for his comments particularly
having an email sent to Council Members when the in-house advertising would be used.  
Council Member Flamm said he liked the idea of an email but he would like to take it a
step further by having the email sent out before an offered is made.  This would give the
Council a day or two to respond.  If there are any negative comments then the job could
be opened up to the public.  Council Member Turner asked how much it costs the City to
run an ad in the paper.  Mrs. Spendlove said an ad costs between $1,200 and $1,500
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
depending on the position.  Council Member Turner asked if the in-house advertising
would save the City some money.  Mr. Dickie said the City would see some savings only
if the position being vacated by the employee taking the new job doesn’t need to be
filled.  Through reorganization a new position may come up and another position would
be eliminated.  In this case a savings will be realized if the position was filled in-house.   
Council Member Rich Harris asked if the City Administrator under the current Personnel
Policy had the ability to hire in-house with the Council’s permission.  Mrs. Spendlove
said no, there would need to be a new resolution.  Mr. Bruce said it would be possible to
make the suggested amendments to the resolution and approve it this evening.   
 
Council Member Flamm asked if there is any urgency to pass this tonight.  Mr. Dickie
said it could wait until the next Council meeting.  Council Member Musgrave asked if the
employee wouldn’t just be promoted if he/she is already qualified without hiring anyone.  
Mrs. Spendlove said no, that hasn’t been the procedure since the Personnel Policy was
changed.  Council Member Rich Harris said the current policy says no position will be
filled without outside advertising.  This doesn’t preclude a City employee from getting a
position but it doesn’t guarantee they will.  Mr. Evans said there would be a savings with
in-house advertising because instead of advertising twice, the City would only have to
advertise once if a City employee is hired for the new position.  Council Member Flamm
asked if that had occurred in the past.  Mrs. Spendlove said it had.  Mr. Dickie said this
policy change would only be used sparingly and only when it makes the most sense.  It
will never be used to hire department heads.  Mr. Evans said he thought this would allow
for promotion within departments.   
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to withdraw her motion.  Council Member
Turner seconded the motion to withdraw.     
 
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris – yes
Council Member Rich Harris – yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave – yes
Council Member Ron Flamm – yes
Council Member Carl Turner – yes
 
Motion passed.
 
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve Resolution #12-2008, with
amendments as follows: North Ogden City Personnel Policy- at the discretion of the
City Administrator and Mayor or Mayor Pro Temp, some positions excluding
department heads maybe advertised in-house for a period of three business days.  
After three business days if there are no qualified employees (meeting all the
minimum requirements and/or completing an interview process) then the position
will be advertised as described in the Personnel Policy.  However prior to offering
employment to any in-house candidate the City Administrator shall notify the City
Council not less than two business days prior to extending the offer.  Any objection
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
in-house will result in external advertising prior to issuing a hiring decision.  
Council Member Turner seconded the motion.   
 
Voting on the motion:
Council Member Martha Harris – yes
Council Member Rich Harris – yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave – yes
Council Member Ron Flamm – yes
Council Member Carl Turner – yes
 
Motion passed.
 
11. Public/Council comments.
 
Dave Hume, 513 E. 1700 N., told the Council he is glad they approved item #10 on the
agenda.  It gives the City Administrator a vote of confidence.  He advised the Council
that the oversight built into this resolution should also be used sparingly.  It offers a
protection for Mr. Dickie in the hiring decisions.   
 
Council Member Turner asked what was happening on the property at 550 East and 2550
North.  It is all boarded up.  Mr. Dickie explained that the City boarded up the house to
keep vandals out.  The cost for demolishing it will be included in next year’s budget.  
Council Member Turner asked to have staff take care of the weeds in the yard.   
 
Annette Spendlove told the Council staff would like to schedule a work session for some
time in early November for Council training on Open Meetings, Sexual Harassment
procedures and a review of Council goals for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.  It will be
structured as a Retreat.  She asked Council to email possible dates in November for the
training.   
 
Mr. Dickie told the Council he would also like to discuss Planned Residential Unit
Developments (PRUD)s in the City during the work session.  He would like to have the
Council look at a City map and then go out to look at specific areas in the City as
possible locations for PRUDs.  Staff would like to have Council input on where they
would be willing to allow this type of development.  This way if a proposed PRUD is not
within these specified areas the developer won’t even begin the process for approval.   
 
Council Member Flamm said along with the discussions held at the League on PRUDs
there was also a session covering conservation subdivisions.  He thought there may be
some areas in the City the Council could look at for these types of subdivisions while
they are checking out possible locations for PRUDS. Mr. Dickie said there could be a
meeting held just on these topics.  He told the Council he thought their position on land
use as the appeal authority is a good position for the Council.  He would recommend
keeping the City’s land use process the same.  Mr. Dickie told the Council they could
decide not to allow any more PRUDs but would recommend designating a few areas
where they could be built.  
City Council Minutest 23 September 08
 
 
Council Member Rich Harris said in conjunction with this discussion there was an article
in the Standard Examiner a few days ago detailing the current high demand for rental
property.  He would like to know what percentage of North Ogden is considered
affordable housing and multiple-family.  He suggested having Craig Barker, North
Ogden Community Development Director, go back over the article and answer the
questions posed there with respect to North Ogden City.  Council Member Musgrave said
he didn’t think the City had any low-income housing.  Mrs. Spendlove told the Council
there is an area in the City where the homes have been financed through HUD and there
was a North Ogden resident using the program.  Council Musgrave said there had been a
time when the City applied for federal housing money and were given a grant but didn’t
have any requests for the funds.  Council Member Rich Harris asked City staff to check
on these items.
 
Mayor Harrop reported there has been significant progress made on the new Community
Services building.  There will a city-wide clean up held October 7, 2008 and on
September 27, 2008 there is a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the inauguration of
Frontrunner Service into Pleasant View.  He also told those in the audience how much he
appreciated their attendance.