8/8/06 City Council Work Session Minutes

Minutes of the work session of the Ogden City Council held on August 8, 2006.
Purpose of the work session is to hear a proposal from the development of Malan's Basin/gondola/hillside development project regarding a process to consider the projects.

Proposal regarding process to consider Malan's Basin/gondola/hillside development project

Chris Peterson, potential project developer, expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to address the Council. He stated the last three months have been very interesting with regard to the attention his proposed development has received. He said he has talked to individual citizens, conducted open houses, spoken with many groups and received a great deal of input from the community about the project. He has been encouraged by how much people care about their community and by the number of good ideas brought forward. He indicated consideration needs to be taken with regard to how the desires of the community and other groups is maximized for the benefit of all those affected by the proposal. He introduced Tom Ellison as the person hire to navigate that process.

Mr. Ellison stated he is with Stoel Rives LLP and practices in the area of development. He has done years of real estate transactional work and has worked in the resort field in the past few years where the trend is towards larger projects. He has seen a major shift in approaches that jurisdictions have taken, from the more traditional planning and zoning to development agreements.

Mr. Ellison commented that Mr. Peterson's proposed project is more complicated than any he has seen and said decisions need to be made carefully that presents the right information and reached appropriate public policy decisions. He indicated that from the City's ordinance standpoint, there is no zone that would accommodate an approval of this project size. A development agreement is a good way to handle this and Ogden has used development agreements in the past, with limited purposes, but has not used them as a more comprehensive regulating tool. He identified five general steps that would take the project through the approval process.

Step One: To identify specific approvals that are needed and make sure major decisions that need to be done. Mr. Ellison commented Ogden is currently engaged in this first step and this step will get everyone on the same page with regard to communication.

Step Two: To look at any General Plan changes and ordinance amendments required to create a zone and regulatory structure for this and other projects. Mr. Ellison indicated nothing would be project specific and the City would look at creating a zone that would address large projects via development agreements. This combined with a project concept plan would create a tool that would allow the City to determine the project configuration, conditions, and standards to be applied to a project and incorporate into a single document. The agreement would be an enabling document and the basis for approvals

Step Three: To develop project specific approvals where application would be based on acceptable engineering with a draft development agreement and proposed development standards. Mr. Peterson remarked this step might include General Plan amendments and a zoning map decision to apply the proposed new zone. Decisions to modify annexations policies may be needed as well. Public input would be sought and the City would have project specifics, although conceptual in nature, to know what a developer proposes. Councilmember Stephenson asked if this step would be where study information would be received. Mr. Ellison responded feasibility level information would be appropriate during this step. Councilmember Stephens asked if this step would include information on financial backing for projects. Mr. Ellison responded sufficient information of whether the project is financially feasible would be appropriate at this step, but financial guarantees would be part of a subsequent phase.

Step Four: Final documentation. Mr. Ellison said this step would result in appropriate resolutions, development agreements, and ordinances needed to make all of the various public policy changes for project approval.
Step Five: Financial/Budgetary/Sale of land requirements. Mr. Ellison indicated there are public approval aspects that need to be addressed during this step. The step would include the real estate closing and financial assurances would be agreed to by the developer. No one can determine all the elements at this step, but would provide the City with the opportunity to have specific financial assurances.
Councilmember Stephens asked if the development agreement is the basis or the foundation of a project. Mr. Ellison responded the agreement would contain all of the specifics of the project and how it will be developed. Acting Chair Wicks asked who the development agreement would be with for the proposed gondola project. Mr. Ellison responded it has not been determined yet, but most likely a LLC or similar investment vehicle.

Councilmember Stephenson asked what the differences are between smaller projects and Mr. Peterson's proposed project. Mr. Ellison responded that because of the scale of Mr. Peterson's project, the ability to meet the requirements of typical small parcel zoning is not available until the project gets further down the road. The need to reach conceptual level agreements becomes important. Typical zoning is not usually complex and this project has several different sub-projects that would require a lot of specific engineering with plats reduced to certain regulations. He also explained that a development agreement would be mutually protective and would allow the City to craft its requirements for future projects.

Councilmember Stephens asked for more information on the zoning required. Mr. Ellison responded there are two different zoning decisions that would need to be made: First, create a new zone; and Second, apply the new zoning to certain land. Mr. Peterson commented he is used to having a zone that allows specific uses and said development agreements offer better protection for all involved. Acting Chair Wicks asked if the new proposed zone would negate the current sensitive overlay zone. Mr. Ellison responded the new zone would be applicable for all existing zones, but would include regulations for site-specific conditions.

Councilmember Stephens asked if the new zone would be presented to the Planning Commission first. Mr. Ellison responded almost every process identified is a legislative process that requires hearings and recommendations by the Planning Commission and the City Council. State law does not specify what a development agreement process is, but Mr. Ellison said he views it as the same as what a full legislative process would take.

Councilmember Stephens asked if there is room for discussion on the concept of Mr. Peterson's project. Mr. Ellison responded he envisions the concept changing as time goes on and then final agreement once the development agreement is agreed upon. Councilmember Stephens asked if feasibility studies could be asked for by the Council. Mr. Ellison responded certain studies are appropriate for certain portions of the project. Councilmember Stephens then asked about water and sewer infrastructure. Mayor Godfrey responded the City would be heavily involved in the process of determining water and sewer capacity and constraints.

Councilmember Glasmann asked about geological studies. Mr. Ellison responded development warrants a meaningful approval to the extent that knowing certain areas are buildable is important. The idea is to create conditions under which building can occur and then the site-specific regulations can be done at the time of building.
Councilmember Stephens asked if there is any point in the process where it would be determined that Mr. Peterson's project would not be feasibly successful. Mr. Ellison responded that question could not be answered. If there are technical issues that prevent portions of the project to be constructed, he is not aware of anything that is considered a "deal stopper." Mr. Peterson pointed out that proposed process would help determine the success and feasibility of the project.
Councilmember Stephenson asked what input from the Council would be needed or required. Mr. Ellison stated there is a great deal to be worked through, but the Council would need to conduct a public hearing. This is a process that invites comments and listening and communication up front is best so plans can be accommodated.

Councilmember Jeske expressed her concern that the Council would be making changes to ordinances before the development agreement would be signed. She indicated she has spoken to Weber State University and has been told that the land Mr. Peterson wants to build on is not buildable. Mr. Ellison responded he has not seen a development plan for those particular portions of land. The steps in the process are asking that the City do work in advance for a process that is worth undertaking. Councilmember Jeske asked if the City would be asked to sell its golf course before Weber State University is asked to sell its land. Mr. Ellison commented the Weber State land is essential to the project. Mr. Peterson indicated he would not expect the City to sell the golf course without knowing that Weber State is selling its land as well.

Councilmember Stephenson asked about project phases. Mr. Ellison responded he and Mr. Peterson would prefer not to get into project specifics at this time. The project will be phased and the specifics need to be handled by the development agreement.

Councilmember Stephens asked if there is a timetable to the process. Mr. Ellison responded that nothing could be submitted until ordinances are shaped for approval and application requirements. He indicated Mr. Peterson wants to move forward as soon as that has been done. Council Executive Director Cook stated Council Staff is looking at this with Legal's advice. He said a list of questions regarding the project, from many sources, will be published and indicated there is no time frame when a process will be defined.
The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.