Council Notes 9.6.06
By Dian Woodhouse
After the Pledge of Allegiance, the meeting opened with Councilman Stephenson reading a Joint Proclamation between the Council and Mayor deeming the week of September 15-23, 2006, as "Weber State University Homecoming Week." Founded in 1889, WSU has provided education in the professional, liberal, and technical areas, and has provided "exceptional teaching" and "extraordinary commitment" to its students. The University also, the proclamation went on, recognizes the uniqueness of the individual and fosters freedom of expression. The Proclamation was accepted by Dennis Miller.
Directly following this, there was the adoption of of Resolution 2006-21, approving the honorary designation of Harrison Boulevard from 36th Street to 46th Street as "Wildcat Way." Greg Montgomery presented the background research on this issue.
First, all the addresses will remain the same, and therefore Emergency Services, checked with as to how this would affect them, will not find this new name a problem. There is also another street called "Wildcat Lane," and this was also gone into and it was concluded that the similarity would not cause confusion. Mr. Montgomery also mentioned that some high schools in Ogden have streets named for them, and also mentioned Caesar Chavez Street. The motion to approve passed unanimously.
As there was a public hearing on this matter, several individuals spoke to the issue, all in favor. Dennis Miller, originally from Wisconsin, stated that in his hometown, the "city comes alive" during games in a very exciting and positive way. "We would feel more a part of the community," he said. Chris Bentley brought up the sign "Welcome to Ogden, Home of Weber State University," and mentioned that WSU was a "huge part of Ogden City." Peter Owen, the WSU Association President, informed us that this suggestion had come from the student association, which is all in favor of integrating the University community with the larger Ogden City one, and having us all join in in the pride felt for WSU, a statement echoed by Councilwoman Jeske.
The next order of business was was the vacation of the property at 23rd between Fillmore and Pierce by the city, and this was also a public hearing. Again, Mr. Montgomery presented for the Planning Commission.
The city received a request to do this, Mr. Montgomery stated. When Ogden was first platted, the streets were marked out to be 99 feet wide. The effect this original platting had on the petitioner was to place his/her property line 20 feet back from the sidewalk. The petitioner evidently discovered this when attempting to do some improvements, and therefore the subject of proposed Ordinance 2006-48 was to move that property line closer to the sidewalk.
The question addressed by the Planning Commission was: Do we need a road that wide there? They decided no, since development in the area is completed. Therefore the proposed solution was to move the property line 19 and a half feet (to provide for a public utility easement) toward the sidewalk, and quit claim that property from the City to the abutting property owners. This passed unanimously.
Next up was "Annexation of 2.811 acres located at 800 North and Washington Boulevard." Again a request of the city by a property owner, again presented by Mr. Montgomery, again a public hearing. The proposal on the table before the council seemed on the surface simple, to annex this property and zone it R-4 (Multiple Family Residential,), which is the zoning provided for that area by the General Plan.
But it was not that simple at all. The original request asked in addition to annexation that the property be zoned commercial, which was brought up by Councilman Stephenson. This, Mr. Montgomery said repeatedly, could not be addressed without amending the General Plan, which did not allow for that. The area currently is R-2, (Single Family Homes,) with an option for R-4 (Multiple Family Residences.)
Some Councilmembers had a problem with the suggested R-4. As Councilman Safsten stated, it was not a given that multiple family residences would stabilize that neighborhood. Jeff Conatser, speaking to the issue, clarified matters.
First, Mr. Conatser said, this was not 2.811 acres, but 1.7 acres, because the road had been widened there. Secondly, although a family home was present on the property, it is a business and has always been a business--a farming business. Third, Mr. Conatser had been working on this annexation/zoning for the past seven months and had been told that he had to undergo the annexation process first before the zoning issues could be addressed. And fourth, the plan for the property was that Dave's Auto, "who is being evicted because of the River Project, wants to stay in Ogden."
The Council then zeroed in on the R-4 problem, and a suggestion was made that the proposed zoning change be to office buildings instead of apartments. Councilman Stephens had asked repeatedly if there were any guarantees the property would ultimately be commercially zoned and it appeared there were none. However, in making this action, Mr. Franke stated it should be made clear that in performing this action, the Council should give reasons for its preference for office buildings, and also was in no way committing itself to commercial zoning.
The motion to annex the property was passed unanimously with the suggested zoning change included.
The next issue was similar enough to the above to be a bit confusing. This one dealt with amending the General Plan by virtue of changing the Lynn community plan to allow for C-3 zoning where it was not presently allowed. The areas were 639 and 689 Washington Boulevard.
The process for this was in two parts. It first had to be decided whether to change the Lynn community plan to allow that option for C-3 zoning there. Secondly, it had to be decided whether or not to consider the petition requesting the designation of the zoning to C-3.
It was explained that C-2 zoning, which currently is allowed under the General and therefore Community Plans, involves "neighborhood commercial," whereas C-3 allows for "retail commercial--" large parcels on which there could be auto sales, salvage yards, taverns, etc.
Interestingly, the Planning Commission had recommended that if this C-3 were to be allowed under the proposed amending of the General Plan, that a caveat be attached, stating that any proposed project had to have "compatibility with the surrounding land." Mr. Montgomery brought up an example where a zoning change to commercial next to a residential area had led to the walls of a commercial building being a foot away from someone's bedroom window: with this caveat, things of this nature would not occur.
The Council voted to amend the General Plan to allow for the option of exercising C-3 zoning in that area. However, because of the recommended caveat, the actual exercising of that option would have to be accompanied by a developmental proposal which would conform to the notion of "compatibility with surrounding land."
The Council then denied the second part of the issue, which was the actual designation of the zoning of C-3 to the area, because there was no accompanying developmental proposal.
The next issue was handled with dispatch and was presented by Mayor Godfrey. It was the appointment of two alternates to serve on the Taxing Entity Committee, and the Mayor and the Council Chair had been suggested as being those alternates. This, Ordinance 2006-24, was approved.
The next order of business was the adjournment to closed executive session to discuss the appointment of Dustin Chapman to the Planning Commission, but before the motion to do this occurred, Councilwoman Jeske made a motion that the Public Comments be moved to be entertained before that adjournment. Ms. Jeske stated that there was an individual present experiencing a health condition which would not allow staying through the entire closed session and who wished to comment.
Councilwoman Jeske's motion died through lack of a second. The motion to adjourn to Closed Executive Session passed, and the Council adjourned. Salt Lake Tribune reporter Kristen Moulton and Standard Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke then sat with the rest of us for about an hour and a half while the Council had dinner and interviewed Mr. Chapman, and their reports, which I consider to be fair and accurate, are linked at the foot of this article.
I have chosen to spend much time and report on this portion of the meeting, because these issues, innocuous as they might appear on the surface, are actually matters that concern us all deeply about our future here. The question of how and under what conditions to amend the General Plan, to change zoning, the attempts to remove the gulf between the University community and the larger one. These things might set precedent, after all. I was very impressed by the Council last night in its willingness to explore all ramifications of these issues, also by the current Planning Commission, which had obviously done its due diligence before making recommendations to the Council, and by Mr. Greg Montgomery, who explained all the issues on the table in a clear and concise manner.
I was reminded of a character in a play by Eugene O'Neil, who said (perhaps paraphrased,) "I am cursed with the ability to see all sides of a question." In the case of this character, that ability had a paralyzing effect, causing an inability to make a decision. In the case of our Council last night, it had the effect of demonstrating a willingness to make the best decisions possible within existing circumstances, taking into account possible future ramifications as well as present ones. A very good thing, in my opinion.
Part Two: Postprandial Events
A bit of background here---the Council went behind closed doors, while Mr. Chapman waited in the hall. At some point, they called him in. At roughly 9 PM, he was back in the Council Chambers and they were still out. I believe they entered the Chambers at about 9:20 PM.
Chairman Garcia stated the order of business--the proposed appointment of Mr. Chapman to the Planning Commission, and asked, "How does the Council wish to proceed?"
Dead air.
After what seemed an excruciatingly long time, but was probably only 20 seconds or so, Councilwoman Jeske asked a question about the current proceedings. Chairman Garcia answered it and then reiterated, "How does the Council wish to proceed?"
More dead air. Finally Councilman Safsten took the plunge and moved to appoint Mr. Chapman to the Planning Commission. This was immediately seconded by Councilman Stephenson. With no request for discussion, perhaps understandable in view of the previous closed session, Chairman Garcia called for a roll call vote. All votes were in the negative with the exception of Councilman Stephenson.
Councilman Safsten then commented on the situation, stating that there was "sensitivity in the community right now," because of this issue, and that this proposed appointment had been "scrutinized by ill-meaning and well-meaning people alike." Stating that "too much will be opened up," if Mr. Chapman were appointed, Councilman Safsten went on to say that "We don't need the kind of skepticism that is going on in the Planning Commission and in the Council right now."
Councilman Stephenson characterized his vote as being one of "perception versus reality," and stated that his vote was from the standpoint of "reality."
Councilwoman Wicks stated that Mr. Chapman's willingness to serve on the Special Events Advisory Committee was very much appreciated, and that she hoped he would continue.
Councilman Stephens here asked to be excused and left the room.
Mr. Chapman then approached the podium. "I can certainly understand the position you guys are in," he began. Using such terms as "poisoning the well," and "slander," and, referring to the Council's vote, communicating "We don't want you," he went on to state that "People like me--we can find a better community, a better house." He mentioned that he was a young person, and that there were not too many in Ogden--"You should look at that," he said, and stated that these people should not be "chased away."
Public Comments followed Mr. Chapman's speech. Rulon Yorgeson stated his appreciation of the work the Council is doing. Chris Bentley stated that Chapman's remarks "did not sit well with me," and went on to state what a good community Ogden was, how he attended WSU and intended to remain living here once he finished his education at WSU. He thanked the Council for making the best and wise decisions.
Mayor Godfrey spoke next, thanking Mr. Chapman "for offering himself up," and apologized to Mr. Chapman for "what he has had to endure" during this process.
Councilwoman Jeske then stated that she hoped Mr. Chapman would continue to be involved with the Special Events Advisory Committee.
Councilman Safsten then addressed Councilman Stephenson's remarks regarding perception versus reality, and stated that what they were dealing with here was public perception. "Because people aren't at all our meetings, and I mean All our meetings, they rely on perception," he said. Going on to state that this perception was based only on what the public knew, and not on what those who had attended all the meetings knew, "It is these well-meaning people who are concerned about bias...That is not an acceptable situation for us to put ourselves into," he said, and apologized to Mr. Chapman.
The meeting adjourned shortly thereafter.
As always, comments and/or corrections are greatly appreciated.
Close browser to return to main page
© 2005 - 2017 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved