Ogden City Council Meeting Notes - 01.02.07
By Curmudgeon
Substantive business began with the election of Council leadership for the coming year.
Council President Garcia was nominated for that post for another year by Councilwoman Jeske. Nomination seconded by Councilman Safsten. No other names being placed in nomination, Mr. Garcia was elected as president for another year by voice vote.
Then Mr. Safsten nominated Councilman Stephenson for Vice President. The nomination was seconded by Mr. Stephens. Councilwoman Van Hooser then nominated current Council Vice President Amy Wicks for a second term, seconded by Mrs. Jeske. On a voice vote, Ms. Wicks was chosen for another term as Vice-President by a vote of 4-3. [Note: see Councilman Safsten’s comments explaining his vote on the council leadership at the end of this report.]
The Council then approved all four items on the Common Consent agenda. The first three set public hearing or input dates on January 16, 2007 for [1] a proposed amendment to the Annual Action Plan; [2] for a proposed zoning change for an area on 12th Street between Lincoln and Grant that would rezone from current 2 family residential zoning to “Community Commercial Zone/Conditional Overlay” zoning; and [3] to consider changes in a development agreement regarding allowable sign size between 212 North and 400 North on Washington Blvd.. The final item on the common consent agenda proposed the appointment of Xitlali Loza, Alice S. Hirai, Sharon L. Smauldon and Dennis E. Howland, and the re-appointment of David Miller, Diane Newham and Max Ryujin to the “Multi-cultural Advisory Committee.”
Following the unanimous approval of a street name change at BDO, the Council got on with the main business of the evening: considering a development freeze in the phase two and three areas of the Riverfront RDA area. Mr. Montgomery of the Planning Office spoke in favor of the moratorium, explaining that people were already buying properties in those two areas, and current zoning would permit them to develop those properties in ways inconsistent with the overall plans for the Riverfront Project. For example, some of the property is currently zoned for manufacturing, and might be developed in that way [which would be wholly inconsistent with the RDA project goals] unless the Council approved a “River Project Area Temporary Land Use Regulation.” The idea, he said, was to give the planning office and Council time to adopt new zoning for the RDA phase two and three areas that would permit there only development consistent with the RDA plan for the River Project. The moratorium would prevent any individual or business in the area from seeking re-zoning for a particular property; it would also prevent any new subdivisions, any new constructions or expansion or changes in use on a property for six months.
Mr. Montgomery emphasized that putting the development freeze in place would not require, during the freeze, any changes by existing owners. Businesses in the area covered could continue to do business. Homeowners could continue to live there. Construction related to health or safety would not be banned [for example, re-roofing a building or home]. Only new development [expansion of a business or residence] or a change in use that would alter the character of the property would be banned for six months, until the new zoning was in place. [In response to questions, he gave this example: a gas station now in the area could continue to do business as a gas station, but if it was sold, and the new owners wanted to make it over into a beauty parlor, that would not be permitted because it would change the character, the use, of the property. However, a retail business that was sold might continue as a different kind of retail store, because that would not alter the use of the property.] He emphasized that the ban would not prevent current owners from selling their property or interested parties from buying property in the zones during the development moratorium.
Mr. Montgomery said he hoped the re-zoning could be completed in less than six months. Finally, he added, the Council had approved temporary land use regulations in other instances in the past, so the request was not unprecedented.
Mrs. Jeske noted that the Contempo Tile Company is currently in the RDA area. How would it be affected? Mr. Montgomery replied that it could continue to operate its business there under the moratorium, but it could not expand it facilities. Mrs. Wicks asked if the Planning Staff had a time frame for coming to the Council with a proposed Mixed Use ordinance that would apply to the area. Mr. Montgomery said the Planning Commission was “looking at that now” but offered no estimate on when an ordinance might reach the Council
President Garcia noted that this meeting was not a public hearing, but there it was an important matter and he’d like to permit public input on it. The council by vote without objection agreed to open the floor for public input. Three people spoke. The first was a Mr. Ray Jensen who complained that the Council had kept property owners in the area hanging for five and a half years, and that he had no notice of this proposed moratorium until he read it only hours before after work in the newspaper. Wanted to know why there had been no notice to property owners. Mr. Montgomery replied that the planning staff didn’t want much public notice because it didn’t want to trigger a lot of fast applications for building permits under the existing zoning if people knew the moratorium was coming. So they didn’t notify property owners or publicize the request. Mr. Jensen replied that he was currently negotiating with a buyer to sell his property, and the he thought would delay or possibly sink the sale, even though the buyer planned to develop the property in accord with the River Project RDA design.
Then Mr. Michael Moil [spelling is my best guess, and is probably wrong]. He complained that he was trying to open a restaurant in the RDA zone, had been trying to work with the city for months, that the city planning office kept moving the goal posts on him. He felt he was being discriminated against by the city, and his attorneys thought so to. That he did not want to “go that route,” he just wanted to open his restaurant, which he’d redesigned in ways the city had told him to redesign, and that this moratorium would prevent his getting the necessary licences and permits to finish work on the property. As a result, having made substantial investments already in the property, he would now not be able to generate any income from it for a longer time because of the moratorium. He also complained that he just found out that night that his land, which he’d been told was in the phase three area of RDA was now in the Phase 2 area. Mr. Montgomery disputed some of his claims about treatment from the city planning office, and he denied that the planning office had singled him out to obstruct his business plans for his property. He did say, when asked by the Council, that he was aware of no other pending business permits for the area involved besides Mr. Moil’s.
Final public input came from Mr. Brent Walling, representing the Contempo Tile Co. [Note: that is the company the City Council approved selling the Shupe Williams property to, only to learn that the company was not interested in buying it.] Mr. Walling indicated that Contempo Tile was very happy with its present location, and wanted to stay there and expand even though it was on a parcel the RDA project intended for high density housing. He asked who the company could talk to in the development office to find ways to make their business fit in with the RDA plans so they could stay. He was told he should talk to Mr. Scott Brown. Mr. Willing replied that talks with Mr. Brown had been “ongoing” but that the company was still in limbo. Mr. Harmer then said Mr. Willing and Contempo should bring their concerns directly to him, but he indicated that eventually Contempo would have to relocate, he thought, because it was now on land intended for high density housing. Mayor Godfrey added that he was “in the room” when the owner of Contempo made his original application to move his business to its current site, and he was well aware that his locating there would only be temporary and that as the River Project proceeded he would have to move.
Ms. Jeske complained that the city said it wanted to encourage business development, then seemed to get involved instead in restraining business development. Some discussion ensued, with Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Montgomery disagreeing with Mrs. Jeske. Ms. Jeske moved to table the matter, complaining that the Council had very little notice of the planned temporary land use regulation they were being asked to approve immediately. Her motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Stephenson then moved the moratorium be approved. Mr. Stephens seconded. By a vote of 6-1, Councilwoman Jeske voting nay, it was approved.
The Council them moved on to public comments. Mr. Mitch Moyes expressed concern that the Council was not giving enough attention to planning development near the Frontrunner rail station, that the potential for growth in the station area was tremendous and should be getting at least as much attention as the Council was giving to the River Project. Transit oriented development had proven to be a major engine driving “thriving economic development” and the Council needed to begin concentrating, now, on how that would work in downtown Ogden near the train station. Mr. Stephens replied that the matter was already scheduled for a coming work session, that the Council was working on the matter and not slighting it.
Finally, during Council comments, Mr. Safsten read into the record what he characterized as an explanation of his vote earlier on the Council’s leadership. He spent some time talking about the way a council ought to relate to a mayor in the strong mayor form of government which Ogden has. He thought the Council ought to tackle the most controversial, and most important, issues before the city, that vigorous debate, questioning, and probing were part of the council’s function and necessary for good government. That it would not be healthy for the city if each Tuesday night’s council meeting was simply a love-fest between Council and Mayor. But, on the other hand, he thought it vital that good communications be maintained between the Council and the Mayor, that the exchange of information, options, ideas, be constant and open on both sides. He was concerned that some members on the Council, and some of the Council leadership, were unwilling to keep lines of communication open with the Mayor, and had in fact refused to meet with the mayor or discuss matters with him, even via email, over the previous year except during official meetings. He was concerned that some members, including leadership, were letting their animosities interfere with their willingness to confer, consult and discuss matters with the Mayor’s office, and that that worked to the detriment of both the Council and the city. He agreed that sometimes communications fell apart because the other person involved was not willing to reciprocate, but that as a council member, he wanted the Council to be, always, the body that made the effort to communicate first. [Mr. Safsten’s comment was lengthy. I have tried to summarize the gist of it here accurately, but it will be in the Council Minutes in full. If it becomes available on line in the Council Minutes I’ll post a link as soon as I learn of it.]
President Garcia replied briefly, saying he thought the lines of communication between leadership and the mayor had been kept open during the previous year. The Council then adjourned.
No comments:
Post a Comment