GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 AT 6:00 PM 505 EAST 2600 NORTH NORTH OGDEN, UT 84414

PUBLIC CAN ATTEND IN PERSON OR: Click the link to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84647634444 Webinar ID: 846 4763 4444 Or Telephone Dial: 1 346 248 7799 or 1 669 900 9128 or 1 253 215 8782 or 1 312 626 6799

Welcome: Co-Chair Grant Protzman

Invocation or Thought & Pledge of Allegiance: Committee Member Christina Watson

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Consideration to approve the August 25, 2021, General Plan Advisory Committee Work Session with Planning Commission meeting minutes

ACTIVE AGENDA

2. Public Comments*

3. Future Land Use Map – Work Session Update and Amendments Presenter: Scott Hess, Planning Director

4. Committee/Staff/Mayor comments

5. Adjournment

*Please see notes regarding Public Comments rules and procedure

Public Comments Rules and Procedure

a. Time is made available for anyone in the audience to address the Committee.

b. When a member of the audience addresses the Committee, they will state their name and address.

c. Citizens will be asked to limit their remarks/questions to five (5) minutes each.

d. The Mayor shall have discretion as to who will respond to a comment/question.

e. In all cases the criteria for response will be that comments/questions must be pertinent to this

Committee, that there are no argumentative questions and no personal attacks.

f. Some comments/questions may have to wait for a response until the next Regular Committee Meeting.

g. The Mayor will inform a citizen when he or she has used the allotted time.

The Committee at its discretion may rearrange the order of any item(s) on the agenda. Final action may be taken on any item on the agenda. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodation (including auxiliary communicative aids and service) during the meeting should notify the City Recorder at 801-782-7211 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted within the North Ogden City limits on this 16th day of September, 2021 at North Ogden City Hall, on the City Hall Notice Board, on the Utah State Public Notice Website, and at http://www.northogdencity.com. The 2021 meeting schedule was also provided to the Standard Examiner on December 12, 2020. Susan L. Nance, City Recorder

Page 1

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting August 25, 2021

Page 1 of 6

GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING MINUTES

August 25, 2021

The North Ogden General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting convened in a joint work session with

the Planning Commission on August 25, 2021 at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was also held virtually on

Zoom. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the General

Plan Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal

office, and posted to the Utah State Website on August 20, 2021.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Grant Protzman

Stefanie Casey

Julie Anderson excused

Christina Watson

Dan Nixon

John Arrington

Mark Brown

Tim Billings excused

Ryan Barker

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

Eric Thomas

Lisa Arner

Scott Barker

Alan Lunt

Nicole Nancarrow

Johnson Webb

STAFF:

Neal Berube Mayor

Jon Call City Attorney/Manager

Scott Hess Planning Director

Kai Johnsen Planning Tech

Page 21.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting August 25, 2021

Page 2 of 6

VISITORS:

Trevor Graves Nate Karras Jerry Shaw

Shauna Flinders Steve Flinders Marc Hansen

Co-Chairman Protzman called the meeting to order and Committee Member Brown offered the

invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Co-Chairman Protzman asked those present to introduce themselves.

CONSENT AGENDA:

1. Consideration to approve the June 23, 2021 General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting

minutes

MOTION: Committee Member Brown made a motion to approve the June 23, 2021 General

Plan Advisory Committee Meeting minutes as written. Committee Member Arrington

seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

ACTIVE AGENDA:

2. Public Comments

Jerry Shaw stated he owned a farm at 281 East Lomond View Drive. In 2000 his farm was

placed in a commercial zone. Sometime after that, it was changed to a residential zone but

no one ever told him. He wanted to know who did those things and why. He suggested that

one size didn’t fit all, and he had come to recommend talking to property owners before

making zoning changes. On either side of his farm the land was zoned as commercial, yet

his was not. He wanted the decision overturned because he was contemplating selling, and

the capital gains taxes on residential property are in excess of 40%. He feels cheated. He

urged the committee to decide quickly, though not hastily.

Nick Karras appeared and stated he owned property on 2050 North. It was zoned as

agricultural. The property contains a peach orchard, but he admitted he lacked skill as a

farmer and was considering doing something else with the property. He stated his property

was north of the downtown area and south of some other communities. Properties around

him had duplexes and townhomes on them. He had come to ask if it would be possible to

extend the downtown zone one more block so he could be included in that zone. He wanted

to construct higher density housing on his one acre. He stated he had just recently moved to

North Ogden from Pleasant View and that he had served on the Planning Commission there

so he was aware of what went into the decisions. He felt the time to act was now.

Shawna Flinders stated they had property across from the skate park. She felt it was time to

move forward on what was going to happen with that property. It was currently zoned for a

single family home. Five townhomes would fit on the property, and it was their plan to build

them. She had heard comments from others that their plan would make it look like a wall

Page 31.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting August 25, 2021

Page 3 of 6

had been constructed there. She assured the committee it would not look like a wall, but

there would be something there that was not there before. She felt it would be very nice for

the area.

3. Report from the General Plan Advisory Committee on Future Land Use Map

Presenter: Planning Director Hess

Co-Chairman Protzman introduced this agenda item by giving a brief history of North

Ogden. They wanted to have a downtown area, but needed a critical mass of residents to do

that effectively. They needed to open things up to more concentrated development. They

needed higher density housing with businesses mixed in. The zoning overlay allowed for

this. They needed to think outside the box of single family homes with fences around them

and instead think of cottages and courtyards that left some open space mixed in. This would

also allow for more affordable housing. He then turned the time over to Planning Director

Hess.

Planning Director Hess began his presentation by explaining that the Planning Commission

had asked Staff to combine a General Plan Advisory Committee meeting with the Planning

Commission to work together to review the City’s 2015 General Plan, the General Plan

Advisory Committee’s Future Land Use Recommendation, and the Staff’s Opportunity Areas

Analysis to develop a future land use plan for the City.

Planning Director Hess stated that General Plans were not obligatory, and were not

legislative documents. They were the City’s vision of what they wanted to have vested. A

General Plan becomes vested in one of two ways:

1. An entire City re-zoning process. This was painful and rarely happened.

2. Looking at areas of change and applying the most reasonable zoning above the level

of the last plan.

Hess was proposing an approach based on the second point above. He felt this was the most

reasonable, and fit best the legislative mandate that General Plans meet a bar of being

“reasonably debatable.”

Planning Director Hess went on to discuss concerns that were looked at in establishing zones,

such as walkability. This could lead to the development of an entirely new zone, which

would be just fine if it best met the City’s vision for its future. He made mention of the

concept of transference of development rights, which often caused trouble. Clustering made

more sense as a solution to the problems that made transference of development rights seem

desirable. Clustering offers a lot of variety, while keeping things more in line with

established zoning.

As he spoke, Planning Director Hess referred to a map that was visible to those in attendance,

showing the work of the General Plan Advisory Committee’s proposal for future land use.

As he pointed out various areas on the map, he focused on areas that had been designated as

in need of conservation, as well as the established transportation routes. He acknowledged

Page 41.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting August 25, 2021

Page 4 of 6

that density predictably developed around transportation routes. He asked how the City

wanted to preserve the best features of its agricultural land. He asked how they wanted to

ensure that their children and grandchildren could afford and would want to live in North

Ogden in 25-30 years. He suggested clustering would be a way to address all these points.

Planning Director Hess referenced the land of Jerry Shaw, who had made a public comment

stating that at some point the zone on his agricultural land had been changed to residential.

Hess suggested the change probably happened in 2015 when the most recent General Plan

was approved. He acknowledged that such changes should be a public process, though it was

very hard to make them so. It was stated that contact with citizens was often perfunctorily

made with some kind of direction to look on Facebook to learn more. That was not effective.

Yet contacting people in person, by phone, or by a specific mailing—though very effective—

was prohibitive. There needed to be some kind of middle ground for community-based

outreach. There needed to be a way so that people get to make more decisions about their

own property than what City officials make, while at the same time providing timely

guidance for the different developers that want to come in.

Planning Director Hess indicated that the next step in the process was to ask what applicable

zones would be acceptable in the various areas that were not fully developed at the present

time. Then they should move those recommendations to the Planning Commission so they

could put it into place so developers would have something to work with. He stated he

wanted the next section of the meeting to be in open house style to look at the maps, mark

impressions on a whiteboard, and have a working conversation.

Before the open house began, there were some important comments from others in the room.

It was noted that the balance between private property rights and shared resources such as

public safety and traffic was a tough balance to maintain. A property owner may want to do

exactly as he pleased because he felt it was his right to do so, but as he started off to do that

he ran into problems with traffic, for example. The main point was that North Ogden would

grow whether they wanted it to or not and there would be increased conflicts. So they should

come together and make that growth be better than it would be otherwise.

The Committee questioned if this was a push to change everything right now. The answer

was no, and in the course of that conversation the immediate purpose of this meeting came

into sharp focus.

• Go through each of the areas that were identified on the map as having potentially

developable space.

• Decide which three or so zones the group would be comfortable in approving for each

specific area to cover the next 25-35 years. This was the core of the overlay concept.

• Anyone wanting to change their property from one zone to another zone could look at

their property on the map and see what other zones were allowable for that specific

area.

• If they asked for a change to another allowable zone, they could have it.

Page 51.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting August 25, 2021

Page 5 of 6

The open house period then began as people mingled as they sought to make the decisions

Planning Director Hess had suggested. Some of the topics that came up during the period

included:

• Explanation of the color coding of the map on display

• Conservation easements

• Agricultural methods

• The need for park space

• Small one or two-home developments

• How single-family homes, though much needed, do not generate as much tax revenue

as commercial property

• The hope that residents would spend their money in North Ogden rather than

elsewhere

• Timeline for decision-making

• Trails

4. Moderate Income Housing Update and Recommendation

Presenter: Planning Director Hess

Planning Director Hess opened this item by stating that the State required Cities to provide

an update on moderate income housing every other year, and in the off-years to submit a

report. Hess had established what that would look like for the present year, and offered it to

the group for approval. He had several points of additions and eliminations covering such

topics as density, preservation, clustering, subdivisions, subsidizations, mortgage assistance,

and land trusts.

Planning Director Hess provided an explanation of land trusts. This was a situation where a

non-profit group owned the land and the house was sold separately. The owner of the land

would impose appreciation limits on the house in this method. When it was time to sell,

ownership would revert back to the non-profit. This might be a way to drive affordability,

though it placed a huge administrative burden on a City. The State could potentially take this

over and act as a bank, which would make it easier for the cities.

Co-Chairman Protzman asked if there were objections to having Planning Director Hess

write this up as he had explained it and move it up the ladder. All seemed to show support, so

Protzman concluded with, “There is a straw poll strongly behind you.”

5. Discussion on next steps and Committee assignments

Presenter: Co-Chairman Protzman

Co-Chairman Protzman indicated he wanted to talk to Co-Chairman Casey about this in

order to decide how best to make assignments. He wanted to flesh out the concepts first and

then they would make assignments and ask folks to come back with definitive ideas. Casey

stated that she felt overlay zones were really going to be the ticket, but she wanted to

understand better how they would work. After all this work was done, they would push it up

Page 61.

General Plan Advisory Committee Meeting August 25, 2021

Page 6 of 6

to the Planning Commission, and from there it would go as a recommendation to the City

Council.

Planning Director Hess suggested all this could be done in the next month, before another

meeting occurred, and shared electronically between one another. He invited anyone with

additional comments to e-mail them to him. Timing was important, as there were landowners

that had pending applications awaiting these decisions.

The question was raised if there would be a public hearing before all of this was finalized.

Planning Director Hess outlined the various points at which a public could take place but

City Attorney/Manager Call suggested the best time would be at the very end of the process,

once a tentative final map was drawn up. In that way, members of the public could see

where mistakes had been made, if there were any. They could then make corrections before

a final vote of approval. They discussed ways for announcing such a public hearing, which

might be a few months out. The suggestion was made that posting the map in advance of the

meeting so people could view it first would aid residents in deciding whether to come to a

meeting or not. City Attorney/Manager Call agreed, and stated that likely notice of the

Public Hearing would go out by letter to every household.

6. Committee/Commissioners/Staff/Mayor comments

There were none.

7. Adjournment

MOTION: Committee Member Dan Nixon made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Planning

Commissioner Eric Thomas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:49 pm

_____________________________

Grant Protzman, Co-Chairman

_____________________________

Joyce Pierson, Deputy City Recorder

_____________________________

Date Approved

Page 71.

Staff Report to the General Plan Advisory Committee

SYNOPSIS / APPLICATION INFORMATION

Application Request: Discussion Item: Report to the General Plan Advisory Committee

Agenda Date: September 22, 2021

Applicant: Planning Department Staff

File Number: N/A

STAFF INFORMATION

Scott A. Hess

shess@nogden.org

(801) 737-9841

BACKGROUND

The General Plan Advisory Committee and the North Ogden Planning Commission met together on

August 25, 2021, to review proposed amendments to the General Plan Future Land Use Map. Those in

attendance included members of the public who provided comments on specific properties and

proposed rezones that are currently under review. The attached map DRAFT 2021 General Plan Future

Land Use Map (see Attachment A) includes those comments along with a numbered description of

recommended amendments in this staff report below.

Staff would like to reiterate that the majority of the 2021 General Plan Future Land Use Map is

recommended to remain consistent with the 2015 Plan. The 2015 Plan is well thought out and preserves

the character of the existing community in many areas of the city, with highly desirable housing options,

excellent access to open space, and productive commercial areas. There are however areas of change

and opportunity within the community. These four key areas are: Residential Hillside Cluster, Urban

Agricultural Protection Area, South Town Mixed Use, and the North Ogden Downtown Area.

Future Land Use Map Amendments:

1. North Ogden Downtown Area: Include properties that abut the North Ogden City Shops as well

as the 5,000 square foot lots south of City Hall.

a. Zoning: RCC (with addition of duplexes), R-2, R-3, R-4

2. Remove the area along 200 E. from “North Ogden Downtown Area” as it is fully developed with

large lot single-family homes. Retain the eastern rear portion of those lots as future growth area

Page 83.

General Plan Discussion Page 2 of 3

in North Ogden Downtown Area if residents determine it in their best interest to combine and

divide off portions of their existing lots.

3. North Ogden Downtown Area: Include undeveloped land west of Patriot Point from 2550 N to

Montgomery Farms Subdivision.

a. Zoning: C-2, R-4, MPC (with mixed use)

4. Future Commercial Town Center – Focus on historic aspects to The Cannery and Kirt’s Drive-in.

Redevelopment area could include mix of uses, daylighting Cold Creek, and creating a unique

gathering place, urban open space, commercial entryway into the city.

a. Zoning: Future Mixed-Use Zone to permit housing along with walkable commercial

5. Weber County School District owned property changed to Civic/Institutional Use to reflect future

school.

a. Zoning: Civic/Institutional

6. South Town Mixed Use: Include property around 1700 N to 1500 N, west of Washington

Boulevard.

a. Zoning: C-2, R-4, MPC (with mixed use)

7. Potential future Commercial at Monroe Blvd. and 1700 N.

a. Zoning: Future Neighborhood Commercial

8. Potential future Commercial at Mountain Rd. and 1700 N.

a. Zoning: Future Neighborhood Commercial

9. Urban Agricultural Protection Area: Reduce the size of the “Potential Conservation Area” based

on existing underlying land uses and developed park space which is not expected to change.

Focus future potential on ways to preserve remaining open space through clustered subdivisions.

a. Zoning: RE-20, R-1-10 (with 30% land conservation)

b. Density Bonus Calculation Example:

i. 10-acre parcel at RE-20 (20,000 sqft lots) = 21 lots

ii. 10-acre with 30% land preservation (7-acres remaining after preservation), apply

R-10 zone as bonus density (10,000 sqft lots) = 30 lots

iii. Determine character standards for preserved space / specific assets to preserve

in addition to percentage preserved.

10. Potential future Commercial at Fruitland Dr. and 2100 N.

a. Zoning: Future Neighborhood Commercial

11. Residential Hillside Cluster: Retail underlying zoning but apply a density bonus for open space

preservation.

a. Zoning: HP-1, HP-2, HP-3, (Open Space Preservation: 25% density bonus for preservation

of 25% of open space)

b. Density Bonus Calculation:

i. 50-acre parcel at HP-3 (2-acre lots) = 25 lots

ii. 50-acre with 25% land reduction (37.5 remaining after preservation), apply 25%

increase in density to base zone) = 31 lots (overall size of lots becomes 1.2 acres)

Page 93.

General Plan Discussion Page 3 of 3

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff is asking the General Plan Advisory Committee to review the submitted information and provide

guidance on desired changes. Guidance provided will be taken forward to the Planning Commission for

a recommendation, and ultimately to the City Council to act on the General Plan Future Land Use Map.

EXHIBITS

A. DRAFT 2021 General Plan Future Land Use Map

Page 103.

1

2

3

4

7

9 10

8

1

11

9/20/2021

DRAFT

9

9

5 6

Page 113.