Minutes for 2009-08-04, Direct pdf link.
MINUTES
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, August 4, 2009 - 10:00 a.m.
Commission Chambers, 2380 Washington Blvd., Ogden, Utah
In accordance with the requirements of Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-7(1)(d), the County Clerk records in the minutes the names of all citizens who appear and speak at a County Commission meeting and the substance “in brief” of their comments. Such statements may include opinion or purported facts. The County does not verify the accuracy or truth of any statement but includes it as part of the record pursuant to state law.Commissioners: Craig L. Dearden, Chair; Jan M. Zogmaister; and Kenneth A. Bischoff.
Others Present: Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney; Roger Brunker, Clerk/Auditor’s Office; Fátima Fernelius, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.
A. Welcome - Chair Dearden
B. Pledge of Allegiance - Shelly Halacy
C. Thought of the Day - Chair Dearden
D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $551,031.58
2. Ratify Warrants #252352-252715 in the amount of $1,893,995.91, dated July 28, 2009
3. Warrants #252716-252929 in the amount of $722,525.49, dated August 4, 2009
4. Minutes for the meetings held on July 21 and 28, 2009
5. New business licenses
6. Surplus network & telecommunications equipment from County Information Technology Department
7. Surplus two trucks from the County Recreation Department
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
E. Action Items:
1. Request to approve Contract with Civil Science, Inc., to perform preliminary engineering, environmental review, design engineering and bid document preparation
This item was held.
2. Ratify a contract with the Department of the Army/Corp. of Engineers for use of approximately 22 acres of the Army Reserve Center adjacent to the Golden Spike Event Center for event support - Contract C2009-134
Jennifer Graham, County Recreation Facilities Director, presented this license to use Browning Army Reserve property for five years, 8/1/2009-7/31/2014.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve Contract C2009-134, ratifying a contract with the Department of the Army/Corp. of Engineers for use of approximately 22 acres of the Army Reserve Center adjacent to the Golden Spike Event Center; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
3. Approval to proceed with the purchase of UPRR Property
Nate Pierce, County Operations Department Director, stated that on 5/12/2009 the County Commission approved a Release of Interest Agreement whereby the Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR) agreed to release its interest in a parcel necessary for the continued development of the trail system within Weber County. This Release of Interest by UPRR allows the county, after a 90-day due diligence period, to purchase this property. During the due diligence period a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and a property survey were completed. There were no current recognized environmental conditions associated with the property or others within the radii searched. Although there were some discrepancies in the property boundaries from what UPRR had given the county after holding discussions with UPRR Mr. Pierce felt it was appropriate to acquire the property.
Weber Pathways has wanted to acquire the property to facilitate the trail system but UPRR will only sell this property to a governmental entity. Jeff Ellis, of Weber Pathways, stated that Weber Pathways will provide the funding for this purchase although Weber County will be the buyer. Weber Pathways will also provide a fence between the property being purchased and the railroad property that UPRR is retaining. The county will grant to Weber Pathways a conservation easement so that the property will always be used for a trail for the Weber River Parkway.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to proceed with the purchase of the Union Pacific Rail Road property as outlined in the minutes. Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
4. Interlocal Agreement with the Ogden City School District relating to RAMP funding - Contract C2009-135
Mike Caldwell, County Public Information Officer, stated that this was to help fund and improve four vacant lots, owned by the Ogden City School District, to become playable fields. Mr. Caldwell noted that this agreement was different from other RAMP agreements and a significant amount of time had been spent drafting it. He referred to Section 12 that states the fields and amenities will be available to all Weber County citizens after 6p.m. until dark during the school year and throughout the day when school is not in session.
Commissioner Zogmaister asked if the RAMP contract was with the Ogden City School Foundation or the Ogden City School District and Mr. Caldwell responded that the foundation has to be a 501(c)(3) or federally recognized non-profit to own the land, therefore, they partnered with the School District to obtain the land and be the liaison. Commissioner Zogmaister noted that if the District considers year-round schooling it would affect access. She asked where these fields were and Mr. Caldwell said that they were at two Junior High Schools and at two Elementary Schools. The Foundation will be responsible for the grant and will manage the construction process. The RAMP funds are to purchase backdrops, basketball standards, etc. Commissioner Bischoff asked if they would be mostly used by students, noting that during school hours they would be limited to the students in those schools. Mr. Caldwell responded that the RAMP Board had discussed this and felt that public access to recreational facilities of this type were not really in demand until after school is out.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2009-135, Interlocal Agreement with the Ogden City School District relating to RAMP funding; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
5. Approval to correct a remainder parcel error created by the Recorder’s Office
Ernest Rowley, County Recorder/Surveyor, addressed two parcels:
15-304-0014 - This is a 1-foot wide holding strip alongside a road in the Hunter Place Subdivision in which a holding strip agreement, recorded as Entry 1781077, states that the agreement is to run for 10 years and after that time (6/26/2001) the agreement will be null and void and the strip will become part of the dedicated right-of-way of 2475 South Street. Although the agreement has not expired, Mr. Rowley’s opinion is that holding strips should not have a tax serial number attached to them because they become part of the public right-of-way and they can cause problems for the county at tax sale time. The landowner does not own the land; it has been dedicated as part of the public road. He asked that the county remove the land serial number from this holding strip. 06-096-046 - Mr. Rowley determined that this parcel should not have been created in the tax records and probably occurred due to past County Recorder practices in the mapping process.
The parcel went to tax sale (1987) and was struck off to the county. Mr. Rowley said that the Babcocks were the adjoining property owners and he recommended that the county issue a Quit Claim Deed to them with the original description. By doing this the record title will remain intact–the Babcocks deed includes the property that was sold at the tax sale and the county is not giving property to them that they do not currently own.
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to retire LSNs 15-304-0014 and 06-096-046 and execute a Quit Claim Deed to Daniel and Hanna Babcock; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
F. Public hearings:
1. Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
2. Public hearing regarding amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 44, Ogden Valley Destination and Recreation Resort Zone; Chapter 1, General Provisions; Chapter 18, Ogden Valley Architectural, Landscape and Screening Standards; Chapter 32B, Ogden Valley Signs; and Chapter 35, Petitioner Requirements, Rezoning Procedure and Development Agreement
Scott Mendoza, County Planning Division, said that the Recreation Element of the Ogden Valley General Plan calls for a Resort Ordinance and that during its planning process “it became clear that the preferred scenario for the future of Ogden Valley is one that combines growth, land protection and creative resort and recreation development...[that could] allow landowners to transfer density to designated resort villages and in turn receive financially attractive development options that protect open land and encourage the creation of new recreation facilities by the private sector. This approach can expand the recreation opportunities in Ogden Valley, protect the currently overused public lands, encourage the preservation of open space, make transportation in the Valley more efficient, and maintain the profit potential for landowners.” Additionally, that the “future of Ogden Valley’s character will be dependent on the future development success of its resort areas, which is why preserving the Ogden Valley’s character is so tied to the need for a variety of progressive resort development guidelines.”
The Ogden Valley Planning Commission and the County Commission began meeting in September 2008 in a work-session type forum to consider this ordinance and the Commissioners were asked to give general direction to the Planning staff.
On 6/23/2009 the Ogden Valley Planning Commission held a public hearing which resulted in a recommendation that the County Commission adopt/add Chapter 44, Ogden Valley Destination and Recreation Resort Zone, to the County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mendoza noted the three items in the ordinance before the commissioners that had not been discussed with the County Commissioners:
1) to be eligible to receive Transfer Incentive Matching Units (TIMUs) and Density Bonus Units (DBUs), the units transferred to the Resort shall be from an elevation of 6,200 feet and below. Units transferred from an elevation above 6,200 ft. are permitted but shall not be eligible for TIMUs or DBUs. This is to focus the efforts on transferring density away from the Valley floor. Past public input placed a lot of emphasis on preserving the Valley floor. The 6,200 ft. was arrived at by studying a contour map and the obvious shift from valley floor, to foothills and steeper mountainous terrain. Commissioner Zogmaister asked if using the 6,200 figure would eliminate participation by current county resorts and Mr. Mendoza replied it did not and explained how they could participate.
Additions to the list of uses: 2) “Agriculture” and 3) “Recreation Vehicle Storage”
Mr. Mendoza read the list of sections of the proposed ordinance and briefly explained the amendments to existing Zoning Ordinances to reflect the Resort Ordinance such as to Chapter 1, General Provisions (adding 14 new definitions); Chapter 18C, Ogden Valley Architectural, Landscape and Screening Standards (moving a section from the Resort Ordinance into Chapter 18C relating to resort landscaping); Chapter 32B, Ogden Valley Signs (a section will be moved into this chapter to address signs); and Chapter 35, Destination & Recreation Resort Zone Supplementary Requirements.
Commissioner Zogmaister recommended changing language under Purpose & Intent from “compensates landowners...” to “allows landowners...” Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, recommended striking “by-right density” under Maximum Permitted Units because it is hypothetical to state what density one will have by-right. Mr. Mendoza presented clarifying language to 44-2(3)(b) relating to increasing densities in the event of an existing development agreement. The Commissioners and Mr. Mendoza concurred on the changes.
Chair Dearden invited public comments. Steven Roberts, of Wolf Creek Properties, stated that Mr. Mendoza had already addressed the issue he was going to address. He said that there were two developments adjacent to Wolf Creek–Eagles Landing and Eagles Ridge–and that both have development agreements with the county that set the density, thus that would not be based upon current zoning and he asked if language to refer to “previous development agreements with the county” could be added. Ms. Hurtado believed that Mr. Roberts was referring to settlement agreements and asked if the commissioners were comfortable allowing the language for any development agreement or consent agreement. Mr. Mendoza said that there was a Consent Agreement with Eagles Landing and then a Zoning Development Agreement.
Rod Gleason, of Huntsville, felt that the objectives of this item had been met, the process fair, the duration more than adequate, all interested parties had ample opportunities to participate and staff had done a great job in moving this forward. He was concerned now with the wording change being proposed and asked for clarification. He asked if people could pick and choose pieces of the resort ordinance, without becoming a resort, and to transfer units into a master plan and take advantage of a TDR ordinance, which was not in place. Chair Dearden and Commissioner Zogmaister said that in order to take advantage of this ordinance, the applicants would have to meet all the criteria of a resort, and if they do not meet the acreage criteria, they cannot participate. Mr. Mendoza stated that was correct and explained the process which someone would have to follow including submitting a petition to rezone to become a recreation resort zone, submitting a plan and meet all the criteria. He did not believe this allowed picking and choosing parts of ordinances but rather promoted TDRs and moving towards allowing a resort to start participating in the program and sending density to the resort. The proposed change would allow them to retain development rights associated with the current project and, assuming they meet all the resort zone criteria, they could start bringing in density into that receiving area.
Clint Ensign, Senior Vice President of Sinclair Companies (which includes Snow Basin), strongly supported this draft ordinance stating that the product addressed concerns of the Valley residents about growth and the concept that density must be earned. He has worked for Sinclair for 25 years and with various governments and stated that the meetings of the two commissions and stakeholders were some of the most productive and remarkable gatherings that he has been a part of. There had been great openness and respect for comments and the resulting work product was quite remarkable. He thanked the Commission, the planning staff and Valley stakeholders.
Kirt Langford, Eden Planning Committee Chair, thanked the County and Planning Commissions and Planning staff for this progressive plan for resort zones stating it was a good collaborative effort. He hoped it leads to the next step of a transfer development rights ordinance for the Valley where they can revise the cluster ordinance, rather than to simply grant bonus units. He was unclear of the ramifications to the resort zone from the language that Mr. Mendoza had given to the Commission today but would like this ordinance adopted.
Dave Nielsen, of LaPlata Ranch (about 1,200 acres are within Weber County), located in the FR-40 Zone, had read the proposed ordinance and did not have any substantive problems with it, but had some questions. It appeared that the objective was to preserve open space in the Valley as it is today, thus he first asked Planning staff and then the Assessor’s Office how many fully improved building lots exist without any homes or buildings but he could not get an answer. He was later referred to the GIS Department which indicated that it probably would be possible to make that determination. It appears to Mr. Nielsen that there are many building lots, whether in Wolf Creek or other subdivisions, with improvements and he asked how many more homes could be built in the Valley–he had heard an estimate of 2,000–in order to address how much traffic and open space they would need because open space is valuable. He recommended that the Commission ask GIS staff to determine that because it might be a useful tool. He asked if it would be possible to transfer development rights off of an existing subdivision where a house may never be built on a lot. Mr. Mendoza addressed Mr. Nielsen and Commissioner Bischoff’s questions regarding methods of transferring development rights by referring to the ordinance.
3. Public hearing to consider amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 36-B, Hillside Development Review Procedures and Standards
Iris Hennon, County Planning Division, stated that Planning Division staff was recommending amendments to this ordinance to clarify the existing language that included the functionality of the Hillside Review Board, grading and landscaping standards, and creating an appeals process. She outlined some of the major amendments: the Planning Commission member is no longer the Review Board chair, the County Excavation Ordinance is referenced, slope, cut and fill standards are clarified and a new section addresses appeals.
Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission had made some amendments that were not incorporated in the ordinance language that the County Commission had reviewed and State Code has important language that also should be incorporated in the appeal section.
Chair Dearden invited public comments:
Keith Rounkles, Ogden Valley Planning Commission, expressed his support for the proposed language discussed today stating that it was more fair. He thanked Ms. Hennon for her good work.
4Commissioner Zogmaister moved to adjourn the public hearing and reconvene the public meeting; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
5. Action on public hearings:
F.2.-Public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 44, Chapter 1, Chapter 18, Chapter 32B, and Chapter 35
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the first reading of the Recreation Resort Zone Ordinance with the amendments that were discussed; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
F.3.-Public hearing to consider amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 36-B, Hillside Development Review Procedures and Standards
Commissioner Zogmaister moved to approve the first reading of the Hillside Development Ordinance with the amendments that were discussed; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
Chair Dearden thanked Planning staff for their good work on these ordinances. He also thanked all those who participated in the meetings for the resort ordinance stating that a lot of effort had been put into the ordinance, and it was good to have the community involved in this type of item.
G. Assign Pledge of Allegiance & Thought of the Day for Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 10 a.m.
H. Public Comments:
Lynette Penrod, of Plain City, expressed concerns with the proposed landfill in western Weber County with the ongoing site development activities prior to the issuance of the Class IVb permit from the State and dedication of the road. She noted that these were improvements that the county is responsible to pay for pursuant to the provisions of its contract C2008-227, Real Estate Purchase Contract, and that this generates its own set of competitive bidding issues since those are county improvements. She has concerns that the county is seeking the Class IVb permit in its name and also who is responsible for acting on behalf of the county; currently, Mr. Moulding has no active contract to act as an agent for the county and she had been told that Mr. Moulding is acting independently–for example, that he is improving his farm road by laying asphalt. She is concerned with what is and what is not a violation of the various permitting ordinances and with the different information that she has received on different days, with the lack of communication among the various Weber County Departments and with their lack of communication with the Commission–for example, it was her understanding that the Commission had not been told that there is a provision in the Real Estate Purchase Contract that requires a notice to proceed from the county as the buyer, which did not occur, and that provision serves to void that contract. She did not believe the commissioners were aware of that or of her concerns with the ongoing site development that began in March. She said that these moving targets and the changing information put her and others in a position they do not want to be in–recording conversations or asking people to sign off on statements that they have made from one day to the next.
Ms. Penrod felt that neither ignorance of this situation nor lack of communication justifies the failure to resolve this issue. She said that Gary Laird, County Solid Waste Administrator, responded to one of her GRAMA requests stating that no money had been paid on either of the contracts–the Real Estate Purchase Contract or the Operating Contract–and she wanted to know whether the initial $750,000 on the land and engineering had been paid. Chair Dearden’s understanding was that it was contingent on approval, thus it had not been paid. Ms. Penrod said that State statute 17-15-23, which requires that each county have a solid waste management plan, also mandates that it adopt and implement a funding mechanism for the plan and she did not know where those monies were coming from for the purchase of the engineering services and the site improvements. Then she recalled that Mr. Laird had told her the funds were coming from the Solid Waste Fund. She added that Contract C2008-228, Operating and Management Contract, had been made with an entity that does not have a contracting license to perform the operations that are required to be performed under that agreement.
I. Adjourn
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn at 10:40 a.m.; Commissioner Zogmaister seconded, all voting aye.
Craig L. Dearden, Chair
Weber County Commission
Alan D. McEwan, CPA
Weber County Clerk/Auditor