GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA … · 2020. 1. 23. · General Plan Steering Committee Meeting August 28 , 2019 Page 1 of 9 . GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE . MEETING

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA JANUARY 29, 2020 AT 6:00 PM 505 EAST 2600 NORTH NORTH OGDEN, UT 84414

Welcome: Mayor Berube

Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance: By Invitation

AGENDA

1. Public Comments*

2. Minutes Consideration a. Consideration to approve the August 28, 2019, General Plan Steering Committee Meeting minutes b. Consideration to approve the October 23, 2019, General Plan Steering Committee Meeting minutes

3. Discussion concerning the direction for the General Plan Steering Committee

4. Discussion concerning Central Business District (CBD) Presenter: Rob Scott, Planning Director

5. Public Comments*

6. Committee/Staff/Mayor Comments

7. Adjournment

*Please see notes regarding Public Comments rules and procedure

Public Comments/Questions

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, needing special accommodation (including auxiliary communicative aids and service) during the meeting should notify Annette Spendlove, City Recorder at 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 24th day of January 2020, at North Ogden City Hall, on the City Hall Notice Board, on the Utah State Public Notice Website, at , and faxed to the Standard Examiner. The 2020 meeting schedule was also provided to the Standard Examiner on December 22, 2019.

Page 1

General Plan Steering Committee Meeting August 28, 2019 Page 1 of 9

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

August 28, 2019 The North Ogden General Plan Steering Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on August 28, 2019 at 6:02 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on August 22, 2019. MEMBERS: Christian George Dan Nixon Dave Gordon - Excused Don Waite, Planning Commissioner Eric Thomas, Planning Commission Chairman Grant Protzman (arrived at 6:55) Ryan Barker, City Council Member Phillip Swanson, City Council Member - Excused

Robert Bolar Susannah Burt Stephanie Casey Julie Anderson Meg Sanders Mark Brown Charlotte Bailey Bruce Christensen

STAFF: Brent Chugg Mayor Jon Call City Attorney/Manager Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant VISITORS: Dale Anderson Brenda Ashdown

Blake Cevering Mike Ostermiller

Mayor Chugg called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Julie Anderson offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA:

Page 22.


1. Consideration to approve the July 30, 2019, General Plan Steering Committee minutes Meg Sanders wished to correct an error in the minutes. Julie Anderson reported to the group information that it is not yet a requirement for cities to comply with affordable housing legislation, but that comment was not attributed to her. Rather, it was attributed to a male member of the group. Stefanie Casey stated that she noticed the same error. Julie Anderson’s comments at the beginning of the meeting were not included in the minutes. Mark Brown made a motion to accept the minutes with the changes suggested by Meg Sanders and Stefanie Casey. Bruce Christensen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA: 2. Public Comments There were no public comments. 3. Overview from Mike Ostermiller, CEO, Northern Wasatch Association of Relators Robert Bolar stated that during the last meeting of this Committee, he reported that Mike Ostermiller is familiar with the topics that this Committee is considering. He is also heavily involved in the legislative process in the State of Utah and so he invited him to attend the meeting tonight to provide information about housing issues in the State. Mr. Ostermiller began by providing the Committee with some background and contextual information about the Affordable Housing Bill that was adopted by the Legislature in 2019. A task force was assembled to draft the legislation and he feels there are some great things about the legislation, but also some things that need to be fixed. There was a wealth of analytics studied regarding affordable housing and it became abundantly clear that if the State of Utah is not currently in an affordable housing crisis, it will not be long before that is the case. He reported that over the last 10 years, the State of Utah has created 54,000 more households than there are housing units available. For every year, for the last 10 years, there have been four new households for every three new housing units that have come online. He assumed that was due to migration to the State, but it is also largely due to organic growth. This all equates to a severe supply and demand problem in the middle of a hot housing market, which results in astronomical housing costs on the purchase and rental side. Utah housing prices have increased at a greater pace than in San Francisco, Seattle, and San Jose. The task force understood this is not good for the future generations of the State that will be looking for a place to live. Some cities have embraced the need to provide affordable housing while others have shunned affordable housing. They do not want to allow any type of housing that is not single-family detached on a half-acre lot. This is creating challenges. For the last 30 years, the State of Utah has had a requirement for cities to put a moderate-income housing plan in place, but many cities have never done it, or their plans are grossly outdated. The reason for this is that there

Page 32.


was no reporting requirement nor penalties for failure to comply with the legislation. That is why Senate Bill 34 (SB34) was drafted, but there was recognition that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that is why the bill includes a menu of options from which each city can choose three in order to be in compliance with the legislation. This was done to provide flexibility to communities while giving them tools needed to comply with the law. Meg Sanders stated that she saw that nine senators voted against the legislation, including Alan Christensen, and she asked Mr. Ostermiller’s view of the reasoning behind those opposing votes. Mr. Ostermiller stated he feels this was largely due to a lack of understanding of the intention of the legislation as well as receiving pressure from local governing bodies or mayors about concerns that the legislation would require them to construct apartments in their city. There were just some misconceptions about the legislation. The Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) was very involved in drafting the legislation, but individual municipalities were not and the contacted their representatives without first gaining a full understanding of the implications of the law. City Manager/Attorney Call asked if the task force recommended a ‘magic percentage’ for the number of affordable units per capita. Mr. Ostermiller no and indicated the task force avoided that on purpose because they wanted each city to have the ability to customize their affordable housing plan to their community. Additionally, it would be unfair to require a certain number of units as that may not be reasonable in the future if the market slows. The task force and legislature alike are simply interested in seeing improvements in the affordable housing stock in cities throughout the State. Bruce Christensen stated there was some threat that cities who did not comply with the legislation would not be eligible to receive Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) monies from the State. He asked what would happen if a city were to develop a plan, but it is decided that plan is not sufficient, and that the city should not be eligible for TIF funding. Mr. Ostermiller stated that there were three schools of thought on the task force. One was that there should be no penalty, one was that there should be severe penalties, and the third was risk of losing access to TIF funds. He stated that all the decision makers are looking for are improvements in the amount of affordable housing available and that the respective city’s plan addresses three items on the menu of options. The standard for compliance is designed to be fairly low because it would take a city completely ignoring the legislation or not filing a report at all to be at risk of being deemed to be noncompliant and ineligible for TIF funding. He stated the very last item on the menu of options is “any other program or strategy implemented by the municipality to address the housing needs of residents in the municipality”. This is so broad in nature and could be met with any attempt of any substance that is meant to be a catchall to address moderate housing needs. The State is seeing several different types of creative development project concepts that create affordable housing in a single-family setting. Julie Anderson stated there have been discussions about need for changes to the legislation and she has heard that it will be raised again in a special session. Mr. Ostermiller stated the affordable housing task force has continued to meet since the 2019 regular session ended. Ms. Anderson asked if those meetings are public, to which Mr. Ostermiller answered yes and most of the meetings that take place at the capitol are actually streamed live. He noted that so far in those meetings there has not been conversation about making substantive changes to the legislation and he does not see that happening in a special session. Ms. Anderson asked who the City is required to report to as she could not find that information in the bill. Mr. Call stated that the City will report to the workforce housing

Page 42.


group. However, he has concerns about this group trying to require additional reporting data that is not called for in the legislation. Mr. Ostermiller asked that Mr. Call provide information about those additional reporting requirements that the workforce housing group is seeking. He also suggested that this Committee seek information from the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). Their website has quality data about opportunities for partnering with different entities or groups that can aid in developing a moderate housing plan. Ms. Sanders stated she feels the legislation ‘pigeon-holes’ cities like North Ogden because there are so many of the menu options that are not applicable to the City. Mr. Ostermiller stated that may be correct, but there are likely many of the other menu options, such as “rezone for densities necessary to ensure the production of moderate-income housing” are already being done by North Ogden and cities like it. There is no reason for a community to continue to do things the way it has always done it when there are opportunities for creative planning that will respond to a market demand. There was brief high-level discussion about the current housing stock in North Ogden and those areas of the City that would meet the definition of moderate income. The group then asked Mr. Ostermiller to identify those specific menu options that he would define as ‘easy’ to implement in order to comply with the legislation. Mr. Ostermiller provided his opinion as asked and engaged in discussion with the committee about various types of projects that would meet the menu options suggested by Mr. Ostermiller. He then thanked the committee for inviting him to the meeting and indicated his willingness to be a resource to them in the future. 4. Committee Reports

a. Item C - Mark Brown Mark Brown stated that he evaluated the feasibility of item “c” in the menu options of SB34,

which is “facilitate the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable housing stock into moderate income housing (MIH)”. He stated that he drove around the City and only found two vacant homes. One of the homes is now abandoned, but is owned by a family that is unwilling to sell it. He spoke with City staff who communicated to him that in the past any uninhabitable home has been purchased quickly, upgraded, and then flipped for a substantially higher value. Based on this information, he would not consider item “c” to be a good menu option for the City to consider as a means to comply with the legislation. Don Waite agreed and stated that the practice of flipping dilapidated homes has resulted in an increase of property values in neighborhoods that cannot absorb that increase. It is a very negative situation for many communities, like Rose Park in Salt Lake or in Ogden City.

Dan Nixon stated that he agrees with Mr. Brown’s conclusion. The housing stock in North

Ogden is too nice and the desire to live in this community is too great for there to be a situation where the City has a large amount uninhabitable homes that are in need of rehabilitation. b. Item G & K - Meg Sanders Meg Sanders stated she evaluated items “g” and “k”; item “g”, which is to “encourage higher density or moderate-income residential development near major transit investment corridors” is not a viable option for the City because there is not a major transit investment corridor. Eric Thomas inquired as to the definition of ‘major transit investment corridor’, to which Ms. Sanders responded something like a dedicated bus lane, light rail, or other major public transit amenity. She spoke to the WFRC about this matter and they agreed there are no major transit

Page 52.


investment corridors in the City and there are also none planned for the future. She then stated item “k” , which is “utilize strategies that preserve subsidized low to moderate income units on a long-term basis” is a possibility for the City. On the national level, there is something called the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, which can be applied for by cities to be applied to lower income housing developments in the community. She provided the Committee members with an outline of the program to illustrate the steps that the City would need to take in order to be eligible to receive credits. This led to high level discussion regarding the median income in North Ogden and the types of housing products that would qualify for the LIHTC program. Ms. Sanders stated qualifying for the program is an arduous process, but it may be worth exploring. Mr. Call stated Pleasant View was involved in a LIHTC project in their city and he can reach out to them to get information about their experience. c. Item I & J - Stephanie Casey Stephanie Casey stated she reviewed items “i” and “j”; item “i” which is, “allow for single room occupancy developments” is not what she suspected it was. She initially thought that allowing vacation rentals would satisfy this option, but she learned it related more to long term single-room rentals. She then stated item “j”, which is “implement zoning incentives for low to moderate income units in new developments”, led her to research options for providing zoning incentives. She reviewed one of the City’s first reports to the State regarding affordable housing and noted it referenced the creation of the Master Planned Community (MPC) zone and communicated that it allowed for higher density housing along transportation corridors and other larger project-based developments. The MPC zone offers commercial and higher density housing development and she feels that the presence of this zoning option along with the City’s ability to waive impact fees or provide Community Development Area (CDA) tax increment funding, this meets item “j”. The group discussed this option and concluded it is a viable possibility for the City to continue to explore in order to use this menu option for complying with the legislation. d. Item L - Charlotte Bailey Charlotte Bailey stated she analyzed item “l”, which is preserving existing MIH. She encountered some difficulty in determining how much MIH stock the City currently has, but she researched the things that other cities have done to preserve their MIH stock. This includes providing incentives to rental property owners to keep rental rates low and offering tax incentives for energy efficiency upgrades. She stated she feels these things would be easy to do in North Ogden and the Committee agreed item “l” is a good option for the group to explore further. e. Item O - Julie Anderson Julie Anderson reported on item “o”, which is “implement a mortgage assistance program for employees of the municipality or of an employer that provides contracted services to the municipality”. She found an article from the Deseret News with the headline “Program aims to help Utah teachers, officers, public employees afford homes”. She looked into this program that was actually launched by Ivory Homes. She presented a document that provided additional detailed information about the program, which is geared towards first-time homebuyers. Homes range in price from $200,000 to $250,000 and there are restrictions on the buyers such as how long they must stay in the home and that they cannot make more than a certain percentage profit when they decide to sell the home. She noted that Ogden City has a similar program that

Page 62.


provides home buying assistance for certain employees. This would be something that would be an option for North Ogden as it may be a way to allow employees an opportunity to live in the City they work in. Robert Bolar stated that a realtor’s association has a similar program called “Have a Heart”; it is a 501(c)(3) program under which two homes per year are built for families that are in need. North Ogden could make application to this program to have a home built in this City. Ms. Casey stated that may not be in line with the concept of providing assistance for employees of the municipality or an employer that provides contracted services to the municipality. Mr. Bolar stated it would actually satisfy the requirement if North Ogden City were the applicant to the program. The group discussed additional various mortgage assistance programs and concluded this would be a good option to explore further as a means of complying with the legislation. Ms. Anderson stated she feels it is important to keep quality employees working for North Ogden and this type of program may be an added benefit that would promote employee recruitment and retention. f. Item T - Robert Bolar Robert Bolar stated he worked on item “t”, which is apply for or partner with an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing authority to preserve and create MIH”. He stated that he reached out to Weber County and Weber Housing Authority and both those entities are dealing with the same problems as North Ogden in terms of complying with this legislation. There have been talks about Weber County hiring a consultant to assist them in developing their own plan. He then reported on data that he pulled from the Wasatch Front MLS system. There were graphs illustrating the dramatic increase in median sales prices coupled with the fact that inventory of available homes is so low. The trends are alarming, and he is not sure how this can be sustained over the long term. In the second quarter of 2019, there were 142 homes in North Ogden that sold for over $330,000. That is a lot of money an average homebuyer to spend. He further expounded on the data relating to the amount of inventory, the number of units in the price range $250,000 to $300,000, and the number of days those units are typically on the market. The median home price in North Ogden is much higher than for the rest of the State of Utah. Mr. Call inquired as to the average price range for home buyers in North Ogden. Mr. Bolar stated that the range is $350,000 to $550,000; many of these people do not work in this community and they are commuting to Hill Air Force Base or Salt Lake City. They are choosing this community because it is desirable. There was discussion regarding trends in Utah’s neighboring states, such as Idaho and Wyoming. Discussion then refocused on the viability of item “t”; Mr. Bolar stated that the City could make application to partner with another entity to satisfy item “t”, but it is not likely that application would provide any great benefits for the City. g. Item W - Grant Protzman Grant Protzman provided information about his research regarding item “w”, which is “any other program or strategy implemented by the municipality to address the housing needs of residents of the municipality who earn less than 80% of the area median income”. He spoke to a friend who works for the California Housing Authority about an innovative program that they have that provides housing assistance for low to moderate income residents. He also spoke with

Page 72.


different home builders about pursuing programs that would provide housing for diverse populations. First time home buyers as well as elderly residents simply want a home that meets their needs. This is not an extravagant home, but a smaller ‘starter’ type of home. He feels it may be possible to explore aggressive programs that would call for zoning particular areas of the City for this type of development and target a certain population for those developments. Mr. Bolar stated that there are already similar programs in place and the City could partner with the organizations that administer those programs rather than creating a new program. The group dissolved into multiple different conversations regarding different types of housing programs and target populations that would be welcomed into North Ogden. Mr. Protzman stated that it would be necessary to be creative and think ‘out of the box’ when considering this type of program, with Mr. Bolar stated that there would be one catch associated with Fair Housing Laws as it may be difficult to target certain populations for a specific housing project. Susannah Burt asked if it is legal for City to designate a certain zone or housing project for a specific demographic. Mr. Call stated there are different vehicles that different groups use to target a specific population. Deed restrictions can be imposed on properties to provide for demographic at the onset of a project, but those deed restrictions are not permanent in nature, which makes it possible for other population groups to move into an area after a certain amount of time. Mayor Chugg then summarized the feedback from the group, noting that viable options include k, j, l, o, e, and w. Mr. Call stated that the next step would be to formulate recommendations based upon the median income in North Ogden and what 80 percent of that income would be. The WFRC has indicated the most recent median income calculation is $78,000 and 80 percent of that would be $1,733 per month for rent, utilities, and taxes. This would cover a home costing approximately $300,000. Eric Thomas stated that North Ogden is benefitted by a higher median income. Because the median income is high, the home price deemed as ‘affordable’ is relatively high. He then reported that the 50 percent mark is $39,000, which is just $2,000 less than first year Police Officers in North Ogden earn, meaning they could afford $1,083 per month for home expenses. This equates to a $180,000 home. Low income would be 30 percent of median income, or $23,000 and those individuals can afford $650 per month. The report that the City must prepare will indicate the number of units available in those price ranges. He asked if anyone is aware of any rental unit in North Ogden for less than $800 per month. None were identified. Mr. Call stated that is why the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) land use was pursued and is a viable option for North Ogden. Mr. Protzman stated that he feels it appropriate for the Committee to discuss the direction in which it wants to go once the decisions are made regarding the plan that will be written in response to SB34. Mr. Call agreed and stated he has had discussions with individual members of this group about expanding into a review of the General Plan to provide needed clarification or updates. h. Current ADU codes for North Ogden City - Jon Call

This matter was not discussed in detail.

Page 82.


5. Public comments

Blake Cevering thanked the Committee for their work and for their dedication to the City. 6. Committee/staff/Mayor comments

Next meeting will be held on September 25, 2019. Ms. Casey stated some of the reports that have been provided to the Committee are very helpful. This led to a discussion about reports and materials that could be provided to help Committee members to be more effective. Mr. Call stated that if any member of the Committee needs a hard copy of the General Plan, staff can provide that.

7. Adjournment

Bruce Christensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Christian George seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:59 pm

_____________________________ M. Brent Chugg, Mayor

_____________________________ Lynne Bexell, Administrative Assistant

_____________________________

Date Approved

Page 92.

General Plan Steering Committee Meeting September 25, 2019 Page 1 of 6

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES October 23, 2019

The North Ogden General Plan Steering Committee Meeting convened in a regular meeting on October 23, 2019 at 6:05 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on October 17, 2019. MEMBERS: Christian George - Excused Dan Nixon - Excused Dave Gordon Don Waite, Planning Commissioner - Excused Eric Thomas, Planning Commission Chairman Grant Protzman - Excused Ryan Barker, City Council Member - Excused Phillip Swanson, CC Member - Excused

Robert Bolar Susannah Burt - Excused Stephanie Casey Julie Anderson Meg Sanders Mark Brown – left at 6:30pm Charlotte Bailey Bruce Christensen - Excused

STAFF: Brent Chugg Mayor Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant VISITORS: Brenda Ashdown Mayor Chugg called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Robert Bolar offered the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA: 1. Public Comments

There were no public comments.

Page 102.


2. Minutes consideration.

Consideration to approve the September 25, 2019, general Plan steering Committee Meeting minutes.

Mark Brown made a motion to approve the September 25, 2019, meeting minutes. Eric Thomas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. **Mayor Chugg then moved to item four on the agenda and indicated he will come back to item three.**

4. Housing Types Comparison.

Associate Planner Bell used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to facilitate a discussion regarding a comparison of housing types. This information is intended to inform the City’s future plans relative to areas of the City in which certain housing types will be allowed in order to conform with moderate income housing mandates. He first presented the future land use map for the City, after which he discussed the broad spectrum of housing types ranging from the Palace at Versailles to tiny homes. There are several housing types in between, including: Accessory dwelling units (ADUs):

• Lot size range (feet): For each dwelling, about 18 wide by 80 deep up to about 30 wide by 120 deep.

• Height: 2 to 3.5 stories. • Resultant density range: About 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre (variations are

higher). • Building type: A dwelling unit that is secondary to the primary building. • Height: One to two stories. • Resultant density range: About 15 dwelling units per acre for the average 5,000-

square foot lot, including the primary structure. This will vary largely based on the size of the single-family lot. The density information is provided but typically, an ADU is not counted toward the density maximum.

• Variations: o Detached ADU: A structure completely separate from the primary building,

including detached garage conversions or additions. o Attached ADU: An addition to the primary building outside of the original

building’s footprint. o Internal ADU: Conversion of a part of the primary building to an ADU.

Townhouse/rowhouses:

Page 112.


• Building type: An attached dwelling within an array of up to 10 total dwellings that appear as one building. Each dwelling is a walk-up unit with no other unit above, built without side setbacks, with a small dooryard at the sidewalk and a small rear yard with an attached or detached garage.

• Lot size range (feet): For each dwelling, about 18 wide by 80 deep up to about 30 wide x 120 deep.

• Height: 2 to 3.5 stories. • Resultant density range: About 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre (variations are

higher).

Small home on a small lot: • Building type: A detached building with one dwelling on a lot that is smaller than the

typical single-family lot. The house is also smaller than the typical single-family houses and has a dooryard porch providing entry to the unit from the street or a shared garden. The building has a small rear yard with uncovered parking, or an attached or detached garage accessed by a side drive or an alley.

• Lot size range (feet): About 35 wide by 80 deep up to about 50 wide by 90 deep. • Height: 1.5 to 2.5 stories. • Resultant density range: About 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (variations are

higher).

Cottage court: • Building type: One lot with a group of 3 to about 10 detached buildings, each with

one single-story dwelling. Each cottage fronts the shared court and has a dooryard, stoop, or porch providing entry to the unit. Cottages share side yards and usually do not have a rear yard. Each cottage has open or covered parking in an attached or detached garage accessed by a side drive or an alley.

• Lot size range (feet): About 100 wide by 120 deep up to about 200 wide by 250 deep. • Shared court: The court is usually a garden and typically about 20-feet clear in any

direction to give the garden an open feeling. • Height: 1.5 stories*. • Resultant density range: About 15 to 35 dwelling units per acre (variations are

higher). • Mixed-types: A few of the cottages are expanded to duplexes or triplexes, keeping the

small building footprint and scale while increasing the total units on the lot.

Small multi-unit buildings (duplex to six plex); and Mansion home apartments:

• Looks like a single-family home. • Usually one visible entrance. • Approximately 3-6 units.

Mr. Bell reviewed photos of each housing type and facilitated discussion among the group regarding the characteristics of each housing type, the building lot sizes upon which each housing type could be accommodated, and marketability for the different housing types. He

Page 122.


stated the main thing to consider is design elements for any housing types. Design is critical in providing a compatible housing type for the community of North Ogden. Stephanie Casey wondered if including architectural standards for different housing types could result in raising the cost of each home, which means that certain housing types may no longer fit the definition of ‘affordable’. Mr. Bell stated that is not necessarily the case. Small details are important in ensuring that a home is compatible with its surroundings while preserving its value for the long term. One of the conditions in Utah that is currently making housing unaffordable is the fact that the state is predominantly consumed by single-family housing. The prices of other housing types are being artificially inflated based on the market demand for them. The more the market is opened up to allow for different types of multi-family housing types that are compatible with single-family home designs, the lower the prices will be. Mayor Chugg thanked Mr. Bell for his presentation. He added that there has been a negative stereotype for the type of people that would live in a multi-family unit or in a more dense single-family development, but that stereotype is no longer valid. There are many people from different backgrounds and demographics that desire to live in smaller homes on smaller lots because they want to reduce their maintenance burden and free up additional money for other things, such as travel. This led to discussions among the group regarding the opportunity to preserve beautiful neighborhoods while allowing housing types that are different than single-family in nature.

3. Discussion of Rough Draft of Moderate-Income Housing Report

Mayor Chugg thanked Stephanie Casey assembling the Moderate-Income Housing Report document, which was provided to each Committee member via email in advance of the meeting. He asked if the group had any recommended edits or if the document is ready to be presented to the Planning Commission and then the City Council for their approval before it is submitted to the State of Utah. He indicated he feels that it is a quality document that captures the decisions made by the Committee. Ms. Casey stated that she would like to include some photographs from Mr. Bell’s presentation regarding housing types, specifically those that are of properties located in North Ogden. Mayor Chugg stated that he has spoken with Mayors from other cities and they are struggling to comply with the State legislation just as North Ogden has struggled. This led to a high level discussion of characteristics of other communities that may make it easier or more difficult for them to comply with the legislation. Mayor Chugg then stated that the report should be accepted by the State, but it will be up to the City Council to provide a follow-up report next year to communicate whether the City was able to meet some of the goals included in the report. Several members of the group indicated they have found typographical errors in the document. Ms. Bexell asked that the group provide references to those errors via email so she can correct them before the plan is presented to the Planning Commission.

Page 132.


Eric Thomas made a motion to correct typographical errors in the Moderate-Income Housing Update to the General Plan and forward the document to the Planning Commission. Dave Gordon seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

5. Public comments

There were no public comments.

6. Committee/staff/Mayor comments

Eric Thomas commended the group for their work on this matter.

Robert Bolar inquired as to the future of this Committee now that they have completed their assignment. Mayor Chugg stated he is unsure of future plans at this point, but he would like to keep the Committee intact. He expects for a more concrete decision to be made after the first of the new year. Mr. Bolar commented on the diverse nature of the group, including their background, skillsets, and expertise. Mayor Chugg stated it is a great group and he would like for them to continue to work in support of North Ogden City. Ms. Bexell stated it would be helpful if a few members of the Committee would attend the November 6, 2019 Planning Commission meeting to answer any questions that may arise about the Moderate-Income Housing Report.

7. Adjournment

Eric Thomas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Julie Anderson seconded the motion.

The motion passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

_____________________________ M. Brent Chugg, Mayor

Page 142.


_____________________________ Lynne Bexell, Administrative Assistant

_____________________________ Date Approved

Page 152.

20

Page 163.

Page 173.

Documents

GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA … · 2020. 1. 23. · General Plan Steering Committee Meeting August 28 , 2019 Page 1 of 9 . GENERAL PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE . MEETING