Council Notes: 8.22.06By Dian WoodhouseA rather quick Council Meeting this evening, but worthwhile, nonetheless. All were present except Councilman Stephenson and Councilwoman Jeske. There were no minutes to approve, and after the pledge, four items under Common Consent were unanimously adopted.
Both the Public Safety Advisory Committee and the Trails Network Advisory Committee were extended by Ordinances until June 30th, 2009.
A public hearing was set for September 5th, 2006, regarding the proposed annexation of 2.811 acres of land located at approximately 800 North Washington Boulevard.
And a public input meeting was also set for September 5th, 2006, for a proposal "to provide certain zoning options of C-3/CO for properties generally located at 639 and 689 Washington Boulevard." The quoted part was from the agenda. This item will, if passed, amend the Ogden City General Plan by way of amending the Lynn Community Plan to allow for these proposed zoning options.
The next item was presented by City Planner Greg Montgomery, and involved amendments to the Ogden City sign ordinances. In a nutshell, Ogden's present sign ordinances simply will not do for The Junction, and so the sign ordinances will be amended in order to accommodate The Junction area only. The proposed changes had mainly to do with the size and type of signs allowed, and there were also some prohibitions, which included backlit signs or awnings and handwritten signs. Mr. Montgomery stressed that the signs had to be professionally done and be well kept up.
Councilman Safsten stated that these amendments were being made "to protect the value of the development," and made the motion to approve. Councilman Stephens seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item, also presented by Mr. Montgomery, was a proposed resolution to approve projects funded through the Crossroads of the West Historic District. This district is located between 23rd and 26th Streets, and between Wall and Washington. Mr. Montgomery explained that the district has been awarded $5 million by Congress, which is parceled out in increments of $1 million a year for improvements. This year, however, we have only received $492,000. The reason for this was not gone into.
Be that as it may, there were four proposed projects by the Crossroads Committee:
1. Improve the south side of the Union Station, where the laundry building and trains are.
2. Allocate $70,000 for a grant to be used to improve a building currently on the Historical Register. It was not said whether they had a specific one in mind--it seemed that owners of these could apply for the grant, and the applications would be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission.
3. $100,000 allocated for promotion of the district.
4. Installation of "way-finding signage" in district, as in signs pointing the way to various points of interest. Very helpful to tourists and those who don't know what the area has to offer.
Councilman Glasmann made the motion to approve the above, Councilwoman Wicks seconded, and this motion too passed unanimously.
There was only one public comment, by Rulon Yorgason. He placed on the overhead projector a picture from National Geographic of two men standing next to a body of water, framed by mountains in the background, and holding onto what appeared to be a gigantic marine mammal. (I was later told upon inquiring that it was a channel catfish.) Mr. Yorgason then went on to point out that to some people, this was a picture of a a beautiful day--to others, the somewhat homely catfish would be termed ugly. He segued from here into the question of deeming something "blighted," stating, "We don't have an absolute standard for blight, but are working on ideology.
He zeroed in then on the Riverfront Project, challenging the Ogden City Council to do a walk through of the area. There were homes there, and businesses. "These people have been in limbo for so long," he said. "Why are we doing it?"
There were no Administrative comments. Attorney Gary Williams then asked Recorder Cindy Mansell to check back on the Crossroads Ordinance for wording, and this was done. Then came Council comments.
Councilman Stephens spoke first, beginning with praise of the recent opening of the Treehouse Museum, and of Mayor Godfrey's deeming August 19th "Elizabeth Stewart Treehouse Day," after its founder. Citing the quote, "It takes a village to raise a child," he compared the Treehouse Museum to such a village, where children will be able to learn, explore, be creative, and have fun. "It makes you feel like you'd like to be a kid again," he said. "My hat is off to the Treehouse and all those associated with it."
He then spoke of having received many calls and e-mails regarding the future appointments to the Planning Commission, and suggested that the public, in addition to stating to him what it did and did not want, might in future also include alternative suggestions and reasons for these views.
Councilman Glasmann spoke next, first drawing attention to the sparseness of the crowd tonight, stating that although nothing as controversial as last week was on the table at this meeting, still, important things had happened and are happening. "The River Project has many people moving out and being relocated," he said. "This town is very exciting right now--developments are coming in droves." He ended by stating his willingness to serve Ogden in whatever capacity.
Next was Councilman Safsten, who went into the question of what constitutes "blight." "The opposite of blight is not beauty, but something else," he said, and informed the room that the Council gets its definition of "blight" from the State of Utah. It is not a dictionary definition we are using here.
Last, Chairman Garcia spoke, making brief mention that it had been suggested to him that Ogden change its policy regarding ticketing of out of state visitors, as many other cities have done, being more lenient with them. The Council then adjourned to Closed Executive session to discuss pending litigation.
Editorial Comments: I have heard, although I have not confirmed this, that the Ogden City General Plan is rarely amended, if at all. And since the amending of the General Plan is a necessary step for the Peterson project to be able to move forward, this proposed amendment to the plan above, innocuous though it may be, is something to take note of.
I think Councilman Stephens' comments regarding public comments to him and other Council Members is a good one. Perhaps when e-mailing the Council regarding the Planning Commission, for instance, the public could suggest prospective people to serve. And rather than simply stating one's opposition to something or favor of it, one should also say why. Otherwise, what good will this do? We can't expect the Council to make decisions based solely on the personal preferences of individuals if those preferences are not backed up by anything.
Finally, being intrigued by the question of "blight," I looked up the Utah State definition of it that Councilman Safsten was referring to. It is
Utah Code 17C-2-303.
As always, comments and corrections are greatly appreciated.
