A Hog Farm in Malan's Basin

Meditations on Mixed Use (MU)

By Dian Woodhouse

"In other words, you can put anything you like into such a zone--a sprawling residential subdivision, a Walmart, a hog farm, etc...."

Dan Schroeder - Sierra Club
Weber County Forum Comments
November 3, 2006

When we think of "mixed use" in an urban area, thoughts most likely run to just that--a mix of uses. Small shops, patisseries, coffee shops, boutiques, perhaps with apartments over them--all of this in the mind's eye is charming and pedestrian friendly, a place to browse during the afternoon, get dinner in the evening--in short, an ideal place to be. The first plan by Citiventure for the Junction site, for instance, with its impressionistic, somewhat peaceful artists' conceptions, communicated these thoughts very well.

The proposed Mixed Use Ordinance, however, up for a vote by the Ogden City Planning Commission on December 6th, does not provide for these things at all. Although it is titled "Mixed Use," it does not mandate that land so zoned will be mixed use. Basically, what "mixed use" means in this proposed ordinance is that all previous zoning rules and regulations are out the window, and a developer decides what to do, runs that by the Planning Commission and the Council, and if they approve the project, it's on its way.

No matter what it is. It doesn't even have to be "mixed." It can be totally one thing, as Mr. Schroeder has mentioned above.

Those favoring such a designation point to pesky zoning rules and established standards for development which make it at times very difficult, if not impossible, for a developer to make a concept a reality. It would be much easier, they say, if the developer and the city planning department could work closely together in the formulation of a Master Plan and Development Agreement so as to get these projects going.

For instance, if someone did indeed wish to annex the Malan's Basin area to Ogden City and establish a hog farm on it, perhaps with an accompanying horseback riding enterprise and a drink stand, a mixed use designation could be placed on that tract of land to make this possible. The problems one might traditionally have foreseen with such an enterprise would be negated by the developer's demonstration of "feasibility."

15-39-2, Subhead B, Point 9 of the proposed MU Ordinance, for instance, states: "The applicant has demonstrated the adequacy of the proposed transportation systems, including integration with public transit, consideration of efficient vehicular circulation to, from, and within the development and the provision of pedestrian and bicycle trails and ways within the development and the development agreement contains a mechanism to assure the provision of such services in connection with any development approved pursuant to the development agreement."

Turgid prose, yes, but the fact remains that if the developer could demonstrate efficient transport of hogs by gondola to and from the farm, citing decrease in pollution levels and no traffic congestion, and should that developer also demonstrate the not only practical but picturesque qualities of workers and visitors walking and bicycling among the pens carrying buckets of feed, Point 9 might be pretty well taken care of.

Or, let us take Point 4: "The applicant has demonstrated the feasibility of obtaining culinary water and sanitary sewer services to serve the requirements of the mixed use project in accordance with generally applicable standards of the City, and the development agreement contains a mechanism, etc., etc."

It is well known that hogs do not cook nor bathe, nor do they require the sanitary facilities necessary to humans. Therefore, one would imagine that the supply of culinary water could be quite limited, but would be nonetheless adequate for this enterprise. And if a state of the art sewer treatment plant could be included in the Master Plan, one would have to conclude that the prospective developer had adequately complied with Point 4.

In fact, if one looks at the provisions of Subhead B, Points 1 through 15, a hog farm just might work. Especially since Point 12 states: "The proposed development will be regulated by development standards contained in the development agreement that are appropriate for the size, nature, and location of the proposed project."

In other words, the project will dictate the standards. It need not comply, as projects have in the past, with existing standards. By its very nature, it will dictate its own. Given that set of parameters, anything would probably work anywhere.

But, you say---Nobody would want to put a hog farm in Malan's Basin. For one thing, it's against regulations to have hogs within the city limits. For another, it is counter to the open space provisions in the General Plan, and the MU Ordinance itself states in the very first paragraph that uses must conform to the General Plan.

In response to the first objection, that of farm animals within city limits, the proposed ordinance, 15-39-3, Allowed Uses in a Mixed Use (MU) Zone, states:

"The uses allowed in a MU zone established pursuant to this chapter shall be those uses specified in an approved development agreement for the subject project. The uses shall not necessarily be limited to those uses otherwise allowed in the Ogden City Zoning Ordinance or otherwise allowed in any other MU Zone."

Hogs just might be in. Nothing to prohibit them there.

And insofar as the General Plan is concerned, it can be changed. We know, for instance, that amending the plan is listed in the process steps for the Peterson project.

But back to the original objection---that nobody would want to put a hog farm there---suppose someone did? Suppose someone suddenly realized the indisputable truth that the completion of this project would result in us having the only gondola fed, mountain top hog farm not only in the country, but in the world, and that this would have the potential of becoming a major tourist attraction? And suppose that someone came to the Planning Commission with a Master Plan to do just that, demonstrating that it could indeed be done in all the ways that the MU ordinance states that feasibility must be demonstrated?

And also suppose that someone then presented the Planning Commission and the Council with a Development Agreement, which would commit that everything that would ensure that feasibility would be done? Had complied, in other words, right down the line as outlined in the MU Ordinance.

How are our elected and appointed officials going to tell that someone no?

Waffling vaguely around with such statements as, "We don't want one there," or "It wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing," are statements of opinion, based on taste and emotion, and the proposed MU Ordinance has nothing about MU having to be aesthetically pleasing. Only that the developer must demonstrate that it will work, and that certain things, like sanitation, emergency services, water, etc., will be provided for, and that the enterprise must be described and committed to in a variety of ways which will be outlined in the Development Agreement.

In fact, if faced with a developer who has provided a Master Plan and a Development Agreement, and who had meticulously complied with the feasibility and descriptive requirements outlined in the MU Ordinance, the Planning Commission and the Ogden City Council would be hard pressed to find any reason to deny the proposed development.

Even if nobody wanted it but the developer.

Which, one suspects, is one of the reasons that the MU Ordinance is being proposed in the first place.

It seems that the only rules that the developer will have to follow under the MU Ordinance will be the rules outlined in the Development Agreement, which will be written by the Developer and approved by the Planning Commission and the Ogden City Council, and also with the vague term, "generally applicable standards of the City." We look at that approval process as a safeguard, but in jettisoning current regulations in favor of a procedure outlined in a Development Agreement, it might happen that there would be something undesirable not dealt with, that need not be dealt with, in that Agreement that might otherwise provide a legally based reason to deny, but since it wouldn't be in the Agreement, there would be no justification for denial.

If there is no justification for denial, the only course that will remain open to the Commission and Council will be to approve.

Although the zoning regulations and established standards in the present codes may very well be cumbersome and difficult to work within, they also serve the purpose of giving our officials some backing for the decisions they make. One would think it would be much easier to waive an existing ordinance in a special case than it would be to have no ordinances at all to back up one's decisions. The proposed MU Ordinance could be viewed in terms of being an extreme pendulum effect, swinging from having too many rules and regulations to having none at all, and making them up as we go. And while that might provide all kinds of freedom for development to proceed unhindered, it also might give rise to some very negative situations, too.

The Planning Commission votes on the MU Ordinance on Wednesday, December 6th, at 5 PM in the City Council Chambers.