Historic 25th Street Height Limits Redux

A number of thorny questions arise as we approach an important November 4th Council meeting

Red meat political news is in short supply this morning; so we'll throw out a couple of possible discussion items from our WCF back-burner queue:

On October 14, the Standard-Examiner reported that the Ogden City Council was in the process of hiring a "facilitator" to serve as a sort of "psuedo chair" for November 4th's council work meeting, wherein discussion of a 25th Street height ordinance amendment will be on the agenda. Within our own earlier article on the subject, we opined thusly:

Somebody obviously believes the stakes are high enough that our city council can't be trusted to run their own meeting, so the taxpayers will be paying an unnamed sum for a professional facilitator to "facilitate" the November 4 dog and pony show

Last Friday, The Standard-Examiner editorial board also leapt into the fray on this topic, taking it one step further, panning the "facilitator idea" in no uncertain terms:

The Ogden City Council does not need to have a paid facilitator referee its consideration of a building heighth increase proposed for Historic 25th Street. The debate, which we acknowledge has been very contentious in the past, is whether to allow some buildings to be 55 feet high rather than 45 feet.[...]
It's self-defeating to assume that Ogden's city council can't handle this specific issue debate sans help. Also, the council is paying someone with our money to do a job that is supposed to be done by the council chairwoman, Caitlin Gochnour. It is her responsibility to lead the council through its decision-making process. We have already witnessed that Gochnour has the skills and fairmindedness to handle debate, including the 25th Street issue.

And earlier in the week, the Standard also published this Councilwoman Gochnour letter, "clarifying her position" on the Historic 25th Street height limitation debate, from which we'll clip this except:

The Council is currently considering a petition to increase the existing height limit. Since the initial discussion of this topic, I have had much time to reflect on the controversy and mull over options. I have always believed it is vitally important to preserve and protect the historic character of the district, but that this needs to be balanced with encouraging economic development.
The compromise I brought forward was to support increasing the height limit to 55 feet only if additional language were added to the ordinance, including comprehensive guidelines for rooftop additions to existing historic buildings. These criteria are used by several cities nationwide to guide appropriate rooftop additions in historic districts. [Emphasis added].

Taking into account the above information, it seems obvious to to us that a number of thorny questions arise as we approach this important November 4th Council meeting, such as these, for instance:

Whose idea was it to hire a facilitator in the first place? Is the hiring of a "hired hand" even appropriate in this instance? If Councilwoman Gochnour didn't feel up to the task of "chairing" the 11/4/10 meeting, wouldn't it make more sense for the very capable Vice-chair Susan Van Hooser to serve as the backup Council Chair "stand-in?" As to the "facilitator" issue, we whole-heartedly agree with the Standard-Examiner:

Do Blair and others really believe that both sides of this issue can only be attained if a hired hand guides them through all the information? That's nonsense. The Ogden Council can do this job on its own without wasting our dollars.

And what about Chairwoman Gochnour's conduct in this matter?

Is it appropriate for the Council Chair to be operating with height limit amendment proponents behind the scenes, and publicly expressing her tentative support of a "compromise solution" even prior to public input and full council deliberation?

And there are more questions:

Is it even possible to prudently balance the preservation and protection of the delicate historic character of the 25th Street district, against the aggressive pro-economic development impulses of the Godfrey administration?

And with regard to the "additional (protective) language" which Ms. Gochnour mentions in her letter, the only such language that's been heretofore publicly reported is this:

The amendment under consideration by the city council would prohibit existing buildings on 25th Street from being increased in height through rooftop additions or additional stories unless:
• Documentation is presented establishing that additional height is within the limits of the building's historical construction.
• The addition is not visible from the front of the building or from the sidewalk on the same side of the street or across the street.

So, in the event that the proposed ordinance fails to make specific reference to federal historic preservation guidelines as Ms. Gochnour has suggested, will our City Council Chair and the rest of the Council stick to their guns and reject the ordinance outright, due to that defect?

Even assuming that the proposed ordinance does contain language satisfactorily requiring that Historic 25th street projects conform to "comprehensive" federal historic preservation guidelines, are there other issues which the Council should consider, before amending the standard for height limits on 25th Street?

We certainly haven't made our minds up about the wisdom of even a carefully drafted blanket amendment to the 25th Street District height ordinance, especially since no actual and palpable project plan is on the table.

And with that, we now invite our WCF readers to chime in with their own views on this topic.