Standard Examiner Editorial: OUR VIEW: Raise 25th Street Height Limits

The historical designation of 25th Street needs to be diligently guarded, no matter what the 25th Street Business Association and the SE editorial board say

By Dorrene Jeske
Ogden City Council Member, 2006-10

Yesterdays Standard-Examiner editorial, “Raise 25th Street height limits” shows how presumptuous and ignorant the SE editorial board is. Grondahl’s cartoon shows how insensitive and ignorant he is of Ogden’s Historic District. Apparently he doesn’t appreciate history or historical buildings, (He should visit colonial sites along the east coast or Europe and it’s centuries-old buildings.) He sounds like Mayor Godfrey when asked what would happen to the recreation center if it wasn’t a success, “In twenty years it will be torn down and something else built.” What a waste! How does anyone get ahead with an attitude like that? How does a city address it’s capitol improvement needs when they are continually making bond payments? MY generation could hardly wait to pay off their mortgages and free up money for their children’s education and missions.

I take issue with some of the Editorial Board’s statements. One of the statements being “frankly, we think they’re (the 25th Street Business Association) “the experts on this matter.” They were talking about buildings meeting the criteria for historical designation. What an asinine statement! The 25th Street Business Association is exactly what they state they are – business people! Their main purpose is to realize a profit on their investment. Usually guidelines by the National Historical Association require strict adherence to using certain building and remodeling materials, staying within the architectural styles of the building, etc. And usually these requirements are more expensive than materials and components found on the market now. Does the editorial board really think that most of these businessmen will follow the guidelines of the Historical Association of their own free will? I hope that Council members will seek the advice of Kirk Huffaker of the Utah Heritage Foundation, as I did during discussions regarding the Windsor Hotel. He is the REAL historical expert with the degrees to prove it.

We saw what happened with the old Windsor Hotel. The owners were businessmen from California and didn’t give a damn if their plans met the strict guidelines for maintaining the historical designation of the hotel or not. Their plans did NOT! They planned to build a penthouse with an all glass front wall. It looked ridiculous and so out of place on top of the old hotel.

I can see the advantageous of adding an additional floor to the old buildings on Historic 25th Street, but some control by the Council and Ogden City Business Development Department need to maintain the right of design approval to make sure that it is congruent with the design of the building. The Landmarks Commission should also have input on decisions, but with the way the Planning Department was able to manipulate them by not giving them all the documentation and guidelines published by the National Historical Association when the Windsor Hotel was asking for approval, casts doubt on the integrity of both the Commission and the Planning Department.

It’s sad that the past history of dealings with the Ogden City Administration under Matt Godfrey’s reign leaves the citizens of Ogden and perhaps some Council members feeling uneasy about the administration’s ability to make ethical decisions. We do have two new directors so we can hope that they aren’t tainted.

Ogden has a jewel in the historical designation of 25th Street! Besides being unique, it also receives federal funds for the maintenance and preservation of the buildings. Those funds can easily be lost if Ogden were to lose the historical designation. That designation needs to be diligently guarded, no matter what the 25th Street Business Association and the SE editorial board say.

We are well aware that anyone who does not go along with the Mayor and the SE are called “naysayers.” It’s easy and childish to use name calling to intimidate others and it should be considered with a grain of salt and consideration given to the author/s and their point of view. Especially when they don’t have the facts or know of which they speak.

Standard-Examiner: City Council, Landmarks Pledge to Work Closely Together

The Council and Landmarks Commission arrive at a kumbaya moment

The Standard-Examiner finally gets around to reporting this morning about the earlier-heralded City Council/Landmarks Commission pow-wow which occurred during a council work session last Tuesday night:

OGDEN — The city council and Ogden Landmarks Commission will work together more closely in the future to avoid controversies such as the one involving renovations at the historic Windsor Hotel.
The two groups attempted to iron out their differences over the Windsor, at 166 Historic 25th St., during a twohour work session Tuesday night.
The tone of the meeting was both conciliatory and confrontational.
But in the end, city council and Landmarks Commission members agreed the discussion was beneficial.
“It gives us a starting place (to keep the lines of communication open),” City Council Chairwoman Amy Wicks said.

Mr. Schwebke goes on to provide us a glimpse into the confrontational part:

Judy Lohmueller, vice chairwoman of the Landmarks Commission, said during the work session the city council should have contacted the commission if it had a problem with the ordinance amendment. [...]

Seems to us that the council had already "contacted the commission" with its objections, (in a formal manner,) by rejecting the recommendation to broadly increase Historic 25th Street District height limits. If there are those on the commission who still believed that Ogden Properties' nonconforming plans were in the best interest of Ogden... and the 25th Street District a a whole, why didn't they just go back to the drawing board and come back to the council with a narrowly drafted "variance" ordinance, applicable to the Windsor structure alone? Hmmmmm? easier to raise a stink, and bitch to the press, we guess.

There's even more reported griping from Lohmueller:

Lohmueller also said she resents untrue statements from some city council members made during public meetings that Landmarks Commission members are susceptible to political influence from Ogden’s administration.
“It’s embarrassing to Landmarks,” she said. “It’s tarnished our reputation.”

So long as the the Landmarks Commission continues to be populated with the likes of Sue "G-Train" Wilkerson, and Boss Godfrey's Uncle Bernie, the Landmarks Commission will continue to suffer similar embarrassment, we suspect.

We'll also note a slight improvement in the accuracy of Mr. Schwebke's reporting of the circumstances leading to the council's rejection of the Landmark Commission's recommended broad zoning ordinance revision:

In Tuesday's article Mr. Schwebke provided this:

Ogden Properties has abandoned its plans to renovate the hotel because the city council has refused to amend a height restriction ordinance to enable the addition of a fourth-floor penthouse.

Here's the pertinent text from this morning's Scott Schwebke story:

The Landmarks Commission requested the work session to voice frustration surrounding a city council decision in September to reject an ordinance amendment that would have allowed exemptions to a 45-foot height restriction for Historic 25th Street buildings.
The amendment would have allowed the Ogden Planning Commission to grant a height variance once the Landmarks Commission had reviewed and approved building plans. [...]
Several council members have expressed concern that waiving building-height restrictions and adding another floor at the Windsor would jeopardize 25th Street’s National Historic Registry designation and eligibility for federal funding.

Still a mite fuzzy, we think; but an improvement nevertheless.

And for those readers who aren't completely burned out on the Windsor Hotel discussion, the floor remains as open as ever.

The Windsor Hotel Again Arrives on the Discussion Front Burner

Your Weber County Forum blogmeister indulges in a little cathartic nit-picking

Ace Reporter Schwebke again brings up the subject of the Windsor Hotel this morning, with another Std-Ex Business Section story discussing the present dilemma. This morning's story however actually adds little to what has been earlier reported, which is essentially this:

1) Ogden Properties, the developer, still fails and refuses to perform its contractual obligations and complete the project according to the terms agreed in the original Development and Grant Agreements;
2) Now that the structure has been stripped to the brick and effectively gutted, the 25th Street Historic District is stuck with a commercially unusable building smack dab in the center of the district;
3) The developer has proposed demolishing the building as a "plan B" option;
4) Ready, willing and able "backup" buyers aren't exactly flying out of the woodwork.

Without going into a tedious rehash of the series of blunders that led to the current city/developer stalemate, we'll nevertheless tangentially nit-pick a little bit. First we'll take a couple of potshots at the accuracy of Mr. Schwebke's reporting:

1) Once again, Mr. Schwebke continues to mischaracterise the circumstances which led to the council's rejection of Boss Godfrey's proposed Historic 25th Street District zoning ordinance. Here are Schwebke's words from this morning's Std-Ex story:

Ogden Properties has abandoned its plans to renovate the hotel because the city council has refused to amend a height restriction ordinance to enable the addition of a fourth-floor penthouse.

As everyone who has even been casually following this story knows, the council's chief objection to the proposed ordinance amendment was its overbreadth. Rather than drafting a narrow ordinance aimed at creating a zoning variance affecting the single Windsor Hotel project only, Godfrey instead overreached, and stubbornly sought an increase in building height limits which would have affected the entire Historic 25th Street Historic District. Hopefully Mr. Schwebke will write this down so he doesn't repeat this aggravating mistake.

2) Again referring to Mr. Schwebke's morning text, we find this technical inaccuracy:

The company [Ogden Properties] has asked the city, which provided $288,000 in incentives last year to assist with renovation costs, to buy the hotel back.

If Ogden City were to buy the property from Ogden Properties, it wouldn't actually be"buying it back." According to our recollection, Ogden Properties and the original owner, Ruben Villalobos, were the buyers and sellers in the sale transaction; and Ogden City wasn't a party to that transaction at all. Neither Ogden City nor the Ogden RDA ever held title to the property either, so far as we know. If Ogden City were to be dumb enough to buy this property, it would be merely taking it off Ogden Properties' hands; that's all.

3) Lastly we'll snarkily comment that the current predicament provides even more evidence supporting the conservative proposition that city governments, especially those governed by the likes of Boss Godfrey, shouldn't meddle in what ought to be entirely private real estate transactions. For that we'll refer back to one of of our earlier WCF articles, published around the time of the Windsor sale transaction, from which we extract this text:

Notably, the new owners are reportedly a little foggy about the prospective use of their newly-acquired downtown property. They'll hopefully know more, once they've consulted with their architect and engineers.
Oddly, they're opting to turn a rent-generating property into a vacant one. That's their prerogative as property owners though, we guess.
Still we wonder if it might not have made more economic sense for these young and eager new property owners to have formulated their plans BEFORE they kicked out their paying tenants. [...]
As for the outgoing former property owner Villalobos, we suppose it was easier to just cut and run, with Boss Godfrey and his henchmen breathing down his neck.

As our readers will recall, the Windsor's previous owner, Mr. Vallalobos, already had his own plans for refurbishment of his Windsor Hotel property; but his 6-month projected timeframe wasn't good enough for Boss Godfrey. Instead of waiting for Villalobos to put together his own plans and financing for a Windsor remodeling, Godfrey issued an ultimatum, and forced Villalobos out:

Ruben Villalobos, the previous owner of the hotel, said the sale closed June 4, but declined to share the purchase price. According to Weber County property records, the hotel and the 0.12 acres it sits on are valued at $286,319.
Villalobos said he wanted to convert the building into an upscale dwelling when he originally bought it in 2004, but it wasn’t feasible at that time because there were many unsold residential units at the Union Square development on the other side of the street.
The Union Square units are all sold now, he said, and property values in the area have gone up. He said he is disappointed he couldn’t fix it himself.
“The city gave me an ultimatum, either sell it or clean it up,” Villalobos said. “I wanted to renovate it myself, but I guess the city wanted to get it done right away.”
He said he was about six months away from securing the necessary funding to clean and fix up the building.
“My plans were to keep it historical and make a bed & breakfast-type place,” Villalobos said.

Using our 20/20 hindsight, we can't but help speculate how much better Ogden City's situation would have been at this point, if Boss Godfrey had just kept his grubby mitts off the Windsor Hotel.

Nice work, Boss Godfrey! It's another fine mess you've gotten us into.

Comments, anyone?

Big Council/Commission Pow-wow Calendered for Next Week

A chance to smooth over ruffled feathers, and formulate some "guiding principles"

Ace Reporter Schwebke revives the Windsor Hotel saga again this morning, with this morning's Standard-Examiner story, reporting that the Emerald City Council and its advisory Landmarks Commission will sit down next week for a serious pow-wow. Mr. Schwebke's lead paragraphs provide the gist:

OGDEN -- The Ogden Landmarks Commission will meet Tuesday with the city council to ease hard feelings between the two organizations stemming from a controversial decision that halted renovations at the historic Windsor Hotel.
The Landmarks Commission requested the meeting to smooth its rocky relationship with the council.
"Recent events reflect a need for improvement in communication. (The) goal of all committees and council should work toward mitigating the divisiveness that is ultimately detrimental to the community," says an agenda for the meeting.
City Councilman Brandon Stephenson said the meeting with the Landmarks Commission may be beneficial.
"I hope we can understand one another's position a little better," he said Wednesday. "I think the council needs to come to a place where we can collectively determine the guiding principles and policies related to historical areas of the city. The Landmarks Commission can help us come to a guiding philosophy.

We think clarifying "guiding philosophy" is a danged good idea. Educating certain Landmark Commission members about the committee's true role in the Ogden historic preservation arena is a process that's long overdue, we believe. We congratulate city council leadership for opening the door for face-to-face discussion with Commission Chair Sue "G-Train" Wilkerson and the rest of the Ogden City Landmarks Commission.

While it ought to be clear at this point that the City Council, (the policy making body for Ogden City,) has adopted a cautious and conservative approach to development within our city's Historic 25th Street District, this lesson apparently hasn't yet sunk in with at least some commission members, whose recent recommendation to lift building height restrictions throughout entire 25th Street District smacked of that reckless, full-tilt pro-development, California carpetbagger attitude that's become so prevalent in our town, with the advent of Wilkerson, and a few other of her other real estate development cronies.

As an aside, we also have our doubts about the ethical propriety of Ms. Wilkerson's service on the commission at all. As an outspoken advocate of unbridled development, she could not conceivably find herself in a role with greater conflict of interest.

Further down the article, Mr. Schwebke lapses into a rehash of the Ogden Properties debacle, wherein Ogden Properties agreed over a year ago to rehabilitate the Windsor Hotel structure, according to terms requiring compliance with existing zoning ordinances. In the course of that process, this developer accepted a very generous $288,000 cash grant, and then spent the next year gutting the building, stripping interior walls down to the brick, removing electrical wiring, and essentially leaving the Windsor a commercially useless hulk.

And now, these same developers have the audacity to accuse the council of political misconduct, in their refusal to approve a wholesale modification of the rules pertaining to not only the Windsor Hotel property, but the entire Historic 25th Street District. And adding insult to injury, the developer puts the arm on Ogden City to purchase this now derelict property at a price which would, on paper, generate for Ogden Properties a nice fat 300% profit.

And while we're on the subject of Ogden Properties, here's the approach we would advocate if the Windsor dispute ever winds up in court: Ogden City should simply sue for breach of contract, and seek the remedy of restitution. Inasmuch as Ogden Properties stands in anticipatory breach of the underlying Development and Grant Agreements, and even now refuses to perform its contractual obligations as earlier promised, Ogden City should be entitled get the grant money back.

Let Ogden Properties keep the Windsor property, and hopefully make something useful of it. Neither the City nor the RDA Board has any legal obligation to purchase the property.

The floor is open for reader comments.

Historic Preservation Pays... and Pays Big Time

Spotlight on this morning's Kirk Huffaker op-ed piece

By Curmudgeon

There's more in this morning's paper worth reading than the several stories about the Wildcats clinching the Big Sky Conference title. Kirk Huffaker, Executive Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation has a lengthy op-ed piece entitled "Stick With Historic Preservation to Net More Than Financial Gain."

That's only partially an accurate headline, since Huffaker also notes in his piece that historic preservation pays... and pays big time... for communities that take it seriously. For example, he notes, according to a study by the Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, every dollar invested in historic rehab projects returns to the community that invested it $35 in additional economic benefits and $4.16 in increased tax revenues.

The op-ed piece goes on to discuss, specifically, the Windsor Hotel matter and the Administration's attempt to raise building height limits throughout Historic 25th Street.

Well worth a read.

Another Half Baked Standard-Examiner Editorial

The Std-Ex editorial board fails (or refuses) to get its own reported facts straight

By Curmudgeon

Folks shouldn't miss the Standard-Examiner's remarkable editorial this morning in re: the Windsor Hotel. The editorial is not the Std-Ex's finest moment.

Why? Because it reports what happened inaccurately and ignores or distorts what was reported in its own news columns by Mr. Schwebke.

For example, the editorial argues that the Council turned down the Windsor's request to permit it to build higher than current zoning on Historic 25th Street allows, that what was before it was a request to let "the building" --- the Windsor alone --- exceed current zoning height limits on 25th Street. Nowhere in the editorial do readers learn that the Godfrey Administration did not ask the Council for a variance for the Windsor. That it asked the Council to change the zoning over the entire 25th Street Historic District, and that that, not a simple variance for one property, is what the Council said "no" to.

Nor will readers of the editorial hear about the letters from organizations with a long history of work in Utah historic preservation, cautioning the Council that changing the zoning over the entire 25th Street Historic District might endanger the street's valuable status as a federally-recognized Historic District.

And then there's this: "Ogden Properties would like to resell the Windsor to Ogden Redevelopment Agency, but that would be a very expensive proposition. Dave Harmer, Ogden's community and economic development director, believes the price might exceed $1 million."

Does the editorial so much as mention that the City, when it provided a subsidy to the Windsor owners so they could buy and rehab the property, retained the option to buy the property back, at the same price for which the Windsor developers bought it, plus the cost of capital improvements to the property, if the project had not been competed by a date certain? Well, no. Nary a mention. Though the Editorial Board found space to include Harmer's claim that the price might be as high as a million to buy it back, backed by nothing so far beyond the current owners demanding about $700K more for the property than they paid for it a year and a half or so ago.

Nor will readers of the editorial learn that when the city provided a subsidy to the Windsor owners to allow them to buy and rehab the property, the new owners agreed to develop a rehab plan consistent with existing zoning restrictions within the 25th Street Historic District. They did not, but instead devised a rehab plan that required a zoning change. No one forced them to do that. They chose to gamble that they would in fact get the zoning change they wanted. That was a risk they and their investors assumed. That it did not happen as they wished is unfortunate for them, but the city bears no, repeat no, obligation to make them financially whole as a result of their taking a risk that turned out to be an unwise one. Perhaps the plan would have worked if the Administration had requested a zoning variance for the Windsor property only. But it didn't. It over-reached and asked for a zoning change to apply to the entire downtown Historic 25th Street District. Perhaps the developers need to redirect their anger from the Council chambers to the Mayor's office.

We can all agree with the editorial's hope that the Windsor can be saved and not simply demolished... at least I can. But when the editorial distorts facts reported in its own news columns, as it does, and carefully cherry picks what facts it does report, to rest responsibility for what happened nearly exclusively on the Council's shoulders, it betrays its readers and the sacred... yes, sacred... trust newspapers and newspaper men and women assume in a democracy. Jefferson understood how important the press is to the preservation of a democracy, and how vital it is that journalists honor that sacred trust when he wrote that if he had to chose between living in a nation without a government, or living in a nation without a free press, he'd prefer the former to the latter.

The Std-Ex's readers, and Ogden in general, have a right to expect, and to demand, better of Ogden's home town paper than we got in this morning's disingenuous editorial.

Windsor Hotel Developer Ups the Ante

"Historic preservationist" developer applies for a permit to demolish the entire Windsor Hotel structure

Interesting article on the Standard-Examiner front page this morning, regarding the Windsor Hotel project. The project developer, frustrated by the city council's decision to preserve the historic character of Ogden's Historic 25th Street District, has adopted a whole new tactic. Threats of legal action didn't work... so now these California developers suddenly want to tear the whole danged building down. From this morning's Ace Reporter Schwebke story:

OGDEN — The historic and controversial Windsor Hotel may have a date with the wrecking ball.
Ogden Properties II LLC, owner of the 100-year-old hotel at 166 25th St., has applied for a city demolition permit.
Stuart Sheldon, an official with Ogden Properties, declined Wednesday to provide details regarding whether the company plans to tear down the hotel and construct another building in its place. “Of course we don’t want to see the Windsor demolished, but we need to keep our options open,” Sheldon said in a phone interview.

So much for the psuedo-preservationist philosophy touted on Ogden Properties' website:"Renovation rather than new construction provides enormous environmental benefit."

We already knew it was really all about the money though, didn't we? It's become pretty apparent at this stage of the game that these developers weren't really interested in "historic preservation."

And for a delightful little additional twist, Mr. Schwebke reports that the Little Lord on Nine is egging the developers on:

Mayor Matthew Godfrey said he tried to warn the city council in advance that the Windsor would be lost unless some flexibility was provided to allow renovations
“If we don’t find a way to make the building economically viable, it will disappear,” Godfrey said, recalling his warning to the council.

And good ole Godfrey lackey Dave Harmer is crowing about what he apparently believes to be a checkmate predicamant... on his next to last day on the job:

Dave Harmer, the city’s community and economic development director, said that position is ironic since it could be the catalyst for the Windsor’s demolition.
“The people who were opposed to changing the ordinance to allow the Windsor to move forward said they were opposed because they wanted to preserve a historic building,” Harmer said.
“But the most concerning thing is that we may end up losing one of our historic buildings.”

Good riddance to Dave Harmer, we'll add.

And Ogden used to be such a nice little town... before Godfrey and his greedy developer cronies moved in.

We also look back nostalgically to those halcyon Ogden City days of yore, when folks actually delivered according to their original promises.

Let's hear our readers comments about this. We have the strong psychic feeling that the Windsor Hotel project is destined to long remain on the Weber County Forum discussion front-burner.

Another Document to Add to the Windsor Hotel Document Glut

The heretofore missing half of Ogden Properties' 10/9/08 extortion letter

We published this article yesterday, for the first time publicly revealing the contents of the 10/9/08 Ogden Properties demand letter, transmitted to Ogden officials almost two weeks ago. An important element was missing, however. Here's the setup:

Although we believe the publishing of this document was important, there was one thing left hanging. As mentioned in our earlier article:

"And sorry folks. We haven't yet succeeded in obtaining the 'separate document' referred to in the letter, in which Ogden Properties itemizes its 'expenses' to date." Rumor has it however that the developer is putting the arm on the taxpayers for at least a cool $million."

Well... the situation is now changed, changed utterly.

With great delight, we post what is purported by a reliable WCF Souse to be the Ogden Properties' "capital expense statement" (i.e., the "separate document' mentioned above) which accompanied the above demand letter:

Ogden Properties Windsor Hotel Investment

With this whole litany of ridiculously padded expenses, these amatuerish developer wannabees are asking for the moon.

Have fun, O gentle ones.

Perfect subject matter to kick off a weekend thread, dont'cha think?.

Have at it..

Windsor Hotel Developer Puts the Arm on the Taxpayers

A peek at the October 9, 2008 Ogden Properties LLC demand letter

On October 15, the Standard-Examiner published this Scott Schwebke story, reporting, among other things, that the erstwhile Windsor Hotel Project developer, Ogden Properties LLC, had transmitted a letter to Ogden City officials, announcing the developer's abandonment of the project, and demanding that the city purchase the property and cough up additional monetary compensation.

In that connection, we're delighted to report that we've finally obtained a copy of that letter, a PDF version which we link here:

10/9/08 Ogden Properties Inc. demand letter

We'll be brief in our analysis; but we do want to make a couple of basic points.

Referring to the the original grant agreement between Ogden Properties and the Ogden RDA, we find this instructive language:

Paragraph 2: All improvements will comply with applicable Design Guidelines for the 25th Street Historic District, and other applicable rules, laws and ordinances (the "work").

Paragraph 3(d): In the event Donee has not completed the Work and obtained a certificate of occupancy on or before April 30, 2009 then Donor shall have the right to purchase the Property from Donee for $332,000 plus verified expenditures for capital improvements by Donee on the Property after the disbursement of the Grant to Donee. [Emphasis added].

Substantially similar language is found in the Ogden Properties/Ogden City development agreement, at paragraphs I(C)(4), II(A), III(B)(1) and III(C)(3).

The developer devotes a significant amount of ink to lambasting the council for its refusal to bend the zoning rules for the developer's benefit, yet the developer knows that it agreed to abide by the rules in place at the time it entered into these contracts in the first place. Moreover, the governing documents merely provide Ogden City (and the Ogden RDA) a right to purchase the Windsor property under set terms in the event of a developer default. Significantly however, they do not impose upon these city entities the affirmative obligation to do so.

Maybe it's just us... but the developer's threat looks pretty "thin" to us.

And sorry folks. We haven't yet succeeded in obtaining the "separate document" referred to in the letter, in which Ogden Properties itemizes its "expenses" to date. Rumor has it however that the developer is putting the arm on the taxpayers for at least a cool $million.

So... what say our gentle readers about all this?

Windsor Hotel Project Documents

A short document collection compiled at the request of our gentle readers

Over the course of the past few days, we've had numerous requests from Weber County Forum readers, for the posting of various documents pertaining to the Windsor Hotel Project. We always try to be accommodating to our gentle readers, so we've exerted some effort over the past couple of days assembling documents. Among those documents requested, we've managed to obtain, upload and/or link the following relevant items:

1) Wilson Martin 10/14/08 Memorandum: This document was transmitted to the city council in response to the appended October 10 inquiry of Council Director Bill Cook.

2) Windsor Project Grant Agreement: This document specifies the rights and obligations of Ogden Properties LLC and Ogden City, with regard to the $288,000 grant.

3) Windsor Development Agreement: This document sets forth the respective rights and obligations of Ogden Properties LLC and the Ogden RDA, in connection with the Windsor Hotel Project itself.

4) Interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation - Subject: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings: This Department of the Interior web page provides useful guidance for projects similar to the Windsor Hotel Project, with special attention to rooftop additions.

We post these documents without our own editorial comment, inasmuch as we have a busy real-life (non-cyber) calender today.

We've been unsuccessful so far in obtaining a copy of the Ogden Properties LLC demand letter, which caused such an uproar earlier in the week. In the event we can get our hands on a copy of this, we'll be sure to put it up.

Plenty of material here to provoke a good end of week discussion, we think.

Please don't allow the cat to get your tongues.

Historic Preservationists Score a Big Win

Councilman Stephens' motion to reconsider fails by a 4-3 vote

By Bill C.

Yeah! The mature and forward looking majority of the City Council have preserved for now the integrity of Historic 25th Street.

I know some of you have been holding your breath far too long. In a 4-3 vote, the Council defeated the motion to revisit the vote on height limits for the 25th Street Historic District.

If, as it seemed to be, the most important aspect of this whole consideration was not to jeopardize the entire district, how could 3 have voted the way they did? There was no new evidence presented, nor a rebuttal from Murphy's boss. All his response was (after the vote) that no letter exists. How's that for a political appointee's solicited response? There's a lot more but I gotta run.

Update 10/15/08 8:40 a.m. MT: Scott Schwebke provides his own report of last night's meeting in this morning's Std-Ex edition, in which he also confirms our speculation of yesterday that Ogden Properties has made demand for monetary compensation from Ogden City, under threat of legal action.

Somethin' "Big" Shakin' with the Windsor Hotel Project

Strange last minute amendments added to tonight's council agenda
Interesting developments in Emerald City this morning, as we learn there have been some over night changes in tonight's city council agenda.

On Saturday we broke the news that the Historic 25th Street District rezoning proposal was back on calender, with councilman Stephens' motion for reconsideration. As of late yesterday afternoon, the situation had grown more complicated than that. A quick search of the Ogden City website reveals that two other council sessions have been added to tonight's council calender:

Special joint Council/RDA study session:

Notice is hereby given that the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency will meet in a joint study session with the City Council on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Work Room, on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, in Ogden City, Weber County, Utah.
The purpose of the study session is to review agenda items for the Redevelopment Agency meeting and Special City Council Meeting, which begin at 6:00 p.m.; and to discuss Redevelopment Agency business and Council business.

RDA closed session:

3. Closed Executive Session. Consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session pursuant to the provisions of Sections 52-4-205(1)(d) and (e) of the Open and Public Meetings Law for the purpose of discussing the purchase, sale, exchange or lease of real property. (Adjourn/not adjourn into Closed Session – roll call vote).

We link below the full text of Section 52-4-205:

Utah Code 52-4-205. Purposes of closed meetings.

We've been taking calls from various insider sources this morning reporting that there's been a new development in the Windsor Hotel saga, something involving a recent new action by Ogden Properties, Inc., (the project developer). As of now, none of our sources can or will say what's happening... other than "it's really big."

Lacking firm information, we'll launch into to our usual raw speculation as to the reason the RDA Board is planning a closed session, taking the language of Utah Code Section 52-4-205 into account.

1) Has the developer made demand of Ogden City to purchase the Windsor Hotel property, under terms of Boss Godfrey's badly-negotiated Ogden Properties/Ogden City development agreement?

2) Are threats of litigation involved?

Perhaps some of gentle readers can let us know what's going behind the Emerald City scenes with regard to this matter.

And don't forget, folks... The G-train and her motley band of real estate flippers will no doubt show up in force to badger and flog the council again tonight. Word also has it that State Historic Preservation Office Director Wilson Martin will also be in attendance. It should be a good show... something all of our gentle readers who are opposed to the greed-driven Manhattenization of Historic 25th Street ought to attend.

Don't get the cat get your tongues.

Update 10/14/08 11:27 a.m. MT: We've obtained the latest Utah Heritage Foundation opinion on this subject, in the form of a letter, directed to each of our Ogden City Council members:

Kirk Huffaker 10/13/08 letter

Just a little more grist for the discussion mill...

Rebuttal to Today's Standard-Examiner Editorial

Std-Ex reader Flatlander sets the record straight

Although we've taken the day off from posting, we didn't want to let the whole day slip away without at least addressing today's Standard-Examiner editorial, which slams both the Emerald City administration and the council for ill-considered acts and comments allegedly undertaken and made in connection with the now defeated Historic 25th Street District administration rezoning proposal .

In that connection, alert reader Danny has directed our attention to a wonderful rebuttal appearing on the Std-Ex Live website, the full text of which which we incorporate below:

By: flatlander100 @ 10/12/2008, 10:33 AM
We can all agree, I think, that rancor between the Mayor's office and the Council is not good for Ogden City. But when today's editorial goes on to assess responsibility for the current state of affairs, it does so in what, for a newspaper, is a disturbingly fact-free way.
For example, the editorial repeats the claim of the Council's critics that it made its decision to deny the Windsor developers a zoning change on the basis of "inaccurate information." And as evidence of that, it notes that the Murphy letter [which warned that changing the zoning might imperil 25th Street's Historic District designation] was withdrawn by her supervisor, Mr. Martin, because his organization does not as a rule get involved testifying in zoning matters.
True enough. But did Mr. Martin suggest in any way that Ms. Murphey's conclusions... that changed zoning would endanger 25th Street's Historic District status... was incorrect? He did not. So what "incorrect information" does the editorial identify that the council relied on in making its decision? None. Nor did the editorial so much as mention letters and testimony from several other people with much experience and substantial credibility in historic preservation that concurred with Ms. Murphy's conclusions.
The editorial then, seeking apparently to saddle the Council with responsibility for the rancor, ranges back two years to resurrect Godfrey administration spin regarding the Ernest Company project, claiming that the Council "badgered and berated" company representatives at a Council meeting. I wonder, did the editorial writer bother to listen to the tape of that Council meeting? [It's a matter of public record.] There is little or nothing on it that anyone not an Administration spin-meister would characterize as badgering and berating. And did the editorial mention that the Council members questioning Ernest were seeking information about the company that they'd requested from the Mayor's office much earlier... and had been refused? It did not.
The SE is entitled to its editorial opinion. However, when it offers such an opinion to its readers, it has a responsibility to marshal fact in support of it. This editorial did not. From MY hometown paper, I expect better. Much better.

Our thanks to Std-Ex reader Flatlander for the most excellent rebuttal.

Our readers' additional observations and comments are encouraged... either here... or on the Std-Ex site.

Historic 25th Street District Rezoning Ordinance Finds Itself Back on the Council Calender

Councilman Stephens moves to reconsider "height ordinance"

Interesting development you're not going to read about in this morning's Standard-Examiner. It seems that one of the five council members prevailing in the vote to deny approval of Boss Godfrey's Historic 25th Street District building height zoning amendment has put the matter back on calender:

Ogden City Council *Special Meeting* Agenda - October 14, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.:

8. Old Business:
... b. Reconsideration of Revised Height Limit Ordinance on 25th Street. Reconsideration of Proposed Ordinance 2008-43 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Subsection 15-34-3.A to revise the height limits on 25th Street Historic District. (Reconsider/not reconsider ordinance; if reconsider, receive public input and adopt/not adopt ordinance).[Emphasis added]

Our sources report that it's Councilman Stephens who seemed to have had the change of heart. Stephens thus holds true to his reputation as the most enigmatic and unpredictable council member.

We don't quite get the point, inasmuch as Ogden Properties Inc. has already announced it's pulling out of the project. Perhaps the project isn't quite so dead as we thought.

Be sure to contact your council members to let them know exactly what you think about this latest twist in the Windsor Hotel saga; and don't forget to spread the words to your historic preservationist friends.

We assume the council chamber will be packed next Tuesday with steely-eyed lumpencitizens who oppose Boss Godfrey's reckless approach to our Historic 25th Street designation. You can be assured the G-train and her fellow property-flipping vampires will show up in force. It'll be a lively council meeting, for sure.

Your comments are invited, as always.

Appointments, Water Rate Fixes, and a Godfreyite Council Assault

City Council Notes - 10/7/08

By George K.

Chair Wicks was excused from the Council meeting.

The Council approved a number of entities recommended by the Arts Council to receive a portion of the $35,000. grant from the Council. These entities enrich the community through their artistic endeavors from the Childrens Treehouse Museum to the Foursite Theater group.

The Council appointed Dustin Chapman to the Board of Adjustments with a 5 to 1 vote with Councilwoman Jeske casting the dissenting vote.

Bill Cook explained the purpose of the water, sewer and storm sewer rate increases and briefly reviewed the process the Council used to determine what the rates should be. Then Laura Lewis went into more detail. John Patterson concluded by presenting the current rate structure developed by the administration stating that the $5.00 surcharge would be eliminated and the top tier removed, so that the $2.30 per 1,000 gallons surcharge for non-secondary water customers would take effect at 70,000 gallons of water used. A $2.00 per gallon surcharge for secondary water users would begin at 20,000 gallons. After listening to a number of concerned citizens, Bill Cook read a list of concerns and issues that the Council wished to address at a later time when more information was available with the new water software that the City had purchased to handle the water billing and information system. It was noted that only about two percent of Ogden residents would receive either a refund or credit for the huge bills that they had received.

After public input, Vice Chair Stephens told patrons their input was appreciated and thanked them for their input and suggestions and said it was this sharing and communicating of concerns that problems were solved. Councilwoman Jeske asked Bill Cook to add lot size consideration to the list of issues to be considered. She also asked that a way be developed to inform senior citizens and low income residents that the City allowed some relief for them. Vice Chairman Stephens noted that challenges of the new water program had been addressed by both the administration and the council with citizen input and it was this cooperative effort that had allowed for a satisfactory outcome for all concerned.

A number of 25th Street business owners and some members of the Landmarks Commission addressed the Council with all of them requesting that the Council reconsider their vote on the height ordinance. Several said that the Council was playing politics and really wasn’t concerned with the historic district designation. There were four speakers who did not request the Council to reconsider, with three stating the importance of preserving the Historic District.

Councilwoman Jeske was rebuked for not apologizing for her comments by Sue Wilkerson, Bernie Allen and Dorie Mosher, and for operating behind closed doors. Referring to the flashlights that Councilwoman Jeske had given to each Council member when she was sworn in as a token that the Council would operate in the open and shine a light on city government, Ms. Mosher gave Councilwoman Jeske a couple of batteries since apparently the light had gone out in her flashlight.

The Mayor, in his comments, said that he wanted the city government to conduct business in the open, and he encouraged communication at any time because his door was always, but he said that Mrs. Jeske had made the statement that she didn’t want to work with the administration. Then Councilmember Brandon Stephenson stated that he felt it necessary in order for the city to continue to grow the council and mayor had to work together. He mentioned that there are no joint goals for the city because the council would not work with the administration and come to a compromise. He faulted Council Leadership with failing to work with the administration and communicating with the mayor.

Council member Jesse Garcia, defended the Council and their decisions. Then Council member Stephenson said that he guessed that he wasn’t through with his comments, and further stated his disappointment with his fellow council members. Council member Garcia gave a short rebuttal. Councilwoman Jeske spoke up and said, “This isn’t the place to do our dirty laundry,” and made the motion to close the meeting. Vice Chair Stephens said that he wasn’t ready and made a few comments.

The meeting adjourned about 9:15 PM. with no action taken to reconsider the vote taken regarding the height amendment ordinance.

Update 10/08/08 6:32 a.m. MT: Ace reporter Schwebke offers his own version of last night's council meeting hijinks in this morning's Standard-Examiner, with typical Std-Ex pro-Godfrey spin.

The G-train Pressures the Council for a Second Bite of the Re-zoning Apple

The Emerald City Godfreyites continue to "bark up the wrong tree"

The Standard-Examiner reports this morning that Ogden City Landmarks Commission Chair Sue "G-train" Wilkerson continues pushing the administration's effort to broadly modify the zoning ordinance pertaining to Ogden City's Historic 25th Street District. From this morning's Scott Schwebke story:

OGDEN — An Ogden Landmarks Commission member is asking the city council to reconsider its decision to reject an amendment that would have allowed exemptions to a 45-foot height restriction ordinance for Historic 25th Street buildings.
Sue Wilkerson, who has served on the Landmarks Commission for 3 1 /2 years, said Monday the council’s Sept. 23 decision should be revisited because it was based on flawed information.

The prescribed process for bringing up a council decision for reconsideration is provided by Section 16 of the Ogden City Council Rules of Procedure:

16. Reconsideration
A. Any Council member who has voted with the prevailing side of a question may move at the same meeting to reconsider the question at the same meeting, or at the next available Council meeting. If a question has failed by a tie vote, members who voted against the question shall be considered to be on the prevailing side. [Emphasis added]

Whether any of the five prevailing council members on last Tuesday's "nay" vote (Wicks, Garcia, Gochnour, Jeske & Stevens) will succumb to Wilkerson's lobbying pressure is something, of course, that can't be predicted with absolute certainty.

One thing is clear however, in our view. Wilkerson and her fellow Godfreyites have missed the main issue here. Although they trot out several dilatory and peripheral issues, such as whether the council's decision to reject Boss Godfrey's proposed ordinance may have been (hypothetically) founded in some part upon flawed information, they nevertheless continue to overlook the single pivotal issue in this matter, i.e., the broad wording of the now defeated ordinance amendment, which would have stripped the council of zoning approval power, and ceded it to a pair of unelected volunteer advisory commissions.

Unless and until the Godfreyites are prepared to offer a more narrowly drafted ordinance, which would preserve the council's zoning approval authority, we believe it's unlikely that anyone within the prevailing majority of the city council will be willing to take a second look at Windsor Hotel re-zoning.

As it stands, Wilkerson and her fellow Godfreyites are "barking up the wrong tree," in other words, we think.

Before closing, we'll also link (without our own editorial comment) the latest Godfreyite anti-council smear letter, appearing in this morning's Std-Ex:

Ogden should make inner city upscale

The fun never ends in Ogden City politics.

We'll leave it to our gentle readers to enlighten the blogosphere about the true meaning of all this.

Boss Godfrey's Council Smear Campaign Rolls On

Another Godfreyite nasty anti-council hit piece

Last Tuesday, we posted an article spotlighting this Standard-Examiner story, which reported that Councilwoman Gochnour had thrown out an olive branch to the Landmarks Commission. Ms. Gochnour had graciously apologized to the Landmarks Commission for some ill-considered work session remarks. As our readers will recall, Ms. Gochnour had obliquely suggested that the Commission had "succumbed to threats that forced it to support" a proposed Godfrey administration zoning amendment, which would have broadly ceded council zoning approval authority to the Landmarks and Planning Commissions, within Ogden's Historic 25th Street District. The controversial Boss Godfrey proposal was of course ultimately defeated by a 5-2 council vote.

As long-time Godfrey watchers, we predicted that Ms. Gochnour's display of good manners would result in immediate Godfreyite payback, and that we expected to see "the usual flurry of letters to the Standard-Examiner," blaming the council for the failure of the Windsor Hotel project.

Just like clockwork, we saw the first such predicted Godfreyite attack last week, with this Tami Crowley guest commentary, (which gentle reader Curmudgeon thoroughly shredded in a followup Weber County Forum article.)

And true to form, this morning's Standard-Examiner carries a second Godfreyite broadside, with a thoroughly hyperbolic and truly nasty David Willis letter, illustrating exactly why it's never a good idea for anyone on the City Council ever to apologise to Boss Godfrey or his minions:

Gochnour owes mayor an apology

As all Godfrey watchers know, the general rules of gracious and civil intra-government social behavior have been long suspended by Boss Godfrey during the 8-1/2 years of his administration. Just as we predicted, Ms. Gochnour's gracious apology has been thoroughly misinterpreted and twisted for political purposes this morning. The Godfreyites' council smear campaign rolls on, full steam ahead.

What a shame it is, we think, that our nice little Utah town remains governed by a completely botched little Harrisville feller who never learned how to play well with others.

And what say our gentle readers about all this?

Update 10/6/08 7:39 p.m. MT: Thanks to the efforts of attentive reader googleboy, we're now informed that the crabby author of the above letter, David Willis, is actually a friggin' real estate agent from the G-Train's Terra Ventures real estate office.

Sheesh! We swear nobody could make this stuff up.

Friday Morning News Roundup

The Windsor Hotel attracts a new prospective buyer; a distinguished veteran newspaperman "calls it quits"

Two interesting items in this morning's Standard-Examiner which we thought to be worthy of note:

1) In the wake of the announcement earlier this week that the Ogden Properties had nixed plans to proceed with its Windsor Hotel development project, one of our gentle readers tipped us off that another prospective buyer was waiting in the wings. This morning's Std-Ex story provides further information about this fascinating development. From this morning's Scott Schwebke story:

OGDEN — An ardent critic of Mayor Matthew Godfrey is expressing an interest in purchasing the beleaguered Windsor Hotel.
Tom Owens, of Farmington, said he has approached the city council via e-mail about acquiring the hotel at 166 25th Street because of his interest in historic preservation.
“I have a soft spot in my heart for Ogden,” said Owens, who hasn’t visited the Windsor Hotel or developed a formal purchase proposal. [...]
Owens, a former television producer, is a native of Ogden and owns a rental home at 2748 Brinker Ave. His other properties include the historic Richards grist mill as well as an 1860s-era stone house, both in Farmington. [...]
Owens said if he decides to purchase the Windsor, he hopes the city will give him the same “sweetheart” incentive package it provided Ogden Properties.[...]
Owens isn’t confident that Godfrey would sell him the hotel because he’s a vocal critic of the mayor. “Godfrey and me are enemies,” he said.
Owens noted he has a history of having purchase offers for city property rejected. In April 2007, Owens offered to pay $300,000 for about an acre encompassing 2127, 2131 and 2151 Wall Ave.
The RDA instead opted to sell the property to Bootjack LLC, owned by developer Chris Peterson, for $270,000.

For those readers who are curious about at least one of Mr. Owens's previous historic rehab projects, be sure to check out Mr. Owens's most-excellent rockmill.com website.

2) In a truly stunning bit of Emerald City news, Standard-Examiner editorial page editor Don Porter announces he's leaving the newspaper business, after 23 years on the Std-Ex payroll. Mr. Porter's morning commentary provides the gist:

Today will be tough for me. As you read these words, I will be spending my last hours at the Standard-Examiner — assembling the opinion pages for the weekend and saying good-bye to my friends.
When I walk out the door this afternoon, I will no longer be a newspaperman. I’m changing careers, and will henceforth be the junior member of another company’s corporate communications team — a non-media company. I’m looking forward to the new job with excitement; it’s time for a career change and a new challenge.

We received a private mail last evening informing us that Mr. Porter will be "joining the corporate communications team at Questar Gas in Salt Lake City," and that his replacement will be deputy editor Doug Gibson.

We congratulate Mr. Porter on his long and distinguished career in journalism, and extend our best wishes as he embarks upon his new corporate career path.

Mr. Porter's announcement, following closely on the heels of Dave Harmer's announced retirement, thins the ranks of Godfrey apologists by two. Not a bad tally for a single week... we think.

We'll leave it to our gentle readers to let us know the true meaning of all this.

We also extend our apologies for the late posting of this WCF morning article. We've experienced computer hardware problems, which are hopefully now resolved.

Response to this Morning's Standard-Examiner Op-ed Piece

Lame Tami Crowley Guest Commentary, thoroughly sliced and diced

By Curmudgeon

In this morning's Standard-Examiner, there is a long op ed piece by Ms. Tami Crowley, owner of Artists & Heirlooms on Historic 25th Street. She is displeased by the Council's vote last Tuesday night not to change the height limits for renovation projects on the street to accommodate the Windsor Hotel renovation. Ms. Crowley notes that many business owners supported the change the Council rejected, and believes that the wishes of those who own businesses on 25th Street were not taken seriously by the Council as a whole, and charges that the Council instead listened to "outsiders" and indulged the members own personal agendas instead.

Ms. Crowley's piece is interesting in a number of respects. She sadly descends into the same rhetorical overkill and partisanship she accuses those on the Council she disagrees with of employing. [Ms. Crowley, there were certainly those at the meeting supporting your point of view, but there were not "countless" numbers of them, as you claim.] But that kind of exaggeration often creeps into pieces written by the angry. There are more substantive problems with Ms. Crowley's missive.

She repeated the usual Godfrey Gaggle charge that the Council bowed to the wishes of those who live in "neighborhoods east of the area," and complains that the Windsor renovation plan had already been approved by "the appropriate officials" and would "never have gone to the council if it weren't for the height ordinance." Let me see if I can rephrase that point for her a little more clearly: "If the ordinances didn't require the Council to approve this, the council wouldn't have had to approve it." We can only wonder if Ms. Crowley had her op ed piece proofread by Sarah Palin before she submitted it, with such a trenchant observation as that at the heart of it.

Ms. Crowley says she was "appalled as one of the councilwomen read a pre-written speech, obviously authored by someone opposed to the project." It's a little hard to know exactly what Ms. Crowley was upset about. That a council member read prepared remarks into the record? Surely not that. That the remarks were "written by someone opposed to the project?" Does Ms. Crowley think only remarks by those in favor of projects she likes should be read into the record? I suspect that's it, but her point is so vaguely made, it's hard to be sure.

"In that speech," she goes on, the councilwoman "degraded landmarks and the planning commission and provided no documentation, only worry."

I agree with Ms. Crowley that some of the discussion by the council descended, by all accounts, into inappropriate... well, mudslinging. I agree with her that such has no proper place in public discourse, particularly in the Council chambers during public sessions. However, about this "no documentation" matter.... I note that Ms. Crowley never mentions the article by the Utah Heritage Foundation cautioning that changing the height ordinance to accommodate the Windsor developers might put the street's Historic District designation at risk. And, despite her expressed concern for the importance of documentation in public debate [which I share], she never in her op ed piece so much as mentions the letter from the State Historic Preservation Office spokesperson raising the same concerns.

What she does include in her essay is this: "I listened to presentations by City Planning Manager Greg Montgomery... [which] provided information showing this change would not jeopardize historical guidelines with federal or state regulations with for future funding." That's it. Just a bald assertion, with no documentation or evidence provided by Ms. Crowley, that changing the height limits would not affect the street's federal designation as a Historic District.

Sorry, Ms. Crowley, but [rhetorically] stamping your foot and shouting over and over "It won't! It won't! It won't!" isn't likely to convince anyone not already committed to your side of the argument.

Let me put it in a nutshell for you, Ms. Crowley: I had no opinion on this Windsor business until I read the Utah Heritage Foundation article, and then saw the SHPO letter. Those moved me off the fence and into the group supporting the Council on this. Those two communications, from groups with a great deal of credibility on matters involving historic preservation, stating that changing the height limits would endanger the streets historic designation, I found convincing.

I don't have a problem with the proposed Windsor re-design. I think it would be good for Ogden in general, and 25th Street in particular to have a deteriorating history property rehabbed in a way to preserve the historic character of the building and bring several upscale condo units to the street. But not at the cost of endangering the street's Historic District designation.

So, if you want to convince me... and Council members too I suspect --- otherwise, what you need to do is present an argument, and evidence, that the SHPO and Heritage Foundation are wrong about this, and that changing the height limits would definitely not endanger the streets Historic District designation. That is, seems to me, what you and those who share your views need to do. Your op ed piece does not even begin to do it.

Ace Reporter Schwebke Pronounces the Windsor Hotel Project Dead

And Councilwoman Gochnour attempts to smooth over some ruffled Landmarks Commission feathers

Two important items in this morning's Standard-Examiner, regarding the Weber County Forum hot topic of the week, Ogden Properties LLC's Windsor Hotel rehabilitation project.

Ace Reporter Schwebke's morning story pronounces the project dead. We incorporate Mr. Schwebke's opening graphs:

OGDEN — The owners of the Windsor Hotel officially canceled plans Monday to renovate the historic inn because of a city council decision preventing the addition of a fourth floor.
Ogden Properties LLC, which owns the Windsor, lost its construction loan for the project because the council last week refused to approve a zoning amendment that could have allowed the additional floor to be built.
“In today’s market, lenders are trying to get out of construction loans,” said Dave Harmer, Ogden’s director of community and economic development. He tried Monday to persuade Ogden Properties to reconsider its decision. “They had financing ready to go, and then it all fell apart because of the council action,” he said. In addition, Ogden Properties has asked the city, which provided $288,000 in incentives last year to help the Windsor renovations move forward, if it plans to exercise its option to buy the hotel back, Harmer said. If the city chooses not to exercise that option, it forfeits any right to the incentives it provided, he said. Stuart Sheldon, an official with Ogden Properties, said his company is disappointed that the Windsor project won’t be undertaken. “It’s dead, so there is nothing for us to say,” he said Monday in a phone interview. “It’s sad and frustrating, but that’s the end of it.” The Windsor project was dealt a fatal blow last week when the city council rejected by a 5-2 vote an amendment that would provide exemptions to a 45-foot height restriction for Historic 25th Street buildings.

There will no doubt be plenty of second guessing about this; and we're quite certain there will be the usual flurry of Godfreyite letters to the Standard-Examiner, blaming the council for the failure of this project. When the smoke clears however, a troubling series of questions will remain: Why did the developer draw up plans and arrange financing for a project which clearly failed to comply with the existing zoning ordinance? If the developer was aware at the time of the purchase of the property that the addition of a penthouse would require a zoning variance, why wasn't this mentioned (or made a contingent part of the deal) at the time the proposed transaction was first presented to the council? Inasmuch as the developer's proposed project merely required a single exception to existing zoning rules, why did the administration draw up a new ordinance which would apply to the entire Historic 25th Street District? Why did Boss Godfrey's proposed ordinance contain language which would have stripped zoning approval authority from the council, and have vested it in an unelected advisory body, i.e., the Landmarks Commission? And last but not least... is there anybody who really believes that the developer had its loan all lined up... taking into account the current condition of the U.S. credit market?

So many questions... so few answers.

We also learn this morning that Councilwoman Gochnour has issued a written apology to the Landmarks Commission for ill-considered remarks uttered last week, evidently in the heat of passion:

“I went a step too far in my frustration at the end of a long and exhausting week,” she said in the e-mail obtained by the Standard-Examiner.
“And, I also want you to know I have great respect for the Landmarks Commission and all the excellent work you’ve done through the years in furthering Ogden’s historic preservation efforts.”

While we duly applaud Ms. Gochnour for her graciousness in reaching out to the Landmarks Commission, in a truly classy effort to smooth over some ruffled feathers, we nevertheless urge Ms. Gochnour and all five council grownups to remain vigilant. As long-time Godfrey watchers are well aware, our thoroughly Machiavellian Mayor Matt, regards apologies as acts of submission -- evidence of weakness -- which will henceforth require further acts of contrition (groveling.)

There hasn't been a week during the 3-1/2 years we've been Godfrey watching that we've been more proud of our city council's performance, by the way, than during this week's Windsor Hotel matter. The council has recently demonstrated a profound dedication to protecting the lumpencitizens' interests. Now is no time to let down their guard, we believe.

And lest our readers are temped to believe that this is the end of this story, we'll advise that we received this tip from a trusted source this morning:

"Sources close to me indicate Bob Geiger submitted a GRAMA request to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office for all correspondence between Barbara Murphy, of the office, and Ogden City."

The plot sickens, gentle readers. The Godfreyite's Council smear campaign which we warned about on Friday, is apparently well underway.

Have at it, gentle readers.

We'd love to get your takes on all this.