Council declines rezoning for 2850 Washington Rear, citing access and configuration concerns

Ogden — The City Council on Tuesday declined to adopt a rezoning for a 0.61‑acre rear parcel at 2850 Washington Boulevard after members expressed concern about vehicle access, driveway width and the parcel’s fragmented ownership.

Planning staff presented the request to change the site from CP‑3 commercial to R‑3 residential with a conditional overlay that would limit future development to condominiums or for‑sale townhomes (about an 11‑unit maximum). The planning commission recommended approval by a 5–2 vote; staff said the conditional overlay was part of a development agreement that the applicant had signed.

Why it matters: The parcel sits behind an existing commercial frontage and accesses the block through a roughly 20‑foot driveway that staff said meets fire access standards but falls short of the city’s typical driveway width standard of 24 feet. Councilors said the limited single access, the presence of two single‑family homes whose rear yards and property lines complicate expansion, and the separate ownership of adjacent parcels create development constraints that made them reluctant to approve the rezone at this time.

What staff said Planning staff explained the site is awkward for commercial uses because of poor visibility from Washington Boulevard and that an R‑3 residential designation could serve as a transition from the commercial frontage to nearby single‑family lots. Staff noted the driveway is about 20 feet wide and meets minimum fire access, but that Ogden’s normal minimum driveway width is 24 feet.

Public input Residents and nearby property owners spoke both for and against the rezoning during the public input period. Theresa Bramwell said the lot previously contained two single‑family homes and that “it used to be commercial on Washington Boulevard, and then 2 single family homes behind that commercial building,” and that the property had been “awkward” historically but that owner‑occupied townhomes would be a reasonable use. Ty Chasten, an owner of a nearby property, urged the council to confirm utility and emergency vehicle access, garbage and snow‑management plans, and other site logistics before approving denser development.

Applicant response A representative of Heritage Land Development told the council the developer had attempted to acquire the neighboring commercial parcel that would simplify combined redevelopment but had been unable to contact the listing agent; the representative said combining parcels would produce a superior project, but that the applicant had tried to reach the owner and been unsuccessful.

Council action A motion to adopt the ordinance to rezone (Ordinance 2025‑13) failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion by Vice Chair Hyer, seconded by Council Member Graff, to not adopt the ordinance passed on roll call (Graff Aye; Myers Nay; Blair Aye; Choburka Aye; Hyer Aye; Chair White Aye). Council members who opposed adoption cited the single access point, the narrow driveway and the unsettled parcel configuration.

Context and next steps Staff and council members noted the parcel could be a stronger candidate for a rezone if neighboring parcels were under single ownership or if additional access could be provided. Planning staff said a property owner or developer could pursue a variance through the Board of Zoning Adjustments for the driveway width or continue outreach to acquire adjacent parcels; the planning commission’s conditional overlay and development agreement remain part of the record but are not effective without council adoption.

Ending: Councilors encouraged additional work with the applicant to address access, utility and circulation concerns and indicated they would be open to reconsidering a revised proposal if the site’s ownership and access issues were resolved.