Council wrestles with state housing compliance, vesting general plan and infrastructure limits

North Ogden City Council spent an extended portion of the meeting on housing policy, reviewing a state-required ‘‘CURE’’ modern-income-housing report and discussing whether to vest the city’s general plan or pursue other ordinances to encourage moderate-income housing.

Staff reported that the city’s CURE submission had been returned for more detail; city staff said the state is seeking more evidence about why entitled or rezoned sites have not produced housing. Economic and Community Development Director Scott Hess told the council the state’s follow-up could lead to a $300-per-day penalty tied to B&C road funds (staff estimated roughly a $90,000 potential penalty if not resolved). Hess said staff expanded the report with examples of code changes, rezones, annexations and permit data before resubmitting.

Council members and staff discussed multiple topics the state and developers are raising as tools or constraints on producing moderate-income housing: ownership requirements in development agreements, deed-restricted owner-occupancy percentages (council discussed examples where developers accepted 17–20% owner-occupied units for a period of five years), upzoning bonuses tied to sale-price ceilings, and concurrency requirements that would tie density approvals to the availability of water, roads and other infrastructure.

On water and infrastructure, staff said culinary water capacity is a principal constraint for higher-density development in some hilltop and west-of-the-cove areas. They noted a prior water-tank upgrade was required to meet fire-flow standards; staff and the council discussed requiring developers to fund infrastructure or demonstrate funding and construction within an agreed timeframe if they receive additional density. Hess referenced concurrency models used elsewhere (for example, Bellingham, Wash.) where rezones are granted contingent on infrastructure being completed within a set period.

Council members discussed local tools already used or available: development agreements that reduce setbacks and parking in exchange for density and deed restrictions; accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which the city already permits internally in single-family zones and has processed roughly 30–40 such permits; and restoration of two-family or attached single-family (“twin home”) options in select neighborhoods. A public commenter, Susan Kilborn, urged the council to consider “twin homes” (attached single-family properties with separate ownership parcels) as a preferred form of higher-density housing because of perceived differences in privacy and marketability compared with conventional duplexes.

Staff and council members acknowledged larger market forces that limit new housing construction: interest rates, construction costs, and high lot/acre values that can make many proposed projects economically unviable despite zoning. Hess argued that the city cannot force developers to build; rather, the city can update code, provide predictable entitlements, and identify infrastructure funding or incentives to encourage projects. The council also discussed economic-development strategies to attract commercial tenants (for example, Kings Plaza) and noted the interplay between adding rooftops and creating viable commercial corridors.

Outcome: No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff said it will submit expanded documentation to the state CURE reviewers, continue to refine the general plan and related code tools, and coordinate with planning commission and economic-development staff on targeted zoning, concurrency language and incentives. Council members asked staff to continue evaluating options such as targeted duplex/twin-home allowances, ADU policy, deed-restriction terms and infrastructure-concurrency measures.