Oakley planning commission tables City Center development approvals after public outcry; opens code amendment process for conditional uses

The Oakley Planning Commission on an undecided date in July delayed action on the proposed City Center master plan and related development agreement after a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of residents and raised questions about traffic, infrastructure and scale.

The commission voted 4–1 to table any approvals for up to 60 days and later voted to formally initiate proceedings to amend the municipal land‑use regulations to temporarily prohibit approval of the conditional‑use applications as submitted. The commission framed the two steps as a way to separate consideration of the village master plan from proposed rezonings and conditional‑use permits for a convenience store/fueling station and a restaurant parcel.

The proposal presented by the applicant’s development team seeks to redevelop multiple parcels near State Road (SR) 32 into a mixed‑use village. Project materials shown at the hearing described roughly 40,000 square feet of retail, a proposed grocery, reuse and restoration of the historic Brooklawn Creamery, about 36 residential units in three buildings, a town hall, post office relocation pads, farmers‑market space and extensive site landscaping, open space and snow storage. The team also presented a separate proposal for a convenience store with roughly 16 fuel pumps, EV chargers and a car wash and for a high‑end steakhouse to be built using the existing historic barn on a parcel to the south.

“This is a transformative project, a generational project for the city of Oakley,” said Matt Wardland of the applicant team during the presentation. The developers said the city center concept will be governed by a master‑plan development and a design‑review process and that a draft development agreement is under review by city staff. They also proposed a design review committee that would include a planning commissioner, a council member, an architect, a builder and a member of the public.

Public comments at the hearing were sharply divided.Several residents urged the commission to reject or substantially scale back the convenience‑store and fueling‑station element and to require additional studies before any approvals. Tad Campbell, who identified himself as a resident of River Lane, urged restraint: “This isn’t a corner store or a local cafe. This is a commercial hub,” he said, arguing the plan would be “a dramatic transformation” of Oakley’s character. Multiple speakers cited traffic and safety on SR 32, the town’s dark‑sky values, potential water and sewer impacts and the risk that infrastructure upgrades will fall to residents.

Other speakers backed the project or urged a pragmatic approach. Rick Shapiro, a local property owner, pointed to prior projects completed by the developer and said, “I would give him an A‑plus for both,” referencing the developer’s earlier local investments. Jeff Yipe and others urged commissioners to emphasize walkability and mixed‑use design to produce a village‑scale center rather than a strip‑center layout.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly noted that the proposals require multiple separate approvals: a master‑plan development and development agreement for the village; rezones and conditional‑use permits for the convenience store/fuel station and for the barn/restaurant parcel; and UDOT approvals for additional access points on SR 32. Commission discussion highlighted uncertainty about whether the city or developer would fund major infrastructure improvements; multiple speakers and commissioners said studies on sewer, water, stormwater and traffic are needed before final approvals.

The developer’s presentation included detailed site plans and numbers: a proposed 36 residential units, roughly 40,000 square feet of commercial space in the village portion, 16 fueling positions shown on the convenience‑store plan, a roughly 4,800‑square‑foot dining area for the barn/restaurant on a roughly 92,000‑square‑foot lot, and a project open‑space figure of about 31 percent. The team repeatedly said design details would be resolved through the design review process and the development agreement.

Commission action: after hearing public comments and extended internal debate, the commission approved a motion to table approvals related to the development agreement and to pursue zoning or code changes on conditional uses as separate actions. The tabling motion passed 4–1. Commissioners also voted to initiate proceedings to amend the municipal land‑use regulations to prohibit approval of the conditional‑use applications “as submitted” while the code amendment process runs (the commission directed staff to prepare formal notice). The city council retains final authority over any rezones and would receive commission recommendations on those items.

What happens next: the commission said it will use the 30–60 day period to review the development agreement language, to request or await infrastructure studies and to consider establishing an architectural/design review body and other conditions that would be included in any future development agreement. The convenience‑store (fueling station) and barn/restaurant parcels will be considered separately from the village master plan; rezones and conditional‑use permits will require additional public hearings and formal action by the city council.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized that zoning and conditional‑use approvals are legislative decisions that must follow public‑notice procedures and that UDOT must sign off on additional access to SR 32 before the fueling‑station plan could proceed. The commission did not approve any zoning change or conditional‑use permit at the meeting.

The meeting record, including the developer presentation and public comments, will remain part of the municipal record; staff will prepare revised materials and a formal schedule for the commission’s next substantive review.