Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners ask for joint work session before considering West Creek general‑plan changes
Summary
Developers proposed rezonings and a general‑plan amendment for land near the planned West Weber corridor and the M&T employment zone; commissioners raised concerns about timing, infrastructure and unclear corridor alignment and recommended a work session with county commissioners before advancing changes.
Developers and commission members debated a proposed general‑plan amendment and possible rezoning for land identified as West Creek (also referenced as West Creek Estates). The item was discussed as a work‑session topic rather than a formal hearing; no rezoning vote was taken. Commissioners repeatedly urged the developer and staff to hold a joint work session with county commissioners to clarify policy direction before a formal application proceeds.
Pat (identified in the record as the presenter/developer) said he supports rezoning parts of the area to higher density (R-3) to provide housing closer to a planned M&T employment zone that he said will bring jobs to the area. Pat told commissioners he has met with several landowners in the corridor, is under contract on adjoining parcels, is coordinating with Black Pine and the Peterson Group, and is exploring sewer and secondary‑water connections and corridor infrastructure. He said he is willing to accept conditions and development agreements if the planning commission supports a change.
Commissioners expressed mixed views. Several members said changing the future‑land‑use map at this stage would be premature because the West Weber corridor alignment is not finalized (UDOT environmental assessment is pending), the Inland Port/associated decisions remain unresolved, and the county’s general plan currently calls for mixed‑use and other designations in adjoining areas. Commissioners warned that approving isolated pockets of higher density could create an “island” of R-3 that is inconsistent with adjacent land uses.
Discussion covered practical barriers and costs. Commissioners and staff mentioned large anticipated infrastructure costs for nearby projects (staff cited figures discussed in prior meetings — an infrastructure estimate for a nearby Black Pine project was referenced in the meeting in the order of about $120 million, which staff noted as context), sewer and secondary‑water availability, and the applicant’s proposed 200‑foot corridor reservation intended to facilitate a future arterial alignment. Commissioners recommended the developer arrange a work session with all three county commissioners, as the county commissioners had recently expressed policy direction that appears to differ from some of the rezone requests discussed.
Staff and several commissioners recommended more coordination with county decisionmakers before proceeding. One commissioner suggested the planning commission invite the county commissioners to a joint meeting (several commissioners said they had been part of a recent meeting that was productive). Commissioners also discussed timing uncertainties for Inland Port and UDOT actions and suggested the applicant may proceed with a submittal for a general‑plan amendment but that the planning commission should first seek clear policy direction at a work session.
No formal planning commission action was taken on West Creek at this meeting; commissioners directed staff to schedule or recommend a joint work session with the county commissioners to reconcile policy signals and to provide the developer a clearer pathway for any formal application.
