Planning commission watches training on "missing middle" housing, form-based codes and impact fees

The North Ogden City Planning Commission used its required training slot on April 2 to view and discuss short presentations about missing-middle housing, form-based codes and impact fees and to consider whether any of the concepts would be appropriate for North Ogden's neighborhoods.

Scott Hess, Community and Economic Development Director, framed the training as a housing-focused session consisting of three short videos (two on missing-middle housing and form-based codes and a brief state video on impact fees) plus an article titled "Five practical zoning hacks for missing middle housing." Hess said the goal was to expose commissioners to options for diversifying housing types and to the trade-offs those changes involve.

What commissioners saw and discussed

- Missing-middle housing: the videos defined the term as housing types between single-family homes and larger apartment buildings (duplexes, fourplexes, bungalow courts, courtyard apartments) that are similar in scale to houses. A presenter noted these types historically existed in many cities but are now "missing" because of financing, zoning and production barriers. - Form-based codes: the training emphasized regulating the physical form (the box on the ground, setbacks, height, frontage) rather than using density numbers alone. The presenter showed examples where form-based approaches encourage a mix of duplexes, small multiunit buildings and single-family homes that look compatible from the street. - Impact fees: a short state-produced video explained impact fees are one-time charges authorized by state law to fund growth-related capital facilities (water, sewer, stormwater, roads, parks, and public-safety facilities). The training material and staff comments said North Ogden's current impact fees for a single-family home average roughly $17,500 (staff cited a range of roughly $14,000 to $25,000) and that collected fees must be spent or encumbered within six years per state guidance.

Commissioner discussion and local considerations

Commissioners and staff discussed how the concepts might apply in North Ogden. Commissioners pointed to existing duplexes, small multiunit homes and older city-center lots as possible places where smaller, walkable housing types already exist or could be expanded. Commissioners repeatedly raised two local constraints: (1) North Ogden's hillside topography and snow-removal needs, which affect parking and on-street parking feasibility, and (2) local political sensitivity to the perceived quality of new housing.

Commissioner Gardner said developers and the community would expect high-quality materials and design; Commissioner Green encouraged staff to craft proposals that residents would find palatable. Scott Hess noted Farmington City has been piloting relaxed rules for detached backyard accessory units and said staff will gather model ordinances for review if the commission wants to consider external ADUs on smaller lots (North Ogden currently requires a 20,000-square-foot lot for detached external ADUs).

Impact fees and budgeting

Staff emphasized impact fees are a predictable cost for new development and are intended to ensure new growth pays its share of capital facility expansion rather than shifting those costs solely to existing taxpayers. Hess said the city is considering updated impact-fee studies and that impact fees for new single-family homes in North Ogden currently range in the low tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the home, so commissioners should keep that fiscal context in mind when discussing zoning changes.

Next steps and staff requests

Staff asked commissioners to consider whether they want to pursue form-based elements or changes that would allow selected missing-middle types; staff also asked commissioners to help with public outreach and education, since neighbors often respond to notices with design and character concerns. Hess said staff would bring examples and model ordinances (Farmington City's external ADU language was mentioned) to future meetings if the commission wants to pursue codes that allow additional housing choice.

Ending note: commissioners agreed the training was useful and that staff should return with concrete policy options and local examples for further deliberation rather than trying to adopt broad changes without additional public outreach and design standards.