Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denying plan to add 5.2-acre parcel to RM map and to rezone it to mixed residential
Summary
The planning commission recommended denial of two linked proposals affecting 5.2 acres of Wesley Nelson property north of 2600 South: adding the area to the RM eligibility map (Ordinance 25-07) and rezoning it from commercial to mixed residential (Ordinance 25-08).
The Nibley City Planning Commission on March 20 recommended denial of two connected measures affecting Wesley Nelson properties north of 2600 South: Ordinance 25-07, which would add a 5.2-acre portion of Parcels 32272 and 3271 to the RM application map (making the portion eligible for rezoning), and Ordinance 25-08, which would rezone that same 5.2-acre area from commercial to mixed residential (RM).
Levi Roberts, city planner, summarized the application and the staff recommendation. Roberts said the parcels are adjacent to the previously discussed commercial parcel and that the RM application would allow townhome-style development. He reminded commissioners that the portion at issue was rezoned to commercial in June 2023 and is part of a larger concept plan under concurrent review. "The applicant provided a concept plan... The public benefit is more first-time home buyer housing opportunities..." Roberts said. For the RM map change, Roberts said staff recommended denial, noting commercial opportunities along Heritage Drive and 2600 South and the city's limited supply of commercial land.
The applicant's representative, Trent, told the commission the change ties into a coordinated plan for the Nelson properties and that commercial and residential components are being considered together. "We... presented the other area south of 2600 to show... another large chunk of land that we're willing to commit to and put forward," Trent said.
Commission debate focused on market viability for small-scale commercial development, how master-plan road alignments (Heritage Drive) factor into parcel layouts, and whether the city should "wait for the market" or unlock residential housing now. Several commissioners described the decision as a "chicken-or-egg" dilemma: commercial uses may not locate without sufficient population, but locking the land into commercial zoning could delay residential that would create demand. Commissioners and one participant with experience in local brokerage and developer negotiations described active, ongoing discussions among developers and the city about lot swaps and infrastructure financing.
On the RM map application (Ordinance 25-07) Commissioner Brett moved to recommend denial; Claire seconded. The commission voted to recommend denial; the motion carried by a recorded tally of 3 in favor, 2 opposed. On the rezone ordinance (Ordinance 25-08) to change the same 5.2-acre portion from commercial to RM, the commission also voted to recommend denial; that motion carried by a 3-2 vote.
Staff and multiple commissioners emphasized that denial at the planning commission level does not permanently bar future applications; property owners or the city may reapply or the council could act differently. Roberts noted that a preliminary plat for townhomes was already under review and that a denial of the rezone would require a rework of that residential application.
Both recommendations (25-07 and 25-08) will be forwarded as the commission's recommendations to the city council for their consideration at a future council meeting.
