Weber County planning commission recommends denial of Eden-area rezoning after hours-long public hearing

After more than three hours of staff presentations, legal explanations and public comment, the Weber County Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend denial of an application to rezone roughly 20 acres at about 5204 East Highway 166 from AV-3 to the county—9s form-based zone.

The proposal, described in staff materials as a mixed-use, village-style development that the applicant says would use transferable development rights (TDRs) to avoid increasing valleywide density, drew sustained public opposition and a lengthy staff policy review. Planning director Rick Grover and county counsel Courtland (last name not specified in the record) briefed commissioners on statutory deadlines and how their recommendation would be forwarded to the county commission.

The item was the meeting—9s most contested. Planning staff outlined how the rezone would interact with the Ogden Valley General Plan and with existing street-regulating plans. Charlie (last name not specified in the record), senior planner, summarized the plan—9s goals to focus new residential growth into village centers, move development rights away from sensitive open lands and to avoid strip-commercial development along highway corridors. He told commissioners the applicant—9s property had some frontage within the study area for Eden—9s village center but that the proposed form-based expansion would move commercial and higher-density uses closer to existing residential properties.

"If we focus on making sure those commercial areas develop as commercial first before we look outside those areas, it's a reasonable growth strategy," Charlie said in the presentation, summarizing the general-plan rationale for encouraging in-center development rather than rezoning new parcels for commercial uses.

Courtland, the county—9s attorney, told the commission there is a 45-day time frame in state law for a legislative body to act after a written request by an applicant; the planning commission—9s recommendation will be considered by the county commission at a future meeting. County staff also told the commission the county commission expected to consider an amended street-regulating plan on Dec. 5 and that timing had pressured the schedule for forwarding a recommendation.

Public commenters voiced a range of concerns: incompatibility with the general plan—9s guidance on where commercial and mixed-use should be allowed, possible impacts to wetlands and irrigation, water and wastewater capacity, and traffic safety at the four-way intersection near the project. Several residents asked the commission to delay or deny the rezone until more study or stronger guarantees on road improvements, sewer funding, and limits on short-term rentals could be put in place.

Brent Bateman, attorney for the applicant, told the commission his client had already identified at least some TDRs and said the project would finance oversizing of sewer infrastructure that otherwise would be unlikely. "Anything that you want to ask for now is a negotiation," Bateman said; he added the applicant is willing to pay a proportionate share of transport improvements where justified by a traffic study.

After deliberations, the commission found the application was not adequately supported by the general plan given uncertainties in the TDR system and that the proposal raised unresolved issues about commercial expansion, traffic mitigation and parking, and short-term rentals. The motion to recommend denial passed 5-2 on roll call.

The record shows commissioners Wampler, Tormann, Montgomery, Barber and Schuman voted in favor of the recommendation to deny; Commissioners Burton and Johnson voted against denial. The planning commission—9s recommendation will be forwarded to the Weber County Commission for final action.

What happens next: the applicant and county commission will receive the planning commission—9s recommendation and the matter will be scheduled for the legislative body—9s review, where staff noted the street-regulating plan and the rezone would be considered in close sequence. County staff and legal counsel told the commission that, if the planning commission does not forward a recommendation, state code could force the county commission to act without planning commission input because of the 45-day requirement.