Council tables rezoning at 600 E./2100 N. after weeks of public concern over townhomes

The North Ogden City Council on Monday tabled a proposed zoning map amendment for a 15-acre parcel at 600 East and 2100 North after more than two hours of public comment and a detailed presentation by the developer.

Scott Hess, North Ogden’s Community and Economic Development Director, told the council the application requested a mix of residential zones (R18, R15 and R4) for the Matlock parcel and that the planning commission had recommended a percentage-based approach after a lengthy public hearing. Hess said staff considered the proposal consistent with the general plan because the overall gross density equaled the city’s low-density ceiling (six units per acre across the 15-acre site) and because the applicant reduced the number of townhome units following planning commission feedback.

Developer representatives, identified in the meeting as Kyle White and Sam Barlo, described changes made after the planning commission: they reduced the acreage of townhomes, added higher-density edges to the north and south and reoriented units to create centralized, usable open space. The team emphasized the proposal was intended to deliver “attainable” housing rather than subsidized, income-restricted units.

But residents opposed to the proposal filled the public-comment period. Kevin Burns, a longtime North Ogden resident, thanked the council for supporting Family Promise but said, “Please don’t bring us any town homes to our neighborhood,” arguing that single-family and entry-level houses were preferable. Other neighbors raised similar concerns about neighborhood character, traffic at nearby Washington Boulevard, drainage and the consistency of the project with the city’s 2015 general plan.

Several speakers, including Brian Bartholomew (a Mountain View Irrigation board member), pressed the council to require the developer to secure secondary-water capacity and to honor conditions referenced in a 2019 will-serve letter before new lots come on line. Residents also asked that any concessions be memorialized in a development agreement that would include enforceable limits—no apartments, height and parking standards, trail connectivity and protections for adjacent properties.

During council discussion members debated several alternatives: approving a single R15 zone, using a mixed-zone percentage (the planning commission recommendation), or approving a rezoning with a development agreement that limits uses (for example, prohibiting apartment buildings and three-story townhomes) and requires specific off-site improvements. A council member moved to table the rezoning to allow staff and the developer to draft a development agreement with clearer concessions and protections; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.

Next steps: staff will work with the developer to produce a draft development agreement addressing the council’s concerns—items discussed included limiting building heights, guaranteeing sidewalks and curb/gutter improvements on 600 East and 2100 North, specifying trail connections, and including provisions for deed restrictions or purchase-priority tools to prioritize owner-occupants. The rezoning will return to the council once the agreement is ready for formal approval.

The council did not adopt the rezoning ordinance Monday and took no final votes authorizing zoning changes for the Matlock parcel.