[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6485155,"mediaKeyId","5466802-92ccbbbd10eaadf67e22986edbda1892","parentId",5466802,"title","Planning commission backs amended Wolf Creek development agreement with conditions","audioSeconds",4755,"startMs",1798000,"endMs",6553000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5466802-92ccbbbd10eaadf67e22986edbda1892&start=1798&end=6553","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5466802-92ccbbbd10eaadf67e22986edbda1892/thumbnail_1798000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6485155/Weber-County/Utah/Planning-commission-backs-amended-Wolf-Creek-development-agreement-with-conditions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485155-943b9d657c1c838ee64ecbf1d432f028/orig.mp4?Expires=1770506163&Signature=YDEiEUuQzsNuabkngskylEH12tyBWEpYuh3k2bdU-Yh8AbOc7HdrX-4mgALkP5vKTsrM~MPdp1PuCES93OxbEZwUu2NwllEqinGs2BVb4tfIPXO-LymCUJ60vR6Di4qTCgFGclcUtfLnsYo7QDWRDip5B-XbR3cAFC1ql798ahF2D0CVRjYD8mDB-7NvF1dno97otycKIERBxkSznWHR9-F6YykMPJk7IZGKCJVBIBK8K7ojRvO~yAl6rGQoTt8WBnjEwyjTyPLt-iHvKRqzdWlkvDkv0OCcx4dVyKNW9M~FCNU4r9vasX4x2xV9eR6OdPWUKlA3BVacr0nGp5EnPA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-23T14:12:38Z","article","The Ogden Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend that the Weber County Commission approve an amended development agreement for the Wolf Creek Exchange project with conditions.

Planning commissioners said the 45‑day deadline for a final decision from an applicant meant the county had one opportunity to act. Planning staff’s presentation laid out the request as a reformatting of an existing multi‑parcel agreement and explained the practical effects of the proposed changes, including how many residential development rights would be available to the property and whether additional transferable development rights (TDRs) could be imported into the site.

Planning staff member Charlie told commissioners the applicant could seek a final decision within the 45‑day statutory window and that, because of that deadline, “today you get one shot. It’s either up or down.” He also told the commission that, if approved, the proposal could be approved with conditions: “If it is up, it could be up with a variety of different options,” Charlie said.

Why it matters: the amendment seeks to separate a single development agreement that historically covered three projects into discrete agreements and to clarify which parcels and uses are covered. It also asks, in part, to: (a) treat a portion of the property that is zoned RE‑15 as if it were CBR‑1 for development standards purposes; (b) allow a higher maximum building height for a proposed hotel (50 feet in CBR‑1 to 60 feet in the proposal); (c) clarify accounting of residential development rights tied to the property and to allow the property to receive, under certain conditions, additional units moved, via TDRs, from elsewhere in the valley.

What staff said: planning staff described the history. A 2015 agreement and a 2023 agreement together left the project with a legacy entitlement of 144 dwelling units; of those, 80 were moved to Eagle Crest earlier this year and 64 remain assigned to the Exchange parcel. The applicant also holds 20 “banked” or “floating” units that could be assigned within the Wolf Creek area. The proposed amendment would result in the Exchange parcel being entitled to 84 residential development rights if approved (64 assigned + 20 floating), and it would also request the ability to import up to an additional 60 units (to restore the original 144) from other parts of the valley if the county or future city designated this parcel a receiving area for outside TDRs.

Staff said the proposal does not create residential units from hotel rooms: hotel suites would count as residences only if they include a kitchen and are configured as long‑term dwelling units. Staff also noted that the concept plan included a larger potential hotel footprint (conceptually shown at roughly 27,000 square feet, with portions of parking and program spaces potentially underground) but that the current code regulates height, not total square footage for hotels.

Public comment and applicant response: developer John Lewis, who represented the applicant in the hearing, said the changes were intended to remove ambiguity in the older consolidated agreement and to clarify how the Exchange parcel would be implemented. “We’re just trying to make sure this thing is less ambiguous and more clarified,” Lewis told commissioners during the hearing; he also said the project team was open to working with staff and neighbors on design and public amenities.

Several residents urged the commission to tighten height limits, require stronger architectural standards, preserve open sightlines, and make sure water, wastewater and traffic impacts are fully addressed at later permit stages. Staff and the applicant said utility will‑serve letters and traffic studies are required at subdivision or building permit phases, and those technical studies must support any larger build‑out proposed later.

Commission action and conditions: after deliberation the commission voted unanimously (6‑0) to recommend approval of the amended development agreement to the county commission, attaching nine considerations/conditions summarizing staff and commissioner concerns. Those conditions included:
- Retain the CBR‑1 maximum building height at 50 feet (the application had requested 60 feet);
- Do not allow importation of TDRs from outside the Wolf Creek area as part of this approval (i.e., do not designate the parcel as a receiving area for outside TDRs) unless a future municipal decision specifically permits that under the prevailing TDR rules at that later date;
- Do not adopt the applicant’s proposed outsourcing/contracting exemptions (use the county’s standard rules for outside expert review/inspection unless otherwise and explicitly directed);
- Restore or require a clear overall site setback standard rather than only lot‑level zero setbacks proposed in parts of the draft agreement;
- Require that any traffic study include assessing conditions during the winter/peak seasonal weekends and require mitigation that is supported by engineering evidence;
- Include enforceable architectural guidance or standards (more detail than the schematic images in earlier agreements) in the final agreement or conditions of approval;
- Apply prevailing parking standards that will be in effect at the time of future permitting rather than locking a different parking standard for decades;
- Ensure right‑of‑way/roadway standards and frontage improvements be consistent with county code and the recommendations of public safety staff; and
- Require the applicant to work with staff to extend and connect the proposed pedestrian/bicycle pathway through the site to the north frontage (the planning staff had recommended a Wolf Creek Drive pathway extension as part of staff conditions).

Staff recommendation and next steps: planning staff recommended approval with conditions, noting that the amendment clarified many ambiguities that had led to litigation risk in the past and that some clarifications would reduce future disputes over what the original concept plans allowed. Staff also reminded commissioners that specific infrastructure approvals — wastewater/will‑serve letters, traffic mitigation, site design and final architectural details — must still be satisfied at subsequent permit and subdivision stages.

Legal and policy context: staff explained state code requires that an applicant may request a final decision within 45 days and that tabling was not an option when such a request is active; the commission therefore had to either recommend approval or denial to the county commission. The commission’s approval is advisory; the county commission will make the final legislative decision.

What the approval does not do: the Planning Commission’s recommendation does not itself change zoning, does not grant final subdivision or building permits, and does not confirm utility service. Those technical approvals must be demonstrated by the applicant in later permit applications.

Documentation and vote: the commission recorded a motion recommending approval of CDA 2025‑05 (the Exchange development agreement amendment) with the nine findings listed above. The motion passed unanimously (6‑0) and will be forwarded as a recommendation to the Weber County Commission for final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ogden Valley Planning Commission July 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Ogden Valley Planning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to recommend that the Weber County Commission approve an amended development agreement for the Wolf Creek Exchange project with conditions.","taxTitle","Weber County, Utah","taxId",2932,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6485150,"Planning commission hears four estate and subdivision proposals in work‑session roundup",2840,7240000,10080000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5466802-92ccbbbd10eaadf67e22986edbda1892&start=7240&end=10080","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5466802-92ccbbbd10eaadf67e22986edbda1892/thumbnail_7240000.jpg","/articles/6485150/Weber-County/Utah/Planning-commission-hears-four-estate-and-subdivision-proposals-in-worksession-roundup","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6485150-ae46d6a4b808fcf63beebb3bba9cd990/orig.mp4?Expires=1770506163&Signature=UufpBZibI2r3LqF6bhXhu-7SiGD98ZDjSe0qSEko85RaPSZn7D0blLZw9uJP1W6aUf0ATqVkcZrh~zxemPLGWsc3lMJ~CfAPRBvHF1TXNcrU~DfOiMc6Ad4nnLo4qpu7l31ZXIWf-nqtTDdJ2StPuhd8Bs6Exg24aiVs0AgzTm2wFzILqIGy-aSklCsPhAroSTHozzsz9LnOMpIuN8DTn3UQdyG~RDut6F4hr5lCegq4~CkxBiMZNqOezulWDfFsy62ax1Ai5LcCoLWOn3YSZ1dVbsZSMHRBdThIaGqC8xHAZjATQWWHkaWC-wXOguqLkSQ40Cpb3HV6A9h2aqnmFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners used a Tuesday work session to hear four preliminary proposals from local landowners seeking estate or cluster subdivision options in the Ogden Valley. The presentations were informal, intended to identify key issues staff and commissioners would expect the applicants to resolve before formal applications are scheduled on a public hearing agenda.

The proposals and staff comments in brief:

1) Matthew Lowe — phased preliminary‑plat/development agreement (Huntsville area)
Applicant Matthew Lowe described a formal development agreement approach to phase a preliminary plat over a longer period rather than recording a year‑by‑year lot. Lowe said the request would preserve phased development flexibility and asked whether a multi‑year lot issuance schedule (for example one lot per three years) would be acceptable; he also offered a proposed near‑term donation to valley trails to demonstrate community benefit. Planning staff advised that the county prefers enforceable public benefit commitments to be delivered on a clear schedule; commissioners said donation timing should not be deferred for decades and suggested the applicant coordinate a firm schedule with staff prior to formal submittal.

2) Burton family / Lacey Richards — Liberty family legacy cluster
Lacey Richards presented a family legacy plan for a roughly 50‑acre parcel in Liberty. Rather than dividing the land into numerous individual three‑acre parcels, the family proposed clustering buildable lots adjacent to the public road, reserving about 22.5 contiguous acres as permanent open space to be protected by an easement in favor of the county. The proposal asks that grazing remain a permitted use on the permanently reserved open area. Planning staff said cluster subdivision and an open‑space easement are established tools for this outcome. Commissioners encouraged the applicants to draft clear easement language (who pays taxes and manages grazing leases) and noted that permitted grazing will need to be written explicitly into any development agreement or the recorded plat.

3) Kirk Lister — small cluster/estate adjustment
Kirk Lister asked for a two‑lot subdivision on a 9.23‑acre property with conditional approval to become a three‑lot site pending a seasonal soils/groundwater evaluation required by the health department. Staff confirmed the applicant already holds a two‑lot septic determination and explained how an additional test (winter/percolation) could allow approval of a third lot; if the health department determines the soil/water conditions are not suitable, the entitlement would remain two lots. Commissioners recommended scheduling the two‑lot action to avoid delaying the applicant while pending health tests are completed.

4) Rick Bailey — four‑lot cluster by Nordic Valley (form‑based context)
Rick Bailey presented a plan for a four‑lot cluster subdivision on approximately 20 acres near Nordic Valley. Bailey said he had identified potential water solutions (annexation to a nearby water provider or a community well) and that septic and topographic constraints had been addressed in preliminary work. Staff warned applicants that portions of the Nordic area are zoned under a form‑based street regulating plan that affects allowable frontage, lot types and expectations for streetscape and connectivity; staff said for the Bailey parcel the small‑lot residential classification in the form‑based map would permit reduced lot sizes but that the applicant must still meet the county’s subdivision, road and fire‑safety standards. Commissioners recommended the applicants pursue required will‑serve letters and health‑department approvals and to return to a formal agenda once those technical items are complete.

Common technical issues flagged for all applicants
- Water and wastewater: staff reminded all presenters that proof of service (will‑serve letters), or acceptable on‑site systems verified by the health department, is required before final subdivision approvals.
- Roads and public safety: any private shared lane or long shared driveway must meet fire‑safety and access standards; staff noted county code limits for shared private lane length and that exceptions require a development‑agreement modification and public‑safety sign‑off.
- Trails and public amenities: several applicants proposed or offered trail donations; staff encouraged coordination with trail organizations and noted that public‑amenity commitments are valid elements of development agreements when concrete and timely.

What’s next: each presenter was advised to pursue the technical studies and provider commitments required for final applications. Staff said the applicants should return with draft plattings, will‑serve letters, traffic/engineering reports (if applicable), and signed easement language for any proposed permanent open space. Several presenters asked to be scheduled promptly once they submit the missing technical items; staff indicated the next available planning agendas will be used once qualifying materials are filed.

Meeting context: the work session was extended past its scheduled time to permit discussion; commissioners emphasized these were informal, pre‑application conversations rather than formal decisions.","In an extended work session the Ogden Valley Planning Commission reviewed four preliminary estate and subdivision proposals — ranging from family‑legacy clusters to small cluster subdivisions near Nordic Valley — and advised applicants on technical studies and easement language they will need for formal review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission backs amended Wolf Creek development agreement with conditions

Planning commission hears four estate and subdivision proposals in work‑session roundup