North Ogden planning staff and the Planning Commission spent several hours discussing an annexation request and conceptual subdivision for the Atkinson and Pauling parcels east of existing neighborhoods, with commissioners and neighbors focusing on groundwater, stormwater outfalls and street access.

What was proposed: Garrett Seeley, representing the Atkinson and Pauling families, presented a concept that would annex roughly 142d15 acres into North Ogden and apply a single-family small-lot zoning (R-1-5) with two private interior streets and 1 public collector that ties to existing Fernwood and Ward Farms streets. The concept includes a southwest detention basin to use an existing city storm outfall and uses slab-on-grade building construction with no basements, the applicant said, to reduce flood risk.

Community concerns: Nearby homeowners urged larger minimum lot sizes (R-1-10 or R-1-8) to match established neighborhoods, argued existing streets and utilities are aging, and raised worries about:

- Drainage and groundwater: Speakers described past basement flooding in adjacent neighborhoods and asked whether a single detention basin and connection to an outfall would protect existing homeowners.
- Access and traffic: Several neighbors said the proposal would rely on two access points on 925 East and would concentrate new traffic onto local streets that already serve established subdivisions.
- Compatibility and density: Residents said a plan with many small lots and two-story homes would be incompatible with adjacent single-story, larger-lot neighborhoods; some reminded the commission that Quail Ponds had been approved as a PUD with its own justifying benefits.

Applicant and staff response: The applicant said the plan was designed to avoid basements, to direct stormwater to an existing city outfall, and to meet fire-department access requirements (private interior roads designed to fire access widths and an emergency access easement on a city-owned 20-foot right-of-way). Staff said the annexation hearing at council would be a separate process and recommended the commission provide feedback to the applicant; commissioners requested additional engineering study and suggested the applicant return to the commission on November 19 with a more detailed submittal.

Outcome and next steps: No formal vote was taken on annexation or zoning. The commission asked the applicant to provide more detailed engineering, drainage and access plans and to return with a revised submittal. The applicant stated a preference to return to the commission for iterative review rather than immediately pursue city council annexation.

Provenance: Staff overview and timeline for annexation (Scott Hess, 00:17:18); applicant presentation (Garrett Seeley, 00:20:44); public comments raising drainage, access and density concerns (00:32:50 onward).