The North Ogden City Planning Commission on Wednesday delayed a decision on a developer27s request to rezone about 14.5 acres near 715 East 2100 North, citing community concerns about density, traffic, flooding and school capacity.

The application, presented by Chase Freebairn of Cole West, asked that the parcel move from rural residential (RE-20) to a mix of small-lot single-family (R-1-5), multifamily (R-4) and a small neighborhood commercial designation. Freebairn said the concept plan proposes roughly 80 townhomes and 25 single-family cottages for sale, an 80-foot Monroe Boulevard right-of-way dedication with a 10-foot trail, and a small commercial parcel intended for neighborhood-serving uses. "These would all be for sale, new construction, high quality architecture," Freebairn told the commission, and he described the product as "more attainable housing," not subsidized affordable housing. (First presentation: City planner Ryan Nunn, 00:04:43; developer presentation: Chase Freebairn, 00:09:43.)

Why it matters: The property sits close to existing low- and moderate-density neighborhoods, a future alignment of Monroe Boulevard and Greenacres Elementary School. Residents and several commissioners said the proposed density would set a new precedent for the corridor and could increase traffic on 2100 North, strain school capacity and exacerbate localized flooding where groundwater and irrigation ditches are already a problem.

What happened at the meeting: Planning staff described the parcel27s context and noted that the general plan contains language supporting mixed-use development along major collectors. Staff said a neighborhood commercial zone will require separate text amendments to specify permitted uses and standards. The developer described proposed public benefits, including trail and right-of-way work, and acknowledged additional engineering review would follow the plat/subdivision stage.

More than two dozen residents spoke in public comment, largely opposing the rezoning. Speakers cited a 575-signature petition, concerns that notices were not received by some residents, and the parcel27s history as long-held farmland. Arguments raised repeatedly by neighbors included:

- School capacity: Multiple residents and a school aide told the commission Greenacres Elementary is at or near capacity and that additional rooftops would strain classrooms and special-education resources.
- Flooding and groundwater: Speakers noted past storm events that produced basement flooding in nearby neighborhoods and questioned whether detention basins and engineering conditions would prevent drainage impacts to existing homes.
- Traffic and safety: Neighbors argued 2100 North and connecting streets lack sidewalks and are already used as fast thoroughfares by drivers and asked how additional vehicles from 100+ new units would be served safely.
- Neighborhood character and property values: Several longtime residents described the area27s rural character and said the proposed small lots and attached housing would be incompatible with adjacent R-10 and R-8 lots.

Developer response and engineering questions: Freebairn told the commission his firm planned no basements on the site (a design choice he said would reduce flood vulnerability), said the project would construct Monroe frontage and tie to a city-owned storm outfall, and that required traffic and stormwater studies would be completed during the engineering review. He also said the Randall family has owned the land for generations and is entitled to pursue permissible development under the city27s rules.

Commission discussion and outcome: Commissioners debated whether the proposal was too dense for the parcel and whether a split zoning with larger lots facing existing single-family neighborhoods would better reconcile transition and infrastructure costs. After extended discussion the commission voted unanimously to table the rezoning application and asked the applicant to return with a revised concept that better responds to surrounding zoning and infrastructure constraints. The commission27s action pauses its own recommendation and gives the developer the option to revise the plan and return to the planning commission before city council consideration.

What residents should expect next: The applicant said it prefers to revise the plan and return to the commission rather than take the current application directly to city council. If the applicant chooses to go to council, state law permits that path; tabling the item keeps the review at the commission level and allows more public hearing opportunities when the item returns. Engineering questions (stormwater outfall, detention sizing, sewer/storm capacity and traffic analysis) will be addressed through the plat and engineering review if and when a subdivision application is filed.

Provenance: Staff introduction and rezone scope (Ryan Nunn, 00:04:43); developer presentation (Chase Freebairn, 00:09:43); extended public comment (multiple residents, beginning 00:28:24); commission motion and vote to table (final vote recorded at 02:34:20).

Ending: The commission27s unanimous table preserves the public record and asks the developer to return with alternatives; neighbors and commissioners said they want clearer engineering responses and a plan that better fits the area27s existing lot patterns before any recommendation goes to city council.