The city of Ogden, Utah, is embroiled in a legal battle with Heritage Land Owners, a development company, over the construction sequence of the Midtown Village project. Situated along Washington Boulevard north of downtown Ogden, the project’s progression has stalled due to conflicts between the developer and the Ogden City Planning Commission regarding the order in which different phases of the project should be built.
Heritage Land Owners, based in Utah, has envisioned a significant mixed-use development on a 4.9-acre plot. The plans submitted include 15 townhome buildings with 68 residential units, one commercial building, and another mixed-use building. The Ogden City Planning Commission initially approved the conditional use permits in 2021. However, recent disputes have centered on the city’s insistence that commercial components be constructed first.
Developer’s Interpretation and Arguments
Dispute Over Development Sequence
Heritage Land Owners argue that the current city code does not mandate any specific sequence for the stages of development, as long as at least 25% of the land is utilized for non-residential, permitted commercial spaces. Craig Jenson, representing the developer, argued that the city misinterpreted the municipal code. He stated that city staff added unwarranted stipulations not present in the ordinance. This perspective directly opposes the planning commission’s directive.
Jenson emphasized that adhering strictly to the perceived requirements would hinder the project’s feasibility. According to Heritage, the flexibility in sequencing is vital to the project’s overall success. They argue that the commercial build-first mandate could lead to financial difficulties. Specifically, the project’s viability depends on the simultaneous development of residential units to generate immediate revenue. This sequencing flexibility, Heritage contends, is essential for balancing investment returns and ensuring a continuous cash flow.
Classification and Zoning Concerns
The Ogden City Planning Manager, Barton Brierley, contended that the Midtown Village should be viewed as a group dwelling subject to distinct regulations compared to multifamily developments. Brierley noted that prioritizing residential units first infringes on zoning laws. City officials fear that without starting the non-residential construction simultaneously, the project might fall short of fulfilling community commercial objectives.
Brierley pointed to a city code requiring that “required improvements be installed and completed before the occupancy or use of any approved building, structure, or improvement.” This stipulation supports their stance on enforcing the build sequence to ensure comprehensive development. According to city officials, enforcing a strict build sequence is necessary to prevent developers from focusing exclusively on more profitable residential units while delaying or even neglecting commercial spaces critical for community infrastructure.
Planning Commission’s Decision and Appeal
In a June 5 meeting, the Ogden City Planning Commission voted 7-2 against the developer’s interpretation. In August, the Ogden City Board of Zoning Adjustment upheld this decision, dismissing Heritage Land Owners’ appeal. Heritage, dissatisfied with the ruling, opted for legal action in September, filing a lawsuit in Ogden’s 2nd District Court.
The lawsuit aims to overturn the city’s decision, reassessing the developer’s application in accordance with the city code and seeks reimbursement for legal fees. Heritage proposed a phased development plan but faced resistance from the planning commission amidst a push for robust adherence to zoning laws. The developer’s phased plan entailed initially constructing a commercial building alongside five townhome buildings with the mixed-use building and the remaining townhomes in the second phase.
Legal Action and Proposed Solutions
Lawsuit and Court Proceedings
Heritage Land Owners’ lawsuit is centered on the belief that the city’s interpretation and enforcement of zoning laws are overly restrictive. The developer argues that their proposed construction sequence meets all required conditions under the original conditional use permits. The court’s role will be to interpret whether the city’s enforcement aligns with the municipal code or imposes unfair restrictions.
Aaron Robertson from Heritage Land Development proposed a phased development plan following the planning commission’s rejection. The initial phase would include one commercial building and five townhome buildings, followed by Phase Two comprising the mixed-use building and remaining townhomes. Robertson highlighted that this approach ensures the project’s financial viability while addressing the city’s concerns about initiating commercial development early on.
Wider Implications and Stakeholder Outlook
Heritage Land Owners contend that the existing city code doesn’t specify the order for development phases, as long as 25% of the land is used for non-residential, commercial purposes. Craig Jenson, speaking for the developer, argued that the city has misinterpreted the municipal code, saying that city staff imposed unnecessary stipulations not found in the ordinance. This view clashes directly with the planning commission’s directive.
Jenson stressed that strictly following what the city staff perceives as requirements would jeopardize the project’s feasibility. Heritage maintains that flexibility in the development sequence is crucial for the project’s success. They argue that a mandate to build commercial spaces first could lead to financial strain. Essentially, the project’s viability hinges on the simultaneous development of residential units to generate immediate revenue. This sequencing flexibility is vital for balancing investment returns and ensuring continuous cash flow, which Heritage believes is necessary for the project’s economic stability.
