[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6274012,"mediaKeyId","2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e","parentId",2995502,"title","Resident asks about subdividing 325 West; staff warn narrow easement may restrict separate lot access","audioSeconds",620,"startMs",6609000,"endMs",7229000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e&start=6609&end=7229","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e/thumbnail_6609000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6274012/Utah/Resident-asks-about-subdividing-325-West-staff-warn-narrow-easement-may-restrict-separate-lot-access","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274012-b9309c831872586d24a975ca9de8572a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164494&Signature=jPCU7uFsLcuRG7eS-ova8RMa~W8TDtvjec29ZDJ9xKB~fx0zLqKMRa5PcWBtwoipwrqBDKX1z5QYULNkHkDNVP8lRYvsvu2ZoxojCPqdlr25CJasSVjLMSvrBWuoxaI4eg50DfV7XnJ7C7sjtg2Laq8IY-aetb2W~xsvP1m19h9qEecVCzQgsNSoz2eg4ZVE0n8sxpDK1DzRB3-1eb20Bke9J8fm3lmwBVQsp03acl0QoCTMaLkuFFHW9F-buav6a6EzHfFnXvaFesnNp7z8jG6w2zZ8VPwIbQA266NYJuf53Qa1mIQUHWL4NZTTrwpWXiKTSb91vNv1Ws8Fqjtb7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-15T18:01:30Z","article","A resident seeking to purchase an acre behind their home asked city staff whether the parcel could later be subdivided and built on using an access easement across neighboring yards. The resident said power is available but was most concerned about bringing water and sewer to a rear flag lot if they later sold or developed it.

Staff explained that the city’s residential standards (RE‑15 zone) and right‑of‑way/easement requirements limit how narrow an access can be. Staff described a typical combined access/PUE easement width of roughly 28 feet and noted minimum separation requirements between water and sewer laterals (often 10 feet) plus side‑yard setbacks, which together create a practical minimum width for servicing a separate lot.

The resident asked whether a private easement could be used; staff said a private easement can work technically but the city requires that new lots have legal, guaranteed access that meets width and construction standards. Staff suggested alternatives: the resident could approach neighboring property owners about a land sale or easement swap or prepare for a formal subdivision application and process; the city noted the subdivision process is required when a new lot is created and that any new lot must meet access and setback rules.

No formal decision was recorded. Staff recommended the resident consult an engineer or surveyor to measure existing easements and show whether the required widths and separations can be achieved or whether purchasing/deeding additional frontage would be needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Harrisville City Project Management April 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A resident asked whether a 1‑acre parcel behind their home at 325 West could be subdivided and served by an easement; city staff said required minimum widths and side setbacks make a dedicated building lot with separate access unlikely without purchasing or dedicating additional frontage.","taxTitle","Harrisville Planning Commision, Harrisville , Weber County, Utah","taxId",21257,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6274016,"Developers and city discuss Summit View Phase 3; city asks for formal MDA amendment and zoning submittal",679,5820000,6499000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e&start=5820&end=6499","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e/thumbnail_5820000.jpg","/articles/6274016/Utah/Developers-and-city-discuss-Summit-View-Phase-3-city-asks-for-formal-MDA-amendment-and-zoning-submittal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274016-07cbf6048a33c7ad9233cb6005de4fc7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164494&Signature=EJhri0AWHfkxwvFMPZxx6pA-TJhAQxihox4AD1AmyUaLM9GQRpHkUs37WIZLcghnWCYPvcLXQ6dYixqYJDBoWMiM7EaexbBA~FMGQbr4H7SP9l3-svLezT8AANGEeN4801hbwDxZkYLbizFsoXmWD3EZo3rXikTiuFcK~PmewVMnMTQzGKZdiriafDP5GOAg6HI2bu4f3nDIlmJB-VfYU2CgzgcSns0xcIzWSft6fe30q9fuaCEj5wOSwb2r0QGIrtAsdgt7OE7JC6auxKC3aNVK1okYqKXehTecTjf2rq67yVrIKJjOUP7syHfpzf0xCY~WlRPpebA2zPOXSE24uw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Developers seeking to add a Phase 3 to Summit View told staff they would submit a formal application to amend the existing development agreement (MDA) and accompanying zoning changes. City staff said the original MDA includes language allowing amendment if adjoining property is acquired, but asked the applicant to file a formal request so the city can process the change and schedule required public hearings.

City staff listed the documentation the city typically requires for an MDA amendment and zoning request: traffic study, geotechnical report, landscape plans, and revised concept/site drawings. Staff recommended beginning with the MDA application because the MDA functions as the zoning framework for the expanded phase and triggers 14‑day public notice requirements ahead of any hearing.

The group discussed concept changes the applicant had previously circulated — including revised stub roads and knuckles, modified open space and park configurations, and the need to coordinate utility routing with planned phases 1 and 2. Staff said they will accept a formal submittal and run the MDA/zoning process in parallel with engineering checks; after public hearing and any required revisions the item would return for final approvals.

No formal decision was made at the meeting. Staff asked the developer to deliver complete application materials in time for May meeting deadlines so the public‑notice and hearing calendar could accommodate the request.","Developers discussed expanding Summit View with an additional phase and reviewed steps to amend the existing development agreement (MDA) and get zoning and subdivision approvals; staff requested formal application materials and reminded the applicant of required technical studies.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6274021,"Pineview board signals plan to take on irrigation service; developers and city discuss options for Oak Hollow connections",374,2775000,3149000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e&start=2775&end=3149","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e/thumbnail_2775000.jpg","/articles/6274021/Utah/Pineview-board-signals-plan-to-take-on-irrigation-service-developers-and-city-discuss-options-for-Oak-Hollow-connections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274021-275391ce19036d899a0254577302ec1f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164494&Signature=l7LgDHOTpPXuHGvA8Tk8v-AsEKHHzcrq7CrXHVEM6Yf8sbEP6YULdrnGcxvqX4FunVyE1Yyrdf0Smf1vfLY7dOSgbEYtGDVP8UIsW1YZ1MFmv~8rj0xpFH8jcs4XnqoJFmtn5OaIXphxXNU~YiI8uGVYWM2yvQwV3P26TZ~q3dwLmk0GdUAosOfzILlHvjtuY3WSBSE-7DQPcJo3E5JziMv6PZ1DWBDHf8rBaS1ZPvgQf8tQi-OBCm1xSvqIX5Wzn6UmNRUi6P8T9UWByuXO5mKmhdun-dBtEEtBfFJPNUX595KN0YN0OrqBCgfU--GgxwDEmOTkG2Y43dy5xpP6MQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff and developers discussed a new proposal from Pineview — the local irrigation/water district — to extend service and take responsibility for irrigation lines that have been outside Pineview’s district. Meeting attendees said Pineview’s board gave conditional approval and expects formal action at its May meeting.

At the meeting staff described how Pineview’s willingness to assume service could simplify irrigation and reduce some city build tasks. Jenny Knight said Pineview “ran it by their board on Tuesday” and that the board “has given kind of a conditional, but heavy on the going to be approved in their meeting in May.” Staff and developers agreed that, if Pineview proceeds, the district will want to review the city’s improvement drawings; Pineview asked staff to send existing plans so the district can begin its internal review before its board meeting.

The group discussed several routing options for serving Oak Hollow and for tying Oak Hollow to Warren Hollow. Options include tying into Larson Lane or running lines down to 700 and back up the west side of the pond; a third option is running along the north boundary of neighboring property if the owner agrees. Staff flagged technical questions — pipe sizes, meter arrangements and whether certain pump or headgate upgrades would be required — that will need coordination between the developer, Pineview and the city.

Participants also discussed water‑share certificates that had been submitted to the city; staff said they can either return certificates to the developer for direct transfer to Pineview or the city can transfer them when the district assumes servicing. Developers were asked to confirm outstanding shares (one property owner was noted as having 10 shares that must be tracked down).

No formal inclusion or annexation decision was made at the meeting. Staff summarized the next steps: send improvement drawings to Pineview for review, confirm available water shares, and continue engineering review of proposed connection options prior to final agreements.","Representatives said Pineview (water/irrigation district) told city staff it will likely approve taking over irrigation service for parts of Oak Hollow and adjacent developments; the possible transfer would change where secondary irrigation lines are owned and maintained and affect connection routes to Warren Hollow and other subdivisions.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6274027,"Dixon Creek Phase 2 review focuses on floodplain mapping, trail connections to city park",190,1518000,1708000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e&start=1518&end=1708","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e/thumbnail_1518000.jpg","/articles/6274027/Utah/Dixon-Creek-Phase-2-review-focuses-on-floodplain-mapping-trail-connections-to-city-park","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274027-6dce024a61d602dd99d43656d09a1fbe/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164494&Signature=gfjfOUI5piW05kQfQvhv~GfFpUFBzg5x37LVS4zmNeVXMByuxCRJB~aVaKZw0iLKR4l9adNt6kc4j8qdJudb8yti8G2pWmeNNfi7LlPNx1Rv871c8Ctorvkj16Ya6q-yJgXxkkLwynqM-i7pFPywv4IIE9kNKS~uPXbuKHcORoHaEdg8CdfuigdKpl3pKetr0MG7Hp1Ir-p-9a9qV-EYwfxu5F4xK~FzqQI8EnbntCafUq7AoKu0Kifv4JWn9lW4Ui-YNX75lkWFkG2ApDOtRzWk1Kz8sX7HWHny-CEby1KyOE-Loqe7gxGkFFU1M9m~UP-mDHVw0RhJ9-XGZj3V4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning and engineering staff reviewed the Dixon Creek Phase 2 submittal and pressed developers for documentation on a pending floodplain map change and for clearer drawings that show how the development will connect to a future city park and regional trail.

At the meeting the city noted this was the project’s first formal review. Staff asked whether the conditional Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) that would remove mapped floodplain from certain lots has been completed and recorded; one staff member said a LOMR “should be able to submit” after improvements are constructed so the map will formally change. The city indicated it would not show the floodplain on its records once the map revision is official.

Planning staff also asked how residents in the proposed Phase 2 townhomes would access the planned city park. Public works staff said the regional trail plan includes a trail that will come up and tie around a detention basin and connect to the townhome property, and the project team discussed potential crosswalks and sidewalk connections to 1300 North.

Developers and staff agreed that the public right-of-way work was largely complete in phase 1 and that most new sewer remains private; the city will perform a final review of sewer infrastructure. City staff asked for improvement drawings if they were updated since the prior submission and said they would check whether improvement drawings for phase 1 and phase 2 had been submitted to the county.

No formal vote occurred. Staff listed follow-up tasks: verify whether the floodplain map has been officially revised with FEMA/CRS, confirm whether will‑serve letters and improvement drawings for Phase 2 were on file with the county, and clarify trail/crosswalk routing for Planning Commission reviewers.","Staff reviewed Dixon Creek Phase 2 preliminary materials, asked developers for clarity on floodplain map revisions and confirmed trail connections to a future city park. Planning Commission preliminary consideration is set for May 14.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6274032,"Developers advance 2A/2B/2D work; city presses for detention pond and control structure before major tie‑ins",0,2893000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e&start=2893&end=2893","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2995502-16486f63182b4d3eea2456bdb41d0d7e/thumbnail_2893000.jpg","/articles/6274032/Utah/Developers-advance-2A2B2D-work-city-presses-for-detention-pond-and-control-structure-before-major-tieins","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6274032-5d52eae7c8f47a8e95785b2159ee3534/orig.mp4?Expires=1771164494&Signature=DLstrqJ~xmZcrPSrEFKhriHo-Ed47SKLh5czjgsDFCT4wYv1ZY~sgZmkcVSsPSJvOddYa4YTCj3SzYJyNEMS2~ipt~BSzeUV1e8b~-T8mHlL4Aa5kYyPH~FQewmggU1b9iX3sTUfCrvUG~JmhqbcNPxx3qDPMVptP6i-dAjmkJPXjr8ON0J5H~xfAEUW~TSlsUTcf4lvhlo8XCRHslMwc4p-tWGdK-QkQphh3k-H~L6ceZA~MVxxmfbVrkC4IdiwhyYJZ4rliLB451y4rUBsRpxgHGvdeaTr7mIUDz7KXyam3eMPiGeAW9-Xfy8Nrsn5T3wbTQHzyOl9LaUJRfb5lQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff and developers on Wednesday updated the project management group on construction and permitting activity for phases labeled 2A, 2B and 2D of the Sundance Bay development, and emphasized the need to complete a detention pond and control structure before developers tie new stormwater lines into downstream systems.

Brandon Green of Flagship Homes summarized construction progress and utility work, saying Regency is “running their water and sewer up” through the 2A area and that the team expects to run a storm drain up to the pump house and “tie that well discharge line into the storm drain system.” The group said the existing pond used by a nearby well was filled and that, until the pond and a control structure are completed, stormwater is moving uncontrolled across the highway and onto city property.

The issue matters for the city because that uncontrolled flow “ends up over on the city property,” creating flooding that staff said occurred last month. City engineering staff pressed for the detention pond and a control structure to be completed so the flow into the public storm network can be regulated rather than sent directly onto municipal land.

Developers reported a contractor is ready to begin work on 2B and 2D. A representative said Landmark (a Utah County contractor) will start road cuts and install infrastructure once the project receives internal clearances and outstanding county reviews are resolved. Staff said review comments will be provided to the developer, who intends to submit revised improvement drawings for final review. The group also confirmed the developer paid county fees and that a preliminary plat hearing is scheduled before the Planning Commission on May 14.

City staff outlined short-term timing: they expect to run the pipeline “up by the April first of May” and discussed the high initial flushing flows when systems are turned on. Staff warned that the developer’s initial line flushes can send thousands of gallons per minute into the storm network, underscoring the need for detention and a control structure before tie‑ins are made.

No formal action or vote was recorded at the meeting; staff and developers agreed to exchange improvement-plan comments, to request or confirm will‑serve letters where needed, and to return to project management with revised drawings and schedule updates.

The project team also discussed landscaping and park-site plans tied to the phases. Staff asked for updated landscape plans for park areas and for any design changes to be sent with the submittal package so Planning Commission reviewers can confirm whether previously approved features (pavilions, gathering spaces) remain or have been altered.

Remaining steps noted at the meeting: city staff will deliver comment letters on plats and improvement drawings; the developer will submit revisions and updated will‑serve letters as needed; and the project will return to the Planning Commission for preliminary plat consideration on May 14.","City staff and developers updated progress on the Sundance Bay 2A/2B/2D phases, citing ongoing utility work and a push to finish a detention pond and control structure to prevent stormwater flowing onto city property. A preliminary plat is scheduled for the Planning Commission on May 14.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Resident asks about subdividing 325 West; staff warn narrow easement may restrict separate lot access

Developers and city discuss Summit View Phase 3; city asks for formal MDA amendment and zoning submittal

Pineview board signals plan to take on irrigation service; developers and city discuss options for Oak Hollow connections

Dixon Creek Phase 2 review focuses on floodplain mapping, trail connections to city park

Developers advance 2A/2B/2D work; city presses for detention pond and control structure before major tie‑ins