[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-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",[32,74,86,98],{"_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",6528286,"mediaKeyId","3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1","parentId",3410647,"title","Work session: applicant and staff discuss traditional‑neighborhood zone, design code and town‑architect oversight for Farm Resell master plan","audioSeconds",671,"startMs",5755000,"endMs",6426000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1&start=5755&end=6426","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1/thumbnail_5755000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6528286/Weber-County/Utah/Work-session-applicant-and-staff-discuss-traditionalneighborhood-zone-design-code-and-townarchitect-oversight-for-Farm-Resell-master-plan","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528286-4c8f2bc595a4470c0c776e0986533649/orig.mp4?Expires=1770919593&Signature=jezoV-v-mHmAl7JwC9GRHyhHERbk8Rmu7d931ZmhnSOnyXwCy6NEZkgGCMfD25-vB2hCqThuOwdxWdH2fpZacE9osNzdXfF2ZlgZ-aqt-JSpkljmvRm8fVzBREDNMFwy8a8~NctX37St~Ft2ZtkqvWc2rCWLx9D~CfjdmQf6m5iksgOeADKoqoV460bhcDvT6N8Sb~IrEGrM2-eEwZDS3JjOe1ExFqYvY1AlFp62~A-xAfbDy3WRElq4O-CKsEgpJ-dDRwfdsUSWDeYOREiFAA3tOr6ilObljj1OvjRoCkSrq0Ej5-LV3cGJl3MGRRRIXRhtzsPBnli4Pk51qVAMAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-20T23:05:20.483Z","article","In a planning commission work session following the regular meeting, staff and the applicant discussed a proposed Traditional Neighborhood Zone (TNZ) and a draft development agreement and design code for a Farm Resell master plan application covering about 550 acres. The work session focused on the structure of the development agreement, how design standards would be enforced, and which uses should be permitted in a TN form‑based zone.

Planning staff explained the three‑part approach proposed for the project: (1) adopt a new TN form‑based zone in the county code, (2) rely on a project‑specific design code (based on the SmartCode) to define building and public‑realm standards, and (3) memorialize obligations in a negotiated development agreement that assigns oversight roles (including a town architect). Staff said the design code is intended to enable a building‑and‑place‑focused review that reduces repetitive county design review by allowing a licensed town architect to certify compliance with the design code on routine items.

Commissioners asked for clarifications in three main areas: the use list (the draft use table includes many permitted uses spanning urban to rural transects and needs to be parsed against the project’s transect map), the role and appointment/removal authority for the “town architect,” and how changes to the design code or street cross sections would be handled during buildout (which edits require full public hearings versus planning‑director approval). Several commissioners wanted clearer thresholds and definitions for “minor” and “major” changes so that the county retains meaningful oversight of major street or land‑use decisions.

Work‑session discussion also addressed open space and trail phasing: commissioners and staff discussed tying required improvements to build triggers so that publicly useful open‑space elements and trail connections are installed in proportion to occupied units rather than being indefinitely deferred. Staff suggested a hybrid approach—allowing the developer some flexibility to stage open‑space dedication while requiring specified improvements or access links at identified milestones.

The applicant and staff noted this draft is an early, red‑lined working document. Staff said it expects to return a cleaned‑up version incorporating negotiated edits and to bring the project back for a follow‑up work session and a public hearing in May, including a consolidated, user‑friendly matrix that ties each use and design requirement to the part of the code, the design code, or the development agreement where it will be enforced.

Commissioners asked the applicant to resubmit a clarified use table showing which uses are allowed in each transect of the TNZ, and requested that staff prepare a clean version of the development agreement and a clearer explanation of what provisions will be enforceable by the county versus administered by the town architect. Commissioners also asked for automatic triggers for priority public‑realm improvements (for example, required open‑space improvements by X dwelling equivalents or when specific road sections are built). Staff advised a revised contract would be provided to commissioners about one week before the next work session or public hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Western Weber Planning Commission April 22, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At a work session, the planning commission reviewed a draft development agreement, a proposed Traditional Neighborhood (TN) form‑based zone and a project‑specific design code for a 550‑acre Farm Resell master plan, focusing on use tables, architect oversight and triggers for open‑space and trail construction.","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},6528291,"Planning commission approves recommendation on West Ridge Meadows master plan amid debate over wildlife buffer and fence",361,2503000,2864000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1&start=2503&end=2864","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1/thumbnail_2503000.jpg","/articles/6528291/Weber-County/Utah/Planning-commission-approves-recommendation-on-West-Ridge-Meadows-master-plan-amid-debate-over-wildlife-buffer-and-fence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528291-36df463db6486ee8acbd0ba14aea2d44/orig.mp4?Expires=1770919593&Signature=D2-fydoVTocUgjeQNej1eoOOYU9GmOmCCBGIYiThrI~xW9vjSjJG7Wm0Dq9Y8AmCa0DAukO1tV51p-UpgZ2frAA8WIlD4ViAR0P68-N3zZVHx3pZU1CZ5vXIErR0sPwqTnec-AO41IaClyoK5FLBdIiL~anoa9LtvNX8GviJug8MHliQyGynfOTsAzYLqr-MeExtLrTb~ZCXIamk5Clrz7hGHjY52PHCriDy9gqBOqZoU6lD6SaMODoOm~bX~RJRpSsT7do1QB0zOrE8xXgDxRV9tOx-JXU8XgCVWt4O-lSvWnmkqB15dzhQ79dpJBpYhx1Te7YMUbXC4axwitg2jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Weber County Planning Commission voted to forward a recommendation to the County Commission for ZMA‑2024 (West Ridge Meadows), a master‑planned rezoning and associated development agreement covering roughly 1,400 acres south of the Union Pacific Railroad between the Weber River and 7500 West. The proposed zoning package includes an MPDOZ (master plan development overlay), a mix of residential and mixed‑use zones, a form‑based zone and an open‑space zone.

Staff and the applicant summarized prior public hearings, submitted written comments and a revised development agreement. Commissioners’ deliberations focused sharply on a wildlife management‑area (WMA) buffer along the development’s northern boundary and a recent Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) memo that proposed adjusting earlier guidance: DWR moved from recommending a 600‑foot buffer in some places to suggesting a 300‑foot buffer in others based on hydraulic and habitat studies. Multiple commissioners said they favored a 300‑foot buffer around the WMA while preserving developer density elsewhere within the master plan, arguing that the developer could accommodate the same number of units by shifting density within the overall project.

The applicant said the preferred mitigation for the WMA was building a non‑scalable, non‑see‑through fence at the property line rather than surrendering 300–600 feet of developable land. The applicant told commissioners that a fence is less costly and allowed them to deliver other public amenities that lie at the core of the development agreement. Commissioners and staff debated whether the fence-plus‑operations approach adequately protects wildlife and the WMA and whether a simple fence or a wider buffer better protects long‑term wildlife movement and public interests.

Commissioners also discussed water supply, the overall density requested (the applicant said the 13,000 units requested reflected market planning but not the historic 1‑acre entitlement), and the precedent created by requiring large buffers against a resource managed by the state. Some commissioners said they supported a “meet‑in‑the‑middle” approach—adopting a 300‑foot buffer in most places while allowing the developer to retain density by re‑allocating units elsewhere in the plan—rather than imposing a 600‑foot buffer.

In a recorded vote, the commission approved forwarding the rezoning and development agreement to the County Commission with the recommendations in the March 11 staff report and the most recent modifications discussed at this meeting. The roll call recorded multiple aye votes and at least one no vote; the motion passed. One commissioner explained publicly that he supported the project with the conditions but wanted the record to show concern over buffer size and neighbors’ property rights. The planning commission directed staff to carry the recommendations, the most recent draft development agreement and the record of DWR correspondence forward to the County Commission’s public hearing for final legislative action.","Commissioners forwarded a recommendation for the West Ridge Meadows rezoning (about 1,400 acres) with a development agreement; debate focused on a wildlife management area (WMA) buffer and whether to require a 300‑ or 600‑foot setback or a non‑scalable fence at the developer’s property line.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6528296,"Commission forwards Ben and Herrick rezone recommendation with trail, road conditions; irrigation easement questions remain",2507,1373000,3880000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1&start=1373&end=3880","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1/thumbnail_1373000.jpg","/articles/6528296/Weber-County/Utah/Commission-forwards-Ben-and-Herrick-rezone-recommendation-with-trail-road-conditions-irrigation-easement-questions-remain","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528296-c8afec913a84f8a1449c8d8533e3964d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770919594&Signature=BggxOCajKnf~3d0NbBw9ukW-XYaZxyeRLqySo3B7tSQgt918aV8Z0XiBZgQgDXVGbpamg34W~wWt0iM9iEw0~3JjXbnL-bv6CwSag8mEAvvMxH2tn6RhgpN9S3D1YcRoYiTxlouw4zweU-BCS0-~6PS6PBCpqernTTaF4SJY4nX~PNSvSd7lCywEevrkdkVw~Knnm93Y2o8kOlr38QG~YRPbp-0s~~zk~KdeiANQAz5H9xYTi4EzwGsz8ZViiQaDZJJsCeld1v5y-yNwIn41yE~Wl0qhisIELT1KJgD8xkGP413pv~~HHNRI0y47VLT13GGAVj3mfdMRUIrHxdN9OA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Weber County Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the County Commission on a legislative rezone application commonly referred to in staff materials as the Ben and Herrick Rezone (approximately 30.65 acres, addressed near 601 S 3600 W), with conditions requiring trail and roadway improvements and other infrastructure work.

Planning staff described changes made since a prior hearing and recommended conditions to be incorporated into a development agreement. Key conditions included: installation of a 10‑foot pathway along the east–west neighborhood collector (66‑foot right‑of‑way) on the south side of the street; construction of a 10‑foot pathway and street improvements on 4100 West to connect with an existing or planned path along 900 South; asphalt and pathway improvements along the 3600 West frontage extending south to 725 South Street; and a requirement that the East–West collector be designed as a 66‑foot right‑of‑way with a 10‑foot pathway on the south side.

Commissioners spent substantial time on trail placement adjacent to the Hooper Irrigation canal. Several commissioners urged including specific, enforceable language in the development agreement to require the developer to either place pathways within existing irrigation easements (if the canal company will allow it) or, failing that, to place the pathway on developer‑owned property or acquire necessary rights. Staff and the applicant said they had not completed professional coordination with Hooper Irrigation and recommended a condition that the applicant make a “good‑faith effort” and work with the irrigation company; several commissioners pressed for stronger “shall” language to give the condition teeth.

Commissioners also discussed that canal company ownership and easement language vary parcel to parcel and that some segments of the irrigation company’s corridor are narrow or not suitable for a trail built on top of canal infrastructure. Commissioners and staff explored an alternate routing concept: where pathways cannot reasonably be placed on the irrigation easement, the trail would instead traverse the developer’s property behind the adjacent lots and connect at the nearest public pathway (including a route tying to 4100 West), and the development agreement should require that the developer make the required connection or provide a defined contingency.

In their motion to forward a positive recommendation, commissioners included the staff list of development agreement standards plus an explicit condition adding a trail along the southernmost boundary adjacent to the Hooper Irrigation canal that connects to 4100 West; the developer was also required to construct improvements on 4100 West and 3600 West as noted above and to build the East‑West neighborhood collector as described.

The commission’s verbal record shows recorded votes including named aye and nay responses and at least one abstention; commissioners who spoke during the item pressed staff and the applicant to replace ambiguous “may/may not” language with “shall” where the commission intends to require a developer responsibility. Planning staff said they will coordinate with applicants to draft clearer development‑agreement language and to continue outreach to Hooper Irrigation and adjacent landowners before the County Commission’s public hearing.","Planning commissioners forwarded a positive recommendation on the Ben & Herrick rezone (about 30.65 acres) conditioned on pathways and roadway improvements; commissioners pressed the applicant to resolve trail placement with Hooper Irrigation.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":90,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6528300,"Planning commission backs preliminary plat for Winston Park phases 2–3 with conditions",1281,92000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1&start=92&end=1373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3410647-25bad8720475006b457840f5fae888d1/thumbnail_92000.jpg","/articles/6528300/Weber-County/Utah/Planning-commission-backs-preliminary-plat-for-Winston-Park-phases-23-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528300-e124ff2996befeb956a68669bae7c7f9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770919594&Signature=IMaIGsUgWCRN83LyQzRwW1~ae5l050jvcLMTXK~J6d1zw28pOM77D3hrt6FCXMs4Qeaoo4ewJi2VhMskprGrcXLe4BHRego8co~nsoZEii5ze~b2foqoVw538ws511T2fE5y3yuz7MK29n0xI5qw9jDtQ2-wCY5NQUFAWH95dNLCzq4bQ~tbvlaIbdNrcm4Mpv6kH-CRMDSuqD1AXd5ICD1LURXqksBpAZ4YtOIdGXgTqjgpUzXZFL9arWI7yaYLeV9uXaZe6ZB~znbWh~2L6fO256HecOq7ZpLunpMAVcRn99ZoLgUbw8tUxzIe8ZDBC9q~ewIwT1Qmj9q7tmYlwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Weber County Planning Commission on an agenda date not specified voted to recommend preliminary subdivision approval for Winston Park Subdivision, Phases 2 and 3, clearing the way to redevelop an existing open‑space parcel into 53 single‑family building lots subject to conditions from staff and county engineers.

The recommendation covers a preliminary plat and associated development‑agreement items for the portion of Winston Park identified in the file LBW022025. Planning staff said the project aligns the new street network with the existing Phase 1 development and requires right‑of‑way dedication along 1800 South. Staff also described a mix of duplex and single‑family lots, connections to adjacent properties and a planned 30‑foot pathway stub to the east.

County staff summarized the conditions the commission attached, including utility “will‑serve” letters, review of imported fill, and civil and landscape requirements. Staff said the fire district asked for a compacted road‑base access for emergency vehicles in the duplex area and that landscaping and irrigation details must be shown on the civil drawings. The staff report required a geotechnical study for areas where imported fill was used, and noted several minor revisions in tree placement on the landscape plan.

Commissioners raised practical concerns about the proposed “patio home” parking (two vehicles per unit, parked in driveways) and about a narrow strip behind Alder Court that is within a storm‑drain easement and currently shown with compacted road base rather than a designed landscaped area. Multiple commissioners asked that the detention/open‑space landscaping and the Alder Court cul‑de‑sac landscaping be installed when the first of Phases 2 or 3 is built out so buyers do not inherit a “weed patch.” Staff and the maker of the motion incorporated that requirement into the conditions.

Formal conditions summarized in the staff report and adopted by the commission include: final “will‑serve” letters from Taylor‑West‑Weber Water District and the relevant irrigation company before final plat approval; proof of the required contribution to parks and open space as specified in the recorded development agreement prior to recording any phase; civil drawings showing the landscape materials and irrigation methods for park strips and detention basins; demonstration of conformance with the recorded development agreement; submittal of a geotechnical study for roadways and home sites where fill was placed prior to construction‑drawing review; and civil plans that comply with Weber County Engineering standards. The motion also added that detention and open‑space landscaping shall be completed with the first phase recorded (either Phase 2 or Phase 3, whichever is first).

The commission asked staff to work with the developer on a final landscaping layout and clarified that some on‑site minor revisions (tree locations, etc.) would be handled during civil plan review. Staff said no public comment was required for this administrative subdivision action.

The planning commission’s roll call recorded verbal votes of approval from Commissioners Clontz, Edwards, Wicker, Novell, Andrew Heide, McCormick and the chair; the motion passed unanimously. The project will move to final plat review after the developer furnishes the required agency will‑serve letters, completes the geotechnical work and submits civil drawings that address the listed conditions.

The developer and staff must resolve the remaining minor plan edits (tree placement and irrigation details) and show compliance with the recorded development agreement before a final plat can be recorded.","The Weber County Planning Commission recommended preliminary subdivision approval for Winston Park Phases 2 and 3, converting an open‑space parcel into 53 lots while attaching infrastructure, landscaping and geotechnical conditions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Work session: applicant and staff discuss traditional‑neighborhood zone, design code and town‑architect oversight for Farm Resell master plan

Planning commission approves recommendation on West Ridge Meadows master plan amid debate over wildlife buffer and fence

Commission forwards Ben and Herrick rezone recommendation with trail, road conditions; irrigation easement questions remain

Planning commission backs preliminary plat for Winston Park phases 2–3 with conditions