Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners review Lomond View rezone and development agreement; secondary egress and river buffer draw scrutiny
Summary
County planning staff presented a draft development agreement for the 140-acre Lomond View subdivision (formerly Cherokee Farms). Commissioners discussed the project's 300-foot river buffer, proposed trail cross-section, and a development agreement provision that prevents more than 30 homes before secondary egress is available.
Weber County commissioners on May 12 reviewed a draft development agreement and rezone request for a roughly 140-acre subdivision now called Lomond View (previously referred to as Cherokee Farms). County staff presented the proposal and sought commission direction on buffers, trail design and phasing-related access requirements.
The applicant proposes to rezone the property to an R-115 residential zone and to donate a roughly 300-foot green-space buffer adjacent to the Weber River to the Weber River Linear Park. Staff said the applicant will construct a trail through the donated green space and provide benches and trailhead improvements. "They've already made that commitment to the park district, so they're just fine donating that land to the park district," a staff member said.
Commissioners focused on three items: (1) the 300-foot river buffer and the possibility of shifting density if the buffer is narrowed later; (2) secondary egress requirements; and (3) trail cross-section. Staff said the development agreement includes a limit that the project cannot exceed 30 homes at the end of 3600 West until a secondary emergency egress is provided; commissioners asked who would enforce that permit limit and staff said the county planning division would halt additional building permits at the threshold stated in the development agreement and that the limit references the International Fire Code for emergency egress standards.
On trails, staff said the developer proposed an 8-foot paved trail plus a 4-foot compacted equestrian/fitness track rather than the county’s usual 10-foot multiuse pathway. Commissioners discussed whether the alternative cross-section honors agrarian character and provides adequate connectivity; one commissioner asked that the planning commission see the plan again before the county advances to a hearing so the planning commission is not bypassed.
Staff said the planning commission previously gave a favorable recommendation and that planning staff would return the item for a public hearing once final exhibits, secondary egress assurances and any escrow arrangements for emergency egress are resolved. No formal county action was taken during the work session; commissioners requested follow-up on escrow language for emergency egress and asked staff to return the proposal to planning commission for additional review.
