Commissioners review Bennett master-plan development agreement; staff, developers negotiate river buffers, stormwater work and cost-sharing for county services
Loading...
Summary
Weber County staff and commissioners reviewed a near-final development agreement for the Bennett Master Plan and discussed river buffers, stormwater master planning, pedestrian bridge credits, secondary water options, and a proposed study-sharing arrangement for additional county service costs.
Weber County commissioners on Thursday reviewed a near-final development agreement for the Bennett Master Plan and discussed conditions intended to shape how the project interfaces with neighboring properties, the river corridor and county services.
County planner Charlie (last name not specified in the meeting packet) guided commissioners through the agreement and highlighted several negotiated provisions intended to protect the North Fork river corridor and manage future public costs. Charlie said the agreement includes a base 100-foot public open-space corridor from the river’s high-water line — to be dedicated to the park district — and authorizes a qualified professional to recommend larger buffers where river curvature or bank stability requires it.
Why this matters: commissioners and staff emphasized the project’s visibility on 4700 West, how the development should “integrate well into the other properties and future development,” and how to preserve “open space buffer wrapping around the property” until neighboring parcels develop. Charlie described a proposed approach that would require a 100-foot dedication as a baseline, with the potential for variable, larger buffers determined by a qualified professional and reviewed by county engineers. Charlie told the commission the developer “will be required to provide whatever bank stabilization is gonna be needed to make that safe.”
Other substantive points discussed included: - Stormwater: the development agreement requires a stormwater master plan that identifies basin locations, options for consolidating basins, and assigns operations and maintenance responsibility. County engineering review is required for that plan. - Pedestrian bridges and trails: the planning commission requested two pedestrian bridges over the river; the agreement now includes a provision for two bridges (one south of 400 South and one north of 400 South) and allows the developer to receive trail-impact-fee credits for bridge construction, pending legal language to finalize how credits are applied. - Secondary (irrigation) water: the agreement contains language about secondary-water systems. Weber Basin Water Conservancy District representatives and county staff said they prefer using culinary water where feasible (County staff noted cuisine-provider requirements remain binding) because culinary delivery can be more cost effective across higher-density development; the agreement currently asks for flexibility while respecting culinary-provider decisions. - Provision-of-services and financial-study sharing: the developer asked the county to share roughly 50% of the cost of any financial study the county commissions to determine incremental maintenance or service costs for the project. Staff said the county could request a financial study to measure any long-term incremental costs and then assign the delta to the HOA or master developer; the developer’s request that the county pay 50% of the study was left for further discussion. - Legacy corridor/highway alignment: staff and commissioners noted the Western Legacy Corridor alignment work is underway with WFRC and UDOT and that Weber County expects to participate in an update of the 2009 study, with an initial task force and public process expected this fall.
Spot zoning and the general-plan update: Charlie told the commission state law requires planning-commission review of development agreements tied to legislative actions. He said the current draft of the development agreement is about “98–99%” complete and that he will provide the planning commission with a highlighted final draft of the agreement and a summary of changes. Commissioner Jim Harvey requested that the final, revised draft be circulated to the planning commission for informational review; commissioners expressed support for that step.
Ending: staff will return a highlighted final draft of the development agreement to the planning commission and to the commission’s next work session; a small number of outstanding refinements remain to be negotiated between county staff and the applicant’s attorneys before the county places the agreement on a public hearing agenda.
