Weber County Commission approves Loman View rezoning, development agreement

The Weber County Commission on July 1 approved Ordinance 2025-17 and an accompanying development agreement to rezone the Loman View development (formerly Cherokee The River) from A-2 to R-115 and to memorialize parkland conveyances, trail construction and roadway obligations.

The vote followed a presentation by Charlie Ewert, county planning staff, and questions from commissioners. Ewert said the development agreement requires the developer to dedicate trail easements and to construct a trail and two trailheads with restrooms and water facilities. "All of those standards, all of those requirements are in the development agreement," Ewert said.

Why it matters: The rezone changes the property from agricultural to higher-density residential zoning and obligates the developer to provide public access and amenities along the river corridor, while leaving some major infrastructure decisions — including bridge construction across the river — contingent on future development and funding.

Key details from the discussion: - Acreage: The agenda described the project as "approximately 134 acres." During the discussion a different figure (approximately 103.4 acres) was mentioned; the development agreement approved by the commission governs what becomes effective once recorded. - Trails and buffers: Ewert said the proposed trail along the river corridor would be roughly a mile (about 5,280 feet). The developer will install a trail on its side of a property line and grant a 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement to the owner of the parcel inside the river "horseshoe." Staff estimated the effective buffer in portions of the horseshoe at about 75–100 feet from the centerline to the roadway alignment. - Recording and platting: Ewert told commissioners the rezone is not effective until the development agreement is recorded: "They don't develop if they don't record it. So they don't get the rezone." He also said no plat had been proposed or recorded at the time of the meeting. - Bridge funding and impact fees: When commissioners asked who would pay for bridges if the opposite riverbank eventually develops, Ewert listed potential sources: county impact fees, developer contributions and other county funding sources. He noted impact fees must be spent within six years of collection and offered an illustrative per-residence estimate of roughly $1,000–$1,500. Ewert also said the overall project could include several hundred residences (he said "400 or so residences") and that impact-fee revenue would accumulate as development proceeds.

Discussion vs. decision: Commissioners asked for clarity about trail alignment, buffer widths in the horseshoe segment, whether the Park District was satisfied with the land conveyance, and what happens if the development agreement is not recorded. Ewert responded that the Park District had negotiated and accepted the land donation and that the development agreement will memorialize those obligations; he reiterated that the rezone and subsequent development cannot proceed without recording.

Vote and next steps: Commissioner Gage Frower moved approval; Commissioner Jim Harvey seconded. The commission recorded unanimous ayes and carried the motion. The development agreement must be recorded and subsequent plats approved before subdivision construction can proceed.

Provenance: The commission introduced Ordinance 2025-17 and related discussion at the action-items portion of the meeting (transcript excerpt beginning with the item introduction). Further details and commissioner questions appear in the planning-staff presentation and Q&A recorded in the transcript; the roll-call approval appears later in the same agenda segment.