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

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.