Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trail Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors split over proposal to vacate Rose Creek trail; council continues item for staff cost analysis
Summary
A petition from adjacent homeowners to vacate a short Rose Creek Estates trail triggered sharp division at public comment. Staff reported about 60% of tracked responses opposed vacating while 30% favored it. Council directed staff to provide mitigation-cost and vacate-cost options and continued the item for further review.
Herriman City Council on March 25 continued a contentious proposal to vacate a short neighborhood trail in the Rose Creek Estates subdivision after heated public comment and a split neighborhood response.
Staff told the council the petition was signed by 13 of the 16 property owners whose back yards abut the trail, but neighborhood-wide outreach (postcards and a QR-code comment form) produced more mixed input: roughly 60% of tracked responses opposed vacating the trail, about 30% supported vacation and the rest were neutral or asked questions. "We heard concerns about loitering, late-night activity, trash and unauthorized motorized vehicles," Bryce said. He proposed relatively low-cost mitigations if the trail were retained, such as a fabricated gate to block vehicles (staff estimate: about $1,000 in material and labor) and additional maintenance or shoulder treatment with recycled asphalt.
Speakers at the council meeting described both perspectives. Adam Jacobson, whose home backs the trail, told the council: "We've had people in our backyards...this trail is a magnet for loitering and unauthorized motor vehicles." Daniel Murray, another adjacent homeowner, described privacy and safety worries. By contrast, Jim Peterson, who said he walks the trails daily, urged the council to keep the connection open: "These trails keep pedestrians and kids and families off busy streets and safely connect home to park and open spaces."
Council discussion focused on two tracks: mitigation to make the trail less attractive for nuisance behavior (gates, targeted maintenance, code enforcement for nonconforming fences) versus the technical and equitable steps required to vacate a platted trail (plat amendments, signature requirements, survey costs and questions about who pays). Staff explained a plat amendment route would require all affected property owners' signatures and would carry survey and recording costs; staff also noted a single-side conveyance (all to one adjacent owner) is a possible but policy-sensitive option.
Council directed staff to return with two packages: (1) recommended mitigations, one-time and ongoing cost estimates and enforcement implications; and (2) a detailed plan and cost estimate for vacating the trail, including how costs might be shared between the city and benefiting property owners and the legal steps required. The council emphasized a vacate action would require unanimous agreement of affected owners to avoid piecemeal transfers.
Next steps: staff will prepare the two options and cost estimates for council review at a future meeting.
