The Parowan City Council on April 10 spent nearly three hours reviewing a newly redlined annexation/development agreement submitted by AJM Investments and the developer’s engineer, Dallas Buckner. After detailed discussion about zoning and density controls, water rights and system capacity, roads and required off-site improvements, and legal vesting language, council members voted to table the agreement to a work meeting scheduled for April 23 at 6:00 p.m.

Why it matters: The proposal covers roughly 166 acres of land proposed for annexation and staged residential development. Council members and staff said the document submitted by the developer’s attorney added clauses that would vest land-use rights and lock in certain standards; council members asked legal counsel to review the redline and advised staff to resolve several technical items before any public hearing or ordinance vote.

Major open issues identified at the meeting:
- Zoning and density: Planning Commission recommended a mixed-zone exhibit (R1, R2, R3 and a civic/commercial corner) with a net density target that the developer said is equivalent to roughly 556 residential units if the site were all R1. Council members debated whether to accept a mixed-zone exhibit or annex as a single zone (R1) and allow subsequent rezone/subdivision processes.
- Water rights and system capacity: The developer offered alternatives including bringing 40 acre-feet now to enable roughly 80 homes and then add water as phases progress; council asked for more clarity and legal review about vesting and whether impact fees would still apply.
- Water tank and fire-flow: The city’s hydraulic model shows improved fire flows and system pressure if a tank is installed at a specified site; the council and staff discussed whether the developer should construct the tank and to what size, or whether the city should receive rights-of-way and mains and construct the tank later using impact fees and grant funds.
- Road and access improvements: Staff and the developer discussed the timing and financing of a second access (CityView Drive or other alignment), potential reimbursement for upsizing, and whether the developer should be required to build multiple connections at initial subdivision phases.

Action: With these unresolved technical and legal questions, the council voted to table and directed staff and city counsel to review the developer’s redlined agreement; the council scheduled a dedicated work meeting for April 23 at 6:00 p.m. to continue negotiations.

Ending: The council asked staff to produce a consolidated list of open items and recommended language to share with the developer and its counsel before the April 23 work session so the parties can negotiate using the same draft language.