Santaquin council denies Mulberry annexation after public opposition over lot size, fire risk and traffic

The Santaquin City Council voted unanimously May 6 to deny annexation of the Mulberry development after a public hearing in which neighbors and experts raised concerns about lot sizes, wildfire risk, traffic and infrastructure.

Developers sought annexation of roughly 50 acres under an R-8 zoning that would allow lots with 8,000 square feet minimum. Council opened a public hearing, heard roughly two dozen speakers and then voted to deny the annexation petition "at this time," saying the plan as presented did not address key community concerns.

Why it matters: Council members said the annexation request raises questions about public safety, the character of existing neighborhoods and who will pay for utilities and roads. Neighbors whose properties back up to the Mulberry site said the proposed lot sizes would be dramatically smaller than adjacent lots and would change the look, traffic patterns and wildfire exposure of the east bench.

Public comments focused on four recurring points. Multiple residents, including longtime bench neighbors, said 8,000-square-foot lots were too small next to existing homes that commonly have lots of 15,000 square feet or more. Wildland-fire professionals and local residents recounted the area’s fire history and warned that current local fire staffing and access would be insufficient for a large, bench-top development. Several speakers also cited school crowding and stormwater/mudslide risks on steep slopes.

Developer representatives told the council they had conducted water and traffic studies and proposed a mix of lot sizes and open space. Staff noted the developer had engaged in multiple design iterations and that traffic alignments largely follow the city’s master plan. Councilmembers said those efforts did not resolve the principal concerns raised by residents.

The council framed its action narrowly. Mayor Olsen noted that state law protects property owners’ rights and that the city’s role was to follow applicable annexation procedures; denying the petition did not remove the property owner’s right to seek annexation again with a new proposal. Councilmember Bridal said the city should not shoulder infrastructure costs for new development and that any annexation must clearly assign those costs to the developer.

The motion to deny the annexation passed with a unanimous vote of the council members present. Councilmembers recorded their votes in favor; there were no votes against and no abstentions. The council closed the public hearing and said it would welcome revised proposals that address the issues raised at the hearing.

What’s next: Denial of this petition does not bar the property owner from submitting a revised plan or a future annexation petition. The council instructed staff to keep the public informed of any resubmittals and to post related agenda items for future meetings.