Nibley council delays decision on Apple Creek development agreement after debate over trail, canal and conservation trade-offs

The Nibley City Council on Sept. 10 continued, to a future meeting, consideration of Ordinance 25‑29, a development agreement that would create two building lots and one expanded conservation lot within the Apple Creek/Heritage Parkway area while allowing several departures from city subdivision rules.

Council and staff spent more than an hour on the item debating a required trail improvement along the subdivision, whether the city can lawfully exact a trail improvement from the addition of a single lot, and how a nearby canal and conservation acreage affect the feasible trail alignment. The council did not approve the development agreement Tuesday and instead voted to have staff and the applicant negotiate details and return at the next meeting.

Why it matters: The proposal would amend an earlier subdivision to split a parcel into two building lots and a conservation lot and increase conservation area by roughly two‑thirds of an acre while creating a “flag lot” that does not meet the ordinance frontage standard. The city code includes a provision that could require both dedication of right‑of‑way and construction of a master‑plan trail where a subdivision abuts a trail corridor. Staff and the city attorney advised that requiring full trail construction as an exaction for a single additional lot would likely be disproportionate under state law; staff provided an engineer’s estimate for the section of trail in question of about $67,000 to $75,000.

City planner Levi (City Planner) summarized the agreement and the legal guidance: “Requiring trail improvement at that level would almost certainly be overdoing our ability to perform exactions,” he said, adding that the trail estimate for the relevant short segment is “about 67 to $75,000.”

Applicant and property owner Sean (Applicant / Property Owner) told the council he had designed the subdivision to preserve open space and said he did not plan to sell the new lots immediately. He also said the canal company has discretion about whether the canal channel must remain open or may be piped, and the city and applicant had unsuccessfully sought a federal agency determination to require the channel stay open. “The city defers to the canal company,” he said. “I’m gonna do everything I can to keep it open, but I can’t promise.”

Councilmembers questioned whether approving the requested exceptions (allowing a flag lot and subdivision of land within a conservation area) would set a precedent. Staff described development agreements as legislative, one‑off approvals that can be granted or denied for specific reasons. Councilmember Norman Larson (Councilmember) said he wanted to ensure the decision did not encourage future, similar exceptions without review.

Fee and motion: Councilmember Norman Larson initially moved to approve the development agreement with a $37,000 fee‑in‑lieu of trail construction; a substitute motion by Councilmember Nathan Hennessy (Councilmember) asked staff and the applicant to continue negotiations and return to the council at the next meeting with written terms. The substitute motion to continue passed on a voice vote.

Remaining issues and next steps: Council members flagged several outstanding points for negotiation and for staff to bring back in writing: whether a reduced fee or alternate public‑value trade could be provided instead of immediate trail construction; whether land for a trail could be reconfigured with the parcel to the south; how the canal company’s requirements will affect any trail alignment; and if and how dedication of a 10‑foot trail right‑of‑way versus a city standard 20‑foot trail would be handled by adjacent property owners.

The council did not adopt Ordinance 25‑29 Tuesday; the item will return for a future meeting after staff and the applicant discuss alternatives and prepare written language.

Ending: Council and staff indicated they expect further negotiation could produce alternatives — either a fee, a different public improvement, or a revised alignment — and they asked the applicant and staff to return with defined options for the council’s next meeting.