Planning commission tables Deseret overlay after Riley Ranch letter raises access and property‑rights questions

The Grantsville Planning Commission voted to table consideration of the Deseret Development overlay district (approximately 1300 West Mackenzie Road) after hearing a lawyer’s letter claiming private fee‑simple roads and exclusive access rights that could prevent the master‑plan road network shown in the applicant’s exhibit.

Commissioners said the letter, received shortly before the meeting, raised significant questions about whether the developer can rely on a diagonal private road shown on the plan for future access. The commission asked the applicant to provide alternative concept exhibits showing how the overlay would work if that access is not available, and it scheduled follow‑up discussions with city council and staff.

At the meeting staff read a March 3 letter from the law firm of Parr, Brown & Lovelace on behalf of Riley Ranch LLC, GB 150 LLC and Granite Construction Company. The letter said Riley Ranch owns contiguous parcels, including a parcel of roughly 645.3 acres, and asserted those parcels provide “critical access from SR 138” to Riley Ranch and GB 150. The letter said proposed plans for the Deseret development “appear to show the Riley Ranch property and GB Road parcels being crossed by proposed roads, trails, and utilities” and stated that Riley Ranch “does not consent to any such encroachment onto its properties.”

The applicant’s representatives acknowledged the existence of a privately owned diagonal road shown on the plan and said they must come to terms with that property owner before they can use the strip for access. Applicant representatives told the commission the development overlay is a land‑use designation and not final engineering or a grant of access; they said access, UDOT coordination and engineering remain to be resolved before building can occur.

Commissioners requested more information, including a concept‑level exhibit that shows how percentages of residential and commercial acreage and unit counts would change if the northern/western portion of the plan cannot be accessed. At one point staff calculated that losing the area north and west of the private strip would reduce the applicant’s residential capacity by about 1,866 units. Commissioners asked the applicant to provide revised calculations for the portion of the plan that could be developed without the disputed access.

Commissioners also discussed timing and the applicant’s need to work with UDOT and neighboring property owners on access, including a potential speed‑limit change on SR 138 that could alter allowed access spacing. Several commissioners said they wanted more time to review the letter’s implications before making a recommendation to city council.

Motion language and outcome: a commissioner moved to table the proposed overlay district for Deseret (approx. 1300 West Mackenzie Road); the motion received a second and passed on an aye voice vote. The commission and applicant agreed to set a joint work session with city council to review the access questions and requested the applicant provide revised exhibits and calculations in the interim.

The tabling postpones the commission’s recommendation to city council until the access and property‑rights issues are further researched and the applicant submits the requested alternate exhibits.