Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Traffic topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit and Wasatch counties discuss West 200 South/Gun Club Road after traffic study shows heavy construction use
Summary
A joint meeting between Summit and Wasatch counties focused on safety, dust and access on West 200 South/Gun Club Road after a Summit County traffic study recorded 653 daily trips, average speeds of 35.6 mph and top speeds in the high 80s–90s; counties, developers and counsel debated prior vacation agreements, legal access rights, mitigation options and next steps including a staff subcommittee.
Summit County leaders and Wasatch County officials met in a joint session to address complaints from residents along West 200 South (Gun Club Road) about heavy construction traffic, dust, speeding and safety.
Summit County staff presented findings from a February 2024 traffic study that recorded roughly 653 daily trips on the stretch, an average speed of 35.6 miles per hour and daily peak speeds recorded in the 80s and 90s; staff said the highest speed during the four-day monitoring period was 97 mph. Neighbors described repeated heavy truck movements, dust, road damage and conditions unsafe for children and pedestrians.
Wasatch County and representatives of two large neighboring developments—Touhey (a private community whose internal road work dates to earlier development agreements) and Wakara (a Wasatch County-approved subdivision)—explained their separate entitlements and access arrangements. Wasatch officials said approvals and vesting in their county rely on primary construction access through West 200 South; Summit County counsel described a history in which portions of the Old Camas Highway were vacated and representations were made about alternative access at the time.
Legal counsel disagreed on the practical effect of a county closing or changing the road. Touhey’s counsel warned that cancelling a public road does not necessarily extinguish private access rights, saying, “You can cancel the road, but you can't take our private right to access that property through the road.” Summit County’s attorney said the county, as highway authority, can pursue mitigation options—weight limits, limited-use designation, partial closure or engineering changes—but that some options could prompt litigation and would not fully protect residents unless the parties cooperate.
Developers proposed mitigation and design changes including medians, narrower travel lanes, a meandering alignment, pedestrian trails, and speed-reduction measures. They offered to work with both counties on designs and suggested they would bear significant portions of construction costs for road improvements that benefit their projects. Summit and Wasatch officials agreed to pursue more formal coordination: staff-level follow-up, a smaller subcommittee of legal and planning staff from both counties to review agreements and options, and an annual or near-term council-to-council review of cross-border development to avoid future surprises.
The meeting closed with a motion to go into closed session on litigation; the motion was moved and seconded and the council voted aye to enter closed session.
