Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SITLA and developer outline a plan for large Wasatch Valley parcel; county and city raise water, sewer and traffic concerns
Summary
SITLA and Philo described a development partnership for a 720-acre SITLA parcel and surrounding private land; SITLA said the developer demonstrated water availability to the board and the MDA requires proof of water and zoning while Philo said it seeks to spread density across additional acreage to subsidize affordable housing; Heber City and Wasatch County officials pressed for details on water, wastewater treatment, sewer capacity and traffic and agreed to continue joint meetings in January.
Representatives of the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) and Philo Development presented a multi-parcel development concept and answered questions from Wasatch County and Heber City officials in a lengthy joint discussion.
Greg MacArthur, speaking for SITLA, said SITLA's mission is to monetize trust lands to benefit public schools and that the agency typically works with local governments "through the front door" but retains a statutory exemption allowing it to develop without local zoning in certain circumstances. He described an MDA with Philo under which the developer had to demonstrate two things to SITLA's satisfaction: proof of water and appropriate zoning; MacArthur said SITLA's Board of Trustees had accepted documentation showing the developer had demonstrated water availability, though details are confidential subject to an NDA.
Greg Whitehead, partner in Philo and the project's developer, told the councils the firm attempted to balance SITLA's affordability mandate with community goals by proposing to spread some density across about 4,500 acres of combined SITLA and privately held land rather than concentrate it solely on the 720-acre SITLA parcel. "We're trying our best to try to find the solution to have a win win for for all stakeholders involved," he said. Whitehead added that the project would not be viable in county code without creative overlays and that many milestones remain, including sewer, water and traffic solutions.
Elected officials and agency managers asked detailed questions about whether SITLA can use its exemption to force connections to utilities, whether developers can use PIDs (public improvement districts) to fund infrastructure, and how water and wastewater treatment would be provided. SITLArepresentatives said the exemption exists and can be used, but that SITLA prefers to partner with local governments and developers; they also said that the developer must satisfy milestone requirements and that SITLA can revert the parcel to an affordable-housing RFP if the MDA's conditions are not met.
Max Covey, General Manager of Twin Creek Special Service District, explained that much of the area falls outside current service boundaries and the district has not master-planned pipeline or treatment capacity for the scale of development discussed. He urged that any proposal must first solve wastewater-treatment siting and water-right logistics before the district spends detailed design hours.
Council members repeatedly emphasized that annexation or entitlement approvals would not occur without clear solutions for sewer, water and traffic. Heber City officials said they would not vote to annex without those answers and both councils agreed to keep talking. The councils tentatively agreed to reconvene in January for a follow-up interlocal meeting to review documentation requested by county staff (the MDA, SITLA exemption documentation and supporting water/zoning evidence).
