Herriman council reviews land swaps and multiple MDAs, schedules closed session on real estate and litigation

Herriman — The Herriman City Council spent its April 23 work meeting walking through land-exchange proposals and several master development agreements (MDAs) tied to a proposed regional park at the Walker property, while also agreeing to enter a closed session to discuss pending litigation and real-estate strategy.

In a presentation, staff said they had adjusted a recommendation for one project from R2-10 to R1-10, removing a previously proposed multifamily component from the Sorrento plan. Unidentified Speaker (S5) said, "there's a maximum of 113 single family homes proposed," and staff and developers discussed whether design standard notes on setbacks or architectural trim could unintentionally change existing city-code requirements.

The council heard a quarterly economic update in which Unidentified Speaker (S9) reported that commercial business licenses rose to 224 and home-occupation licenses increased to 1,137 since the last report. S9 also noted recent business openings including a Pilates studio and a pickleball facility.

Councilors and staff reviewed MDAs for Sorrento, Creek Ridge (including a Creek Ridge Cove subdivision), Venco (a tight 2.5-acre parcel off Paribas Boulevard) and an Olympia MDA. Key technical concerns included minimum lot widths (staff noted a proposed 40-foot frontage minimum for Sorrento), sidewalk and hammerhead turnaround dimensions on private roads, and whether certain MDA notes on setback encroachments effectively change city code.

On financing and cleanup, staff described updates to public improvement district (PID) law that now make remediation an eligible PID expense. Staff said the city would initially fund contamination cleanup work and subsequently reimburse itself through PID financing. As staff put it, legislators "updated what kids are allowed to do and added remediation as an eligible expense" (statement in meeting discussion clarifying the statutory change and its effect on PID uses).

Council members debated landscaping requirements in MDAs after a state legislative change that generally bars municipalities from requiring private landscaping at certificate of occupancy except where MDAs allow it. Some members favored keeping landscaping requirements enforceable via MDAs or CC&Rs with a time window (suggestions ranged from six to nine months after CO), while others said small single‑family HOAs routinely handle landscaping through CC&Rs and bonds.

Procedurally, the council agreed to one integrated presentation covering items 9.1–9.3 followed by a consolidated public‑comment period, then separate comment opportunities and votes for later items. Chair and other members said they would exercise discretion to limit repetitive public testimony.

Near the close of the work meeting, Unidentified Speaker (S7) moved "to temporarily recess our city council work meeting to go into a closed meeting for the following purposes as provided in Utah state code annotated section 52-4-205: strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; strategy sessions to discuss deferred exchange or lease of real properties; and discussion of closing agreement, project proposal or financing related to development of land owned by the city." The motion was seconded (the transcript records "Second by Kenny"). The council recessed after a voice vote in which ayes were recorded; the transcript records the voice votes but does not provide a roll-call tally.

What happens next: The council moved into the closed session to discuss litigation and property strategy. The public record will resume after any statutory closed-session requirements are satisfied and any formal motions or votes taken in open meeting will be reflected in subsequent minutes.

(Reporting note: quotations and attributions in this account come from the meeting transcript; many speakers were identified in the record only by turn labels, not by full name.)