Residents urge council to avoid turning Emigration Canyon Road into a "highway" as $6.42M improvement looms

Emigration Canyon — Residents expressed strong opposition to proposed road‑widening plans and related setback changes at the Emigration Canyon City Council meeting on Feb. 17.

"We do not want the road to become a highway," said Gary Bowen, a longtime canyon resident and Salt Lake County Animal Services liaison, during public comment, describing historic changes to the right‑of‑way and saying roughly 90% of Emigration Canyon Road addresses lie along the section under consideration. Bowen said many existing homes and driveways conform to an older 33‑foot configuration and could be made nonconforming if a larger right‑of‑way were enforced.

Why it matters: Assistant City Engineer Richard Stephens presented a preliminary FY27 capital list that includes an Emigration Canyon Road improvement with a packet total shown at about $6.42 million and Emigration Creek culvert replacements. Stephens told the council the culvert work would require roughly $424,545 in additional funds and recommended a transportation utility fee study (estimated at $35,000) while declining to recommend a transportation impact fee study for the canyon at this time.

Council process and public input: Multiple residents asked procedural and technical questions about the right‑of‑way measurement, setback math and whether public hearings would be held. Mayor David Brems and Assistant City Engineer Tamaran Woodland said the project team will first conduct a field survey to determine exact right‑of‑way lines and that the public process will include one open house, one public hearing and two council presentations. "We will survey the road and adjacent structures to determine the exact conditions," Brems said during the exchange.

Residents raised specific objections: William Witt, co‑trustee of property at 4909 E. Emigration Canyon Road, asked whether the right‑of‑way was 66 feet total or 33 feet from center; Brems said the right‑of‑way is believed to be 66 feet but the survey would clarify. Lyska Emerson warned that introducing setbacks into the zoning code would likely render many existing structures nonconforming and complicate repairs, remodeling and disaster rebuilding for homeowners. Merrick Wright asked whether restrictions would apply to sheds, garages and bridges and warned that stream setbacks already limit development on constrained canyon lots.

Engineering details and schedule: Stephens described the road project as including the possible addition of a bike lane and said the Municipal Services District Board will prioritize projects by life, health and safety needs. Tamaran Woodland reported the road project is delayed while required project documents are signed and that FEMA returned comments on the floodplain update; she asked the project manager to update the schedule to reflect recent delays.

Funding options: Stephens said the transportation utility fee study would explore recurring monthly assessments (an example study elsewhere suggested up to $10 per month) to fund maintenance and replacement. Councilors asked whether non‑resident use of the canyon — especially during I‑80 closures when regional traffic is diverted through the canyon — could be charged; Stephens said that detail would be explored through the study. Stephens also noted some funding could come through Municipal Services District allocations, grants, or capital carryovers already designated for road work.

What’s next: Staff will proceed with a field survey to define existing right‑of‑way boundaries, the Municipal Services District will review project priorities next month, and the public will get an open house and a hearing as part of the project process. No council vote to authorize construction or take new right‑of‑way was recorded at the Feb. 17 meeting.