Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks for master plan after staff flags infrastructure concerns with proposed 695‑unit development
Summary
Staff summarized a 34‑page development draft proposing roughly 695 dwelling units; council members raised concerns about access, sewer capacity, stormwater/detention thresholds, parks ownership (HOA vs. public), and water supply, and asked for a master plan and more detailed development agreement before approving phases.
At the March 4 meeting staff summarized a conceptual 34‑page residential development draft that could add about 695 dwelling units and potentially increase the city’s population substantially. City Attorney Justin Wayment (summarizing staff review) and Public Works Director Hayden White told the council the plan depicted pods of roughly 48 units with clubhouses, parking, and open space.
Staff and council discussed multiple infrastructure and planning concerns. Access and circulation issues were emphasized, including a proposed dedicated access at 5600 North and anticipated difficulty obtaining Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) approvals; staff suggested pursuing Minersville Highway access if feasible. Sewer planning raised the potential need for a lift station and interim pumping so much of the project could rely on gravity flow for portions. Stormwater and detention were discussed with reference to state dam safety guidance and a cited 160‑acre detention threshold; council asked whether detention infrastructure would be owned by the city or by homeowner associations. Parks shown in the draft appeared to be 1‑acre HOA pocket parks; council members expressed a preference for a larger central public park (3–6+ acres with ball fields) but noted limited city funds and constraints on imposing conditions or fees without required nexus and proportionality.
Water capacity and financing were also central points. Staff warned that the doubled demand implied by the proposed development could strain existing tanks and wells, and said additional water supply (new wells or deepening the Anderson well), upsizing water lines, and alignment of impact fees and water rates might be required. Staff indicated impact fees would likely fund many required upgrades but that fee structure and financing specifics remained to be addressed. The council requested a master plan for the entire project and said the development agreement should remain conceptual until more specifics are provided; staff said they would send a redraft and return the item to a future agenda.
