Enoch council to consider annexing 677 acres for a master planned community

Enoch could grow by about 677 acres on Wednesday. The City Council is scheduled to consider on Nov. 4 a petition to annex 677.34 acres of unincorporated Iron County land for the proposed Pidding master planned community, along with an annexation agreement and a development agreement, according to the meeting's agenda packet. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. at the City Offices, 900 E. Midvalley Road. ^[1]

Pidding LLC filed the petition on Aug. 11, and the council accepted it for study on Aug. 19, a staff memo says. The city certified the petition and notified affected entities, the 30-day protest period expired with no protests filed, and a public hearing was held Oct. 7. The council postponed its decision to give the applicant time to prepare the annexation agreement. ^[1]

The developer's master plan identifies a potential range of about 300 to 700 single-family homes, 1,450 to 2,700 multifamily units and about 88 acres of commercial development. Staff say the vote on the petition is limited to whether the city wants to annex the land and is not approval of the final development plans or the agreements. ^[1]

Velocity Development LLC, representing property owners Pidding LLC and North Spring Ranch LLC, is asking for approval of both agreements. A staff review of the Oct. 27 draft development agreement lists these terms: developer-built sewer routing to Enoch Boulevard and Pinnacle Way; a city reservation of 400 acre-feet per year of recreational water with a 600 gallon-per-minute minimum flow to Pidding Park; conveyance to the city of the park, a 100-foot drainage channel corridor, drainage parcels and a well with irrigation water rights, in exchange for 175 acre-feet and 69 acre-feet of development credit; and city construction deadlines for a secondary water main (two years), half of Enoch Boulevard and two soccer fields (five years) and half of Village Green Road (eight years). ^[1]

Staff recommend the council consider approval subject to changes. They note the draft annexation agreement does not identify an underlying zone and does not address water, sewer and other infrastructure responsibilities, impact fees, phasing, term, or default and remedies, and suggest those be added or confirmed in the development agreement. The development agreement review did not include the city attorney, and staff recommend resolving open items, including funding language for the city's water and road commitments, before final action. Staff will meet with the applicant before the meeting. ^[1]