Whether Heber City annexes the tip of the North Fields or not, that land will be developed, City Councilor Mike Johnston says. This is inevitable.He said this after critics at a public hearing last week on plans for the boundary shift expressed concerns about traffic infrastructure and the change to the community’s landscape that relatively dense development at the intersection of U.S. 40 and River Road would bring. Johnston said it’s not realistic to think the entryway to the valley would remain open land if the city dropped its annexation bid.Something will be developed there, he explained, and due to the county’s North Village Overlay District, it’s financially unfeasible to pay to preserve the land. He said the allowed density makes it too valuable and too expensive, especially given other nearby parcels of land that are still held to strict, one home-per 20-acre zoning and will thus be less expensive to preserve from development.“Right now, all this property within this annexation petition is zoned in the county under their North Village zoning code,” he said. “They don’t need to come to Heber City. They are coming to Heber City for a couple reasons.”The largest, he said, is the county agreed to a 30-year memorandum of understanding with Heber City in 2019 about developing some of its North Overlay District. One of the county’s responsibilities is to point property owners in the mutually recognized city expansion area — which includes the North Fields surrounding the crossing of U.S. 40 and River Road — to develop with the city.“We all agree on that, that it shouldn’t become a Kimball Junction on the north end of town,” Johnston said. “We have a master transportation plan, a master storm drainage plan, and both those, by the way, have impact fees now associated with everything that happens, anything that comes into the city and is built.”He added that if the city develops the property, it is able to reap positive benefits the county wouldn’t be able to access.“If they annex into Heber, it’s an at-will agreement,” he said. “We can assess, which we are, North Fields preservation fees, and we can also assess affordable housing requirements. The county does not have the ability to do that because they already have county zoning.”According to the North Village Overlay District Transect Map, the county already allows village or urban density in the area, which is six equivalent residential units per acre.A statement from the county’s planning department explaining the overlay zone specified that the higher density isn’t automatically given.“The North Village Overlay Zone allows a developer to request higher density through a master planning process that is more stringent than traditional zoning. This is the process where the additional obligations come from in exchange for the bonus densities,” the department explained. “These are things like significant public open space contributions, higher architectural standards, reduced visibility of parking lots and increased pedestrian street and plaza experiences. … If a new project were to be presented to the county under the north village overlay, the highest density possible in the North Village would be the 137.4 ERUs (equivalent residential units).”Things get more complicated when considering a previous development agreement, which the county signed in 2015 for the plot where the future Harvest Village will stand, that county officials and the location’s current developer Neil Goldman don’t entirely see eye to eye on as to whether it still stands. The 39-acre project was agreed to with 370 ERUs and included movie theatres, restaurants, no apartments and a water park.That density came with obligations Wasatch County Communications Director Joan Gould said don’t seem to be feasible, but Goldman said the project’s 25 year vested rights agreement still holds weight, though he didn’t give a clear answer as to its feasibility, stating it’s a question with multiple components. With the agreement still in place for another 16 years, however, he said developers could proceed with the water park plan if they chose to do so.“This is not a conversation about open land versus development,” Goldman said. “With existing development rights, it’s a conversation about development versus development.”With Harvest Village’s affordable housing plans, open space and opportunities for locals, he contended the plans are more suitable than “a closed off Vegas-style waterpark.”Even without considering the 2015 waterpark agreement, the land’s overlay zone position still leaves it the possibility to have higher density than surrounding land.Three major players in the North Fields proposed the annexation — the planned Harvest Village, the North Village Crossings development and the Heiner family who Johnston said has not submitted an official plan for their land yet. If it’s approved, the moving city boundaries will also encompass other property owners near the three major stakeholders, and not all of them are happy about it.“Our view overlooks the North Fields. We love it,” Maxx Cohen said at the public hearing. “We’re concerned if these apartments go in front of us, it’s going to block our view.”Local landowner David Anderson also wasn’t thrilled. After sharing his concerns about developing infrastructure, taxes and traffic to find what he seemed to take as less-than-satisfying answers from city staff, he said he was against the annexation.Johnston said the developments tied to the annexation also wouldn’t be the city’s first choice if not for the density that’s already been allotted through the North Village Overlay district. But given the present situation, he said he thinks it’s best if Heber City takes charge in the development.“My contention is — and I think most of the council feels the same way — we would prefer to densify certain areas that already have zoning and already have infrastructure rather than sprawling out into other areas such as the North Fields,” Johnston said. “We would not be developing this corner if the county had not already zoned it. We would all prefer to see this corner stay as rural.”In Johnston’s view — and largely because of limited water — the valley will hit a maximum amount of people once it hosts 65,000-70,000 souls.“I would prefer that those people were clustered more tightly together just for sustainability: economic sustainability and environmental sustainability,” he said. “The more we spread people out, the more automobile dependent they are, and the more traffic that’s produced and the more infrastructure per house it is, so the cost goes up.”Good planning, he said, is determining the maximum amount of people an area can hold and then determining the best place those people can go.“I want to act with best intentions, with best practices, lease cost to the citizens and least amount of infrastructure,” he said. “I’d like to preserve the North Fields. I’d like to preserve the mountains.”The post Heber City Councilor says North Fields Development coming, annexation or not appeared first on Park Record.