That doesn't mean residents, who spent nearly two years trying to block a development that included the big-box retailer, feel beaten. No, many of them are celebrating what they see as a winning settlement.

"We got everything we wanted," said Dennis Sampson, president of Riverton United, the resident group. "So why continue to fight it?"

The deal? It's still in play.

If residents and a new "unnamed third party" - who could end up buying out other developers - can fine-tune details, it will end an intense battle between residents and city officials. The development first made headlines in January 2004 when the City Council approved the project in a special meeting held in the final hours before some council members left office.

A potential end to the fight became public Monday as the residents -along with attorneys for the city, the developer and the landowner - appeared in 3rd District Court and asked to suspend the litigation. They said they had a settlement plan, but had yet to put pen to paper.

A key element to the discussions: New housing would be built as a buffer between existing houses and the big-box/retail center.

An original plan called for a Wal-Mart and another big-box retailer to build between 3600 West and 3300 West, a location across the street from an established residential neighborhood on 13400 South. Now the Wal-Mart will back up against Bangerter Highway, and a row of smaller retailers will run along 3600 West to block the long-term residents' view of the big-box.

In reality, that means 75 percent of the development will now be built as single-family housing, said James Tracy, an attorney for the residents. The commercial operations will be restricted to a zone that had always been designed for big retailers.

Now, voters in the across-county community of Sandy will be the only ones casting Nov. 8 ballots that could block a Wal-Mart. There, residents forced a referendum on a 107-acre development that includes two big-boxes, a smattering of other retailers and 330 higher-density housing units.

The battle over the Riverton land has been heated, punctuated by several attempts to scuttle a citywide vote.

The settlement came as good news on Monday to Judge John Paul Kennedy, although he said he worried about the impact if the deal fell through.

"There's a lot of pressure to get this resolved," he told the nine attorneys gathered in his courtroom. "If it spins out of the resolution loop, we're in store for a long period of nothing."

The deal could be done by the end of the week, as the unnamed party reveals redrawn site plans for the residents' approval. If residents balk, the project's future could remain unsettled until an election in 2007.

The deal appears to have come together because that still-unnamed third party intervened with its own plans for the land. An attorney for that group - Doug Parry - was in court Monday and said a deal could get done.

Parry, a Salt Lake City lawyer, also spent about 45 minutes with Riverton United representatives following the hearing.

"We're just very close," Parry said.

There are details to work out, such as the number of houses that will be allowed on the land.

And, there is one last agreement that won't be guaranteed as part of the deal: The Riverton City Council would have to again change the zoning, and David Church, the city attorney, couldn't predict what council members would do.

"We believe a future City Council will . . . be favorable to the concept," Church said.

jsantini@sltrib.com

Anatomy of the compromise

* Commercial development would be confined to a pie-shaped segment bordered by Bangerter Highway, 13400 South and 3600 West. The rest of the land - between 3600 West and 2700 West - would be developed as new residential neighborhood to act as a buffer between retail and existing housing.

* The debate began nearly two years ago when the Riverton City Council - on the last day it held public office - approved Hamilton Land Co.'s project. Residents collected signatures of more than 5,000 registered voters to force a referendum.

* That petition died, however, when the City Council split the property into four parcels and then rezoned it, piece by piece. The residents again collected enough signatures to force a vote, and also took their case to the state Supreme Court.

* The vote had been in limbo as judges held hearings to determine whether it could go to voters and whether the citizens group Riverton United followed proper procedures. The procedural issue was to be argued Monday, but the verbal deal was announced instead.