Neighbors press council to reject or revisit PRUD rezone for Hobbs Creek area; council tables decision to May 1 for geotechnical review

Layton City Council on April 10 heard dozens of residents oppose a proposed 27-unit Planned Residential Unit Development (PRUD) on a 13.38-acre hillside parcel west of Highway 89, and moved to delay a final decision while the city’s independent geotechnical reviewer prepares a briefing.

The proposal, presented by developer Adam Anderson on behalf of Goldcrest Homes, would rezone the site from RS (suburban residential) to R-1-10 with a PRUD overlay and place 27 single-family pads (19 detached and eight attached) on a parcel that includes steep slopes, areas identified as greater than 30% grade and a mapped fault scarp. The developer described foundations, engineered rockery walls and other mitigation measures intended to manage slope stability and surface-water infiltration.

Nut graf: Residents said the site’s documented geology and recent local slope failures make the PRUD inappropriate for the neighborhood. The council closed the hearing and, after deliberation, tabled the rezone request to the May 1 meeting and asked the city’s third-party geotechnical reviewer to present its assessment to the council and the public.

What residents raised: Multiple speakers said the parcel is too geologically active for the proposed density. Justin Anderson, a nearby homeowner, presented imagery of a recent slide on a comparable slope and said approving denser development would risk property damage and reduced values for neighboring homes. "This site is within a documented sensitive land overlay," Anderson said. Other neighbors said the proposed private amenities and trail alignment would remove existing trees, increase public access near private yards and fail to place open space where it would be most usable.

Developer’s position: Applicant Adam Anderson said the design responds to the geotechnical constraints. He said clustering houses, placing basements on native soils, installing engineered retaining walls and limiting landscape irrigation reduce slide risk: "The most imperative thing on this is to control the amount of discharge that's coming from man made discharge ... don't put water on this site, period," he told the council.

Council discussion and action: Council members and staff noted the property’s sensitive-lands status and explained the review process. Councilmember Clint Roberts moved to table the rezone and concept-plan request to the May 1 council meeting and asked staff to arrange for the city’s independent reviewer (GeoStrata) to present its peer-review findings. The motion passed unanimously on voice/roll-call.

What happens next: The item will return to the council May 1, with the city’s third-party geotechnical reviewer scheduled to brief council and address resident questions on slope stability, drainage design and structural mitigation. Staff also was asked to return information about trail alignment options and possible protections for existing trees.

Ending: The council did not approve or deny the rezone. The May 1 briefing will be the next public opportunity for technical discussion before any legislative decision by the council.