Planning commission pushes back on density and infrastructure for proposed Legacy B Estate PUD

The Parowan Planning and Zoning Commission opened a detailed review March 5 of a proposed planned unit development (PUD) titled Legacy B Estate, a concept for roughly 93 dwelling units on a site off 2200 West across from Eagle Rock. Commissioners and staff raised multiple technical and policy concerns — about density, street widths, setbacks, open space, water meters and water rights, utility upgrades and costs, parking, ownership of land and HOA enforcement, and fire and snow-management access — and asked the developer to return with revisions before the commission forwards a recommendation to the City Council.

Dan (city staff) presented the application as an early, conceptual PUD submittal and said the parcel’s potential zone change still awaits a City Council decision. He explained that a PUD can request deviations from subdivision standards but noted the PUD does not have an automatic right to those deviations: “There is no they don't have any right to get any of these things that they're asking for, but planning commission needs to look at it and judge whether it will accomplish certain things,” he said.

Key technical issues raised by staff and commissioners: - Density and open space: The proposal showed about 93 units — within R3 density limits (R3 allows up to nine dwelling units per acre) — but commissioners said the plan offers virtually no recreational open space and asked for clearer common-area delineation. - Street widths and sidewalks: The developer’s drawings showed 30-foot rolled-curb streets (about 26 feet of asphalt). Commissioners asked for at least wider streets and sidewalks to match nearby Eagle Rock and to reduce pedestrian hazards. Staff noted the city’s standard local street right-of-way is 60 feet with 26–32 feet of pavement depending on on-street parking and sidewalk options. - Parking: Individual homes have a 20-by-20 concrete parking pad; commissioners observed that larger personal vehicles would overhang those pads and questioned whether the proposal’s 42 additional gravel parking stalls provide adequate long-term parking. Some commissioners asked that parking be paved rather than gravel. - Water and meters: Staff said the developer previously proposed master meters, but state DEQ guidance and city policy require individual meters. Each 3/4-inch residential meter triggers the city’s water-rights requirement (roughly 0.5 acre-foot per 3/4-inch meter as coded), and staff said the applicant may ask for a variance but should expect pushback given current water supply concerns. - Utility upgrades and impact fees: The project may require a pressure-reducing valve (PRV) installation on an 8-inch main and other system-level improvements; staff noted such mainline upgrades could justify an impact-fee credit but must be negotiated. - Ownership, leases and eviction risk: Commissioners and a public commenter noted residents of some similar developments buy homes but do not own the land under them; staff said the application must detail how title, CC&Rs and HOA enforcement will work and whether the land will be owned by an HOA or retained by an investor. - Emergency access and snow storage: Fire-truck turning radii, two points of ingress/egress for the inner loop, and designated snow storage were flagged as essential.

Resident Larry Zajac, who had previously visited similar clustered housing in Silt, Colorado, urged commissioners to study examples and designs for “courtyard” or clustered housing that provide shared common areas. “They loved it because the housing was affordable,” Zajac said of the Silt development, but he advised the commission to examine ownership and lease layers carefully.

Staff concluded that the packet presented an early-stage design and that the planning commission’s role at this point is to state what design issues must change before the developer proceeds further with engineering. Commissioners generally asked for wider streets, clarified setback expectations, more clearly defined and useable open space, improved parking provision, paved shared parking rather than gravel, and additional documentation on water, sewer and HOA governance. No formal action was taken; staff will forward the commission’s comments and request revised plans.