Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Senior Housing Overlay topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Heights planning commission proposes 6,000‑sq. ft. minimum for senior‑housing overlay, keeps 20% open‑space target
Summary
The River Heights Planning Commission reviewed a draft senior‑housing overlay that would replace an older RPUD option, agreed in principle to a 6,000‑square‑foot minimum lot size and a 20% open‑space target, and asked staff and legal counsel for follow‑up before a public hearing.
River Heights Planning Commission President Noel Cooley led a lengthy discussion Aug. 12 on a draft senior‑housing overlay intended to provide a template for single‑family retirement communities in parts of the city.
Commissioners reviewed a spreadsheet of density scenarios, debated required lot sizes and setbacks, and signaled support for recommending a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and an open‑space target of 20 percent to city council — subject to legal review and final wording. Cooley said, “My feeling is that 25% is too much for that area,” and later added, “I think 6,000 square foot lots is fine.”
The draft defines “senior housing” to follow state and federal guidance for 55‑and‑older communities and limits development to single‑family detached, attached and duplex units rather than multifamily apartments. Staff presented three open‑space scenarios (25%, 20% and 0%) and a density table showing that, under the commission’s suggested parameters, net units per acre would be low (roughly 5–5.4 units per gross acre depending on assumptions) and yield houses with living areas in the 1,500–1,700 square‑foot range on 5,000–6,000‑square‑foot lots depending on setbacks and garage sizes.
Commissioners compared local examples, saying Hyde Park and Providence achieve larger livable areas through different setback and zoning rules. Commissioners noted ambiguity over whether an overlay could relax underlying R‑18 subdivision requirements and setbacks or whether the overlay would instead be treated as a separate zone or a PUD (planned unit development). The draft uses Providence setbacks (7.5‑foot side yards, 20‑foot front yard, 15‑foot rear in the draft) to illustrate potential house sizes, but staff emphasized that legal confirmation is needed before publishing a final proposal.
The commission discussed specific dimensional rules in the draft: a minimum project size of 3.5 acres, a proposed minimum lot width of 60 feet for detached homes and 55 feet for attached units (commissioners observed that attached units may require adjusted calculations because of shared walls), and duplex lot math that may require revision (members calculated an effective 105‑foot duplex lot width under some interpretations). They also reviewed parking assumptions (two spaces in garage plus two in driveway) and discussed how porches, overhangs or covered patios might be interpreted relative to setback and building‑envelope rules.
Members agreed to several process steps before a public hearing: staff will circulate a revised draft with the commission’s edits, the city attorney and city engineer will review the draft for legal and technical compliance (staff said they would consult a Utah League contact and a Bragg representative), and the commission will place a conditional‑use permit (CUP) hearing and final review on a future meeting agenda. Cooley said he would pass the revised draft to the city attorney and city engineer for review before a public hearing.
Commissioners also flagged two other near‑term zoning topics: a possible code change to allow architecturally finished shipping‑container structures as dwellings (currently not permitted) and a forthcoming discussion about accessory dwelling units (ADUs); the commission indicated they have generally deferred ADU allowance until state code requires it but expect more interest.
Votes and formal motions at the meeting were limited. Commissioners approved the minutes from the July 8, 2025 meeting and later moved to adjourn; those procedural motions passed without substantive debate.
The commission agreed to send the revised overlay language — showing deletions and additions for council review — and to retain some previously struck material in the draft for council and staff review so reviewers can see what was removed.
Next steps include legal review of whether the overlay can relax subdivision standards that would otherwise require 6,000‑square‑foot minimum lots, a distribution of the revised draft to commission members and staff, and scheduling the CUP hearing and a public hearing before the city council.
