Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Heights planners review senior‑housing zone draft, debate lot sizes, open space and private streets
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a draft senior‑housing zone and proposed senior planned‑unit development (PUD) standards drawn from Hyde Park and North Logan examples, discussing one‑story limits, minimum lot sizes, open‑space requirements, parking and whether streets should be public or private.
At the May 13 meeting, the River Heights Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a draft senior‑housing zone and proposed senior PUD requirements, comparing two sample documents from Hyde Park and North Logan and discussing how standards might apply locally.
Heather Lagan, who provided the Hyde Park example, and other commissioners examined options including limiting buildings to one story, setting minimum lot sizes (the draft referenced 5,000 square feet as an initial threshold), defining senior‑occupancy rules drawn from Hyde Park, and specifying open‑space percentages. Commissioners questioned whether a 5,000‑square‑foot minimum is appropriate for senior single‑family detached units and suggested larger minimum lot sizes might be necessary if units are intended to be single‑level homes.
The commission debated street design and whether streets inside a senior PUD should be dedicated public streets or remain private drives maintained by a homeowners association (HOA). Commissioners observed that some local and nearby developments use narrower private drives with less sidewalk infrastructure, while other examples (including a Providence development) include standard sidewalks and public street widths. Commissioners said private drives can reduce pavement and right‑of‑way width but noted that dedication to the city would require meeting River Heights’ full right‑of‑way and sidewalk specifications.
Other topics included parking (sufficient visitor and family parking), whether open space should be required or could be substituted by in‑lieu fees, and how the city’s street and stormwater specifications would apply. Commissioners asked to visit nearby developments, examine lot‑size and street examples, and consult planning reviewers (Craig and Blake were named as people to review the draft). Several commission members said more field review and comparison to completed projects (Hyde Park, North Logan, Providence examples) would help set appropriate minimum lot sizes, open‑space levels, and roadway requirements.
No formal amendments or votes were taken; commissioners directed staff to prepare a consolidated draft incorporating discussed edits and to circulate the draft to city reviewers and the council for input.
