Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission advances draft senior planned-unit-development, sets review steps and landscaping follow-up
Summary
River Heights planning commissioners continued discussion of a draft senior residential Planned Unit Development (PUD/R3), agreed to keep a 20% open-space target for now, discussed minimum acreage and other standards, and assigned follow-up tasks including a staff/committee review and a tentative schedule for a public hearing.
The River Heights City Planning Commission continued its multi-meeting discussion on Aug. 26 of a proposed senior residential planned-unit-development (PUD/R3) ordinance intended to replace prior language in Title 10.
Chairman Noel Cooley summarized input the commission received from Rob Terry, an ombudsman and land-use attorney with the Utah League, and reported Terry advised that a PUD would give the city more flexibility than an overlay zone. Cooley said that flexibility would allow the commission and city to negotiate development conditions on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioners debated several standards in the draft including minimum acreage, open-space requirements, landscaping standards and whether PUDs should be spot-zoned. The draft retains a 3.5-acre minimum but the commission discussed a possible 6-acre maximum; Cooley noted the Weston property is about 5 3/4 acres and would fall into the current range. The commission also reviewed open-space percentages and a units-per-acre exercise: the draft’s 25% open-space assumption yielded roughly 25 units in the worked example; reducing open space to 20% increased capacity by about 1.5 units, 15% to about 28 units and 10% jumped to about 40 units.
Commissioners also discussed landscaping and a set of comments from a staff member named Mark. The commission agreed to move the RPUD landscaping specifics into the city’s general landscaping chapter (Title 10, section 10-15) where possible, and asked two volunteers to review details: one commissioner agreed to review Mark’s suggested wording on mulch and vegetation specifics, and Commissioner Heather Lending agreed to review how RPUD landscaping details should be incorporated into the general landscaping code.
Cooley proposed seeking a tentative endorsement from the city council before the commission incurs consultant and public-notice costs for engineering and legal review. He said he would present the draft’s first pages to the council for feedback and asked commissioners to be ready to schedule a public hearing; he tentatively proposed the commission hold the public hearing at its last September meeting or in October if additional work is needed.
Commissioners noted access and county issues remain unresolved for some privately owned parcels (including the Weston/Heritage matter, which requires county access approvals) and that road-access constraints could affect future applications.
The commission did not adopt ordinance changes at the Aug. 26 meeting; it directed staff and the two volunteers to refine landscaping language and asked staff to prepare the draft for legal and engineering review pending tentative council feedback.
