Council tables Brentwood planned-unit development after extensive debate over density, parking and open space

The Grantsville City Council on March 5 tabled consideration of the Brentwood planned-unit development (PUD) after more than an hour of questions and public comment focusing on density, parking, sidewalks, play space and traffic access.

Developer representatives presented a site plan showing about 64 townhome units on roughly eight acres, with a stated density of about 12.5 units per acre; the proposal included a mix of front-loaded and rear-loaded townhomes, common courtyards and a detention basin that the applicant said would double as part of a dog park and open space. The developer said the units would be roughly 1,500 square feet each and that the plan qualifies for the city—s moderate-income housing incentives.

Planning staff and the developer acknowledged there are multiple iterations of the project that had been considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission; council members and residents said the packet before the council did not match an earlier plan used for the traffic study and that the latest iteration is denser and contains less consolidated green space than earlier versions.

Residents and public commenters echoed planning-commission concerns. Derek Dalton, who said he had sent materials to the council before the meeting, told the council that fire and public-safety requirements ordinarily call for a second entrance for developments with more than 34 units and urged the council to require a second access or to add a condition tying preliminary approval to establishment of a second entrance.

Developer manager Nate Shipp and project presenter Shelby said they would work with staff and follow the council—s direction. They said the project provides four parking stalls per unit (two in a garage and two in a driveway) and that the homeowners association would be responsible for enforcing parking to avoid blocking alleys. The developer proposed some elements to address connectivity and public access: widening a curve near an existing road, obtaining an easement from the adjacent landowner to build a full east-side roadway and retaining a gated emergency access where UDOT has restricted an unconstrained through-access.

Council members expressed several concerns: the change from earlier plans that showed more consolidated park space and visitor parking; the mismatch between the traffic study and the version before the council; the proximity of a proposed gated emergency access to the Maverick intersection (UDOT had indicated the distance would be five feet too close under current acceleration/deceleration rules); and how many units would be deed-restricted as moderate-income housing and for how long.

On the deed-restriction term, staff noted that a 25-year owner-occupancy restriction is required if the city planned to use the state—s First Home Incentive density rules (as referenced in meeting materials), but council members said 25 years is long and suggested a shorter restriction (several council members mentioned a range of seven to ten years as a compromise) unless the city uses the density for an incentive application that requires the longer term.

After extended discussion, the council voted to table consideration of the PUD and asked the developer to return at the next meeting with a revised concept that: (1) shows additional open space or consolidated play areas, (2) adds or reallocates guest parking, (3) clearly ties the site plan to any traffic modeling and provides an updated traffic memo, (4) clarifies the east-side access and coordination with UDOT, and (5) proposes deed-restriction language and timing tied to any state incentive application.

Ending: The developer agreed to return with a revised plan and an updated traffic memo; the council set a two-week target for the revised submittal so staff could distribute updated materials before the next meeting.