River Heights council hears heated public comments on proposed PRUD rezone near 700 South; council tables action

River Heights City Council held a public hearing Jan. 7 on a request from Heritage Land Development (Sierra Homes) to rezone about 15.27 acres near 755 South 700 East to a residential planned unit development (PRUD). Developer representatives and dozens of residents spoke; after discussion the council voted to table further action on the rezone and related development agreement.

Supporters of the rezone, including Boyd Cook, chief financial officer for Sierra Homes and Heritage Land Development, told the council the application seeks PRUD zoning only and does not lock in a final layout. Cook said the developer proposes 76 total dwelling units in the concept plan — 50 detached single-family homes and 26 townhome units — and that the overall density is “less than 5 units per acre.” He said the development team had revised the proposal after meetings with city staff and that the developer agreed to publicly required elements including no presales prior to recordation of the final plat.

The hearing drew multiple speakers from nearby streets who said the proposal was too dense for the neighborhood. Several residents urged single-family lots (R-1-8 zoning) rather than townhomes, citing traffic on 600 East and 700 South, school overcrowding, lack of sidewalks and curbs, and concerns about maintaining the city’s rural character. Written comments entered into the record included a letter from Jamie Saltern asking the council to require minimum 0.25-acre lots and to prohibit townhomes or apartments.

City staff and the developer addressed technical questions raised during the hearing. City Engineer Craig Rasmussen told the council the development agreement and PRUD code call for continuous open space along the stream corridor and that the PRUD layout preserves a public walking path and larger contiguous open areas rather than dividing the riparian corridor into private back yards. Cook said the project team obtained verbal approval from the school district for required water looping and that the developer expects to follow the city engineer’s direction. Cook also said the site-specific plan includes a prohibition on basements, which the developer agreed to include in the development agreement because of a high water table in parts of the property.

On infrastructure, Cook said a traffic study has been completed and that the county will require a second traffic study; he told the council the study’s initial results were favorable. He also said the proposed sewer alignment would be deep enough that a lift station should not be needed; the developer agreed to bonding and a two‑year completion schedule in the development agreement draft. Council members asked that the traffic study and county-written approval be provided in writing to the city before final approvals.

After public comment and staff discussion, a council member made a motion to rezone the land to PRUD; the motion received no second and therefore did not advance. The council then voted to table further action on the rezone and the development agreement; the motion to table was seconded and approved, postponing any final decision.

The council did not adopt the development agreement or rezone ordinance at the Jan. 7 meeting; the public hearing record will remain part of the file and the council requested additional documentation from the developer and county (traffic study, county approval in writing, and final development-agreement text) before the matter returns to the council.