Saratoga Springs planning panel backs Fox Hollow Neighborhood 4 with conditions after heated public comment
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
After hours of testimony from residents worried about traffic, schools and density, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Fox Hollow Neighborhood 4 (308 units) but asked the city council to rescind two requested variations, increase park parking, and require a restroom in the HOA park.
The Saratoga Springs Planning Commission on Nov. 13 voted to forward a recommendation of approval for the Fox Hollow Neighborhood 4 preliminary plat and site plan, while asking the City Council to reconsider several requested variations and park amenities.
Staff senior planner Austin Roy told commissioners the proposal from D.R. Horton calls for 308 dwelling units — 172 single-family lots and 136 townhomes — at about 6.83 units per acre. Roy said the project meets most code requirements but includes several requested variations under the existing master development agreement (MDA): longer block lengths than the city standard and reduced townhome street-side setbacks. Staff also noted several redline items to be corrected and that the developer had shown a roughly 2.5-acre HOA park with nine angled stalls of parking.
Public comments were strongly opposed. Dozens of residents told the commission they fear increased speeding on Redwood Road and neighborhood streets, insufficient evacuation routes during wildfires, and that Sage Hills Elementary and local intersections would be overwhelmed. Jacob Belk asked whether the MDA’s requirements for a regional park and special improvement district payments had been met; staff replied that SID payments have been made and that the city is tracking the MDA thresholds. "Just because something is allowed doesn’t mean it has to be approved as presented," said Belk.
Developer representatives said phase‑1 work will include intersection improvements and turn-lane additions and that some off-site corridor work (including a UDOT signal) is tied to the project. Ed Bailey, the Fox Hollow landowner, urged commissioners to consider the broader, long-term transportation projects planned in the area, including Mountain View Corridor improvements.
Commission deliberations focused on the commission’s limited administrative role — commissioners review code compliance and forward recommendations while City Council makes final legislative decisions on variations — and on three staff conditions. As moved by Commissioner Karn and seconded by Commissioner Hill, the commission’s recommendation included four specific requests: that condition 4 (park parking) be reconsidered to increase stalls and avoid placing reliance on on-street parking; that condition 5 (the block‑length variation) be rescinded so block lengths meet city standards; that condition 6 (the townhome street-side setback reduction from 20 to 15 feet) be removed; and that condition 9 be clarified to state the park "shall include" a restroom to accommodate programming. The motion passed, with Commissioner Mann recorded as opposed.
What’s next: The Planning Commission’s recommendation and the public record will go to City Council, which has the final authority on the requested variations and formal approvals. The commission’s motion preserves its concerns about park parking, block lengths and townhome setbacks while transmitting the developer’s site plan for council consideration.