Oakley planning commission reviews River Haven DA amendments, debates river setbacks and housing fee

Planning staff led a detailed review of a proposed second amendment to the River Haven development agreement that would align the DA with as‑built road dimensions, move trail construction funds into a city‑held account, allow limited flexibility in entrance fencing materials, and adjust river setbacks for several lots.

At the meeting, staff said the city engineer approved construction plans that did not match the DA’s original road width language; the amendment would update the DA exhibits to reflect the as‑builts and noted the fire department signed off on elongated pullouts and no‑parking restrictions. On the trail required along the western Millrace boundary, staff proposed moving the developer’s bond funds into an earmarked city account rather than requiring immediate construction; the cost estimate used for the bond was the developer’s previously approved construction estimate.

Developer Trevor (self‑identified) asked the commission to allow flexibility in the required gabion (stone‑filled) fence at the River Haven entry. He said he was willing to keep the agreed linear footage and 42‑inch height but requested the option to build with other natural materials such as wood, stone, or rusted steel, and offered to provide renderings of multiple options before a formal DA revision. Commissioners said they were comfortable with renderings and narrowed constraints rather than a fully open change to the DA.

The commission also discussed concerns about a potential fence on the southern Parcel A boundary and resident worries that marketing materials overstate river frontage. City counsel advised that recorded notices or deed language can protect buyers and that the plat and legal descriptions are normally the mechanism to avoid misleading marketing; the commission agreed this boundary and marketing discussion largely remains a civil matter, though staff could provide clarifying recorded language for Lot 113 if appropriate.

On environmental and setback questions, staff explained that the original plat’s depiction of setback lines had been drawn to wetlands rather than to the FEMA high‑water/floodplain line. The proposed DA amendment would adopt a 75‑foot river setback (replacing a local 100‑foot line in a few places) plus a 40‑foot wetland setback; staff said the FEMA high‑water marker will be shown on the amended plat. Commissioners asked that the floodplain and setback be clearly depicted for the public hearing and noted Lot 108 is the parcel most affected by the proposed change to the buildable envelope.

The meeting also produced a prolonged debate about the DA’s affordable‑housing obligation: the existing DA used a $350 per‑square‑foot figure for fee‑in‑lieu calculations. Trevor argued that modern construction methods (including a panelized steel system he cited) and production builder examples (Ivory Homes at about $250/sq ft) showed lower build costs, and he asked the commission to consider a lower fee so the alternative of paying the fee would not cost him more than building the unit himself. Local builders and commissioners countered that locally prevailing costs, Mountainlands/Wasatch guidance and precedent matter for consistency; staff said it would consult Mountainlands data and bring a reproducible methodology for setting the per‑square‑foot fee so future projects could be treated equitably.

No final action was taken on the DA at the meeting. Staff said it will prepare DA language, a plot amendment that depicts the FEMA flood line and revised fee‑methodology proposals for the public hearing and city‑council review in January.

Ending: The commission left the item for public hearing and city council consideration; staff will circulate the DA language and supporting materials in advance.