Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Brentwood Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grantsville council tables Brentwood townhome project after weeks of debate over density, parking and access
Summary
Council members asked the developer of the 164‑unit Brentwood townhome project to return with a revised concept, updated traffic analysis and clearer open‑space and parking plans before voting. The project was tabled after concerns about single access, loss of green space and differences between packet and presented plans.
The Grantsville City Council on March 5 tabled consideration of the Brentwood planned‑unit development after more than three hours of presentation and public comment about parking, access and open space.
Developer representatives introduced Brentwood as a roughly 8‑acre townhome community behind the Maverick store with about 160–164 units, a 17,000‑square‑foot detention basin/dog‑park, and a mix of front‑ and rear‑loaded units of about 1,500 square feet each. The applicant said the plan was designed to meet eligibility for state moderate‑income housing incentives and requested limited deviations from the city code to achieve the proposed density.
Council members and residents pressed the applicant on several recurring concerns. Resident Derek Dalton cited the International Fire Code and city rules that, he said, require developments over 34 units to have two entrances, calling the potential single access a “public‑safety issue.” Several council members said the plan shown at the meeting differed from earlier planning‑commission packet material and from the traffic study; they asked staff and the developer to produce an updated traffic memo reflecting the version before the council.
Nate Shipp, manager of Brentwood LLC, told the council he appreciated the feedback and asked for clear priorities so the applicant could refine the concept rather than start over. “If you could help us understand,” Shipp said, “we’ll refine it with the comments of bringing back additional open space, fewer units, highlight trail connections, and identify additional guest parking.”
Council members proposed specific changes: reduce units in interior clusters, convert one public road back to an alley to free space for courtyards and play events, and show designated pocket guest parking. They also asked the applicant to coordinate with UDOT and the property owner to resolve whether the east access can be a permanent right‑of‑way or must be a gated crash gate for emergency use only. The developer agreed to pursue UDOT coordination and to return with an updated traffic analysis and a revised concept plan within roughly two weeks.
After receiving the applicant’s commitment to revise the concept and provide updated studies, the council voted to table resolution 2025‑05. The motion to table carried on a voice vote; the developer will return with a modified concept and clearer drawings and schedules before the council takes a final vote.
