Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents concept for 4.24‑acre infill; neighbors cite traffic, safety and density concerns
Summary
The commission took public comment on a proposed development agreement for about 4.24 acres near 134th South and Redwood Road and largely agreed to send the item forward to city council for further direction. Neighbors urged lower density, questioned road connectivity and warned of safety issues on Redwood Road and local streets.
Staff presented a development agreement application (BLZ25‑4009) for approximately 4.24 acres near 134th South and Redwood Road that would set a conceptual plan, zoning changes and roadway expectations. The plan shows a mix of lot sizes and private internal roadways; staff recommended taking public comment and tabling the item so the City Council could weigh in on external issues like roadway connections and network continuity.
Developer representative Jared Payne said the parcel was purchased as commercial and that a traffic memo provided to the city shows commercial zoning could have generated roughly 3,400 daily trips whereas the proposed residential concept would generate about 300 trips per day. Payne said developers remain open to different access configurations, including limiting access to Redwood Road if city guidance requires it.
Scores of neighbors told the commission they oppose the density, saying the local road network and Redwood Road cannot safely accommodate even moderate additional traffic; commenters urged quarter‑acre or third‑acre minimum lot sizes and objected to a potential new connection to existing narrow residential streets. Several residents said the area’s semi‑rural character and wildlife would be harmed by dense infill.
Staff noted several external issues are within the city council’s purview (UDOT controls Redwood Road access; the council should weigh connectivity and right‑of‑way questions). The commission took testimony and, per staff recommendation, will hold the item for further direction from the council rather than making a final recommendation at this meeting.
