Planning commission continues Perkins Subdivision after notice and emergency‑access questions

The Town of Brighton Planning Commission on Nov. 19, 2025 continued consideration of the Perkins Subdivision (Subdivision 2024‑001289) at 11456 East Mountain Sun Lane after staff and neighbors flagged outstanding access, emergency‑vehicle and utility concerns and the commission determined the application had not been properly noticed as a public hearing.

Justin Smith, the town planner, told the commission the parcel conforms to the FR‑0.5 zoning approved in October 2025 and that the proposed home shown on the plat is "under 4,000 square feet." He summarized agency review comments, saying Salt Lake County surveying and the building department gave conceptual approvals, while the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities will require a watershed letter and the health department requires a sewer letter before the plat can be signed.

Smith said Unified Fire initially provided a conceptual okay but a new reviewer wanted a minimum 12‑foot right‑of‑way and "either a turnaround or a connecting road," and noted UFA would require a 20‑foot width if more than five residences are served by Mountain Sun Lane. Smith also said Title 14 limits a single‑family dwelling to one driveway unless the lot qualifies for a corner‑lot exception; the proposed site plan shows two access points, which staff said would need to be reconciled with code or removed.

Neighbors who spoke during the opened public comment period urged caution. Mark Dismant, who lives at 11472 East Mule Hollow Lane, told the commission that Mule Hollow is narrow with "no way to turn around," that large vehicles currently struggle to turn and that adding another home could impede emergency response. Scott Heinbuch, another nearby resident, said the road is mostly gravel and narrow and said additional traffic would worsen access.

Commission discussion focused on whether the applicant or the town should bear road‑improvement costs and on how to document access and turnaround requirements on the plat. Commissioners suggested staff work with the applicant, UFA and MSD Engineering to determine whether a hammerhead or loop turnaround, a clarified driveway configuration, and explicit road‑width notes can be incorporated into the next submittal rather than left as after‑the‑fact conditions.

The commission concluded the subdivision had not been properly noticed as a public hearing under state code and voted to continue the matter to a future, properly noticed public hearing. Commissioners asked staff to: confirm the driveway configuration, obtain required letters (watershed, sewer/water approvals), work with UFA to identify acceptable turnaround/ROW solutions, and, where possible, incorporate agreed requirements on the plat before the next hearing.

The planning commission did not take a final vote on the subdivision at the Nov. 19 meeting. The matter will return to the commission for a properly noticed public hearing after staff and the applicant address agency comments and required approvals.