Public Hearing on Amare Vita Subdivision and PUD Opened and Continued; Commissioners Press for Tree‑canopy, Setback and Gate Clarifications

The Holiday City Planning Commission on Aug. 19 opened a public hearing on the Amare Vita subdivision concept and associated planned unit development but continued the hearing to a future meeting after staff confirmed notice for the hearing was one day short of the city’s required 10‑day public‑notice period.

City planning staff presented the project as an 11.42‑acre PUD split across two zoning districts: an R‑143 side with one‑acre lots and an R‑187 side with two‑acre lots. Staff said the creek that runs through the site (Big Cottonwood Creek) creates a 100‑foot no‑build setback for undeveloped parcels, which constrains buildable area and will likely make relief on lot widths necessary. The conceptual plan shows seven lots on the R‑143 side and two on the R‑187 side for a total of nine dwelling units; staff told the commission the applicant has incorporated variance requests for reduced lot widths into the concept subdivision to address the creek constraints.

Applicant representative Brandon Ames described the owner’s intent as personal and preservation‑focused: "He wanted to move here and and build their forever home for him and his wife and then provide lots for their children," Ames said, and emphasized efforts to protect trees, restore native vegetation and use low‑impact drives and road sections.

Commissioners pressed the applicant and staff for additional technical detail before the hearing resumes. Commissioners requested: a clearer tree‑preservation overlay (the packet included a tree inventory and replacement strategy but commissioners noted aerial canopy imagery appeared denser than the trees flagged for preservation); clarification of whether lots adjacent to the creek would function as private open space or as homeowner association/common area; verification or legal abandonment of an apparent historic pipeline/diversion easement on Lot 4 before final plat approval; and re‑evaluation of the 18‑foot gate setback and queuing to ensure vehicles entering the gated community will not block the adjacent shoulder, bike lane or multi‑use trail on Holiday Boulevard. Several commissioners also asked staff to report how many nearby parcels in the R‑143 zone are nonconforming (lot size under one acre) so the commission can assess neighborhood comparability when considering PUD flexibility.

Staff said the PUD application includes a tree inventory (734 trees listed in the submission) and a replacement approach based on mature canopy square footage; staff committed to provide more specific tree‑canopy replacement mapping and an analysis of nearby nonconforming lot sizes ahead of the continued hearing. The applicant agreed to work with the city on preservation language for historic stone walls on the site and on options for parking, common area ownership and CC&Rs; staff reminded the commission the city enforces code and ordinance requirements, but CC&Rs and HOA rules remain private contractual instruments enforceable by private parties.

Because of the noticing defect, the commission voted to continue the public hearing for the conceptual subdivision; the PUD creation and preliminary plat items will be heard after the continued public hearing is properly noticed. Staff said conditions such as verification of abandoned easements, finalized tree‑preservation and landscaping plans, gate/stacking dimensions, and any designated public easements or dedications could be incorporated into staff recommendations for final action when the hearing resumes.

The hearing was continued by recorded vote; staff and the applicant will return with the additional materials requested by commissioners.