Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends proposed 92-unit 53rd Street rezoning back to planning commission after resident protest
Summary
After hours of public comment and legal concerns about the city’s comprehensive plan, Park City council voted 7-0 to return a proposed rezoning for 15 acres north of 53rd Street to the planning commission for further review of access, design and landscaping.
The Park City Council voted unanimously to send back to the planning commission a rezoning application for property north of 53rd Street and east of Hydraulic Avenue that would allow 46 duplex lots (92 dwelling units).
The applicant had requested a change from R-2 (single-family) to R-3 (multi-family) for roughly 15 acres; city staff told the council the planning commission had recommended approval 6-0, but staff also reported a valid protest petition that covers about 47% of the protestable area — a level that would require a three-quarter supermajority for council approval.
Why it matters: Neighbors and the Lakewood Hills HOA argued the rezoning conflicts with Park City’s comprehensive development plan and state zoning law, and they asked the council either to deny the application or defer action until the ongoing comprehensive-plan update addresses the corridor’s future use. The developer and agent said the project is intended to expand homeownership and affordable options, and that design and landscape details could be refined.
At public hearing, Penny Weddle, who lives west of the site, said the development would place apartments “right next to my property” and asked the council to “please vote no.” Dan Govert, president of the Lakewood Hills HOA, summarized the group’s legal objections in detail: “Park City’s comprehensive development plan of 2018 to 2028 … designates this parcel of land for light industrial use, not multifamily residential,” he said, citing KSA and a state-court precedent and urging the council to rely on the plan or to send the matter back for further review. Richard Oakes asked the council to clarify what a “duplex community” should look like and urged the city to set clearer design standards.
Applicant representatives acknowledged neighbors’ concerns and said they could work with staff and the planning commission on landscaping, buffering and access. The developer’s representative described the project as a mixed product with “five variations of floor plans” and suggested price points that, in the developer’s view, would support homeownership: “generally a $195,000 per door to $265,000 per door.” The applicant also said the product mix historically yields roughly a 50/50 split between owner-occupied units and rental units in similar projects.
Council questions focused on traffic and access (the proposal currently shows one primary street connection), buffering and the need to see final plats and building designs. Staff and the applicant discussed options including widening the entrance or providing a second access point and noted the Sedgwick County Fire Department and the city engineer are reviewing access configurations.
Rather than vote up or down on the rezoning, Councilmember Charlie Davidson moved to return the application to the planning commission with instructions to address the items raised by residents and council: analysis of entrances and emergency access, more complete landscape and facade examples, and any other information the planning commission deems relevant. Linda (Westhafer) seconded the motion; the motion passed 7-0.
Next steps: Staff and the planning commission are expected to consider the additional material and may return the case to the council at a future meeting (staff indicated the matter could appear as soon as the council’s July 28 meeting).
