Council approves Stonehaven subdivision plans and grants variance for Churchill Grove

3261055 · May 10, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The city council voted to approve the Stonehaven subdivision site plan and to grant a variance for Churchill (Churchill/Grove) project after staff and the planning commission recommended approvals following public hearings.

The Walnut Grove City Council approved a site plan for the Stonehaven subdivision and authorized a variance request for the Churchill Grove project after staff and the planning commission recommended the measures.

Planning staff told the council the planning commission voted April 17 to forward the Churchill Grove variance with a positive recommendation; staff said earlier staff recommendations supported approval and that questions raised at a public hearing on April 24 had been addressed.

Why it matters: The Stonehaven approval clears a 92-acre parcel off Old Cannon Farm Road to proceed with site work and the amenity area; council members said approval will allow the developers to secure permanent start-of-construction permits once required assurances are provided.

At the meeting a councilmember moved that the council approve the Stonehaven site plan “including the amenity package,” and the motion passed by voice/hand vote. Staff said the approval for the Churchill Grove items should be recorded as WGVDash-205-O1 and asked council to include two staff-recommended changes in the motion.

Council discussion focused on making sure earlier concerns about starting building prior to completing community-area infrastructure were addressed. Staff said the applicant will be permitted to begin site and amenity-area work while safeguards remain in place to prevent premature building starts. Planning staff and the applicant answered questions at a prior work session and public hearing; there were no roll-call tallies recorded in the meeting minutes beyond the council’s voice/hand vote to approve.

The approvals were presented as routine land-development actions following planning commission review and public hearings; no appeals, ordinance amendments or litigation were announced at the meeting.