Staff recommends refining existing plan‑development process rather than creating a new PUD regime

Salt Lake City planning staff briefed the commission at a Jan. 22 work session on research into planned unit development (PUD) processes used in other cities and how those compare to Salt Lake City’s existing Plan Development (PD) mechanism.

Staff noted that many U.S. PUDs are used for large greenfield projects and typically permit custom zoning, mixed uses and modifications to base zoning standards; most PUDs require City Council approval because they create custom zoning for a site. Salt Lake City’s PD process already allows many similar flexibilities — including modifying base zoning standards except for height in many zones — and has qualifying objectives (historic preservation, affordable housing, open space, etc.). The staff memo observed that Salt Lake City’s minimum lot area thresholds for PD applications are low compared with the multi‑acre minimums used elsewhere.

Based on the review, staff recommended against creating a separate PUD process at this time and instead suggested targeted changes to the existing PD process: tighten and refine the qualifying objectives so applicants must meet clearer public‑benefit tests; consider reducing or eliminating minimum lot‑area thresholds when projects demonstrate public benefit; create clearer criteria for when projects must return to the commission for modifications; and craft a pathway for larger‑scale projects to modify density or height in exchange for public benefits but limit that to genuinely large, multi‑parcel projects.

Commissioners discussed examples such as the Fair Park redevelopment and recent post‑industrial brownfield projects (the silos/post‑district developments) and agreed there is value in a process that can handle multi‑building projects and coordinated open space and street layout. Staff said further work could include a phased approval approach for large‑site redevelopment that clears initial sitewide issues (street layout, open space locations) without requiring final building designs up front.

Staff will return with recommendations to refine the PD process and potential thresholds for when larger projects should follow a more comprehensive site‑level approval pathway.