Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Density Bonus Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses ‘a la carte’ density‑bonus options for subdivisions; staff to refine scenarios
Summary
Planning staff and commissioners spent the work session debating a proposed ‘‘a la carte’’ density‑bonus approach that would let developers earn extra lots by providing a range of public benefits beyond traditional open space, and asked staff to test smaller bonus percentages and clearer menu‑weighting to avoid abrupt changes in neighborhood character.
Planning staff led an extended work session on a proposed ‘‘a la carte’’ density‑bonus tool that would let developers earn additional dwelling units by providing public benefits beyond the city’s existing open‑space dedication requirement.
Scott explained the idea: the current code grants density bonuses in exchange for dedicating open space; the proposed approach would allow a menu of public benefits—such as on‑ or off‑site improvements, fee‑in‑lieu payments earmarked for parks or transportation, higher quality architectural standards, owner‑occupancy set‑asides, preservation of historic resources, dedication of surplus water shares, or contributions to a signage/wayfinding master plan—in exchange for extra units. Scott said the draft includes a required participation list and an optional a la carte list, and staff is testing how different bonus percentages (for example, 15, 25 or 50 percent more units) would change minimum lot sizes and open‑space dedication in each zoning district.
Staff presented tables that compare current code outcomes to hypothetical bonus scenarios (for example, R‑E‑1 zone math showing a baseline 9 lots on 10 acres, a current maximum bonus of 12 lots if the maximum open space is dedicated, and a higher bonus scenario producing 18 lots if additional concessions are allowed). Scott said those higher‑bonus scenarios can produce lot sizes and urban forms that some commissioners found uncomfortable—especially in smaller‑lot zones where a large bonus would produce near‑townhome densities.
Commissioners debated a range of policy trade‑offs: whether the city should accept smaller, privately maintained HOA open spaces rather than city‑owned parcels that are hard to maintain; whether fee‑in‑lieu or TDR (transfer of development rights) mechanisms make sense in North Logan’s context; how to prevent developers from choosing only the lowest‑cost a la carte items; and whether staff should cap maximum bonuses so any increase remains consistent with underlying zone character. One commissioner said bluntly, “50% is way too much.” Another argued the commission should not ‘‘sneak up’’ on an up‑zone and that if the city wants materially higher density it should consider legislative rezoning in some places.
A number of commissioners supported testing more modest bonus scenarios (for example, 15–25 percent) and structuring the menu so developers must pick across categories (not concentrate on one low‑cost item). Staff said it will return with additional modeling—smaller percentage scenarios and examples from recent local projects (including a recent development that used a modified approach via a development agreement)—and data gathered from willing local developers on the economics of additional lots.
No formal action was taken; staff said it will refine the numerical scenarios and bring revised language and examples back for further commission review and a future public hearing as needed.
