Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Density Bonus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Logan planners debate 'a la carte' density-bonus options for subdivisions
Summary
At a Sept. 18 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented a proposed change to the city's density-bonus rules that would let developers exchange open-space dedication for selectable 'a la carte' improvements; commissioners discussed lot-size thresholds, a 2/3 reduction rule and concerns the system could add complexity for builders.
North Logan Planning Commission members spent the bulk of their Sept. 18 meeting discussing a proposed “a la carte” density-bonus framework that would let developers trade required open-space dedication for other community-benefit items or a park fee in lieu.
Planning staff described the example underlying the proposal: on a 10-acre parcel, the ordinance currently allows dedication of up to 34 percent of gross acreage (about 3.4 acres). Under the current bonus structure, staff said, that dedication could allow lots as small as about 20,000 square feet. “So under our current bonus structure, our ordinance allows for, in this example, a 10‑acre parcel. If they were to dedicate the full amount of open space that is permitted, which is 34 percent of the gross acreage — so it'd be 3.4 acres of open space — they could then have lots as small as 20,000 square feet,” planning staff member Scott said.
Why it matters: the proposal would let developers receive additional lots (higher density) by selecting items from a city-created menu — for example, improved building materials, escrow for tree preservation, or fees earmarked for parks — instead of providing the dedicated open space on-site. Commissioners said the change could raise neighborhood quality if well calibrated, but they also questioned whether the menu and weighting system would be fair across different sites and market conditions.
Key details and debate
- Example and mechanics: Staff used a 10-acre example throughout the discussion. Under the present code, a full 34 percent open-space dedication on that parcel yields roughly 3.4 acres of open space and enables lots down to about 20,000 square feet. The a la carte proposal would allow developers to reach similar density by selecting and paying for a combination of alternative items rather than dedicating all open space on-site.
- Park fee in lieu and historic preservation: Staff said a park fee in lieu would be one of the tradeable options; historic-preservation items would be on the menu but would be “very seldomly applicable,” limited to properties where preservation opportunities actually arise near planned parks.
- Ratios and thresholds: Commissioners debated whether the proposed reduction ratios — including a commonly cited two‑thirds rule for lot-size reductions — made sense for all zones. Some commissioners favored a flatter 50 percent reduction in certain zones or zone‑specific ratios, arguing that a fixed two‑thirds rule could produce awkward outcomes depending on base lot sizes.
- Equity across sites and market effects: Several commissioners asked how the system would account for varying land values across the city and whether asking developers for financial disclosures would be needed to set fair trade-off values. One commissioner observed that requiring financials would likely prompt pushback from developers, but could be necessary to assess cost‑benefit tradeoffs.
- Long term vs. near term: Multiple commissioners characterized the approach as a “long‑term” strategy that would require patience. They said the menu and weighting would likely be refined after initial uses and that staff should gather more examples of what other municipalities use for similar ratios.
Commission process and next steps
Commissioners asked staff to continue refining the menu, including exploring zone‑specific reduction ratios (for example, allowing different percentages for R‑1 vs. R‑2 zones) and to provide local comparisons from other cities. Staff said the item is not final or “live” yet and that the commission will have additional workshop time to “play with the numbers” and refine priorities before a formal proposal is scheduled for adoption.
Other meeting business
At the start of the session staff reported follow-up on a previously discussed short‑term rental conditional-use application: the applicant has submitted a business license application and is completing required inspections and conditions of approval. Commissioners also reminded each other to complete required training (including the Open and Public Meetings Act training) before year end.
The commission adjourned the regular session and moved to a workshop in a nearby conference room; the public was invited to attend the workshop.
Ending
Commissioners agreed to continue refining the a la carte menu and ratio guidance at upcoming workshops and asked staff to return with additional examples, zone‑specific options and potential approaches to weighting menu items so the commission can test the proposal against real site examples.
