Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud 2309 E Highway 37 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves PUD at 2309 E. Highway 37 with special-use-permit requirement
Summary
The Tuttle City Council approved a PUD application by Patricia Smith for 2309 East Highway 37 and amended the ordinance to require a special-use permit (SUP) for all initial and future uses; councilmembers said the SUP language will be embedded in the PUD to avoid future disputes.
The Tuttle City Council on a recorded vote approved an ordinance to establish a planned unit development (PUD) for 2309 East Highway 37 and directed that all initial and future uses of the property be subject to special-use permits. The motion identified Patricia Smith as the petitioner.
Council and staff discussion leading up to the vote focused on site constraints: speakers described substantial floodplain limitations, the need to accommodate on-site aerobic septic systems and the difficulty of providing typical parking and street connections. A staff presenter said the cul-de-sac should be completed in phase 1 to ensure safe access for fire and emergency vehicles. One councilmember told colleagues the SUP process can feel like unnecessary "red tape" and said it appears to be "picking winners and losers." Others replied that an SUP requirement gives the city control over uses and parking and helps avoid conflicts between tenants.
Patricia Smith’s petition and the proposed ordinance were amended on the council floor to add explicit language requiring special-use permits for all current and future uses; a councilmember who moved the motion noted that the PUD as proposed did not contain that language. After the motion was seconded, the clerk called roll: Mister Dixon — Yes; Mister Hughes — Yes; Mister Watson — Yes; Mayor McLeroy — No. The ordinance passed. Councilmembers and staff immediately discussed placing the SUP requirement into section 2 of the recorded PUD document so the restriction will be visible and enforceable rather than merely an unrecorded motion.
Supporters said embedding the SUP requirement is necessary to prevent the same problems that have arisen in prior PUDs when conditions were discussed but not included in recorded documents. Several councilmembers warned that failure to clearly record and enforce the requirement could lead to litigation; one councilmember said, "we're gonna end up the lawsuit with her for the rest of the life," while others pressed staff to draft the PUD amendment so it will be included in the recorded ordinance.
Next steps: staff will work with the petitioner to amend the PUD language, place the SUP requirement into the ordinance record (noted as section 2 during the meeting), and return the finalized ordinance language to council for confirmation or signature as required.
