Grantsville staff present draft PUD code; council to hold public hearings after revisions

City staff presented a draft Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance during a joint Grantsville City Council and Jacksonville City Planning Commission meeting on April 30, 2025, laying out a proposed code that would change how PUDs are reviewed and approved.

Jay Springer, who led the presentation, said the draft is "a draft for discussion purposes" and emphasized that the document is intended to be a starting point for public hearings and council deliberation. Staff described a conceptual shift: a PUD would operate as a unique overlay zone and, when reviewed, the council would exercise legislative discretion over approvals rather than leaving certain exceptions to administrative or quasi‑judicial bodies.

Under the draft, a PUD application would begin from the most restrictive standards of the underlying zones (setbacks, uses, density) and applicants seeking different outcomes would have to justify deviations. Springer explained the inheritance rule as a fallback to prevent applicants from combining underlying zones in a way that allows automatic use of the least restrictive standard. He told commissioners the approach is intended to reduce ambiguity about who has final authority and ‘‘the council is the only one that gets to make that decision.’’

Commissioners discussed numeric standards and implementation details, including front/rear setback numbers, corner‑lot treatments, and duplication of standards across code chapters. Staff noted a recent state law sets required parking‑space size ("19 feet by 8 feet") that constrains local requirements for driveway or parking dimensions.

Members debated a proposed default that PUDs of one acre or larger include 25% commercial area. Options discussed included stair‑stepped thresholds by project size, case‑by‑case negotiation, or removing a fixed minimum acreage for PUD eligibility. Several commissioners urged clearer language that the commercial proportion and certain standards are subject to council determination.

Affordable‑housing linkage was a notable policy provision: staff proposed that if a PUD seeks a density increase above the most restrictive baseline, 50% of the additional units would need to meet state moderate‑income standards. Staff also outlined application requirements — a PUD district map and plan, land‑use table, written justifications for deviations, geotechnical and traffic reports, and a development agreement to be recorded with the land.

Staff reviewed administrative mechanics, including how to treat major versus minor modifications, vesting/’reasonable diligence’ guardrails for stalled projects, and appeal pathways (board of adjustment, a three‑member expert panel for certain subdivision appeals, or a contracted land use hearing officer). Commissioners debated whether appeal decisions should rest with existing boards or with a contracted land‑use expert; some members opposed using the city attorney for appeals because of conflicts of interest.

Springer said staff will incorporate the comments provided, post public notice, and return the draft to the planning commission for a public hearing before bringing a recommendation back to the city council.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft PUD code to reflect the discussion, prepare public‑notice materials for the planning commission public hearing, and return the ordinance for public input and formal recommendation to council.