Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission hears staff call to clarify PUD code, DRC role and bonus-density rules
Summary
Staff told the Tremonton Planning Commission that the city's PUD overlay language contains contradictory administrative and legislative approval pathways and proposed red-line code edits; commissioners agreed staff should produce a red-line draft and recommended DRC concept review before public hearings. The discussion also covered a bonus-density calculator and safeguards for distribution of deed-restricted units.
Staff presented the planned-unit-development (PUD) overlay and asked the planning commission for direction to rewrite portions of the code to remove internal contradictions and clarify review steps. Staff said the code currently references a legislative process early in chapter 1.33.015 but later language (chapter 2.03 and 2.04) appears to give approval authority to the Development Review Committee (DRC). "The lawyer was very clear... it still has to go through the legislative process," Staff member (S1) told the commission.
Why it matters: commissioners and staff said the ambiguity can cost developers and the city time and money if applicants invest in detailed plans that later cannot clear the legislative process. Chair (S3) and other commissioners recommended asking applicants to bring concept plans to the DRC first so staff can identify engineering, access and public-works hurdles early.
Commissioners discussed how a PUD overlay differs from a development agreement: a PUD sets architectural and land-use standards and can award density bonuses for amenities, while the development agreement, commissioners said, is the instrument that ties infrastructure improvements to a project. "When you approve a PUD, you're not saying that there's any infrastructure improvement done," Staff member (S1) said, adding that infrastructure commitments should be documented in development agreements.
Density incentives were another focus. Staff walked through a bonus-density calculator in the meeting packet that converts amenity points into percentage increases in allowable units (an example in the packet showed a 37.5% bonus). Commissioners pressed for clarity on baseline requirements (the code requires at least 15% open space) and on provisions that allow extra bonuses for senior and deed-restricted moderate-income units. Commissioners warned the current phrasing could permit projects to concentrate affordable units instead of distributing them within mixed-income developments; Chair (S3) suggested adding caps or distribution requirements to avoid large clusters of deed-restricted housing.
Next steps: staff agreed to prepare a red-line version of proposed code changes and to run revisions by the city attorney before returning the draft to the commission for discussion and a future public hearing. The commission also asked staff to include a DRC staff report in packets so commissioners can see what technical issues were raised at concept review before the public hearing stage.
