• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

What zoning code is used to issue permits in a PD after the PD has been established?

J

Jane

REGISTERED
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
219
Location
Provo, Utah
Hi All,

I am wondering if anyone can help me as a non expert member of the public. I live in a town home at the Georgetown on the Park PD, in Provo, Utah which is in an R2PD zone. I believe this means that after the PD was established the zoning used to determine the building of new structures in the community are the codes related to the underlying code - in this case R2. Our neighborhood has become a "free for all" with people building anything they want in their back yards (our homes are on individual lots with a backyard between each home and its garage) and our HOA have gone rogue.

Could someone please tell me where I can find the rule where the underlying zoning prevails after the establishment of the PD? I need it to obtain a reconsideration from the State Property Rights ombudsman and I have had incredible help from the experts on this forum in the past.

Thanks in advance.

Jane
 
Welcome back

My non expert answer

It is in the original document

And I would say is in play forever and ever, unless maybe the city is approached for a change.
 
cda said:
Welcome back

My non expert answer

It is in the original document

And I would say is in play forever and ever, unless maybe the city is approached for a change.
Click to expand...
Hi there! It's good to "see" you again - I've missed my friends from this forum. I may teach math but I have a lot to learn about building and land use so all the expert (and non expert advice is much appreciated)

This is still the "deck issue" which I got another shot at because the original structure was deemed non-compliant after it went to the courts and my neighbor hid a permit application for the structure inside an application for a new door. My very expensive land law lesson had taught me to look at copyrighted files - and I found the hidden deck application. It was clear they thought I wouldn't see it and lose on timeliness but my appeal is timely and is being reconsidered.

Way back the City told me that after the PD was established any new additions had to comply to the underlying zoning but I can't find that rule. If I did I would likely have a better chance at getting the situation resolved and I could also help one of the other neighbors who is dealing with an even worse structure (if you can believe it) than I have built next to my home.

Take care and Happy New Year!

Jane
 
I think you have a copy of the original wording, plus what the ,,,,R2PD zone means .

That is the law and filed with maybe a county agency as law.

If you do not have a copy of the original Pd, get it.

As you have stated before that is what governs it.

Maybe you are asking how is that enforceable

My non expert answer, is how a Pd is developed, per your city development codes
 
cda said:
I think you have a copy of the original wording, plus what the ,,,,R2PD zone means .

That is the law and filed with maybe a county agency as law.

If you do not have a copy of the original Pd, get it.

As you have stated before that is what governs it.

Maybe you are asking how is that enforceable

My non expert answer, is how a Pd is developed, per your city development codes
Click to expand...
I am not sure that the city ever provided me with a copy of the original PD documents as they said they were "lost". I'm going to go through all the files again and see if I have anything that contains it. I wish I could access documents online but the city is not very organized.

If you have any ideas as to where to find it I would appreciate it.
 
Jane said:
I am not sure that the city ever provided me with a copy of the original PD documents as they said they were "lost". I'm going to go through all the files again and see if I have anything that contains it. I wish I could access documents online but the city is not very organized.

If you have any ideas as to where to find it I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Ask where the final document has to be filed, besides with the city.

Here it is a county agency.
 
cda said:
Ask where the final document has to be filed, besides with the city.

Here it is a county agency.
Click to expand...
I have contacted the developer to see if he knows. Do you know what the document would be called or what it would look like?
 
Maybe this??


Chapter 14.31PD - PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE​


Here it is called a planned development

It may consist of site plan, plat, legal speak as to what can and cannot be done in the Pd.

Look through this list and see if your house / area falls in one of the named
groups

Title 14 Zoning | Provo City Code

provo.municipal.codes provo.municipal.codes
 
Would this be on the right track?

All of Georgetown on the Park Amd. Phase I, according to the official plat thereof, on file in the office of the Utah County Recorder at Doc/Entry No. 36831-1984.
Including Parcel Numbers 40:103:0001 through 40:103:0017
 
cda said:
Maybe this??


Chapter 14.31PD - PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE​


Here it is called a planned development

It may consist of site plan, plat, legal speak as to what can and cannot be done in the Pd.

Look through this list and see if your house / area falls in one of the named
groups

Title 14 Zoning | Provo City Code

provo.municipal.codes provo.municipal.codes
Click to expand...
My house is in an R2PD zone - from my understanding this means that the PD is established and approved by the city. After this approval any additional structures are limited by the underlying zone (in this case R2) but I can't find where it specifically says this. The City are arguing that the development is treated as a whole (even though our homes are built on individual lots) even after the PD is established. This seems crazy to me as they are calculating the setbacks from the periphery of the community and not from the individual lot lines.
 
Previous post

the city PD zoning (since we're R2PD) it says:

(i) Notwithstanding the above provision, if the development has subdivided one-family lots which abut other parcels of land, the specific zoneregulations shall apply for rear and side yardsetbacks on the subdivided lots. The required setback area shall be landscaped.

Since we have separate one family lots, then the R2 zoning takes precedent which means that the deck can't project more than 12 feet or be any closer to the side property lines than 3 feet. Also, there can't be more than 40% lot coverage of accessory structures. Currently 98% of his lot is covered with structures.
 
PUD

Where did you get this info

Yes - I'm standing on my deck which is 6 feet away from the shared property line and does not extend more than 12 feet out. My deck was built as part of the original PUD because I have the wall of the end unit running along the other side of my deck. If you look closely you will see that his deck is actually only a few inches from the shared property and he was allowed to build all the way to the garage. No other homes in the community have been allowed that. His deck is 440+ square feet and the largest deck that has ever been allowed in the community is 120 square feet - and then only if your property was next to an end unit. He can definitely have a deck (I'm ok with that) although the original PUD does not allow for any further structures being built AND he has not been made to abide by the setback rules or the projection rules.
 
cda said:
Previous post

the city PD zoning (since we're R2PD) it says:

(i) Notwithstanding the above provision, if the development has subdivided one-family lots which abut other parcels of land, the specific zoneregulations shall apply for rear and side yardsetbacks on the subdivided lots. The required setback area shall be landscaped.

Since we have separate one family lots, then the R2 zoning takes precedent which means that the deck can't project more than 12 feet or be any closer to the side property lines than 3 feet. Also, there can't be more than 40% lot coverage of accessory structures. Currently 98% of his lot is covered with structures.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I argued but the city argued that this only applies to sub-divided lots that abut parcels of land outwith the development. They are saying the entire development is still treated as one entity. That's why I need something that says that after the PD is approved any additions need to comply to the underlying zoning (R2).
 
cda said:
PUD

Where did you get this info

Yes - I'm standing on my deck which is 6 feet away from the shared property line and does not extend more than 12 feet out. My deck was built as part of the original PUD because I have the wall of the end unit running along the other side of my deck. If you look closely you will see that his deck is actually only a few inches from the shared property and he was allowed to build all the way to the garage. No other homes in the community have been allowed that. His deck is 440+ square feet and the largest deck that has ever been allowed in the community is 120 square feet - and then only if your property was next to an end unit. He can definitely have a deck (I'm ok with that) although the original PUD does not allow for any further structures being built AND he has not been made to abide by the setback rules or the projection rules.
Click to expand...
Ha! I didn't realize you were quoting me. I got that info from the city when they said they'd "lost" the original documents and they said if there were no documents that R2 zoning prevailed. They are arguing that the lot line is the periphery of the community.
 
Previous post


don't think we're missing a thing, as I tried to explain a couple pages ago. All conventional zoning goes bye-bye when a PUD is adopted. Whatever was agreed to and passed in the ordinance AT THE TIME THE PUD WAS ADOPTED rules, now and for all time. Whatever is in the regular City zoning code has no bearing whatsoever on structures permitted and built within the PUD.

A PUD is a development agreement between a real estate developer and the City. A binding legal agreement, that is then passed into law by the City when they adopt it as an ordinance. So whatever those two entities agreed to back in the day and then wrote down and passed as an ordinance, is what rules the PUD you live in. If the regular R-whatever zone says lots must be 5000 square feet, but the PUD agreement says that lots in the PUD can be 4500 sq. ft., then the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says a zone has 10' side setbacks, but the PUD agreement says setbacks within the PUD can be 5 feet, the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says accessory structures can only cover 10% of the lot and can only be 10' high, but the PUD agreement says they can cover 99% of the lot and be 100' high, then the PUD rules. And on and on and on.

Maybe that's not the news you were looking for, but it is what it is. Be thankful that it's a decent looking deck he built - you're going to be looking at it for a while.
 
cda said:
Previous post


don't think we're missing a thing, as I tried to explain a couple pages ago. All conventional zoning goes bye-bye when a PUD is adopted. Whatever was agreed to and passed in the ordinance AT THE TIME THE PUD WAS ADOPTED rules, now and for all time. Whatever is in the regular City zoning code has no bearing whatsoever on structures permitted and built within the PUD.

A PUD is a development agreement between a real estate developer and the City. A binding legal agreement, that is then passed into law by the City when they adopt it as an ordinance. So whatever those two entities agreed to back in the day and then wrote down and passed as an ordinance, is what rules the PUD you live in. If the regular R-whatever zone says lots must be 5000 square feet, but the PUD agreement says that lots in the PUD can be 4500 sq. ft., then the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says a zone has 10' side setbacks, but the PUD agreement says setbacks within the PUD can be 5 feet, the PUD rules. If the regular zoning says accessory structures can only cover 10% of the lot and can only be 10' high, but the PUD agreement says they can cover 99% of the lot and be 100' high, then the PUD rules. And on and on and on.

Maybe that's not the news you were looking for, but it is what it is. Be thankful that it's a decent looking deck he built - you're going to be looking at it for a while.
Click to expand...
What if there are no rules from the original PD?
 
Previous post



The Provo position is clear. The entire development is one lot for the purpose of zoning regulation. Anyone can have 100% parcel coverage until the entire development "lot" has 40% lot coverage. At such time as there is 40% development "lot" coverage nobody can build anything on individual parcels within the development "lot".

That seems odd to me. Essentially, lot coverage regulation doesn't kick in until someone demonstrates 40% lot coverage. I find it suspicious that the original developer left most of the land untouched.

In as much as the city can't find any paperwork on the development perhaps they should be asked to produce similar paperwork on other developments. Beyond that there must be written instructions for their position that predate the issuance of Flake's permit. They can't just say. "Well Jane, that's the way it is."
 
Previous reply



don't agree that the city will prevail.

This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.

No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.

Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next el
 
cda said:
Previous post



The Provo position is clear. The entire development is one lot for the purpose of zoning regulation. Anyone can have 100% parcel coverage until the entire development "lot" has 40% lot coverage. At such time as there is 40% development "lot" coverage nobody can build anything on individual parcels within the development "lot".

That seems odd to me. Essentially, lot coverage regulation doesn't kick in until someone demonstrates 40% lot coverage. I find it suspicious that the original developer left most of the land untouched.

In as much as the city can't find any paperwork on the development perhaps they should be asked to produce similar paperwork on other developments. Beyond that there must be written instructions for their position that predate the issuance of Flake's permit. They can't just say. "Well Jane, that's the way it is."
Click to expand...
It seems to me that it would be a ridiculous situation to allow people to build until 40% of the original plat is covered and then say that no one else can build anything from that time forward. I have searched for other permits but it looks like everyone else built without permits so Provo City did not issue permits for anything else that was built.

That's why I feel there must me a rule that regulate building in these type of developments - otherwise it is mayhem.
 
cda said:
Previous reply



don't agree that the city will prevail.

This area is a PD and has special rules that apply. This much we have established and all agree on. The first thing any competent lawyer would ask is if the city official was aware of its status as a PD. If they answer no, this throws very serious doubt into the qualifications and integrity of the official, if they answer yes, the lawyer would ask if they were aware that special rules apply to these developments. A negative response here is the same as a negative response for the last question. If they answer yes, the lawyer then asks what the rules are for this specific PD are, as they were not included in the disclosure as part of the trial preparation. Assuming this is still not available, the lawyer will ask the official how they could, in good conscience, approve the proposed development without knowing what rules it needed to adhere to.

No mater how this shakes out, the city ends up looking incompetent. My guess is as soon as this gets kicked up the chain of command, assuming someone competent works there, they will instruct the department to take care of this before it gets very public.

Public officials are judged in two courts, the judicial court and the court of public opinion. Most people do not like the special deals done for those with influence, so if that part goes public, the elected officials are not going to be happy because they will have to deal with that at the next el
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I am at my last shot at this...this will be my last chance to get a reconsideration without going up through the courts (I already spent a lot of money on the last appeal before the city changed the permit number making my suit against the city moot) and I am reaching my financial limits. That's why I'm looking for a rule that outlines how a PD is handled after the fact.
 
Jane said:
Would this be on the right track?

All of Georgetown on the Park Amd. Phase I, according to the official plat thereof, on file in the office of the Utah County Recorder at Doc/Entry No. 36831-1984.
Including Parcel Numbers 40:103:0001 through 40:103:0017
Click to expand...

That is the plat

it may not have the info you want
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top