Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

back. You want your ship to drop off these countries? We are now on and recording. All right, Thomas. Yeah, you're you need to look at a real watch. This is based on based on Disney.

All right, we'll go with it as uh 5:15 and 45 seconds. So, we'll get started with the pledge of allegiance. I'll lead us. Thank you. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Regular items. Uh we need a motion for the approval of the minutes dated March 17, 2026. Jennifer has just flown in.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Excellent. Look at that. She participates right off. I would love to second that. We have a motion in a second. All in favor? I. You did. All right. Uh items two and three. Looks like we have our own uh planning commission. Amber alert finally, right, Amber? She's been waiting patiently over the last couple meetings. So, um, now everybody in here know that we're lo we're losing her in a couple months. I'm going to make one request. You guys have one microphone on microphone on over there. If the rest of you when you talk, if you could turn it on because otherwise the recording will be really hard later. I know I'm annoying.

Go ahead and finish what you were saying. Amber is Amber is leaving us in a couple months. Kent has driven her out of the office. I said I'm out of here. Yeah. Where is out of here? I'm I'm going to be taking Renan's position as city reporter. Ironically, she'll still be sitting in instead of Tuesday night, she'll be in that chair. She'll be in that chair on Wednesday night. That's right. Yep.

Yes. You can still see my lovely face. Okay. So, this is just an ordinance text amendment. Um this is a proposed amendment to ordinance section 2645. This proposal involves requiring bonding for commercial projects with required public improvements. Uh we want to make sure that when improvements are required with commercial projects that there are bonding in place for those improvements and that there's also a warranty period. Um we have taken the language from the bonding for the subdivision public improvements and just added it here and then just as the revisions as you can see. So, we did a little bit of revisions to the title, revisions to make it applicable to required improvements, revisions removing the word subdivider, and then a time frame was specified as according to the bond agreement and revision to the numbering.

So, Amber, I'm going to ask a question. My friend always asks, he says, why? What's the why behind all these changes? Yes. Are they developer driven? Are they? So, this one came as a concern from Well, I know from streets, the street department saying there are times when there's a commercial project and improvements have to be made and there's not really a bond in place for those improvements. So, they have their typical road break bond. Um, if you want to get into more details, I'm sure Eric could help you, but and I can jump in a little bit on that.

Don't ask me any questions. Don't you remember that rule?

So, um, we've it came to our attention as we were working between engineering, building, and public works. We were realizing that we had kind of a kind of a gap in our bonding requirements when it came to public improvements being built with projects other than subdivisions and PUDs because the wording that we have currently the way we handle the bonding for subdivisions and PUDs that's in a section that is specific just to subdivisions of PUDS. And so we had a lot of discussion and um you know our city manager and council members even had kind of weighed in on yeah we need a better solution. Um you know we talked about possibly just handling those things under the road permit that public works does but both our street superintendent and public works director felt like that wasn't a good fit. Um the way they their program is set up it's not really set up for that. It's set up more for someone needs to do some work in our ride of way. Um, you know, they need to dig down and connect in to replace their water service line or something, right? And uh um you know, and their permit was set up good to handle those kinds of things. Not really hel set up well to handle new development. And so that's the the reason we, you know, we kind of looked at the options on what's the best way to do this. So, we finally decided adding it into, you know, this other um section, this uh 2645 that applies generally to um development in the city instead of just subdivisions and PUDs seemed like the right answer. So, that's really what got us here. This will give us the tool to handle bonding and inspections and everything else for

these public infrastructure improvements. the same for things that aren't subdivisions and PUDs as we do with things that are subdivisions and PUDs. We think it's going to administratively work a lot better for us and be better for the applicants. Is it going to add any financial burden to the developer? Um, I would say no because it doesn't change what they're required to do and it actually in most cases will help them as opposed to putting them through the road break permit process that has um, let's just say uh, greater bonding requirements.

Great. Love to hear that answer. Any other questions of staff? M this is a public hearing. So we'll at least do the formality of opening the public hearing and closing the public hearing and sit for a motion. I'll make a positive recommendation that we approve this item. Uh it would be item uh ordinance text amendment recommendation for uh 26- 4-5 pertaining to public improvement bond revision. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Number three, Amber sections 23. Okay, this one was just one of the ones I randomly started doing one day when I had time and then I never had time again and it keeps coming around. I just want to get it done and out of the way. So, the state um went through and for some unknown reason did some renumbering of the state code. So, there were parts in our ordinance that referenced a specific number in the state code. So it said according to state code 10 or 10 9a whatever. So we just wanted to take those parts out of those specific numbers out and instead of changing it to what the number currently is just referencing the state code so that if they ever choose to change their numbering again in the future we won't have to go back through and do this. The only thing that would change our ordinance a little is one of our sections. It was 264. In our definitions, it said um as it talked about an external dwelling unit as defined by the state code. However, the state code does not necessarily define an external dwelling unit. So, even just saying that previously was inaccurate. So just we just added the wording or our proposal is to add the word wording. Um so an accessory dwelling unit that is not attached to or within a detached single family dwelling but is located on the same lot or parcel as the detached single family dwelling.

You can ask questions on this one. I'll defer to someone else also. Oh no. I'm that definition. That definition, by the way, I mostly stole it from a bill that was proposed this year in the state legislature. It did not pass. Um, state law requires us to do internal dwellings, but it doesn't require us to do external. Cedar City added that when we did the internal, we said, why not? I remember that. But the bill did not pass, but we still want to keep them. So, yeah, we just borrowed that definition.

Questions, comments? Okay. Hey, once again the formality of a public hearing. We'll open the hearing public hearing and close the public hearing and stand for a motion or sit for a motion whatever you choose. I'll make a positive recommendation on section 23 section 26 section 32 revising numbering to match state code and I'll second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Amber. Thanks for your work on that.

Thank you for waiting. Okay, it looks like the next three items will go to uh our city engineer, Clark Kent Fugal. All right, I've been upgraded.

That's the cape you got. though. Um, okay. So, the first one of these, um, item number four, we're looking at some revisions to the first section of our engineering standards, which is just a forward. Now, what I've got in the strikeout here is what we currently have in, you know, for that uh, forward to our engineering standards. Um, there's some wording at the top that I liked. the the the rest of this where we've really formatted this almost like it's a title page to a printed document which we really don't have anymore. We have um our um engineering standards similar to our city ordinances. It's in Munich code on the website. We don't really publish a book anymore. Um and and really listing out all the dates that we ever did revisions isn't very useful either. So what we've done with this, the first paragraph of this forward takes uh the wording from up above at the top that we are eliminating and with a a few minor revisions. So we're saying that the Cedar City Engineering Department has prepared these Cedar City Engineering standards to be used for all work located within public streets, rights of way, and easements within Cedar City, Utah. Nothing in these standards shall be construed to prohibit the construction of higher type improvements as approved by the city engineer. Like I say, that is almost word for word from what we had at the beginning part of the forward previously just formatted differently. But then we get to the to the real meat of the change and that is we're saying that Cedar City Corporation has adopted it would be has adopted once this goes through city council assuming it gets adopted. So Cedar City Corporation has adopted the

2026 APWA Utah manual of standard specifications and the 2026 APWA Utah manual of standard plans. collectively the APWA standard. So we'll refer to it by that name um later on says as its standard construction specifications and standard drawings in conjunction with the city specific requirements listed in sections four and five of these engineering standards. So what we have now um so section two is uh a little bit general. Section three it kind of gets us into our design standards which are not construction standards. Those are design standards. Sections four and five um section four is our um construction specifications. Section five is our standard details. Um what we will be doing over the next while and a lot of this in conjunction with public works is we will be reviewing information in sections four and five comparing that to what's in the Utah APWA standards standard uh you know the standard specifications and standard plans and determining what we feel like we need to keep um where we would not want to just go with what the Utah APWA standards today. Um, but in cases where we say, you know what, we've got one thing, Utah APWA standards have another thing, but there's really no reason why we would do different than what the Utah APWA standards have. Then we would just delete those portions of our of our sections four and five. So that we would just leave it to the the Utah APWA standards. Um, so that's kind of what we're doing there. Um, you know, this right now just sets us up that we would be officially adopting the UP APWA

standards, the Utah APWA standards, so that those are now a, you know, available for us to use. Um, it certainly covers things that our current standards don't cover. So, it gives us actually standards for things we don't currently have standards for. And then um you know beware as we read on through the last of that paragraph, we're saying that in the event of a conflict between the APWA standards and the requirements of sections four and five, sections four and five shall govern unless the contrary is approved in writing by the Cedar City Engineer for a specific instance or project. So we're saying that that the default is the what we have in our sections four and five governs. But yet if in a specific instance it makes more sense to use what the APWA one has, we're we're giving ourselves the freedom to to use to use those if that's approved by a city engineer. And then this other is kind of a housekeeping. The term engineer in the APWA standards or any sections of these Cedar City engineering standards shall refer to the Cedar City Engineer. The terms city and owner in the APWA standards or any sections of these Cedar City engineering standards shall refer to Cedar City Corporation. The reason we wanted that is there are a lot of places in the in the standard specifications and standard plans of with APWA where it makes reference to the engineer that the engineer has the authority to do certain things. We don't want that to we don't want people to misconstrue that and say oh well you know my engineer I hired said this therefore you know that's what governs. No, the it's the city engineer for all things public uh public all public infrastructure improvements in Cedar

City. Those references refer to the Cedar City engineer for for our purposes at Cedar City. So, that's what we have there with this particular item. Like I say, the meat of it is adopting the Utah APWA manuals um and and then just a little bit of cleanup there. Any questions?

I have a question and I have the same question for Amber, so she'll defer to you since you're answering the question. Is this going to add any financial burden to the homeowner, the builder, any additional rules or anything that's going to make it more restrictive or limit? I I would say no. I I mean, is there a possibility that there's something somewhere in the Utah APWA that would cost more to construct than what we have in our in our standards currently? I would say that's a possibility. Yes. But I think there are also a number of things as I see it that if we follow the Utah APWA, it's actually going to be less expensive than what ours are. Some of our details, a good example is our storm drainage. We've got some very expensive storm drain boxes that we specify um where a standard manhole like you would use on the sanitary sewer system does the job just fine and it's a lot cheaper. Um I'm hoping we can as we work with public works, we can get to where we're just using those manholes in APWA instead of the expensive boxes that we've been doing.

That's an example. I love the attitude of of cleaning things up. We and and and he know and and Randall knows my the word I despise the most is interpret and I just despise that word. But we're cleaning things up and and and and putting under one uniform one uniform thing and and I I applaud applaud the office for doing that because it's it's daunting when you're the homeowner or the developer. It's daunting.

Yeah. And we didn't have these full APWA um standards in your packet, but I wanted to just show you this really quick. So, here's the the cover page of the standard specifications. Um get down here to the uh um contents. Um one thing that we are really lacking right now is a good general requirements section. um we have nothing there which when you you really need general requirements for the construction contracts for our city projects. Um if everything goes perfectly on a project, they're not needed. But as soon as something goes south, you need rules and this provides that for us that we don't currently have in any of our um uh documentation we use for projects currently. But then this takes us through all the different sections and you know it's really easy to get to stuff. You just click on something and it takes you right to it. These documents are available for free on on the internet. We will link to that once the these are adopted. We will link to that on our website so people can get to it easily. Um but but yeah, there is no cost to people that we're now using these. They're they're freely available on the uh Utah uh chapter of the APWA, the American Public Works Association on their website. Um this next document, these are the standard plans. So, same kind of thing. And these look a little different than our current standard details, the way they're organized. Let me get to the contents page here. good example and we'll be looking at this in a minute on another item. But we get to curb and gutter and and the way APWA has these formatted, they they actually include some spec references and things and then take you to the plan itself, you know, but this, you know, shows, you know, the some of the various uh curbon gutter types that are part of the APWA

standards. And so, and that's kind of the way it goes all the way through on on those details. So anyway, I just wanted to to kind of give you that little bit of of flavor on this uh as to what these documents look like. Um so anyway, I don't know if there's any other questions I can answer for you. No, I just appreciate that we're not adding burden

and I apologize. I didn't catch this earlier. Um you have in here that it's very intro to be used for all work located within public streets rights of way easements but some of these rules are applicable in like PUDS they um some of the requirements with regards to structures which we don't have a ton of those inside the those areas. Okay. So what are you thinking applies to PUDS? Are we talking I mean they do use our standard curb types one of our standard details on curbs. Do we require that though or do we I was just curious like do we let them do other things? So even when we're looking at like earth work and stuff like that do any of our standards apply for earth work within

Well but but what we have in here for earth work I mean what our standards really apply to are are infrastructure items that we're going to accept. So we don't apply them to any of the private infrastructure. I would say not directly. Okay. Um but but that's something we can we can certainly look into a little bit closer and if there is a revision to that paragraph that uh we think we should make to to make sure we're covered on that. I'm not opposed to that before we take that to city council. I leave it to you. I just thought there was something

there's something hiding in there. It could just be PUDS as applicable. There's something I'm missing in there. Yeah. I'm I'm just not trying to be real prescriptive of what people have to do on their private improvements that we're not going to accept and maintain. That makes sense. I just look even like the storm drain where it says they're supposed to be able to receive it on their own property. My husband, I guess indirectly that applies to the public works because we're telling him to keep it off. So I I was just

but most of those are items that are those types of things are items that are covered in in section three of our engineering standards which is our design standards. This has nothing to do with our design standards. This has to do with the actual construction specifications and details that a contractor needs to be able to build things according to our standards. Well, right. that that first paragraph is in section one applying to the entire thing including section three. Okay, I see what you're saying there. Wait a minute. Where am I? Wrong one. And again, it's not something you've added. That's the wording now.

That is the wording now. But but you're right. This would be this would be an opportunity to clean that up. the the planning commission, if you end up making a recommendation to recommend this to city council, do you have any any concerns if we tweak a some of that wording a little bit to address the concerns that Randall has brought up? Okay. Uniformity that we'll we'll take a look at that. Okay. Excellent. Any other questions? If not, we'll open the public hearing and close the public hearing. Oh, public calm down. Yes. back. Thanks for the interest. Yeah, the year you're too young to remember a show

with Jimmy Stewart and he had his invisible rabbit. Oh yeah. Okay. The Kent's old Jim's old enough. It's way before my time. Yeah, Steve's old enough. I'm old enough. But I didn't have TV in Wyoming. Oh, but you remember the show? Yeah. Yeah. So, he could be out there. Her What was his name? I don't remember that one. I'd tell you if you weren't asking. Harvey. Yeah, that's what it was. Harvey. Mhm. Well, barring any unforeseen hairs in the audience, um, we'll go ahead and entertain a motion.

I'll make a positive recommendation on revisions to section one forward. uh the engineering standards revision and I'll second that. And is that can I ask for clarification? Is that includes Oh, that includes the the the minor modifications as per Randall's request. Yep. Thank you. You said that. That sounds like a blank check. I like that. I said minor. They're recorded. So, all right. We have a motion to second. All in favor? I

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. We shall move on to item number five, Kent Fugle.

Okay. So, this is um more with regards to these um engineering standards. This this one isn't related directly to APWA. The next one will be to some extent, but this one um we're talking about the under the general requirements for public in um improvements uh section 2.1 of our engineering standards. And I think the best way to lead into this is to tell you why we're looking at this. and this area out on the west side of town. This is the Iron Springs Elementary School right here. Um this is so you we've got the Cedar Meadows subdivision, Lamplight subdivision, Mountain Shadows, Iron Springs. Um when when Cedar Meadows and Lamplight were developed, nowhere along this entire western boundary was there were there any roads stubbed to the west. Um what that results in is that if you want to move between these developments, you either have to go out on the highway or go all the way down to Center Street to be able to move between them. Otherwise, there's no interconnectivity. not even any pedestrian access between these neighborhoods. You know, little Johnny lives right here and he wants to, you know, visit his little friend Steve over here, he's got to go all the way around. Okay. Um, so when and then when you look at um, you know, with the Cedar Meadows and Lamplight subdivisions, even to access this other part of Cedar Meadows over here,

you end up having to go down at least to 25 north to get across and get up there. There's no other way to get through. When the property to the east develops, nowhere between Highway 56 and Center Street is there a place that we'll be able to get through. we will be faced with the exact same thing we are on the west side um as property develops there. By contrast, when you look at the mountain shadows subdivision, not only not only do we have our master planned center street that comes through that's stubbed out so that that can be continued over to West View, but there are other stub roads that were put in to allow connectivity between that subdivision and adjoining subdivisions. this area down in here is going to function a lot better than what we have up here because it'll have connectivity. Right? So that's kind of the leadin to what we're trying to accomplish with this. So then going to this actual section of our of our um engineering standards, this general um section uh we you know we've made proposed some changes to the wording on this. um trying to make sure that first off, right up at the beginning when we're talking about improvements of a public need that we're including all of the um infrastructure, the streets, water, sewer, drainage, but also gas, power, communications. We want to make sure that we've got connectivity of all these things between developments. We talked about before we just had in there the required improvements shall extend from the nearest acceptable point of existing improvements. Well, that's kind of a given. You've got to go connect to it somewhere. You're going to go where it's the nearest. But then we say that it needs to provide for future extension to

adjacent properties. But what we had in there before was just and shall be compatible with applicable city master plans. It really we we've revised that some try to strengthen that to say that um when applicable improvements must also comply with city master plans. There's not always a city master plan um um that applies to a given project, but when there is, it needs to comply. But then we get into the fact that what we had in our standards previously just says or what it says currently is that all water lines shall be installed to the boundaries of the development. We're completely silent on anything else having to be extended to the boundaries of the development. For some reason, water was singled out and said that has to be extended. But even though we' set up here before that all of these other things need to happen, we only said the water had to be extended.

Hey K, would this rectify that issue we had a few weeks ago where someone wanted to just be responsible for like a 100 yards of the road? Um, not necessarily. Um that's a little bit different thing because that's where we have this master planned road that was on center street. Right. Right. We have this master planned road and then the question on that was do they need to improve both sides of the road? Right.

Um you guys made the recommendation and we were glad that you did. It was in line with what we were hoping you would do of saying that at least across the frontage of that of that property and the little gap that we had on the east end. Let's fill that in with the improvements on the south side. Our ordinance actually requires that. When that went to city council, we did not get support from city council for that. City council approved a deferral agreement to not put in any of the improvements on the south side. better.

But that's really kind of a separate issue. That's that's not here. We're really trying to address the interconnectivity of our infrastructure between developments, right? Um, so with this we had um I I had uh um I was in some conversations with Tyler Romell, our former city attorney who now works for the Levis for uh development team and we were talking about this issue. He had looked at our at our uh wording here. He made some suggestions on on some uh some ways to strengthen this, which I appreciated him taking the time to do that. I then took what he had sent to me and made further revisions um in some cases changing something that he had said and in other cases just adding to. And so now what we're really saying is that when no topographical barriers exist that all improvements shall be installed at the boundary lines of the development. Okay. And then uh this was something that Tyler was looking at. Let's try to define what topographical barriers are. And I changed that a little bit from what he had. But I said the topographical barriers include but are not limited to mountains, canyons, and extremely steep slopes. He had in their natural drainage channels. The reason I pulled that out is because natural drainage channels come in all different sizes and some of those are very easy to span. I didn't want to say that even just a minor drainage ditch was a topographical barrier. So that was the reason I pulled it out. But we do say not limited to. So if there is a drainage channel, the drainage channel certainly can be a topographical barrier if it in fact functions as a barrier. Then we say that

uh topographical barriers as determined or agreed to by the city engineer. It's not just up to the developer to say what a topographical barrier is. That when those exist, then access for bicycles, pedestrians, and maintenance vehicles to the boundary lines of the development may still be required in the absence of stub streets. So, if there are no sub streets, they may still there may be reasons why we still need to let people get to say some open space that's just outside of the development or we have a need for maintenance purposes to get to some facilities that the city has in that open space. Maybe it's a sewer line that goes through it or something like that. And so we we in inserted in there wording that um you know that access for those things may still be required even if there aren't any substrates there. But then we said streets and new subdivisions shall continue the alignment of existing streets and adjoining subdivisions or their proper projections when adjoining property is not subdivided. Then we say streets, alleys and utility lines shall be arranged in a manner which will in so far as possible facilitate convenient extension and connection thereof to future streets, alleys and utility lines developed by the owners of adjoining property at the time their plat is their property is platted. So what we're really trying to get at on this is there need to be stub streets um like we saw on mountain shadows in the in what I showed you a minute ago. um so that neighborhoods can be cohesive, right? Rather than than having these artificial separations everywhere one developer ended and the next one started. Um so that's what we're really trying to accomplish with this. I'm hopeful that this wording does what we what we intend it to do. I I feel pretty good about it, but I'm certainly

interested in any other thoughts you may have. I'm shocked that that uh that happened. But when those subdivisions went in, and Jennifer would be well aware of this as a real estate agent, Cedar City was on fire. I mean, you thought you were buying dollars for 50 cents when it comes to land and and developing to meet the the back what 303 05 05. Yeah. I mean, it was just insane. I can see where things got missed, but I'm shocked still. Yeah.

And there are plenty of other examples around town. I I picked out that because first off, I'm familiar with it because I live in Iron West, but second, because you could see the such a vivid demonstrations all within one area, but also we didn't have the wording to, you know, to make that happen. We didn't have the teeth to We tried that just a few councils ago, a couple councils ago, we tried to bring one of these in and they said without better guidance, they were not going to enforce it. So, this was an invitation from our council a couple of years ago to get this in. Yeah. We kind of had a rough go on that one. Yeah. You're looking to minimize exceptions, right? That's Yeah.

Right. Yeah. And you know, we're not trying to rules. We're not trying to to, you know, go out and tell people exactly what needs to happen. Well, you need us to have a stub street every 500 feet. I mean, we're not trying to say that, but we're saying that there needs to be that interconnectivity and um then we need to get these improvements extended to the boundaries of the subdivision so they can be picked up on when the next property develops. You know, we're trying to get get all of that in here, but still provide some flexibility for them to lay a project out in a way that makes sense. Right. Right. Exactly.

Well, I appreciate it. I I cannot even handle how those are when we're, you know, out showing houses even. We have to you've have to go back to Highway 56 and back over to I think this one is hugely important. I mean, you know, we had the uh the Cedar 106 project just north of 800 North between Lond.

Um, you know, they came in and, you know, they were wanting to, you know, vacate a rideway they had dedicated because that's not where they want the street now. and they kind of changed around the way the way the um general plan designations and zones were oriented through their project and they you know they wanted a bunch of stuff, right? Well, we worked out with the development agreement with them that they agreed to stub roads to the north, you know, to to provide connectivity between the different properties within their development because they're proposing to to sell these off as different things, right? But we got them to agree in the development agreement to provide connectivity between those and to stub roads to the north so that when that next big long piece of ground that runs all the way from Lond to 3900 West develops, we can have some connectivity there. But we did that through a development agreement because we didn't have anything in our ordinance to enforce it. But we got them to agree to that to help them get what they wanted. Right. Y

but this this gives us more teeth to be able to kind of press the issue and insist that we get connectivity.

I I still think we should bring something for this body to discuss what we talked about and I think that you just mentioned 800 North that we said that I suggested. We put basically a walkway right through the middle of the neighborhood so it connects with other neighborhoods so the kids don't have to go out out on the roads per se to to access one subdivision after another. And I I think that and and and give them credit for their parks, give them credit for their bike trails, you know, that type of stuff. Mhm.

To to make uh I guess the term now is active active living or active what's that term they use for the board? Active transportation. Active transportation. Thank you, Randall. Active transportation. I I think we should really have that discussion at some point. Okay. Re requiring something like that or at least or Yeah. I I just think it's important. Yeah. And and of course, one good way for us to accomplish that is making sure we get appropriate routes for active transportation on our active transportation master plan because that becomes something that's much easier for us to enforce. Yeah.

Excellent, Kent. Thanks for the presentation. Any other comments or questions? If not, we'll open the public hearing and close it right back and entertain a motion. If I get my glasses on, I can do this. Okay. Okay. Um, so I'll make a positive re recommendation for um section 2.1 as provided to us. um the general requirements for public improvements. We have a motion. Second. We have a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

All right, Kent. Last but not least, number six, cold.

Okay. And and for some reason in my mind, I was thinking that I was going to be talking to you about curbon gutter and driveways. That's actually coming in the future. We have that on the agenda for sketch meeting Thursday morning this week and it'll come to you in April. Um but uh what we're doing with this one is um we're we're looking at some changes to our to our culde-sac standards. And this is driven primarily and maybe it'd be easier for me to start with the drawing. This is driven primarily by compliance with the fire code. Our current um standards for subdivisions, this radius right here, if you can see my pointer, is 50 feet on our current standard for mo for culde-sacs within neighborhoods, you know, that are just local street culde-sacs, which is the vast majority of culde-sacs in town, right? And then we require the 60 foot for you know cul-de-sacs in industrial subdivisions or commercial those kinds of things. Well, we're but the problem is with the 50 ft um the distance from face of curb to face a curb across the culac only ends up being let's see I forgot the number so let me calculate it here really quick. ends up being 89 feet if I did the math right in my head really quick. So you've got an 80 89 foot diameter of the drivable surface, you know, from curb to curb and fire code requires 96. So we're we're short on meeting fire code. The other thing we're looking at as we as we change

So Kit, let me back up. You said it's 89. If I did the math right, it's 89. You said they require 96. 96. Okay. Okay.

So, we're short of meeting fire code even if there are no cars parked in there. And once there's cars parked in there, then we're really really short of meeting fire code. Um so, so this really this was kind of what started us off on looking at culde-sacs was the fact that our culde-sac bulb dimensions do not meet fire code. So, we've I had a lot of conversations with Mike Schz, the fire marshal, and Mike Phillips, the fire chief, about this, and they agreed we needed to pursue this, make our culde-sacs to where they meet the fire code. So, that was kind of the impetus there. Um, so we've got some dimensions here that are just standard. And and the other thing is we had our current standard, excuse me, our current standard drawing actually has this table where we have all these different dimensions for culde-sacs on different types of roadways, including arterial streets. We're never going to terminate an arterial street in a culde-sac. It just doesn't happen, right? And so it there were some things there that were really meaningless. And this gets rid of the meaningless part and puts us into a standard um culde-sac configuration that that will meet fire code in in our neighborhoods and still accommodate um you know what the needs of more of the industrial areas where we have larger vehicles that need to be able to turn around. So the other thing we looked we looked at on this is we looked at the maximum allowable length of the culde-sac. There was a lot of discussions with city council um in one of their meetings last year where where someone was requesting a

variance to um the our maximum culde-sac length and they had asked us to kind of take another look at culde-sac lengths and see if we had um lengths there that made some sense. the more we looked into that. Clarification. Are you talking the road to the culde-sac or Yeah. So the Let me see if I can zoom out just a little bit here so we can see this on one. So not needing a culterack if you're less than X. No, this that that's a that's a part we'll talk about in just a minute.

Okay. Okay. But this is um you know we don't we know we don't want to have a culde-sac that's a mile long right and you go a mile in there and to for people in the back of the culde-sac to go anywhere they have to drive a long ways even just to get out to the cross that that's pretty obvious but what is an acceptable length for a culde-sac as we looked at the fire code the fire code um says and it's got some different lengths based on how wide the roadway is. The wider it is, the longer the culde-sac can be, but it really ends at 750 and it says anything longer than 750 ft requires special approval. Um, we looked at that and we said, okay, um, we broke this up into two pieces. We're saying that in residential zones, um, we don't want those culde-sacs to be longer than 550 ft. Now this is similar to our existing requirement because existing requirement we measure from this rideofway line and we allow 500 ft. We moved it out to measure from the center line of the cross street which I think is more consistent with the fire code and we added 50 ft to that. So we're 200 feet less than what would be allowed in other zones which is the maximum that the fire code would allow the 750. So that's what we've done there. And you know, with any of these types of standards, if there's a situation that really suggests that a different culde-sac length should be allowed because otherwise you leave a piece of the property totally inaccessible, right? We still have the ability to work with the fire department to say, "Okay, if you know, they've got one here where they're they're it's a residential area

that they're wanting to go 700 ft and here's all the reasons for that. You know, is the fire department okay with that or there are there some mitigating measures that should be taken to allow it?" And we can work that out and we can approve something. and we can approve a variance to to do something a little bit different when it's needed. But as far as our our standard, this is what we're proposing. 550 ft measured from the center line of the of the uh cross street there to the center of the culde-sac. We're saying 550 ft in residential zones, 750 in all other zones. Yes, sir.

K, is there any restriction on parking in that culde-sac? That seems to be a problem with a lot of places. It is a problem a lot of places, especially when people do 90° parking and they nose in right up to the curb, right? Neighbors park have their driveway or something. Does Dawn do that? Oh, okay. Um, but the, uh,

that, you know, technically to meet fire code, there should be no vehicles parked in there. And we've kind of we've had some discussion about that with the fire department. Really, the only way to address that would be to to um sign that as a fire lane, no parking, so that it could be enforced. Regular no parking probably stripe it or something to

Yeah, it would probably probably be red curb all the way around and and sign it as no parking. The challenge with that is, you know, someone comes over to visit somebody who lives in there or they need to just drop something off and they stop and they park there, you know, how how strict is too strict, right? So, we've kind of left that. I don't think that that would change the dimensions we're proposing, but whether there end up being some parking restrictions associated with it. I think that's a a topic for another day with our fire department to try to determine what is reasonable there. You know, if there's only a couple of cars parked in there, it's usually not a problem. Um, they can usually work around them in some fashion. I think it's somebody with a trailer or a

utility trailer that some things are really they don't have it for their property, but they can park it out front. Can can I get and I apologize. I I I tried to follow along. So, we're not changing the diameters of the culde-sac as long as that entrance into the culdeac is less than 550 ft.

We're we're changing both. Because right now we're allowing a culde-sac that this radius dimension here is 50 ft which does not provide adequate fire department for fire code. We're changing that to 60. So we are making the bulb itself larger and then we're modifying the length of the culdesac to where it's a modest increase on a residential area but we're adding another couple of hundred feet for non-residential areas where culde-sacs would be. And the reason I feel like that makes sense is you, let's say you've got a culde-sac in an industrial subdivision, which we have some of those in town. Yes.

Those are those tend to be fairly large lots. You're not really serving a lot of of of properties within that culde-sac. Um, you know, allowing that to be somewhat longer. um doesn't uh carry the same um what negatives that you have in in a residential area. In the residential area, you know, we talked about that that uh you know, we a minute ago we were we were looking at, you know, Cedar Meadows and and Iron West and the fact that you can't get back and forth between them. Well, a culde-sac is kind of that same thing. You've got you've got an area there that you cannot access anything to to either side. There's only one way in and out. Um someone who lives in the back of the culde-sac and they've got somebody else backed up to them. It's a long ways around to get there. You don't have that street connectivity that helps neighborhoods be cohesive. So really when it comes to development layout and and how that supports, you know, traffic flow, utility connections, neighbors being able to visit neighbors, the the most efficient layout is a grid, right? And and any culde-sac is kind of a negative to that, although we recognize that there are people who really enjoy living in culde-sacs, right? So, so this is trying to balance that. We're trying to say, okay, culde-sacs can be allowed, but there should be a limit on on their length. And um so that anyway, that's kind of what we're trying to accomplish. So, there are cities even here in Utah that say in new development, culde-sacs are not allowed period.

Really? Yes. Wow. And we we didn't want to go to that point, but we thought, you know, let's make sure we have some reasonable limits and on the culde-sac length and make sure that the culde-sacs meet fire code. Yes. Are you locked into the 60 foot? What if 65 would give you 10 more feet of circle as that? Would that be an advantage for the city?

I think that uh the the you know, we we you do start running into um issues of how you're going to make that work when you're trying to lay a subdivision out, right? You've got this road going back in there that has lots on either side. You get to the culde-sac bowl, but now those lots have to take on a completely different shape to make them work. And you still have to meet setback requirements off of that ride-of-way line. And it starts getting very difficult to fit a home in there, right? And so the larger we make that, the more the more we're making it really difficult for people to I just wondered if access

for five foot on each side would be better. Yeah. We we were kind of viewing the 60 ft as a as more of a practical maximum. And right now we're at 55 ft. We're 50 50 feet. Okay. Yeah. So we're adding 10T to that radius. adding 20 feet to the diameter. And you guys have analyzed to make sure that lots can still adequately be developed.

Yeah. And there are a lot of cities that are that have the 60 ft requirement um because of fire code and uh yeah, it it it still works. Did you know the developers have to plan for it as they're laying out their subdivision? Maybe they don't make those lots on either side of that road as shallow as they might otherwise. you know, maybe they make them a little deeper and a little narrower so that they get enough depth that they can make the culde-sac bulb work. But but yeah, we get it too big, it becomes problematic for them. It really does. And we didn't we didn't want to create problems. 60 ft is still workable in a development layout, but it accomplishes what we need to with fire code compliance.

Okay. And then the other part of this, if I could jump to it, and and and Tom, you brought this up a minute ago about when do you need a a a turnaround at the end of a stub street is essentially, I think, what you were asking about. So, what our current standard says is that if measured from this ride ofway line, you go more than 30 feet, then there needs to be a temporary turnaround. Um, the big problem I see with that, and let's go back, if you don't mind, to this map. I thought it was 200 feet.

It's 30 feet in our current standards. 30 or 35. I could be wrong. It might be 35. It's one of those two numbers. It starts with a three, and it's only a two-digit number.

Um, the uh um but you look at something like this. Let me let me kind of zoom in here a little bit to this stub road in mountain shadows. Okay, if we this is more than 30 ft long. If you tried to put a temporary turnaround there, you're going to leave one or both of these lots basically unbuildable until the road goes through. And then when someone tries to connect to it, you've got this section of roadway that's not even built for them to be able to connect to. So what that ends up being the way our standard is currently written and you're you're right that it used to be longer and it was shortened to the 30 ft at one point in time. But what uh what uh we're you know our current requirement we're saying on the one hand in one of the other items you looked at tonight that we want interconnectivity. So, we want to have streets stubbed out to adjo a joining property that can then be extended in the next development over. And our maximum length of a stub without putting in a temporary turnaround is working against us. It's it's making it difficult for developers to do what we're asking them to do. So, we wanted to re we want to remove that barrier to getting these um roadways, you know, stubbed to the to the end of their development so that they can be extended in the future. And that's why we're looking at a longer distance. We're looking at going back closer to what to what the old standard was before we shortened it up to the 30 ft. Um, but what we're doing here, we're using the same measurement standard going from the center line of the of the cross street and we're saying 150 ft maximum. That's what the fire code says is the maximum length of a dead end without a turnaround under fire codes. They're

saying if it's 150 ft or less, there's no reason to have a turnaround. The fire department doesn't need to go in there and turn around. Over 150 ft, you need to. So, so that's why we're saying 150 ft on this and measuring it in the fashion that that uh with we had agreed with the fire department was the most um consistent with the fire code measuring from the center line of the cross street. So that's what we've got there. So, if I if we excuse me,

if we take everything from what we've talked about on this drawing and go back to the text of our standard, then what we're saying is that culde-sac streets in residential zoning districts, excuse me, in residential zoning districts shall not exceed 550 ft in length from the center line of cross street to center point of culde-sac. Then we say culde-sac streets and all other zoning districts shall not exceed 750 ft in length from center line of cross street to center point of culde-sac. Then we say the turnaround radius at property line of culdesac streets in all zones shall be not less than 60 ft. So before it said not less than 50 ft for residential areas and 60 ft for commercial and industrial areas. Now we're saying 60 feet everywhere. Okay. Okay, the wording already had in there, paper culde-sacs with curb gun or sidewalk will be required on the permanent end of any city street. Then we've added this language here. We're saying a temporary culdesac is required on any street that ends in a temporary dead end where the length of the street is longer than 150 ft from center line of cross street to temporary dead end. or we've added another provision here where one or more lots front the dead end street that do not have frontage on the cross street. So we're saying if you just have the corner lots and you're stubbing a street in between them, there's no reason to put a temporary turnaround on the end unless it's excessively long. You know, these are big lots that it's really long. We might still need a temporary turnaround. Um but if it's, you know, shorter, um there we're saying there's not a reason to because those corner lots, I mean, we can still pick up garbage. They can put their cans out on the the other street

where we can pick them up, right? Um we generally, if it's just a short stub between two houses, we generally don't need to plow snow in that. And so that kind of works out for us. But if we've got a house back in behind one of the corner houses that has their frontage onto it, that changes things. You know, now their frontage where they're going to want to put their garbage can is back in there. You know, we need we need to now plow snow because that's the only way to their house. Um and so that's why we in inserted that language about, you know, that if uh where was it? One or more lots.

Yeah. where one or more lots front the dead end street that do not have frontage on the cross street. Uh, so this was something I discussed with our street superintendent and our water superintendent, you know, talking about how can we make this work. This was pro wording that they were comfortable with. Um, you know, in our engineering standards, once again, if there's a reason to make an exception somewhere or maybe they can provide a hammerhead turnaround that would be acceptable to fire or, you know, when we can go on, maybe, you know, maybe there are some cases where we could approve it, you know, working with the fire department to to be able to do so. But generally speaking, there would need to be a temporary turnaround if they if they have lots of front it or it's longer than 150 ft. Sounds like a lot of thoughts gone into this.

Yeah, we we've we've tried. So, um, but I don't know if you have any other questions or do you have any concerns with this? Anything you think we've missed the mark on? So, Kent, I So, when I when most people think of culde-sac, they're thinking a dead end with a round circle. I went for a drive a couple weeks ago out. It's funny, we're having this discussion out in Enique area. Mh. uh um out behind Spanish trails where those modular homes are. Um it's a real long road and they have three culde-sacs, but they're not dead ends. They they widen out. Mhm.

Is that classified as a culde-sac also?

I I would say no, but I mean there there are reasons to do that. Sometimes that works well. Sometimes they'll do that where they need a temporary turnaround, but they don't want to just end the improvements with a gravel turnaround. You'll build something like that and then just have a short stub going out of it and then the next phase comes and you can pick it up and take it further, right? There are various reasons why someone might want to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still have you still have a long dead end. So it doesn't in that sense it it may or may not that would be up to the interpretation of the fire marshall and fire chief that may or may not overcome the fire code compliance issue but but there are reasons that it makes sense sometimes to do what what you saw there.

Okay. I didn't know if that would be a a replacement for the 550 ft if we had if we had those all the way along every 550 ft. one of those. So, one what one of those types of things could do is say there's a situation where you know what for trying to develop the property with topographical barriers around it that you can't really access any other way. We say you know what this needs to be at 800t 900t long culde-sac well the mitigation to that might be to do exactly what you're talking about mid at the midpoint. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. So if someone wants to make a change because it doesn't make sense, do they still have to go through the whole planning commission and the or do you have as as this engineer say look you know we understand we can we can so city council agreed to shift um variances to engineering standards from them to the city engineer to allow the city engineer to work with developers to come up with a good solution and move forward. I'm glad to hear that because it's a daunting it can be daunting to to a lot of people.

Now, obviously, if uh if I as the city engineer or a future city engineer were to make a decision that the developer wasn't happy about, they can always appeal that. Right. Right. And we're not trying to take away their ability to to appeal that and take an issue before city council if they feel like it needs to go before city council. But but the city council has empowered us to to to work with developers to resolve issues to meet, you know, specific circumstances associated with the development and move forward. Love to hear that. Love to hear that.

Thank you, Kent. That was an excellent presentations. I know that fire trucks and school buses shall venerate your name forever after for increasing the size of the culde-sac bulb. Yeah. I think it'll be great. Um, this is a public hearing, so we'll open it. Seeing none, we'll close it and entertain a motion. I'll make a positive recommendation for um to approve SE section 3.2.3 regarding cold. Have a motion. I'll second the cold sack proposal

and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Nay. And the motion carries. And with that, we adjourn the meeting. I want Kent to explain the word cold sack. Why?