Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, looks like we got enough to start. So, let's go ahead and get going. Welcome to Cedar City Planning Commission, uh, May 5th, 2026. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Um, Don, would you lead us? Please follow me in the pledge. 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. Thank you. Stand. Yeah, that was a move. That was a move.

All right. Um, we could start with approval of the minutes dated April 21st. If we have a motion, I'll make a motion to approve the minute. Motion to approve. Yeah. Second. Um dated um April 21st, 2026. Sorry. Second. Motion in a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? No. All right. Looks like uh we got to start out with Kent who got delayed from last time. So, yeah. So, I requested to go first on the agenda so that people didn't get tired and push me off again. It's a good move.

Okay. So, what we uh what we have before you tonight are some proposed um amendments to our engineering standards. Um the uh I I am going to ask though I'm going to I'm going to explain both of these to you, but I'm going to ask you to not act on one of them be and I'll tell you why as as I go through it. But uh so what we were looking at on this was some changes to our standards for some of our concrete details, the curbon gutter and the driveways. Um so first let's talk about curbon gutter. And this is actually the one I'm going to ask you not to take action on. So this is our existing um standard drawing with one a just a couple of modifications. We added a couple of notes on this. What we're wanting to do is is specify instead of this being our standard curb and gutter type with our 7-in high curb and everything that we have going on here, we were going to recommend that instead uh detail out of the uh Utah APWA standard uh drawings be our our standard curbon gutter. And um it gets us to a 6-in high curb, which makes it a lot easier to make drive approaches and ADA access and stuff work than with the taller 7-in curb. Um we would still have taller curb available in our standards where we need it. If we have a location where we need to carry a lot of drainage water, for instance, we could still put a taller curb. But this was what we were proposing as our standard curb. the and the what our intent here was and let me go back to these notes and to tell you.

So we were saying that the standard curb would be AP Utah APWA standard plan 205 type A curb and gutter 30 in the one I was just showing you. But then we were saying that other curb types, including the ones in our current standard drawings, sheets C1 and C1A of our standard details, would be ones that are available um for use if approved by the city engineer because they're all curbs that there can be circumstances where that's our best solution. And we so we didn't want to just get rid of everything else. We wanted to just um say that no, those require special approval. A good example would be if we're filling in a piece of curb and gutter between two existing portions of curb and gutter that were built to one of our old standard details. Of course, we want to fill that in with the same curbon gutter rather than transition and transition right back, right? Um so we would we would keep everything that we have, but we were going to specify this. Now, here's the the reason I'm going to ask you not to take action on this this uh this curb detail. I had a contractor come in and talk to me about this. He's familiar with this detail um from work in other cities and he was telling me that the the problem with this is that there ends up being a lot more concrete in this curbon gutter than in our our current any of our current uh uh details. the the way that this has been drawn with where the front of this ends up being 9 and 1/2 in thick, you're down to 6 in by the time you get to the flow line of the of the gutter, but out at the lip it's 9 and 12 in thick. It ends up taking a lot of concrete. And so there was uh contractor I was talked to

had concerns about that. He was recommending that we go with more of this type of curb, this type HB30-7. That's another type that's in the Utah PWA standard plans. Um, that has the 7-in high curb to be able to handle more water when needed. But he's saying if we could develop more like a 6-in high curb version of this drawing, um he said it would save a considerable amount of money for the developers, not requiring so much extra concrete that really doesn't serve that much of a purpose.

20% 50%.

Um I don't remember the exact number, but it was enough that it was going to add um what did he tell me? He gave me a number of how much per foot it adds. And when you when you look at a at a typical subdivision that might have couple of thousand feet of curbon gutter, it was substantial what it would add. It would would add quite a bit of uh of cost. And so we're proposing to come back to you with a uh a revised essentially a revised version of this um uh curb type from the Utah APWA standard plans. Um but we are not ready to present that here tonight. When

you say a revised vision, you said it's seven in to bring it down to 6 in. That's correct. That's your idea of the revise? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I apologize for being late. I was here at 5:55. Well, that's what we heard. And so we were all wondering why you weren't in here just and then I wandered off. [laughter] He stormed off in a huff. That's not me. Oh.

All right. So So that's that's the deal with the curb. We do we do still want to um you know modify adopt the um you know a a new curb section from the one we're using now with the 7-in high curb. And you know this this if we modify this to the 6-in height, it gets us the height of curb we want. we still get the full six inches of thickness underneath the flow line that uh you know that the other plan provided that we were in intending to go to. Um but it uh it resolves the issue of requiring a lot more concrete. So

may I ask a question? Sure. Uh in the last 20 years, we've come up with some different additives to concrete such as fiber meshes and then long fiber meshes. And if we reduce the the amount of concrete thickness, but we reinforced it with a some type of fiber mesh type material. Yeah. Yeah. Would that potentially allow us a cost savings in less concrete but more strengthened concrete?

Um, that that's a good question. The challenge with that, you've got two ways to reinforce it. Uh, one, you can use rebar, which gets rather expensive. The other option you can do is to use the fiber mesh. There are issues with the fiber mesh. It's much much more difficult to work to finish. Um and it uh it can be a challenge for it to get that mixed uniformly and so there it it is successfully used in a lot of places. Um I'm a little bit wary of it. I I I'm not sure that it would really be doing anyone any favors by adopting a standard that used the fiber

gold has turned into like Bitcoin and gold. I mean, concrete has it's gotten so expensive. Yeah. And that's and that's why we want to come up with a different option than what I showed you initially with this right here with that really thick concrete on the front

cuz cuz yeah, concrete has gotten quite expensive and uh um that yeah, it makes sense that we try to come up with a a section that that works better for us. This one that's in here is actually based on what UD do has. Um but yeah, it's a it's a lot of concrete. So, we'll come back to you. We're going to come come through again with uh um updates to our um corner pedestrian ramps for ADA. Um and we can bring this this uh curb section back to you again um with with that when we come back through. So, that's uh that's where I'd like to go with that. The other item that we had on this with the standard details is our standard detail C3 for driveways. The the challenge we run into with this one, let me scroll down to it. Um, our standard detail, this this detail for how you build a drive approach with the sidewalk coming through is completely out of compliance with ADA and has been for many, many years. Um, but for some reason, it's still in our standards. Um, so we have standards that really require construction that is nonADA compliant. Obviously, that needs to be fixed. And so what we are doing is we're saying, "Yeah, this doesn't this doesn't work. We can't do that." And so what we're proposing instead is our standard detail C3 would just include the notes of what to use for drive approaches. And we've pointed out three of the plans in the Utah APWA standard plans, plans 215, 221, and 222

that would be acceptable for use um at any location on driveways. And then there are some additional ones that are part of the standard plans that could be approved for a specific purpose. And so this is what we're we're proposing. So, this would be one of the standard plans that would be acceptable that is ADA compliant. Um, the difference between this and our standard plan is the entire width of the sidewalk gets ramped down and then you go through the drive approach and then it ramps back up at the other at the other side. So, we keep the cross slope on the sidewalk here through the drive approach ADA compliant. we keep that to 2% or less um so that we don't have an ADA violation there at those at those drive approaches. You know, just kind of anecdotally, as I go out to walk around my neighborhood to stretch my legs and get a few steps in, I won't walk on the sidewalk because those drive approaches are too hard for me to walk through. Um, you know, with uh, you know, getting on that slope and and me being a little unstable on my feet and uh, with my cane and everything, I have a hard time walking on it. And so I will walk on the asphalt the entire time that I'm out taking my walk around the neighborhood. Um, rather than try to get on the sidewalk, off the sidewalk, on off because I it's just too hard to walk through the drive approaches that are non 88.

Some of them are scary.

Yeah. So that's so this is this is one of this well all of the details in here meet ADA but this is one that we think is a good option. Um there they do show on here a curb that could be put in if necessary. There's really an option if you build this type that you either just bring your grading down to match the concrete as it comes around here, right? Or if you want the the grading on the lot to to match the sidewalk here and the driveway back here, you can put a curb in there to retain that that slope that those few inches of of soil there. Um, so this is a a an optional thing that can be built if necessary. If it's not necessary, you don't build it. But this is an option that gets you that ADA compliance um without requiring any additional right of way. It all happens within the ride ofway. The rideway line would still be just behind the sidewalk here and this whole sidewalk stays within the ride ofway. So, that's that's one option. If we go to uh to standard plan um 221, this is showing us what the drive approach would look like if we have a planner strip, right? And that is something Well, we do have some planner strips in some parts of town. uh in some of the older neighborhoods, not in all of them, but in some of the older neighborhoods we do. And that's something that we are considering for new development in the future is is planter strips, at least as an option. Um and um so this is how you achieve that. You you you put in your your driveway apron in the planter strip. The sidewalk can just stay at the same elevation, same cross slope going straight through. Doesn't cause any problems. So that's a good solution to

get ADA compliance. And then the third one that is a good solution is you build the drive apron there in the approach the same as what we do now, but the difference is that's no longer the sidewalk coming through here. The sidewalk you route around behind the drive apron

over the onto the people's driveway. you you route it back out. In this case, it would be outside of the ride ofway. Yes. So then you have you have a couple of things that can be done. If someone were to choose to to use this option, then there would need to be an easement granted for that public sidewalk to uh encroach onto their lot. Um this is something that we could very easily um make a standard part of our subdivision plat. We have a front uh public utility easement. We could have that easement also include public sidewalk easement so that anywhere that the sidewalk needed to encroach into that it could and the easement would be there for that. Um, but if we if someone wanted to implement this solution, if they if they felt like this worked better for their home build there, um, than ramping the entire width of the sidewalk down and back up, then they could do it. We just we just need to have an easement for it.

My only struggle with this one is driveways are 25 ft long and everybody's driving 30 foot long trucks. Yeah, that is a concern that you're you're absolutely right on that. That that is a that is a concern, but this would be an acceptable type. But well, based on that comment, Tom, uh are you of the opinion that this should be more of an optional one where we have the space? I don't think we should offer it

because you're going to get there's crazy people out there and you get too close to cars or someone's bumping up against someone's But if there's if there's plenty of room between the rideaway line and the front of the garage for parking without getting too close to it, I just know that people could leave it as an option, but it's not an option. Yeah. So, this this could certainly be moved to the list of ones that require specific approval for their project. Yeah. If you're more comfortable, keep enough driveways and so forth. An increase front set back or the other option is we increase front setback. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's not a good option

and that that has its its challenges. Yeah. So, this is a um Yeah. If you if you would would like to make that part of your recommendation to city council that that this go on the uh requires approval list and not the uh um already approved list, that that's certainly that would certainly be a reasonable recommendation to make to city council. the other cur the other drive approach types that are in the Utah APWA standard drawings. Um this one here is um really looking at a retrofit situation um on a uh um where you have a a planner strip. Um it can certainly be used. It's ADA compliant. It's very similar to the second drawing I showed you when you have a planner strip. Um, yeah, we just put this on the list that it can be approved where it where it makes sense, where it's where it's needed. The other one that's on that list is this one right here. This one here is is similar to what we have with our low profofile curb, except it's not low profile. It's a similar shape, but it's not low profile. These are a little bit um they can be a little bit difficult to drive through. There's a there's a pretty good bump there, but they are mountable. A a vehicle can make it through. Um this is uh if if if anyone was here for the city council discussions we had about a drive approach over in the Fiddler's Canyon area um that the neighbors were looking for some relief on. This would be similar to that, right? And for a single drive approach, that one was serving a private road, right? And so you had a lot of traffic having to go through it. For a single drive approach coming into

into your driveway, this is certainly workable. Um there may be locations where this is the best option. And so we wanted to still include that as something that we could approve on a case-by case basis. But this also meets ADA because the the sidewalk is just it's just a normal sidewalk running straight through. The the sidewalk doesn't vary other than that it needs to be thickened through the drive approach. Other than that, it looks just like all the rest of the sidewalk on the street. the uh and then there's um this other option that could be approved where it makes sense and that is to actually put a curb return where where you have a planner strip. Um you have this is an option that could potentially be utilized if there's a reason for it where instead of just a flare you actually put in a curb return on both sides coming into that drive approach. So there's it certainly meets ADA. it uh it is something that uh you know if there's a a project that that's the the best solution we could we could give them the go-ahhead to use this option. So those are the oh there's I forgot there's still some other ones too. So and we have some of this in our current standard drawings where you're actually bridging over the flow line of the gutter. Um, this is not something we would that we typically do, but there are there are two occasions where this can be extremely helpful. One is if we have a really deep gutter that's carrying irrigation water, which we have a number of those in the older part of town, the bridge is a good solution for that. The other um application where this can make some sense is if we've got a lot someone's trying to build on and the steepness of that lot is such that it is really hard to position the house, get it at an elevation that works and get the driveway workable to be able to

get up to the garage. Right? if we did a bridge like this that that helps get get you started a little higher before you start heading up that driveway. And so this is something we do want to have as some that can be considered on a case-byase basis. If there's a reason why why it should be considered we can't. So this would uh you know would still be part of our standards and then this is just a different version of the of the same thing you know but those are ones that would require um approval for their use. We would just have the uh you know the others the first three I showed you that would be the automatic uh already approved that they can just use at their option. Um except that we're talking about this one here. if you choose to recommend so being one that would require approval, right? And and and that approval can consider how far back is the garage, do we have adequate depth that this is workable without people having to park on the sidewalk, right? So, that's uh my presentation on that. Are there any questions I can answer for you on these? Well, if we're doing a a motion eventually,

how do we identify the different ones, you know, because there is the one that that we all I think we're kind of agreeing that we should say that it requires approval. Yeah. For Okay. And so I'm asking you to not take action on the first one on the revisions to uh what would basically be our existing standard details C1 and C1A. Okay.

You know, we'll just leave that alone for now, right? Um but then on C3, yeah, the what you would want if if you wanted to, you know, do what we were talking about that plan was plan number 221. Let me scroll back to it just to make sure I'm remembering that correctly. So why we're doing this me Dallas if I may impose you're kind of a a developer designer work for do a lot of subdivisions and and so forth. So you have a lot of you you guys do this all day long.

Yeah, I was going to say if you put this in front of my items then I'm obligated to comment on it. Um [clears throat] so um the the curb the curb change specifically on the 6 inch to 7 in the the pro and I think the reason why the city's proposing it is to help with the ADA compliance and the height. Um the con to it is the storm water capacity in the road. And so if you go from the 7 in to the 6 in, what you have with the current 7 in on a road crosssection on like a standard 45 ft ride ofway, you can get the storm water to over top the crown, which increases the cross-sectional area of what you can carry in the road. And so the hesitation that I would have in changing it from seven to six specifically if we're going to adopt additional driveways that can be compliant in other configurations is just that if you change it to six and you remove the capacity in the road then you're going to introduce more storm drain that's required because your road capacity is reduced and that's going to translate relate to increased cost of storm drain. And then depending on where most of the development nowadays is heading into the valley where it's flat with not a lot of slope, um as soon as you introduce storm drains at very flat slopes, those pipes don't have a lot of capacity. And so when you don't have a lot of capacity, you then have to go to a bigger pipe. And then as soon as you get the the deeper you go, the harder it is to get that to discharge. And so it just kind of cascades into if

you reduce the road capacity, then you're going to introduce storm drain. And then to carry that increased capacity, you're going to have to go to bigger storm drain pipes, which is going to push you deeper, which then pushes your basins down further. And then in a lot of the valley scenarios um that we're seeing today, there is no storm drain outfall lines to discharge. And so you're just making deeper and deeper basins. Um, and so that's the that would be the concern with changing the detail is if if there's a way to make the driveways compliant and preserve the capacity in the roads, um, then I would be more in favor of adopting the driveway and keeping the curb to preserve just because of storm drains expensive. And then in the flat in the flat areas to really carry any water, you have to go bigger than the city's minimum. Um, and then on the on the driveway side, I think that so the mechanics of what the city's changed as far as sidewalks. So now the sidewalks can be deferred for the and I haven't done a project with the new ones, but it can be deferred for 12 months, 18 months, something

up to two years. Up to two years. And so I think that with these changes and the options, I think you almost have to like unilaterally say pees or because I don't know how you like when we do a subdivision, we're going to lay out lots and then we're going to put the curbs in and then we're going to show a sidewalk. But as far as which one of these driveway approaches is going to be adopted,

I have no idea. No one has any idea, especially if you're a developer and then you're just selling lots to somebody. And so I think the pee um the pee public sidewalk easement is has to be mandatory because otherwise it's enforced on the building permit and then you're granting easements on a per. So, I think that's a great addition to give the flexibility with the different driveways.

Um, but I don't know if the APWA I'm I've only really worked with APWA recently in Perowin. Um, but I'm not very familiar with the standards overall like in with the Cedar City details, but I I believe that most of the APWA is all based on 6-in curbs. Um, for the most part, yes, they, you know, APWA does have some taller curb types like the one I showed that was seven inches, but but yeah, for the most part, they are 6 in curbs. And so, but I guess the the thing that I'm wondering from the mechanic standpoint, at least on the subdivision and construction drawings, is we go through and model a road and we show the six or seven inch curb, whatever it ends up being, and then developer doesn't put the sidewalk in and then sells the lots. and then they either jog the sidewalk around it and pour a driveway, rip out and put the more aggressive lowprofile curb in. Um, but I think with the different options in driveways, I think virtually no one's putting sidewalk in except on major roads.

Yeah, that's true. because because of how who knows how the houses are going to because no one knows where the driveways are going to be until you're pulling a permit. And so I would which I I don't think is a bad thing. I was just more so thinking out loud. Yeah. Well, it's really the same problem we have now, right? They're pulling out the cur they're cutting the curb down and pulling out the sidewalk and then doing the drive approach, right? But that's where I think if you make the pee the mandatory then that

if well especially if we do offer the uh the 221.2 is the name of that drawing in case you wanted to know that shows the sidewalk routed around the drive approach. Um, yeah, if that is one of the pre-approved options, then I think you're right that we would need to make the the uh public sidewalk easement be a standard requirement on the subdivision plat. Yeah, that that would be really the only way to make that workable. If it's not one of our standard options, then they have to have special approval to do it. Then maybe asking for the easement at that time isn't isn't as big of an ask. But

I don't think you're going to know that until the building permit, right? No, it would come at the building permit time. That's correct. Yeah. Thank you, Dallas. Jennifer, did that answer your question? [laughter] And some I need that in a third grade level, please. So, so, but no, I think that

I I I I do think that Dallas brings up um some some good points, you know, in in terms of the carrying capacity, the water carrying capacity of the curb. Um, as we are trying to revisit our drainage standards as well, um, I'm of the opinion that our drainage standards aren't up to what they need to be. Um, and so we're looking at modifications there. Um, as we get into that, it's it's my opinion and and Dallas, you can plug yours so you don't hear this and then I won't make you mad. Um, no, I'm just kidding. the um I think that we the way we currently operate I think we're trying to carry water entirely too far in the gutters. I think there should be um inlets at at much closer spacing than what we have now to minimize the amount of water that's on the road and get that water, you know, in an underground system and uh and not have it just be be flowing down the gutter. And I think we es especially need to get rid of what we have in our current standards where we allow water. We even have standard details for it of boxes we build to allow water to get that's already in pipes to get discharged into the street. I I don't think that that's good practice. Um I think it may have made some sense when we're developing primarily in the hilly territory and trying to get water to go the direction you want when it wants to go another direction and some of those things. it might have made some sense but but we may be come back with some some modifications there or we may not um or or you may not recommend those that we approve them right and uh but yeah as if

we continue to operate the way we are in how the water is collected and ultimately um discharged somewhere um then then yes the the carrying capacity of that gutter is a is an issue that needs to be considered and so that's as we're revisiting this to get ready to bring it back to you um you know later with uh addressing these curb types. Um that's another good point that Dallas brings up that we need to consider in that evaluation. [clears throat] So, in making a motion on this, and I don't want to cut your legs up on anything. No.

On making a motion on this, would we just read the uh concrete details and say make a motion to approve those as is the exception of 221.2, right? If you would like to have 220. So, 221. Let me let me scroll down to 221 here really quick. Okay. Oh yeah. So 2 221

you have this drawing which is fine. If there's a planner strip this is a good drawing, right? Two that's 221.1. 221.2 is the one that you that that Tom you brought up that maybe maybe this shouldn't be one of the pre-approved options. If that's what you would like to include in your recommendation to city council is that this not be one of the pre-approved options, then then basically instead of saying um you know that uh well I mean you could read this off exactly in your motion if you wanted to, but instead of saying 221 here, you'd say 221.1 and then you'd add 221.2 two to this list of ones that require approval.

Thank you, Ken. All right. Um, it is a public hearing, so we'll open the public hearing. [laughter] Um, name

Dallas Buckner, private citizen. um on the so because one of the things that I thought is as far as making the ADA compliance is more widely adopting the rolled curb and then I think I don't know if the city's made changes or just talked about making changes but one of the things that prohibits it is the 6-in reinforced sidewalk behind it but there's currently the city allows the rolled curb or the lowprofile curb um in certain zones phones. I don't think it's allowed in R3. Um, but that's another one that as far as keeping cuz the the one where the 221 point where the sidewalk jogs around is fairly common in other places, but there's the issue it creates here is that the ride ofways are a certain size and then it pushes them into the lots. Um, but it's it's prettyly pretty widely adopted in other places where the ride where the smaller or the residential roads are are less. But I is there a rolled curb option with just replacing the sidewalk where you could adopt that

in all residential zones and probably not major connectors and arterials. Right.

So, and the the challenge with with that is we don't have in either our current details or the APWA details, we don't have a true rolled curb, right? Um but any of these like this type H here, which is very similar to our current um drawing here for our low profile, right? it is you you know once again you don't get the drainage carrying capacity and that right that's one of the concerns we've we've had with this one all along um there are places that it can make some sense and I know you had a project come through last year or late the year previously on uh over at Ironhawk Town Homes where that variance was granted to use this even with that R3M project right and um you know and so There are there are locations where that is a good option um and could be approved on a uh let's see where did it go. Oh, in the driveway details if we were to use um you know because of the uh concerns with the um you know with the u you know carrying capacity of the roadway. If we wanted an option that can still carry all the water that it needs to carry, this would be that option. And it's uh it's a little more challenging for for drivers as they drive through it. It's very workable. It can work. It's uh you know, especially for just I mean, if this were at my house, I don't know that it would bother me that much because I'm going slow when I pull in my driveway anyway,

right? But uh but yeah, this is an option that would work that keeps the carrying capacity. The low profile really doesn't keep the carrying capacity, right? So, but yeah, I think that with uh on on this one though, are you removing like are you saw cutting the entire curb and repouring the whole curb versus doing a curb cut how driveways are now come I'm sorry. So if so if we just put a standard L curb in in a subdivision Uhhuh. and then someone wants to put this in at their driveway, you're saw cutting and repporting the entire curb to make this curb and then pouring the sidewalk behind it.

That wouldn't be u most likely you would be you could uh I don't know if a concrete sawing professional could could cut this. Yeah. Nobody I know I would trust to do it. Yeah. Yeah. It would be tough because this this part here is really warped. I don't know how you even do that with a straight saw blade. That requires an artistry. I don't think most guys uh Yeah. So, so yes, you would you would likely be pulling the curb and gutter and replacing it. That is correct.

So, may I interject one thing here? We were just speaking of roll curbs and then you were speaking uh you would like to see us change some things for more inlet going along. So, the curbs wouldn't be carrying as much water if we had more inlets. Would a roll curb concept work if we replace the row curb and add more inlets so we're not carrying the same capacity of water? That that certainly could work. Is that the right solution? I don't know. I mean, Dallas brought up the the point that if we took that route, we're going to be putting more pipe in the ground.

Yeah. and uh and which has a cost component to it. Absolutely. I was thinking the the roll curb cost may offset the cost of the traditional el curb el curb curb. Yeah.

Uh and offset the cost of [clears throat] some of the p I've just gone by what both of you said. I'm trying to mesh the two. So that so that is something that you know in terms of the of the um curb type selection that is something we want to evaluate further. Um we do though we would have this if you if you uh you know approve all of this and we are recommended and city council gives us final approval. you know, this would be an option. What you see on the screen right now would be an option that we could utilize um if there's a reason to utilize it, right? And and this could even potentially, you know, be something that someone comes in and says, "We want to do our whole residential subdivision that's all on local streets, not on any major streets. We want to to just use the uh that mountable curb on all of it or or a variation that really this refers to this drawing actually refers to a a plan that no longer exists in the APWA plan set. I'm on the committee now and this is something I need to get fixed, right? Um but there is no type D any longer. There was at one time, but this would be something that someone could do. you know, they could come in with a proposal to do something like this and just say, you know, I've got this whole block that this is what we want to put in. All the driveways are going to look like this and we could consider that and and if that makes sense for that situation, we could approve that, right?

Is this a cheaper curb? No, I would say probably not. It it could be slightly, but it's not I don't think it's going to be significantly cheaper. the carrying capacity. Is there any difference

with this? What you see on the screen right here, it would still have the same carrying capacity because it would have the it's the full height curb. It's not a low profile. And so that that sloped section that you see on the front of it is a little more aggressive. It's not as e as gentle to drive through as our lowprofile curb is. It seems like there's a lot of ADA corners in town with sevenin curbs that work just fine. What's the concern? Um, well, yeah, they work because we're ramping down, you know, to to to get down to the landing level at the bottom and and yeah, that works fine. It's it's the drive approaches is where we have the big problem. And one one challenge we have all over town really is um driveways drive approaches that are difficult to drive through um because they're so they feel so abrupt when you go through them. The higher that curb is the more abrupt it's going to feel when you drive through them. And so that's that's one of the reasons why we would like to have a 6-in curb as our standard curb. um and have, you know, a taller curb just be an option that's used where we have a need to carry more water.

Good. Dallas, anything else? Interesting. Hour and a half ago, I liked my driveway. Now I'm not sure what to think about it, but [laughter] um Okay, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for a recommendation. Any other I'm put it on Jennifer. No, no, I'm putting it on Tom. So, if you go to the beginning, bring down the wording and he'll the wording. Yeah.

Okay. I make a motion to approve the concrete details on C3 driveways details and noted deleted. Notes deleted. New notes added. Um, use Utah APWA standard plans 215, 221, 221.1, 221.2, and 222. And 21.2. We want to delete, right? We want to move it. We want to move it to the You talked about moving 221.2 to the second list. Yeah.

Thank you. So take out remove 221.2 and then um and then city engineer approval required for use of standard plans 216 225 and 2 229 and 221.2 and but I thought I just Oh and 221.2. Thank you. There you go. You got it. That was a combined effort. Second We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any oppose? Motion carries. Thank you very much. That was a a lot. I'm glad we got you worked in. I wanted you to do it.

All right. Next, um we have an amended plat. It's going to be a public hearing, but it is a staff decision in the end. So, uh for the purpose of the public hearing, we'll do that here and uh let Dallas go ahead and share with us what he's got. Yep. Dallas Buckner go civil. Uh this is out in Black Rockck. Um this is an undeveloped uh unit out there and the gentleman that has purchased it uh has looked at it and with some of the improvements out there wants to they're struggling

keep the same uh dimensions, square footage, but just wants to rotate it to fit the existing conditions. And so it's to the left a little bit. This one? Nope. left right there. 338 North. Yep. So, that one. So, um the square on there is what was platted. We're just kind of rotating it a little bit. You can see in the aerial imagery, uh there's a wall kind of on that top corner. And so, we're just kind of spinning it to give a better buildable footprint based on existing conditions. um and he's we've worked with staff to get um approval on the map and then uh the owner has gotten a vote from the HOA because we're amending the piece that he owns and then we're also slightly amending the common space area of the HOA.

Just make sure I'm clarifying for the record, the square footage of each is remaining the same. The private versus the common property remains the same. Correct. Yeah. So, the unit the unit is not changing. So, we're just rotating. Perfect. The reason why I'm asking that question, just so you know, we have another subdivision of PUB that's trying to do this except they're trying to shrink the common area and give more of it to each of the private owners because that changes interest of value like how much there is. We have to get all the banks to sign off in the entire subdivision. So, thank you for not actually.

Thank you. Any questions, commission? If not, it is a public hearing. We'll open the public hearing. Anybody wish to speak to this? If not, uh we'll close the public hearing and leave it to staff to decide. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Um next is a ordinance text amendment. Can four and five be handled together? Are they the um who's who's presenting that? Parasic. Is it Parasic? Yeah, they could be done together, I think. Radiant blue construction.

Yeah, I thought the Radiant Blue construction was going to be here. They're they're not. We can still talk about it if you'd like. Don and I are prepared to talk about it. Yeah, go ahead. Let's Well, well, can we still have the public hearing on it without them here? I Yeah. Okay. Yeah, they've been All right.

Okay. So, I'll I'll start off on this. So, what they're requesting, we have minimum driveway widths in our in our standards or excuse me, maximum driveway widths well and minimum. But on a your typical home, our typical residential use, we have a maximum driveway width of 34 feet. Okay? And um on commercial and industrial, you know, the non-residentials, we do have a maximum driveway width of 50 ft. um you know, you have more needs, right? You got traffic coming in and out at the same time on those driveways. You need wider driveways. And so that's that's what our current standard has. What the request is here from the applicant is to have the um in the re zone only. They would like to see us increase the maximum driveway width for those residences to 50 feet. Okay. from

from 34 from the 34 that it is currently. This is kind of related, but if you do two driveways, how far apart do they have to be? Could you do 34 and 1 ft and 34? No. No. They they do you do have to have the separation between the two. So 12 foot and Yeah. you need you need to be able to to transition out of the drive approach into a a landing for ADA reasons and then go back into the next drive approach, right?

Um, so this is what they're requesting. If we look in the detail, they're wanting to, you know, the same thing. They want us to modify this in the detail where we have the 34T max on the residential to to give the ability for the 50ft max in the re zone. So, so that's the proposal. What what's kind of driving this is a specific [snorts] home they've run up with against an issue with where they've uh created this drive approach here that is wider than 34 ft. Um they they have a a secondary structure in the back, a cassita there at at ADU that they were wanting to have a a nice direct shot for people to be able to drive back to it from the street and and so this this was put in as the concrete uh driveway being being uh significantly wider than the 34 ft. I think it's if I remember correctly it's around 45 ft is the width that they that they put that in at. And so they were looking at this saying well in the re zones you have more frontage than you do in most of the other zones. And so they were wanting to see if if the m minimum or excuse me maximum driveway width could just be increased in the re zone. As you look around, this is in Forb Ranch, this particular location. Right across the street, you see where they've got concrete coming back. This isn't a very good picture. Apologize for that. Concrete coming back along the garage. They've kept the driveway to where it meets our standard. And then they widen it out as they come back. You go around this neighborhood, you see that in in numerous locations where that's exactly what the the the homeowners have done. and they start out narrow, they go wider.

So they're trying, this is their effort to skirt. So the question is why R why re only? Why not every zone allow it? If they can do it, what um and and that's and that's a good question. Should it apply only to the RE? No,

I think the reasoning for applying it to the RE is the fact that you have more frontage to work with. And so the negative effects of having a wider driveway, which we'll talk about here in just a minute, um are perhaps lessened to some degree in when you have wider wider frontages. But yeah, I drove through 4B Ranch the other day and I was noting, you know, all over in this uh in this development locations where, you know, we had these driveways that start out narrow and then go wide. you know, here this starts narrow and then it widens out as you come back. You know, there, you know, another one here. That's what others have done. On this one, they didn't do that. They just made the driveway wider than it's supposed to be. And then they're asking now, this actually went to board of adjustments and was uh their particular case, not the ordinance change, their particular case went to board of adjustments and was not approved. And they're looking at it for a different route. wanting this the planning commission and city council to consider the idea that perhaps a wider drive approach in this zone would be appropriate. So that's that's the proposal. So that's that part of it. I would like to you know and so we you know we've tried to take this um you know and and say okay what should we be doing here? Why do we even have the standard that we have? Right? We've asked ourselves that question. So, I'd like to run you through just a little bit of information about maximum driveway widths.

Can Can I ask you a real quick question? Sure. So, if it's 34 is the width, that's how far does the 34 have to go before you can I mean, can you go six inches and then Do you want to ask that? So, the the ordinance indicates that you can't park in the front yard setback unless it's on a permitted driveway. So, kind of like those images Kent showed you, they curve back basically to that 25 ft line and then the ordinance more or less says you're free to go RVs or whatever the case may be. Yeah, I think it's at the rightway line that they have to comply with the 34. Is that correct, Don?

It would. Yeah, it's 34 is is the driveway width. And the the way we've interpreted that is that would continue through to your front setback because your front setback in theory should be landscaped with the exception of those permitted driveways.

So, I wanted to run you through just a little bit of information about why there and and we're not the only city with maximum driveway widths, right? Every city has maximum driveway widths as far as I know. I'm not aware of one that doesn't. and and we'll get to in a minute to to some of uh you what some of the other cities around the state are doing. But the some of the key reasons for this um part of it is really safety and traffic flow. The wider that drive approach, you can have multiple vehicles coming out of it at once. You have uh less predictability on where those vehicles are coming out or a pedestrian walking down the sidewalk. they're exposed through that drive approach for a longer distance as they come through. Um the the safety aspect of it becomes more critical on major roadways than it does on subdivision streets admittedly. Um but there is there is um a a concern you know with driveway widths in general of when they get too wide they decrease the safety. So that's one reason why those these kinds of standards even exist. Another thing is is u more of an infrastructure protection. When you have a smaller regulated curb cut, then that reduces the amount of public sidewalk and curb that you're dealing with in that drive approach whenever if there's a need to make any modification there. It makes it easier to protect the underground utilities and other infrastructure. Uh drainage control. Um, when you have drive approaches, those drive approaches do limit the drainage water carrying capacity of the gutter. Even if we still have the same area, so to speak, available, you know, it's it you're changing the the the uh the shape of the channel that the water's going through. And every time you you're changing that,

you're getting some some um uh you know, head loss um on in that. And so you're reducing the carrying capacity of the of the curb and gutter. Um going on um snow storage. When we plow, the wider the drive approaches, that means the shorter the available space between drive approaches where you can pile snow. Um when you're plowing the snow, I know the last couple years haven't uh it seemed like snow plowing is an issue, but we're going to get winters again where we're plowing a lot of snow, right? and and so snow storage is is a a consideration. Aesthetics and green space when you limit, you know, that those driveway widths, it gives you more of that frontage of the lot that can be in some type of landscaping, less of it in in concrete driveway. Um, and then you get the uh on street parking when you have the wider the drive approaches, the less space there is to put snow in. Well, that's also the less space there is for people to park and uh and that can become problematic and and Don will run us through some of that here in just a second. Um what some of the common standards around the country are really you typically see on single family residential homes maximum widths somewhere between 20 and 30 feet is pretty common. Um, you know, um, there are a lot that do allow more than 30 ft, but usually not by much. Um, you know, some jurisdictions will say, okay, you have so many feet. Um, but you also have a requirement on some percentage of the lot width that can be driveway. So, the narrower your lot, the the narrower your driveway, maximum driveway would would

potentially be, right? Most places have standards on circular driveways that uh you have to have a certain amount of frontage to even be able to have more than one. But then also you a lot of times when there are circular driveways they're considered one way and they're those are actually narrowed up to somewhere in the 10 to 12 feet range in a lot of jurisdictions. Um commercial and industrial yeah those are wider. They need to accommodate more traffic. They need to accommodate traffic coming in and out at the same time and they need to generally accommodate larger vehicles. And so those we do go in the 40 to 50 foot range is pretty common um for commercial drive approaches. So I looked on this and I I pulled these cities at random. So please don't think I searched for the ones that that fit my argument because I didn't. I just I just pulled these at random and and looked at what they you know what they have. So here in Cedar City and we're talking, you know, single family residential home, just a a a house right here, right? Our standard is 34 feet. Um Salt Lake, they have uh two different widths. They allow some of their zones they only allow 22 feet on the width. Some they allow 30. But even the ones that they allow the 30, that's less than what ours are. St. George is the only one I found that allows something wider. They they were allowing up to 50 ft. Although I found conflicting information on their website on their on their widths in in in the most generous location in their in on their website, it showed 50 ft for the um for that driveway width, but you're limited to 50% of the frontage. So, if that lot's only 70 feet wide, which is what a lot of our lots are allowed to be

now, uh I think in just about all of our zones, we other than maybe the RE, we allow the the the 70T width. You know, if you were limited to 50 uh% you couldn't have more than a 35 foot wide driveway anyway in in St. George if you had a 70 foot wide lot. If you only had a 55 50 foot wide lot, you could only go 25 ft on the on the driveway. Logan looked at theirs. They came in at 22 feet, the same as what Salt Lake had on some of theirs. Provo was right about where we are at 35. Bountiful, um, 30 and Tilla was at 30. And, uh, and I was trying to pick, you know, some larger cities and cities that are more our size. As I was going through this, uh, Tilla in addition to the 30 foot maximum requirement also had, you know, that only a third of the frontage could be drive approach. So once again, if the, you know, if you had a 70 foot drive approach, a third of 70 is only like 23 feet, right? Um, so you wouldn't even be able to get 30 if you had a 70 foot wide lot. So those were just some of the things I wanted to kind of throw out. We're trying to, you know, the question was asked to me after a after uh the the sketch meeting where this where this uh request was was discussed um that the applicant had um you know, well, why do we have the standard that we have? And so, you know, as Don and I have tried to look into that, that's where the information that he and I are presenting to you has come up. So, I'm going to flip over to Don's slides, and we'll we have some repetition here, but Don will Don will find a good way to deal with that.

All right. All right. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. So, again, we're the the question is um what should the maximum driveway width be? And and why do we have these standards? And I think Kent covered a lot of what's in mind, but I think Kent liked the pictures in mine, too. So, we want to show I did like the pictures. I didn't put any pictures in mine. Uh, go ahead. Next slide. Can't.

So, here's our current standards for residential. We have minimum of a 12T for a one-way driveway. Uh, a maximum I mean, I'm sorry, minimum 24 ft for two-way access. Uh, so that's whether you know you're going to Walmart or even a multifamily home when you're trying to squeeze by another vehicle. 24T is our minimum. And then the maximum that uh Kent uh or that we're discussing is 34 feet and then a maximum uh in commercial areas of 50 ft. Uh next slide, Kent. So why do we do these things? Um I think the big kind of uh overarching argument is we're balancing access and public interest at the same time, right? So driveway with limits balance the private access with public safety that Kent talked about. infrastructure and certainly uh a little bit more in the planning realm than the engineering realm, but I think visual quality concerns in the neighborhood. What do we want and what do we expect our residential neighborhoods to look like? Uh so that's proportionality and neighborhood character. Standards match driveway size to reasonable property access while preserving green space and residential buffers and also gives the neighborhoods and the neighbors some predictability in what's going to happen in their neighborhood. So we have clear driveway with rules that reduce disputes. Obviously they streamline permitting and support consistent enforcement across communities. So these these two slides show a difference and I think they're quite stark. Now obviously these are not large re type lots but it shows you what character means and in my opinion the character counts that neighborhood. Uh there's certainly smaller lots, but that is something I think we don't want to see in our neighborhoods. That that is

completely paved over. And your front yards are not a place of community. They're not a place that you really want to walk around. They are parking lots. Uh next slide, Kent. Uh so maintaining neighborhood character. I just touched on that. Here's another two pictures. It's just a different neighborhood, same situation. You can see in these neighborhoods where you have driveway after driveway, if folks clamor for a little piece of green, even in between, they'll plant. Obviously, these are from areas that I know in Southern California, but they'll stick a palm tree in the middle if they can just get two or three feet between them and their neighbor. Uh, so zoning and visual identity. Zoning standards prevent wide driveways from turning front yards into parking lots. I kind of mentioned that it supports community aesthetics and property values. And I um and they have an impact on li livability. I think there's two certain between these two pictures. There's certainly one street I'd rather walk down than the other. Uh that slide also shows what Kent was talking about the number of conflicts as you have somebody walking down those drive down those streets. Uh you know if you're in a big wheel, maybe I'm dating myself. Do kids have big wheels anymore? I don't know, but that's probably not the spot.

Electric big wheels. Electric big wheels. Thank you. Uh probably not the spot that's the best for uh pedestrians, bicyclists, and even big wheels. Uh next slide. Due the name the the number of conflicts. If you're walking down that sidewalk, you are looking out for a vehicle almost every step that you take. Okay.

Uh next slide, Kent. Uh, so I'm a little ahead of myself, but wider driveways increase conflict zones where vehicles cross sidewalks and bike paths, raising collision risk. Uh, narrow driveways encourage slower, more deliberate vehicle movements, improving safety near vulnerable users. And uniform driveways maintain curb space. They improve sight lines and reduce uninspected driver or driver maneuvers. Uh just another slide that is driveway to driveway kind of shows you the the stark difference between what our standard is and what it potentially could be. Uh next slide drainage. Ken is more of an expert at this and and uh Kent and Dallas, but you can see where that water slows down and changes course. Uh next slide. Yeah, but most that that's an unfair picture that you're showing, Don,

because the cur traditionally the driveway goes all the way to the curb and there's not even a curb on this one here on this driveway. So that's and at many places in the re zone where the change is requested, there's no curb. I get it. But we're talk I want to talk about other zones too. Well, right. But this the request is re. So that's why you're giving a picture of what's the equivalent to an RE, which is we don't need curb, gutter, or sidewalk.

All right, next slide, Kent. Uh, so right away infrastructure management, the rideway includes everything, sidewalks, trees, utilities, drainage, street lights, bike lanes, etc. Uh, limiting driveway W does prevent conflicts with the rideway infrastructure. enables future improvements potentially without more costly adjustments. Narrower driveways reduce brakes and curbs and sidewalks. Uh lowering maintenance cost uh for the property owner and the city. And as we touched on quite a bit, driveway with standards protect the rideway to support future ADA accessibility and evolving mobility needs. So, as we kind of went down this rabbit hole a little bit, I think Kent and I tried to ask ourselves, why is it 34 ft, right? Why why is it that magic number? Um, and as you saw in other cities, many cities limit those driveway widths significantly more uh than we do. But going through our ordinance, originally our R2 zone um had a minimum lot width of 70 ft. We've now reduced that to 50. So this 34 ft still applies even if you have a 50ft lot. But 34T is just shy of hat just shy of 50% of 70. So it kind of gets in line with no more than 50% of your lot width in the front yard should be paved. Uh, as we in the R1 now and in the RE, that minimum lot width is now only 70 feet. It used to be 90 feet. So, this 34 foot width gets you up to basically 50% of your lot can be paved. And if you had a really wide lot, you could actually do two 34t driveways. Um, so I think that's where the original logic came from. I

think also the 34 ft was probably intended to accommodate the two side byside driveways we see in most of our twin homes where you where we butt the garage the two twocar garage doors together. I think you could argue maybe that needs to go to 36 ft. That's not part of this discussion, but just so we could get a driveway a little bit wider to get those four cars at 9 foot a 9 foot a piece. Uh and get that driveway just a little bit wider. So with reduced lot width in the re zone um and I I think we're going to see more rees come in with those 70 foot lot widths. Um I think staff's recommendation to the planning commission amongst all the other things we talked about would be to leave it at 34%. um

34% or I mean I'm sorry 34 feet almost 50%. And on 50 foot lots in the R2 zone and the 55 foot lots which we need to still address in the R3 it's significantly more uh I think it's important uh for safety the aesthetics of our neighborhood. Um, it's also important for runoff and with all that put together, I think 34 feet is not a bad standard at this point. So, so I'd be happy to answer your questions.

So, as it relates to aesthetics, we're we're becoming less and less plant driven around here because of the access to water and cost of water so forth. We're going more of a desertcape. And I know as one of our firmware council members called it hellscape certainly

and um um uh you you have a lot of homes that are in R1 and yeah well I R1 that have a threecar garage and they have a motor home garage right right next to it. By widening this, we're getting more cars off the street. And you want to talk conflicts with neighbors. That's where you have conflicts of neighbors when you're when you're parked in front of their home where their kids and grandkids and friends can't can't come over and park and so forth. So, that's a reason to also widen the driveway. Another I have a home where my home's being built. Um my my frontage is 180 feetund 170 feet of frontage where my home is going. And and there's there's several Jennifer has a home over on the same street. She has about a about almost 200 feet of frontage on on the side of on on on her home in her an investment property. I think to do this I think we need to I I have no problem with the concept of what you're discussing but I think we need to have something more to it that say hey if your lot is greater than X you can have a you can go 50% of your lot

the ordinance already entertains that with the allowance of two driveways. So, if you have a really wide lot and you can meet that driveway spacing, you can do two driveways. But but when you have a you you you get around quite a bit and and uh where Kent lives, there's several threecar garages almost standard out there. And then a lot of people have the RV garages out there. They need a 40 foot wide driveway. But do they need it at the entrance from the road? Yeah, because you go garage, garage, garage, and then their RV garage. They can't turn with RVs. It's pretty difficult. Well, [laughter] but yeah, turn on the other ones.

Yeah, I was going to say straight shot. Yeah, straight shot for the RV and for your last one. Yeah. I mean, I guess you can showing you for 4B. That's what they did all over the place. Well, I did it and and they did that because we have a an ordinance and they're they're saying, "Look, your ordinance it does not work. So, we're going to get around it by doing what we're doing. You ask 95% of those people out there and you said, "Hey, if your driveway could have been 10 ft larger, would you have gone with that or would you have done the S turn or the, you know, the

Yeah. widening that. And I I' I'd give you $100 to your $10 that says 90% of the people say, "I'd rather have added 10 ft to my driveway." Ken on the Tillo one was there's 36 or 33% like whichever is like less whichever is less

because because to me I I feel like it's a proportion thing at least aesthetically. There's other reasons you said, but like I I definitely think there's a lot of people who don't like 10 cars parked on the congreg right in front of everybody's houses. But I also think yeah, if you have 150 200 feet of uh frontage, then 50 doesn't look weird or odd. And so I I just while we were sitting here, I had no idea what mine was. So, I just measured my my frontage and then I have I have two I have the circle. So, I have two 24 foot driveways and 204 feet and I'm on an an estate lot like what we're talking about. And that's 24% even if you total both of them of the and it doesn't look weird. And the whole street is pretty much that same way. And so I understand the reason for not wanting like just 50 across the board because yeah, you start throwing these smaller frontage um re lots on there. All of a sudden you're looking at 50% or more of the of the frontage. But I do think that there ought to be some kind of of way if there's a lot to have a section. So to me it makes more sense a long way to getting here to have a percentage than than just a flat. um with maybe a still some kind of maximum. But that's just my two cents. And I also don't think it's a huge deal to have the entrance and then fan out either as long as there's enough space to make that that turn. But I don't know.

You and I are pretty much online with our our thought coming up with some kind of formula, right? it, you know, 34 feet, but it could be greater if your lot is greater than that. That's my thought. Like my initial thought when I saw Tillows was like every every lot gets 34, but if you have you could have up to 30 35% of the frontage, but just because there's some of these loss that are Yeah. as a maximum because there's some of these are just really really large. But as of right now, you could do two 34 fts if it was large. So it's it's kind of moot there, too. If you can meet Yeah. You'd have to meet your driveway separation, right? You would have

But if you had enough frontage, enough frontage to do so. Yeah. What's the the the the residents in question? How how wide is theirs? I think it's about 45. 45. The the driveway. But do you know what their frontage their frontage is? I I did measure that it was it was a little over 100. It was like 105 or something like that. But still,

so Kim, was there any issues specifically to the re zone as far as drainage and the borrowed ditches? So yeah, the other thing that we do have there where we don't have curbon gutter in that um like in 4B ranch although we do have some re development that uh the Levits are doing that does have curbon gutter but but where that does not have the curbon gutter the u um you know the only way to get the water off the street is to let it flow into the borrow ditch. And when you have driveways, that's a location that can't flow into the borrow ditch because it's piped under the driveway, right? Well, the the higher the percentage of of frontage that's driveways, the the less we have the ability to get the water where it needs to go. So that there is that drainage consideration with with the borrowed ditches in the re zone.

So Randall I'm always trying to think out of the box. I don't know how customized we can make this. But so if so, Kent, if we widened you've been up to this home. Yes, I have. Okay. If we widened it to I think you said 44T is what they're looking for. They're they're looking for 50. They're there their um request is that the ordinance be changed to allow 50 foot driveway. If we widened it to 50 foot, is that going to create a problem with the borrow ditches and so forth? Um, it certainly reduces where the water can get into the borrow ditch. Yeah, I get I get what you're saying.

And your your hearts are heartscaping so much. Yeah. Could you I'm thinking of my friend that has three miles of frontage, but uh that's neither here nor there. Could we phrase this something like 34 feet or 30% of the frontage not to exceed 50 feet and then that would uh they still wouldn't be able to put 50 ft in out there because you know you know if you have 300 ft of frontage or whatever it is I don't think 50ft driveway is unreasonable but uh in most subdivisions I think it is unreasonable.

Yeah. But if you put some word as something like 34 feet maximum 34 feet is the standard or 33% of the frontage not to exceed 50 ft. I don't know something like that might work. I don't know could work I like that you can do that. I I will note one thing just for you and this is different preferences different council members as well. We have at least one council member that does get frustrated if we actually move something forward when the applicant is not present. Um, so you don't have to follow through that because that was just one council member and they've still voted even when he said that. That was Jerry Sherid's rule. If they didn't applicant didn't come, city council didn't hear it. Yeah. So,

we don't necessarily send a notice to the applicant. We So, just just FYI. Um, and what you're proposing wouldn't even meet his requirements either. So, I I am mistaken. Amber is telling me that that I am wrong and that we did. So, that's just FYI. It's not a statute requirement or an ordinance requirement that they have to be present notified the applicant. But we do have at least one council member who has repeatedly and loudly complained that when staff or boards carry the water for applicants and the applicants aren't here to push it. I don't like it, but also not going to have it taint what I think's the right decision on a change either. And that's how a lot of the other council members have kind of taken it as well. So, I just [clears throat] figured I'd give you a heads up on that. Well, I like

you could table it if you wanted. I like what you said um and and and could buy into that and it all that did is bring to the surface a need to look at something. Uh in this particular case uh last night at the board of adjustments we we heard a case where like well the guy should have known because that's part of his deal when he builds or his builder's deal and to change our our um rules for one house in all the city right uh to me does but but I'm for No, I I agree with that. I don't want to change this because somebody already built it against the code and to drive forward

to save them from it. I als but I also think that it's a reasonable change to make um going forward. Do we have a public hearing? Yes, this is a public hearing. [clears throat] Any of you passionate about it enough to speak? Come on, Ann. Okay. Open the public. We open the public area. Do you want to make a decision?

I'm glad to see that we are caring about how the neighborhood looks and how it affects everybody in the neighborhood because, you know, sometimes we say, "Hey, just be a good neighbor." But really what that means is you're a good neighbor if you let me do whatever I want. You know what I mean? So, I do really appreciate that we're looking how how it looks in a neighborhood. So, but I do understand if they have a really I mean a a big frontage, then maybe we could do a percentage. So, the when you look at it proportionally, it still really looks the same. You know what I mean? Mhm. That's awesome. Don, you you made a pretty compassion compassionate argument. Those are ideas that were rattling around in my head as well. Okay, good.

Where where should we? Sit down. Sorry. Unless it's Unless it's in favor. [laughter] No, I can go either way. I I'm just whatever is by the code. My only question. Share your name. Uh Lester Ross. Thanks, Lester. Um is if we are changing this, we need to probably clarify where we're measured from because how it's being interpreted and how it's actually being enforced is So you're talking top of apron. Yeah. Yeah. Because right now it is measured. We we measure driveways at the bottom of at the bottom of the curb cut. It's how that's a good point. The building department's real good point.

I think that's the way it's which is not how our standard drawing is written. It's written as the width of the driveway at the rightway line and that's what it should be measured. Yeah. So we just need to make sure that's clarified that we're talking at the uh rightway line. The top of the wings. So that's the top of the top of the slope. Top of the top of the slope. Yeah. Okay, thanks Lester. I don't know. Any other comments? And we'll close the public hearing then. Does anybody Can I add something? Yeah.

So, now I think Tom kind of already hit on this and it may be part of the goal you have in mind. Just always understand the interplay of what we do with other laws. So, for example, under Utah law, you cannot park blocking a driveway. Technically, even if it's your own, that's state law. It doesn't care. you're not allowed to block it primarily because that's an access point. So, if you do allow too much of a driveway, you are also decreasing the amount of available space for parking on the street that is in fact owned by the public. Now, again, if your goal is is to stop people from parking in front of your house, this will ex this will help with that. If on the other hand, you get frustrated when you have friends and relatives coming over and sometimes this is shared space. you're not likely to have the same parties at the same time as your neighbors. You're giving that up. Neither one is right or wrong. Just know that that is an interplay that you will be changing um on how parking is allowed.

That's not a problem. My house, I don't have any friends and family won't visit. [laughter] You just have to offer more food. That explains a lot. I won't hold my breath. I'm a little nervous that Tom knows where everybody lives. [snorts] He was just rattling off dimensions from everybody off Arizona. [laughter] Does anybody have dressed as Santa to my house, so I know he knows where I live. Does anybody have a thought about a motion? Yeah. Yeah, I like wings.

I'll give it a shot. Uh I would move that we uh change the wording to keeping 34 feet maximum or 33% of the frontage uh not to exceed 50 ft. the ceiling of 58. I'll second from wing to wing. Now, can I clarify because what's been proposed is only in the re zone. No, I proposed this for all zones. Stick with the re it. Unfortunately, that's all we've advertised. So, I just wanted you to know that if we want to push it further than that, we're in the re zone. We'll need to readvertise it. Could we put this on the agenda?

I feel like there's not a whole lot of nonre zone that are going to get changed by this change either. Well, and there's a bigger impact on curb and gutter and so it probably would be a longer conversation to know how that's going to impact water carrying capacity and stuff um sidewalks for especially with the new standards. Could I get you to put this on the planning commission for next meeting? talk about all zones. Can we 34 ft and up to 50? No more than I'd have to get it out by Friday. I It could be It could be in a couple It could be in a couple weeks from now, Don. It's not doesn't have to be coming up immediately. Uh, no. I was just talking out loud.

And your question then, too, is if you want to address multiple zones, do you want this going to the council peace mill or together? Together. I mean, we're not going to make a difference on these on this one situation that the that brought this up. Although you can if you if we just do it in the re at least. It's like, okay, yeah, we see what you're asking for and here is an address. I'd almost rather do them separately because a I don't think I think it's a different conversation because of the curb and gutter and I don't think there's very many lots in our one that this would change anything with.

This does shoot down the request though, doesn't it? It does. Yeah. 33 still not 45, right? How how wide was that lot again, Kent? I don't I'll keep I don't remember exactly but I I believe it was between 100 and 110 somewhere. I don't remember. So that would not get them 50 ft correct in this case. Okay. Wayne's given us a motion and now confined it to the re. We have a second with Tom. All in favor? I I Any opposed? And the motion carries. Uh that covers four and five. Does that work for both four and five?