[{"_1":2,"_97":-5,"_98":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6478572,"mediaKeyId","5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772","parentId",5708721,"title","Commission resumes municipal code definitions review; stops to refine building‑height language","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",5240000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772&start=5240&end=5240","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772/thumbnail_5240000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6478572/Kamas/Summit-County/Utah/Commission-resumes-municipal-code-definitions-review-stops-to-refine-buildingheight-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478572-ece9777e2787be40b7b5875af3e66a45/orig.mp4?Expires=1775521230&Signature=hgjdwYaLqQI4AmsuCmO9N6qc5em~oH0hJvjeoW1m9M1b74lVb3aVNg1~Ei6Z8jHy2sBP6ViAcxKxPejt5S1Xi5SgMGVf8y-VDPquAehrplhKnOIv8UbR7a4paQj8PGHlr3d2ZX4EXpulaA~JhUNUcIUsjZO7vAAO6BsGUKfJGZdwnzCZ8p5bYzKzImONW3TGIZJq6kVRBheruFqRsrVZTN7vkgSYkgcCVwi5j8lJByx3VWEWR6Fmpa3GLMwbCyhK9p5jAt~qWCpQzb5nrM~wdN-QPCcMOIvtctw~NOhroj2t9qUNoNEpCxhHdoKP1~q-85ZwG~f73lhggKlm91LTYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Kamas","date","2025-09-03T03:35:51.373Z","article","Commissioners continued a detailed review of proposed changes to the city’s municipal code definitions, addressing accessory buildings, accessory dwelling units, agriculture/farm animal wording, automotive uses and building‑height measurement. After extended discussion, the commission agreed to pause the review and have staff reconcile cross‑references and rework the building‑height wording.

Commissioners flagged inconsistencies across draft documents: some tables and use lists use the term “accessory structure” while others use “accessory building.” The panel agreed to standardize terminology and asked staff to update related tables and cross‑references accordingly.

On accessory occupied buildings (a definition akin to an accessory dwelling), commissioners noted the city’s current code limits such units to specific zones (A‑40 was cited) and asked staff to ensure the new definitions reflect existing zoning restrictions. On agriculture terms, the commission requested separate, clearer definitions for “agriculture,” “farm animals” and “livestock” rather than a single combined entry.

Discussion of automotive uses prompted commissioners to restore a standalone “automotive repair establishment” definition. The commission agreed that mechanical repair and collision/body paint should be defined and not be folded only into the “service station” definition; staff will reinsert or clarify those definitions so parking and use tables align properly.

Building‑height language generated the most concern. Commissioners noted multiple competing measurements (average finished grade, road grade, top of curb) and asked staff to propose a single, consistent definition and to test how that definition would measure a few recent local projects. One commissioner said the issue “could create problems with neighbors” if not tightened.

The commission scheduled continued review of the remaining definitions (sections C and D) at the next meeting and asked staff to prepare a consolidated, cross‑checked draft and highlight any conflicts with existing chapters or references before that session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission 9/2/25","oneSentenceSummary","The planning commission continued a line‑by‑line review of municipal code definitions (accessory buildings, ADUs, agriculture, automotive uses and building height), asked staff to reconcile cross‑references, and decided to pause so planners can rework the build‑height language before the next review session.","taxTitle","Kamas, Summit County, Utah","taxId",7441,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6478576,"Commission asks staff to research panhandle lots, seeks limits before broad changes",339,3776000,4115000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772&start=3776&end=4115","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772/thumbnail_3776000.jpg","/articles/6478576/Kamas/Summit-County/Utah/Commission-asks-staff-to-research-panhandle-lots-seeks-limits-before-broad-changes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478576-80dbeb0fc992b0d9bec1772e6be9f386/orig.mp4?Expires=1775521230&Signature=PM3j8qXtyBMTj8ZmpfK6f830vNOfs61x7iBxNP6Nu40Mf2xIuCVOWYdfWdgoBaVb1It4qr7Mng48lj02c50gtdtfKVWl3MLePObcPaghj-FOO2YtKqtLuEds6yJsA5p0rOXKSvPXeXW~fykcWQlLH3UFSVmceiPECFXx-sZkLt7LHRtlmKy0XYR3LXwTiYVazbCEDOGSlvg7tHXMPLQhBCgx9YZ8LyAF09gveKK7dnbCGzR8yVC8PI7yUG~OsTtJ8IoVAaqCFDGoTfqvdiUwZ0wLJP6fiyV7l575jXzIN3ZvKVkPKvricHZa9OQmXlSN4dow6zAPjKRf6KsHxvjfYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners debated whether to revisit the municipal code rules that govern narrow “panhandle” lots and generally agreed staff should research how other communities handle frontage, access and design standards before the commission pursues revisions.

Several commissioners said many panhandle lots are underused or deteriorating and that modest, well‑regulated infill could improve neighborhood outcomes. One commissioner argued for limiting two‑story homes and imposing restrictions on lot access, road width and driveway standards to protect neighbors and allow adequate snow removal and emergency access. Commissioners also discussed landscaping and fencing standards to reduce conflicts with adjacent owners.

The commission reviewed a map of candidate lots and noted variations in frontage (some as small as about 80 feet) and in parcel depth. Commissioners debated whether to change the minimum frontage requirement from 100 feet to 80 feet in targeted circumstances; no numeric change was adopted at the meeting.

Commissioners asked staff to: (1) research how other municipalities regulate panhandle lots and the specific standards they use (setbacks, maximum stories, road/access requirements, utilities and fire access); (2) prepare a draft of possible code language that would permit limited infill with safeguards (single‑story limits, driveway/road width standards, fire and snow removal requirements); and (3) return with recommended options and analysis of likely impacts. No formal vote or ordinance revision was adopted; the item will return for further study.

Commissioners emphasized balancing two objectives: enabling better use of underutilized parcels to increase infill housing while preventing adverse impacts on established neighbors.","The planning commission opened a broad discussion on ‘panhandle’ lots and directed staff to research design, access and safety standards for possible code changes; commissioners favored exploring restrictions (single story, road/driveway width, snow removal and utilities) but declined immediate policy changes.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":42,"_45":90,"_46":91,"_48":92,"_50":93,"_52":94,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":95,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":96,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6478581,"City planners refine body‑art rules; send draft back for attorney review",3620,3620000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772&start=0&end=3620","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5708721-d65ef4c68909cea8f33e96fac997e772/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6478581/Kamas/Summit-County/Utah/City-planners-refine-bodyart-rules-send-draft-back-for-attorney-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478581-845e9211c72b863c5458d2a91b0e1e05/orig.mp4?Expires=1775521230&Signature=fsxZornlYlPBwqbHHVjBs3gYwwVYokXUokFNTgB-3M4EKiKtCtkewPwQ0J9b8YFxPz2V0VC-i3pzexMEKV1C-G-Ig4ocy8suXH7mv-DNQa-zoGyHI8F08Bp6BL46MfG7wWcqvy36mKx2giwERW73WZ2UBORZhCiPm3KQzXnao5bI2dw2OqDyMV5bscbcB4iia0qb7Q7wUEAhCk38APestuZFipRVmqtHwNNZ4cVXi7b4mXBJ9YdJrAiklU2gOiFO7K3ZF4qyHd~FnidK6YgYsvv7YUj4pV1mxMaD~Hovj~wFolRsQHD-IoDc9LUt1OtMA3HnGgIn~hPD~wsSAmMfcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning commissioners debated a proposed body‑art ordinance that would strictly limit tattoo and body‑piercing businesses and then voted to table the draft until city legal review is complete.

The commission discussed limiting the city to two licensed body‑art facilities, capping each facility at two practitioners, and directing that the business license be issued to the facility rather than an individual. Commissioners and staff hashed out details about whether permanent cosmetics, microneedling and microblading belong under the same definition as tattooing and body piercing and whether some services should be moved into a separate “personal services” or aesthetician category.

Planning staff member Jill said staff had circulated a draft and repeatedly sought legal review: “I sent it to him a couple of times … he said he would get to it, but he has not.” Commissioners repeatedly requested a formal attorney review before forwarding the ordinance to city council.

The group clarified other operational rules in the draft. The commission settled on a parking standard described as “one parking space per chair plus one space per employee on the largest shift.” Commissioners also discussed distance buffers from sensitive uses (schools, day cares, churches) but did not adopt any specific separation distances at the meeting. The county health department and its sanitation rules will continue to apply to practitioners; staff noted facilities must comply with Summit County health‑department requirements.

Commissioners debated the treatment of permanent cosmetics and related services. One commissioner asked, “Where does microneedling, where do injection services, where does our holistic medical spa fall into this?” Staff and other commissioners agreed microblading and some permanent‑cosmetics services have different training and safety regimes and recommended creating a separate definition or moving them to the personal‑services section rather than including them inside the body‑art facility definition.

On licensing, the commission agreed the municipal business license should issue to the facility; each practitioner would also need to meet whatever health or practitioner licensing requirements exist and be recorded for regulatory purposes. Commissioners discussed examples — salons that employ multiple practitioners under a single payroll versus independent operators who would require separate business registrations — and noted the distinction matters for how many practitioners a facility may host.

After clarifying those points and other editorial changes to the draft, the commission passed a motion to table the item pending attorney review and to reconvene quickly (via a special meeting if necessary) once legal comments are received. The motion passed by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.

The commission directed staff to revise language so the ordinance will: (1) limit the number of body‑art facilities in the city to two; (2) limit each facility to two practitioners; (3) make the Kansas City business license a facility license while requiring practitioners to hold their required practitioner credentials; (4) require compliance with Summit County health rules; and (5) separate permanent cosmetics/microblading from tattooing in the definitions or move those services to a personal‑services section.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the edits and seek the city attorney’s sign‑off; commissioners said they would review the attorney’s changes and hold a special meeting if the attorney’s response comes back quickly.","A planning panel discussed limits on tattoo and piercing businesses — including a two‑facility cap, a two‑practitioner-per-facility limit, parking requirements and separation of permanent cosmetics from tattooing — and voted to hold the draft until the city attorney reviews revisions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission resumes municipal code definitions review; stops to refine building‑height language

Commission asks staff to research panhandle lots, seeks limits before broad changes

City planners refine body‑art rules; send draft back for attorney review