Commission recommends against citywide 1:5 parking reduction for commercial recreation; asks council to explore targeted alternatives

The Santaquin City Planning Commission unanimously rejected (forwarded a negative recommendation on) a proposed citywide code amendment that would reduce commercial recreation parking requirements from one space per two occupants to one space per five occupants. The commission instead recommended that staff and the City Council explore targeted alternatives, such as a separate subcategory for smaller gyms or parking tied to building square footage.

Staff said the proposed 9,000‑square‑foot gym in the Santaquin Peaks Industrial Park currently has 32 on‑site spaces shared with a single warehouse tenant, and under the existing parking standard would require 93 stalls. The applicants, Caden Hartzwer and Zachary Barker, requested a citywide change to 1 space per 5 occupants—roughly a 60 percent reduction—because the site cannot physically accommodate the 93 spaces and because they argued turnover and a higher price point would reduce peak parking demand.

Commissioners and staff discussed alternatives: a site‑specific parking reduction (requires special exception approval), a shared‑parking agreement, extracting “gym” from the broader commercial recreation definition and assigning its own standard, or tying reduced ratios to building square footage (the applicants said they intended the reduction for facilities under a given square footage). Commissioners raised concerns about the citywide effect of a blanket reduction—bowling alleys, skating rinks and other uses in the commercial recreation definition could have different turnover and vehicle occupancy characteristics.

During the public hearing, applicants and several public commenters described comparable gyms in neighboring cities and noted shared‑parking arrangements there. Neighbors and commissioners emphasized the limited shared parking available at the proposed site (the other tenant was shown to need eight stalls) and the risk of spillover parking onto adjacent streets. Staff explained the city’s existing tools: shared‑parking agreements and parking reductions by special exception, and noted Americans with Disabilities Act requirements would not be reduced.

Commissioner Wood moved a negative recommendation on the proposed 1:5 amendment and asked council and staff to seek alternatives; Commissioner Waite seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The commission suggested staff return with options such as a gym subcategory, requirements tied to building square footage, or a refined shared‑parking approach for the affected site.