Planning commission recommends approval of text amendments to building and subdivision codes

The Kaysville City Planning Commission on May 20 recommended approval of text amendments to Title 18 (building regulations) and Title 19 (subdivisions), following a staff presentation and a public hearing. The motion to recommend approval passed during the meeting.

The amendments address several technical and procedural items staff said are driven by legislative changes and practical issues that have arisen while working with developers and contractors. A staff member explained that many edits consolidate technical guidance into reference manuals and clarify how the city applies state low-impact development (LID) rules and its own standards and specifications. "Low impact development is a requirement EPA and the state department of environmental quality. It has to do with retaining, the first, like, eightieth percentile of a storm," the staff member said, noting the practical question about when LID is "feasible" on a site.

The nut of the proposal is administrative consolidation and clarification: the amendments propose adopting a drainage design manual by reference (moving some technical text out of code and into a single manual), incorporate the city’s LID manual by reference, and point developers to the city’s standards and specifications. Staff said the standards document is now digital (about 300 pages) and that the draft code currently contains a hyperlink to the online specifications; commissioners discussed whether the code should also note how a person can obtain a printed copy.

Commission discussion focused on four substantive topics raised by staff and by Commissioner Ellis:

- Feasibility and LID: Staff said feasibility (whether a site can retain stormwater on-site) is defined in the LID manual and in state statute; commissioners asked that the draft language clearly reference that definition. The staff member explained feasibility depends on factors such as soil infiltration and the local groundwater table.

- Site-plan approval language: Staff said the proposed definition and placement of the site-plan approval language had been reviewed with the city attorney but might read more like a statement than a definition; commissioners suggested clarifying where that language should live and how the city’s review differs from a private peer review of engineering calculations.

- Plat recording authority: The draft says a plat "shall not be received" (for recording) under certain conditions. Commissioners questioned whether the city can prevent county recording; one commissioner noted, "My experience is the county will record anything. It doesn't really matter what we'd say." Staff said the city engineer will discuss precise wording with the city attorney the following week to determine whether the draft needs changes or clearer language that reflects current practice (for example, that the city will not submit plats to the county until it considers them ready).

- Temporary turnarounds and hammerheads: Staff identified recurring costs when temporary cul-de-sacs, installed at the end of phased development, must be removed later to connect to adjacent property. The staff member said removal and reconstruction costs have ranged "anywhere between $50,000 and maybe $60,000" at individual locations and proposed encouraging hammerhead turnarounds that can later serve as driveways to reduce duplication of work and cost burdens on cities or developers.

After the presentation and public hearing (no members of the public spoke), Commissioner Ellis and other commissioners asked for small wording edits and corrections (including a typographical fix in the final-plat language). Staff confirmed the city will continue to incorporate commissioner feedback and that these amendments will next go to the City Council with the staff’s recommended ordinance language and any clarifying edits agreed upon following the city attorney review.

The commission moved and seconded a recommendation to approve the text amendments; the vote carried and the motion was recorded as passing. The minutes of the May 8 meeting were also approved by motion during the same meeting.

Less technical items discussed under "other matters" included a small-area plan survey (staff reported about 520 responses), a June 12 joint City Council–Planning Commission meeting to review existing-conditions and market-analysis findings (the market analysis noted low commercial vacancy), and a stakeholder meeting about historic Main Street where businesses identified parking as their primary concern. Staff said the June 12 session will be recorded for public viewing.

The planning commission adjourned at the end of the meeting.