North Ogden planning commission backs broad Title 11 cleanup, asks to hold parking-width section for more review

The North Ogden City Planning Commission on April 2 recommended that City Council adopt a broad cleanup and correction of the city's land-use code (Title 11), while asking council to exclude a specific parking, loading and access subsection from the adoption and to reference parking dimensions to the city's public works standards instead of repeating numeric values in the land-use code.

Scott Hess, Community and Economic Development Director, presented a 17-page draft ordinance and told commissioners the package is largely the same as the work-session version presented two weeks earlier, with larger items pulled out for later consideration. Hess said the rewrite is intended to correct cross-references and align code text with current practice and engineering standards.

Hess said engineers identified several places where Title 11 numerical standards conflict with current public works standards, listing examples including drive-aisle widths and clearances. He told the commission: "I just want them to either match or reference." He recommended either (a) removing numeric callouts from Title 11 and pointing to the public works standard, or (b) updating Title 11's numbers to match the current public works standards and then remembering to update both places in future.

Why it matters: the commission and staff framed the choice as a trade-off between clarity and procedural transparency. Hess noted that the Municipal Land Use, Development and Management Act governs how zoning-code amendments are processed and that moving technical details into the public works standards can reduce the planning-commission public-hearing step and the 10-day public-notice period that applies to changes in Title 11. He told the commission this could reduce public transparency for some items even though public works standards are posted online.

Key changes discussed

- Parking, loading and access (11-19): staff proposed removing conflicting numeric widths from Title 11 and instead referencing the Public Works standards so engineering comments and site-plan review use a single source. Commissioners supported that approach in principle but asked that one subsection, 11-19-3, be pulled out for additional review. - Curb cut width: public works staff recommended a residential maximum curb-cut width of 36 feet with the possibility of an accessory approach, and a commercial single-approach maximum of 50 feet total; staff asked commissioners to consider how the total should be measured for corner lots. - Drive approach clearances: Title 11 contained a reference to a 10-foot clearance from a property line that conflicts with the public works standard (5 feet). Engineering recommended correcting the text to 5 feet in line with the public works standard. - Commercial landscaping: staff proposed changing a legacy 20% site landscaping requirement to the 10% standard the city has been applying for years for modern commercial developments (Walgreens, Maverik, Smith's rebuilds were cited as examples). - Parks dedication language (11-26-12): staff proposed that parks recommendations be guided by Parks & Recreation during Technical Review Committee meetings and that City Council acceptance of public improvements be formalized through development agreements. The code, as drafted, retains language that reserved council approval for park dedications; staff said such council acceptance typically occurs through development agreements where the council accepts public improvements. - Sensitive lands: the draft removes a separate sensitive-lands chapter and cross-references the sensitive-features language in a single section (11-20-2023), but staff warned this creates circular references if and when the city adopts a standalone sensitive-lands ordinance.

Public input and staff replies

Councilman Pulver raised the point that he had sent a set of proposed corrections last October and asked whether they were included; Scott Hess said he would re-check and ensure any forgotten items would be publicly noticed and presented through the same process. City Engineer Eric Caspersen was referenced frequently as the party auditing and proposing numeric corrections.

Commission action and vote

Commissioner Green (chair) moved that the planning commission recommend City Council adopt the proposed Title 11 changes as shown in the working document, except that section 11-19-3 be excluded from the adoption and that the commission recommend replacing numeric parking dimensions in the Title 11 parking, loading and access section with a cross-reference to the Public Works standards. The motion was seconded (second not specified in the transcript) and passed unanimously 5-0. Voting commissioners present were Commissioner Webb (yes), Commissioner Watson (yes), Commissioner Gardner (yes), Commissioner Neighbour (yes) and Commissioner Green (yes).

The formal recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for ordinance adoption. Staff said some portions of the draft will be pulled out of the package and returned to the planning commission for further public hearings (the commission specifically requested 11-19-3 be brought back for additional review before sending to council).

What remains unresolved

Staff and commissioners agreed the code should either mirror public works numbers or point explicitly to the public works standard; they disagreed about whether moving detailed numeric engineering standards out of Title 11 would reduce public notice and the role of the planning commission. The commission directed staff to (a) note items pulled out of the ordinance for later hearings, (b) ensure city-engineering drawings (for uphill/downhill lot height, for example) are included in future drafts, and (c) return 11-19-3 for further debate.

Next steps

Staff will revise the draft ordinance to reflect the commission's recommendation, prepare the formal ordinance for council review, and will bring back pulled sections (including 11-19-3) with more detailed engineering input and illustrative drawings as needed.

Ending note: commissioners used the hearing to identify specific conflicts between the land-use code and Public Works standards and to request a path that preserves engineering clarity while maintaining public notice for substantive changes.