Council reviews proposed Emigration Canyon engineering standards; mill-and-overlay rules debated

Emigration Canyon engineering staff presented a draft set of local engineering-standard drawings and exceptions and asked the council to review them before formal adoption.

Tamara Woodland, the township's engineering manager, said the draft recommends adopting three industry standards—APWA, AASHTO and the (Utah) MUTCD—and adding a cover-sheet clause that the city automatically adopts the latest revisions. "We are recommending adopting these 3 engineering, industry standards, the APWA, AASHTO, and MUTCD," Woodland said, adding that she recommends the Utah MUTCD variant because it aligns with UDOT guidance.

The presentation focused heavily on APWA Plan 255, the mill-and-overlay policy for roadway excavation. Woodland described how the plan typically requires a mill and overlay extending 48 inches past a trench, but she proposed a local amendment to reduce unnecessary work for roads slated for full projects. Her recommendation: do not require full mill-and-overlay when a major project is scheduled within two years; require full‑width mill-and-overlay for roads newer than three years and phase in requirements for roads between three and seven years old.

Council members asked about the interaction between the local Emigration Canyon code — which currently requires wider repaving zones for new roads during a three-year moratorium — and the proposed APWA-based standard. "Your code is more stringent than the 255 and has time frames associated with it," Woodland said, and she asked council members to provide written comments before she returns to ask for adoption at the next meeting. She also said the planning commission must review the standards under land‑use rules; she will present the item at the planning commission on May 8 and return to the council for adoption.

Council members discussed whether toeing the local code to APWA or keeping the stricter local width and moratorium rules made more sense; one council member recommended calling out the existing municipal code in the new cover-sheet language to avoid conflicting standards.

The council asked staff to remove a proposed clause that would have given the city engineer authority to approve exceptions, and Woodland agreed to strike that language so exceptions would come before the council.

Ending — The council did not adopt the standards at this meeting. Staff will submit the draft to the planning commission and return on May 27 with a revised draft and clarifications about exceptions and the mill/overlay thresholds.