Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs narrower change to allow tandem parking for detached tiny/home clusters with guest parking condition
Summary
Cedar City’s Planning Commission recommended allowing tandem parking for detached small homes under a narrowly tailored ordinance change that requires unit‑assigned tandem stalls and guest parking to reduce potential street‑parking impacts.
Get email alerts on the Parking Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission recommended a narrowly drafted ordinance change to permit tandem parking for certain small, detached dwelling units — often described as tiny homes — while adding conditions to reduce expected parking and access problems.
Planning staff opened the item by explaining the city’s current parking standards for multi‑unit developments and noted that tandems have historically been discouraged for larger apartment complexes because tandem stalls are not always used as intended. Tom Jett (planning) and staff described that the current ordinance treats larger projects differently and that a targeted change could allow detached small homes to use tandem spaces while keeping parking available for guests.
Applicant and local builders described several motivations: small detached homes are often under 750 square feet, buyers and renters seek compact units, and conventional parking formulas can make smaller developments financially infeasible. The amendment the commission considered would allow tandem parking for detached small homes (units under 750 sq ft), require that a tandem be dedicated to a single unit (so one household does not block another’s stall), and exclude garage spaces from tandem credit. Commissioners also asked that a guest‑parking requirement be included; the motion that passed added a 0.2 guest‑parking space per unit requirement (rounded to whole stalls per the city’s standard practice).
Staff and several commissioners cautioned that tandem parking can worsen street‑parking demand if guest stalls are not provided or if the development design fails to make parking convenient and designated. Commissioners suggested the change should be limited to detached units (not stacked or attached apartments) and that detailed site plans and, where applicable, PUD design standards should address private drive widths, turnaround space, and emergency access.
After public comment and discussion, a commissioner moved for a positive recommendation with clarifications: (1) allow tandem parking only for detached small homes (units under 750 sq ft); (2) require tandem stalls be dedicated to a single unit and not be counted from garages; and (3) require 0.2 guest‑parking spaces per unit (rounded to the nearest whole stall). The motion was seconded and passed.
Staff will draft ordinance language that limits the change to detached small‑unit developments and that clarifies design requirements for parking layout, guest stalls and emergency access to bring back to council.

