Commission to research corner-lot setbacks, porch storage allowance and apparent powder-storage typo in code

Commission members spent the bulk of the July 2, 2025 meeting discussing Levan's front-yard setback rules, particularly how corner lots are treated. The mayor asked the commission to compare other towns' ordinances with Levan's and report back with recommendations.

Commission discussion noted that under current practice corner lots are treated as having two front yards, which can require 30-foot setbacks on both street-facing sides. Members said some nearby cities allow accessory structures to be closer on a secondary frontage (for example, Nephi uses an average of existing dwelling setbacks on a street but sets a floor of 20 feet), or permit accessory structures at shorter distances from a lot line. Commissioners raised concerns that allowing closer setbacks only for corner lots could advantage corner owners and disadvantage interior-lot owners, and that any change should be applied across all lot types or carefully justified for safety and sight-line reasons.

Safety and infrastructure were prominent considerations: commissioners cited clear-view requirements for intersections, future curb-and-gutter or sewer installation, off-street parking needs and driveway sight-lines as reasons to keep more conservative setbacks. One commissioner said the town needs to decide whether the visual uniformity and sight-line benefits of the current 30-foot rule outweigh flexibility for property owners.

The commission also discussed a narrow, operational amendment: allowing a covered porch that legally encroaches into the front-yard setback to include an unoccupied storage or capped area beneath it. Staff and the building inspector said other jurisdictions commonly permit unoccupied storage beneath an encroaching covered porch; commissioners asked staff to draft ordinance language to specify "unoccupied storage" (not a habitable room) beneath such porches and to bring a draft to the commission for a future hearing.

Commissioners flagged an apparent typo in the town code concerning storage limits for black/cartridge powder. Transcript discussion indicated the existing local figure is unusually small (transcript references ranged from 3 to 50 pounds in error) and should align with state regulations (500 pounds referenced in state code during discussion). Commissioners agreed the number appears to be a transcription or copying error from a template and asked staff to clarify applicable state limits and propose a corrective ordinance amendment if necessary.

On property division and lot-size rules, staff summarized inquiries about whether a 0.89-acre parcel plus a 0.17-acre adjacent parcel could be subdivided to create two half-acre lots. Staff advised that on-paper calculations suggest the division might be possible but that a formal survey and a review of right-of-way/frontage and existing setbacks would be required. Commissioners said the planning commission should examine property surveys and make final determinations before administrative sign-off.

The commission concluded the item by asking members to research a set of comparator ordinances (including Sandy City and Nephi), and for staff to draft precise ordinance language on porch storage and to verify the correct powder-storage threshold in state regulation.

Key points discussed - Corner lots currently treated as having two front yards with 30-foot setbacks on both street-facing sides; commissioners asked staff to compare other towns' approaches. - Safety, clear view at intersections, future curb/gutter, sewer installation and driveway sight-lines were cited as reasons to preserve setbacks. - Commissioners asked staff to draft ordinance language allowing unoccupied storage beneath a porch that encroaches into a setback and to place that language on a future hearing agenda. - Commissioners flagged an apparent typo in the town code for powder-storage limits and requested staff verify state regulations and propose corrections.