Bountiful council weighs allowing gravel 'permeable' parking; staff to refer code text to planning commission

City staff presented draft land‑use code language to allow permeable gravel parking in certain rear or side yard areas during a Bountiful City Council work session. The proposed text defines a "permeable parking surface" and sets design and separation requirements; council members provided direction to send the draft to the planning commission for a public hearing and formal recommendation.

Francisco, a city planning/engineering staff member, told the council the item continues a discussion from a November 12, 2024 meeting and that staff prepared example language and exhibits showing how permeable parking could be sited behind front yard setbacks. "This is a city initiated land use code text amendment," Francisco said, noting the draft definition of "permeable parking surface" and the recommendation that any permit process be reviewed by the planning commission before a final ordinance is adopted.

Staff recommendation and concerns Staff recommended keeping the permeable parking surface at least 25 feet behind the front property line (the front yard setback) because of stormwater and code‑enforcement concerns. Francisco told the council the draft code would require a clear separation between landscaping and parking surfaces, could require physical edging or curbing, and would specify that the permeable surface be free of plants and organic material. "We created another defined term...permeable parking surface," Francisco said, adding that the draft language seeks to avoid ambiguity about what qualifies as landscaping versus parking.

City Engineer Lloyd said material selection and compaction are critical. "I think one of the key components to a good durable parking surface is that the material is...a variety of particle sizes," Lloyd said, endorsing a crushed or decomposed‑granite product that locks together and resists migration. On recommended particle size, Lloyd said, "as you get specifically below an inch and a half, there's a lot of crushed product out there that would be suitable." He and staff noted that some materials with greater clay content (e.g., roadbase) accept less water and may not meet the permeable intent.

Council discussion and direction Council members debated whether the setback should be 25 feet, as staff recommended, or 10 feet behind the front property line. Several council members said they preferred 10 feet combined with specific guardrails: a paved access apron (concrete or asphalt) from the driveway into the permeable area, a non‑organic compacted surface, a durable edge or curbing to retain material, and limits on aggregate size so material does not migrate into the public right‑of‑way or storm drains.

Council member Higginson (identified in session remarks) moved the council toward a 10‑foot setback preference; other council members, including Murray and Councilwoman Price Hewish, voiced support for 10 feet. Councilwoman Bradshaw said she favored retaining the larger 25‑foot setback but supported clarifying definitions and materials.

Staff said the draft would require that permeable parking be accessed from a paved surface (a concrete or asphalt apron) and that permeable material not be counted toward any required landscaped area. Francisco summarized operational limits: for corner lots the street‑facing side would remain subject to the standard street setback and the permeable material would be allowed only outside the required setback area on the non‑street side or in the building envelope behind setbacks.

Enforcement and best practices Council and staff noted enforcement challenges but said a well‑specified product (decomposed granite or compacted crushed aggregate) with a substantial border and compaction could be durable and containable. Lloyd cautioned against very large (2‑inch+) rock because it is uncomfortable to walk on and tends to migrate; he recommended materials around 1.5 inches and smaller and a poorly‑graded (mixed) distribution that compacts well.

Next steps Council gave direction to move the proposed text amendment forward to the planning commission for public hearing and formal recommendation, with a majority of council members expressing a preference for a 10‑foot setback combined with guardrails (paved access apron, compaction standards, edging, and material restrictions). Francisco said staff will take the direction into the planning commission process, make recommended edits (including defining permissible aggregate sizes and detailing edging/compaction requirements), and return the commission’s recommendation to the council for final action.

"We would not recommend gravel all the way to the front property line," Francisco said, noting the council would be the ultimate legislative body to decide final setbacks and specifications.