Emigration Canyon planning commission endorses staff-led 'housekeeping' approach to code updates

Claire, a city planning staff member, opened the meeting by asking to take the code‑amendments item out of order and described the problem: many sections of the Emigration Canyon code are inconsistent and out of date, with some conditional‑use language last revised in 2006 and fragments dating to 1985. "The juice is not worth the squeeze," she said of prior confusion around the Forestry Ordinance, arguing that clearer presentation can avoid unnecessary controversy.

The commission spent the bulk of the meeting debating process rather than specific policy changes. Claire proposed a two‑step approach: first a housekeeping phase in which staff would reformat existing requirements into a model‑code layout and produce a spreadsheet that places the current text and the proposed formatting side by side; second, a focused substantive review of priority chapters (notably subdivisions and zoning). "A spreadsheet that says, here's what the language is now. Here is what we are proposing to change. Here is what it will apply to, and so forth," Curtis said, describing the method his team used when working with Salt Lake County.

Several commissioners supported staff taking the first pass. Commissioner Jim Karkut urged caution about overcomplicating the process, saying he did not "see this giant need to overhaul everything" and recommending the commission rely on staff judgment and continuity. Tim, another commissioner, said the most time‑efficient path was to let staff draft the reformat and then give commissioners and one council member a targeted opportunity to review difficult sections offline.

The group agreed the first phase should be largely a reformatting exercise — not a substantive rewrite — so the public body and council can clearly see what, if anything, has changed. Commissioners and staff discussed prioritizing chapters based on upcoming applications and litigation risk and singled out the conditional‑use and subdivision chapters for early attention. Claire said she would regroup with staff (including Curtis, Brian and Jim), prepare a more concrete process and timeline by email, and provide materials or live training ahead of the next meeting; the commission discussed using the March 12 meeting date for training if needed.

No motions or votes were taken. The meeting closed with staff tasked to produce the model‑code draft, an annotated spreadsheet for complex sections, and a proposed schedule for commissioner training and incremental review.

The commission is expected to consider staff's proposed process and the first spreadsheeted sections at its next meeting; staff will notify commissioners by email when the materials are available.