Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ivins council pauses vote on ordinance to require bike parking at new commercial developments
Summary
Following a public hearing that drew one resident comment in favor, the Ivins City Council debated technical changes to a proposed ordinance requiring bicycle parking at new commercial developments and voted to continue the item so staff can rework the language on minimums, measurement and applicability to existing buildings.
The Ivins City Council on Dec. 4 opened a public hearing on proposed Ordinance No. 2025-24, which would require bicycle parking at new commercial developments, then continued debate to a future meeting so staff can redraft the measure.
Resident Wayne Pennington urged adoption and suggested more-flexible language for how bike parking is provided. "I'd like to suggest that it's be just the simple wording 'bike racks (or equivalent) shall be installed,'" he told the council during public comment.
The ordinance as proposed would require one bike rack for every 30 off‑street parking spaces (the draft defines a rack with room for seven bicycles). City staff explained that formula was drawn from the general plan; one staff member said he reduced a prior 1-per-20 ratio to 1-per-30 after a review of other cities' codes.
Council members pressed several technical and practical questions: whether requirements should be expressed as "bicycle parking spaces" rather than a particular rack type so alternatives (freestanding stands or other secure devices) could be used; whether a minimum number of spaces should apply even to very small commercial uses; and what types of permits on existing properties should trigger the requirement. One councilmember proposed a 2-space minimum plus one additional bicycle parking space for every 10 vehicle parking spaces as an alternative formula.
There was also concern about applying the rule to existing shopping centers undergoing minor tenant improvements, with multiple council members favoring limits so small interior remodels would not suddenly force large site changes. City staff said the Building Department could be given discretion to approve alternates when strict application would be impractical.
After extended discussion and suggested edits, a motion to continue consideration of Ordinance 2025-24 passed so staff may revise the draft and return it for further council review.
The council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; members asked staff to bring back clarified language addressing minimums, the units of measurement (spaces vs. racks), and the trigger for existing properties.
