[0:00] Okay,
[0:01] >> we're live now.
[0:02] >> Okay, you want to put up the agenda?
[0:17] » You would think otherwise. Okay, we
[0:20] would like to uh welcome everybody to
[0:24] Alpine City Planning Commission meeting
[0:26] today, September 1st, 2026
[0:30] at City Hall at 20 North Main Street.
[0:36] Let's do a quick
[0:39] uh roll call. Um from the planning
[0:44] commission, Troy Slade,
[0:47] Michelle Shurmer. Shmer,
[0:49] >> John McCay, myself, Jeff Davis,
[0:53] >> Greg Butterfield,
[0:56] >> and from the city we have Kaden Lion and
[0:59] Jason Jud
[1:01] and Mara Fox. Correct.
[1:04] >> Okay.
[1:07] Um,
[1:09] uh, we are excusing Alan McDonald. He's
[1:12] out of the country this week.
[1:14] Um, let the record show that the meeting
[1:19] has been duly noted as as Allan likes to
[1:23] say uh publicly
[1:26] and uh let us begin with a prayer.
[1:31] Susan, would you mind giving that? Thank
[1:34] you.
[1:36] >> Our heavenly father, as we come before
[1:37] thee this pretty fall day or evening,
[1:40] we're so grateful for the many blessings
[1:42] that we enjoy. Father, we're very
[1:43] mindful of the things around the world
[1:45] that are causing a lot of stress and
[1:47] commotion for other people's lives, and
[1:49] we pray for them that they will be
[1:51] looked over and blessed to um get out of
[1:55] these hard circumstances.
[1:57] We're grateful for the citizens of this
[2:00] great little town. We're grateful for
[2:01] the leadership and we're grateful that
[2:03] we have a role in trying to make things
[2:06] run smoothly and to come to decisive
[2:09] decisions that would be good for the
[2:11] whole community. We pray that thy spirit
[2:13] will be with us. We're so grateful that
[2:15] we live in this great country and please
[2:16] bless that we will be mindful of other
[2:19] people and how we treat them and and
[2:22] that we can have a very productive meeting
[2:26] this evening in the name of Jesus
[2:27] Christ. Amen.
[2:28] >> Amen. I'll lead us in the pledge. All
[2:30] rise. [clears throat]
[2:34] I alian to the flag of the United States
[2:38] of America and to the republic for which
[2:41] it stands. One nation under God,
[2:44] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[2:47] for all.
[2:48] >> Thank you.
[2:50] >> Thanks, Susan.
[2:53] Okay. Um, we'll turn the next item over
[2:58] to Kaden as he has a little presentation
[3:01] to give us.
[3:04] Okay, thank you. Yeah, so I was last
[3:07] weekend I was feeling sad that this
[3:08] little part of our agenda always says
[3:10] none. So I was like, "Oh, let's just
[3:12] have a little discussion about uh about
[3:15] planning. Just a little planning lesson
[3:18] and discussion." I thought it would be
[3:19] fun. So we'll make it brief though
[3:20] because obviously we just uh we want to
[3:22] go home not too late. So um let me just
[3:26] jump over to this actually before I do
[3:29] that. So a little warm-up to this. I I
[3:32] threw this together just now. So, I have
[3:36] two little uh images here. I would like
[3:38] the commissioners to just tell me if
[3:41] they agree or disagree with these
[3:44] graphics and why.
[3:47] So, this says both both of these images,
[3:50] the above and below are 20 mph zones,
[3:52] but only one of them is designed like
[3:54] it.
[3:56] Well, I mean, the top one does
[3:59] doesn't show any obstructions
[4:04] and
[4:06] it's kind of a residential area, it
[4:09] appears. I mean, I guess they both
[4:11] probably could be residential, but but
[4:14] the road does look narrower.
[4:18] » I think the bottom one looks it it has
[4:22] enough with those trees. I don't think
[4:24] anybody's going to go racing down that
[4:26] for some reason. It feels tighter, but it's it's just I don't know. I can't
[4:32] imagine going putting pedal to the metal
[4:34] there. But the other one looks like a
[4:35] straightaway, which I just drove a
[4:37] Lamborghini a Lamborghini the other day,
[4:39] just FYI.
[4:40] >> Cool. [laughter]
[4:41] >> Really? For the first time?
[4:43] >> No, but for the second time out that
[4:45] racetrack.
[4:46] >> Oh, really?
[4:46] >> Oh, man. That was so fast.
[4:48] >> One looks like it's about 10 years old.
[4:49] The other looks 30 years old. So, one
[4:51] certainly established.
[4:52] >> So, one's older. Yeah.
[4:54] >> Doesn't have sidewalks. Doesn't have
[4:56] curb and gutter. Uh you can tell one's
[4:59] 20 years older than the other.
[5:00] >> Okay. I like that comment.
[5:03] >> But it feel it feels like you would be
[5:06] less in the bottom one to me.
[5:08] >> Okay.
[5:08] >> I don't know. It just feels [snorts]
[5:11] >> I don't know. Like I can't really see
[5:13] down the street that well. I'm not gonna
[5:15] fly down there.
[5:16] >> Yeah.
[5:18] >> So it says one of them is designed like
[5:20] it. Which one do you think is the one
[5:22] that's designed like it?
[5:24] The top one.
[5:26] >> You guys think the top one is designed
[5:28] like a 20 mph zone more than the bottom?
[5:31] >> I think the bottom
[5:33] >> design [laughter]
[5:36] >> it's a possibility too
[5:38] >> older neighborhood
[5:39] >> happened older neighborhoods their trees
[5:41] where they want them.
[5:43] >> Okay.
[5:45] >> Yeah. It's a smaller road so it was
[5:47] probably designed to be 20 but the
[5:49] original it's a narrow road.
[5:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. The top one definitely
[5:53] probably is more masterd designed,
[5:55] right? Master planned.
[5:56] >> It's a 25
[5:57] >> likely. Okay.
[5:59] >> Is that what neighborhoods are usually?
[6:00] 25.
[6:01] >> Yeah, I would say so. Yeah.
[6:02] >> Just Yeah. It's just a narrow street.
[6:04] Cars are parked close. If the kids comes
[6:06] darting out, boom. You know, I mean,
[6:08] same with the top, but the bottom feels
[6:09] more
[6:11] >> I think.
[6:12] >> Yeah. top one you can see the homes are
[6:14] set back so you can kind of
[6:17] uh well more likely people will be up
[6:20] and around the garage area front door so
[6:22] you can see them more clearly from the
[6:24] middle of the road if you're driving
[6:26] bottom one maybe it's a little more
[6:28] obstructed I think Susan Troy were
[6:30] saying that I also like what you guys
[6:32] said you both said it feels like this it
[6:35] feels like you know this is how I would
[6:37] feel on that road and I think a lot of
[6:39] the times we forget in city design and
[6:42] planning that um usually feel is what
[6:46] people react to. It's not law, even
[6:50] though it should be probably, but
[6:52] usually feel is more what we react to
[6:55] because that's more what our senses uh
[6:57] are are feeling in that moment, right?
[7:00] So, if it feels like it's safe to to
[7:02] drive quickly, then it's more likely
[7:04] someone will drive quickly no matter
[7:06] what the law is. Um so, yeah. Okay. So,
[7:10] let's move on to the next one.
[7:12] What's the answer?
[7:14] >> Can't leave us hanging.
[7:15] >> Yeah, the bottom one is for sure more
[7:16] design like a 20. Yeah. And I would say
[7:19] the reason why I think what you guys
[7:20] have already said, the street trees,
[7:23] narrower road, um, you know, there's
[7:26] room for parking or maybe there's not a
[7:29] sidewalk here, but people to walk here.
[7:32] Um, there's just more friction is what
[7:35] you could say. There's more going on.
[7:36] So, as a driver, you're a little more
[7:38] hyper aware, which naturally causes you
[7:40] to slow down here. Like, you still are
[7:43] aware. You maybe a kid will dart out
[7:44] behind this white car. So, you want to
[7:46] be safe. You want to be make sure you're
[7:48] paying attention, but it's just a little
[7:50] bit easier to feel like I can drive
[7:52] faster on this road, I would say. I
[7:54] don't know if you guys agree, but okay,
[7:56] let's look at this one, too. Do you
[7:57] agree or disagree? And why with this?
[8:00] So, this is saying this is a 15-ish mile
[8:04] an hour pedestrianfriendly street. So,
[8:06] you can there's always people out on the
[8:08] road. It's a narrower street. Car cars
[8:11] parked here on the right side.
[8:14] And it's saying this is safe. This
[8:17] middle one is 30 to 50 miles an hour.
[8:19] It's kind of designed like you would
[8:22] imagine State Street or something like
[8:24] that where there's a lot of businesses
[8:26] on either side. There's street lights.
[8:29] There's a median here, but it's mostly
[8:31] cars. You don't see really at all any
[8:34] pedestrians in this image.
[8:36] And then and it says it's deadly. That's
[8:38] what it says here. And then this one
[8:40] says 60 plus miles an hour. It's only
[8:43] cars freeway style. There's a bar a
[8:47] barrier between the two different ways
[8:49] of of traffic. And it calls it safe as
[8:51] well. So I'm curious what the
[8:53] commissioners think about this.
[8:56] >> I don't know what deadly means. I mean,
[8:58] like, what does it mean there? Because
[9:00] >> I think it's because pedestrians can
[9:03] cross streets when traffic is going that
[9:05] fast. And I think when you throw all
[9:07] that in and all the different turns and
[9:10] it becomes more points of
[9:15] » you remember Troy, we were you were in
[9:17] on it Kaden when we had the dot guy with
[9:19] our dra that traffic thing and he talked
[9:21] about how people are safer driving. you
[9:24] just expect to drive 60 miles an hour in
[9:27] something like that. And by everybody
[9:28] slowing down and that's the danger is no
[9:31] one the middle ones probably really is
[9:33] because look how many cars are out like
[9:36] look at your your just your purview like
[9:41] you couldn't keep track of all that. Is
[9:43] that big truck going to turn? Is that
[9:45] somebody going to dart out there?
[9:47] >> That's to me is just a visual thing. and
[9:49] the other one. It seems like we're all
[9:50] going the same direction and so we're
[9:53] going to keep our speed at the same.
[9:54] >> The first two are fairly cropped. You
[9:56] almost need to have it so you can see
[9:57] what's going on.
[9:59] >> The fact that it says 30 to 50 mph gives
[10:01] you a 20 m hour buffer where the one on
[10:04] says
[10:06] >> they're on side walk.
[10:08] >> I don't know if you've got the med in
[10:09] the middle if people try to run and dart
[10:11] and then stand in there and then cross.
[10:13] >> But it's kind of hard when you just take
[10:15] and show one lane. Yeah,
[10:18] >> I would say every once in a while you
[10:19] see someone dart out in the middle of
[10:21] State Street like trying to cross
[10:22] without the
[10:24] >> crosswalk or something, right? And
[10:25] you're always like, "Okay, there's
[10:27] someone crossing the road randomly."
[10:30] But mostly you don't really see someone
[10:33] darting across the road, right? you
[10:34] would say in this case
[10:37] or even crossing the crosswalk at the
[10:39] right spot in the middle. I would say
[10:41] there's not really many pedestrians
[10:43] walking along the roadside
[10:45] >> in a in a environment like this.
[10:47] >> So, are you going to tell us why one's
[10:49] deadly or you going to wait till
[10:50] >> somebody else have any more comments?
[10:52] [laughter]
[10:54] >> So, well, and I didn't fully prepare an
[10:57] answer to all this. I was just wanting
[10:58] to see your guys' opinion. I mean, so my
[11:00] opinion would be, yeah, the reason why
[11:02] this is called out as safe is because
[11:04] drivers are expecting people on the
[11:07] road. I mean, the speed limit is low.
[11:10] So, that naturally brings down uh brings
[11:14] down friction between cars and
[11:15] pedestrians. But the reason why it's low
[11:18] is because there's street trees, there's
[11:20] cars parked along the side, there's
[11:23] shops here with pedestrian facing signs,
[11:26] there's people on the road. They're
[11:27] you're expecting to see them because
[11:29] they're always there. There's always
[11:31] activity going on. The road also is
[11:33] designed differently than normal
[11:36] pavement. It looks like it's a brick
[11:37] style design. And so as a driver, that
[11:40] signals, oh, this road is different than
[11:42] normal road, so I should be aware just
[11:45] naturally.
[11:45] >> You go there if you're trying to get
[11:48] anywhere in life, you know, to avoid
[11:50] that.
[11:50] >> Right. No, that's a great comment,
[11:52] right?
[11:53] >> So if you're trying to get anywhere,
[11:55] you're here. You want to be here, right?
[11:57] >> If you're trying to enjoy something or
[11:59] do something else, you're here. Here,
[12:02] what are you trying to do? I mean, got
[12:04] to go to Ross, dress for less or
[12:06] something. I don't know, right? Like,
[12:07] there's definitely reasons you would be
[12:09] here. And especially in the US today, we
[12:12] have so many roads like this that we're
[12:14] often here in this location. I don't
[12:17] know if we like being there, [laughter]
[12:19] but we all go there. We all have to go
[12:21] there because a lot of things are
[12:22] designed this way. But um yeah, I would
[12:26] say they're calling this one out as
[12:27] deadly because uh as a pedestrian you
[12:30] don't want to be here and as a driver
[12:32] you don't want to be here and because
[12:33] there's a lot of things going on. I
[12:34] think what Suz was saying like um if you
[12:38] know
[12:39] you would never know if someone's going
[12:41] to dart out or something like that or
[12:43] there's different speeds that people are
[12:45] driving. Oh, if I need to get into this
[12:46] store all of a sudden I'm slowing down.
[12:48] I'm trying to get over to the left turn
[12:49] lane. The car behind has to slow down.
[12:51] Everybody else there's a repercussion
[12:52] effect. I think that's why they have
[12:55] this various this varying speed limit
[12:57] here because roads like this often do
[13:00] vary in speeds by law, but also just by
[13:03] how drivers drive, driver behavior.
[13:06] People are doing different things.
[13:07] They're trying to get over. They're
[13:08] trying to go down a different street.
[13:10] There's so many access points. So speeds
[13:12] just vary so often here. And so I think
[13:15] uh both as a driver and as a pedestrian,
[13:18] you probably don't feel the most
[13:20] comfortable in an environment like this.
[13:22] I don't know if the commissioners would
[13:23] agree. That'd be my take. Um, this one I
[13:27] think is said as safe, not because
[13:29] accidents don't happen because they do
[13:30] on roads like this, right? But, um,
[13:33] there's no pedestrian conflict at all.
[13:35] This is not a space for pedestrians. So,
[13:37] you're not worried about running into
[13:39] one unless something really uncommon or
[13:43] weird happens. Otherwise, you would
[13:45] never see a pedestrian here. Um, I think
[13:48] uh what someone said is there's a
[13:51] consistent speed. You kind of expect it
[13:53] to be a one speed or very close to it
[13:57] and everyone's on on your side of the
[13:59] road is going the same way and vice
[14:01] versa.
[14:04] So, um, this chart just kind of breaks
[14:06] this down one more time. So, a walkable
[14:09] street, an urban arterial, which we have
[14:12] Alpine Highway, Canyon Crest, and I
[14:14] think going up Heel Boulevard are the
[14:16] three arterial roads in our city. Um,
[14:21] and then we have a freeway. And so,
[14:24] pedestrians here, common, possible,
[14:27] none. Lots of cross traffic in both of
[14:30] these, but none here. driveways a lot
[14:34] and none or very few maybe but and then
[14:38] vehicles common. Vehicles turning across
[14:41] traffic common and common very rare for
[14:44] a freeway. Opposing traffic is close by
[14:47] or often close by with these two and
[14:49] then physically separated with the
[14:50] freeway. Speed variation low for a
[14:53] street. You're probably going about 10
[14:55] to 20 miles an hour no matter what. And
[14:58] you expect that with a pedestrian style
[14:59] street. This one's a not uncommon
[15:02] variation because people are always
[15:04] shifting or the speed limit might
[15:06] actually change by law. And then this is
[15:09] low as well and relatively predictable.
[15:11] We all know the freeway 70 miles an hour
[15:13] even if we all drive 80 or something.
[15:15] And then access on these two is high
[15:18] speed limit or freeway is controlled.
[15:21] So one thing I thought I think is
[15:23] interesting about this chart too is look
[15:24] how many uh the 50 mph and 30 and 50
[15:28] have in common. Lots lots. Mini mini
[15:30] common common close by close by high.
[15:34] So you can see that these two different
[15:36] designs of roads have so many common
[15:39] elements but they feel so different and
[15:43] they don't and this one feels safe and
[15:46] this one feels not as safe. Interesting.
[15:50] I just think it's an interesting thing
[15:51] to think about.
[15:52] >> And I put it in Claude said gave me the
[15:54] uh kinetic energy square velocity.
[15:58] >> Okay. The main reason is the one on the
[15:59] left is safe is because you're going 15
[16:01] miles per hour.
[16:02] >> Okay.
[16:02] >> The reason the one in the middle isn't
[16:03] because you got variation of speed and
[16:05] it's main definition was uh high speed
[16:09] mixed with high complexity
[16:12] definition with complexity.
[16:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's what I have here
[16:15] exactly. Thanks for saying that, Greg.
[16:16] So the 3050 is the dangerous middle
[16:18] because it combines relatively high
[16:21] speeds with lots of potential conflict
[16:23] points. So, if someone's pulling out of
[16:25] a driveway to a 30 to 50 mph arterial
[16:28] road, you can see this car is zooming
[16:30] down here and you're trying to pull out.
[16:32] Um, high chance because you're just
[16:34] trying to pick up your speed. If you're
[16:35] this car, high chance, and this is kind
[16:37] of backwards. I should be going this
[16:38] way.
[16:39] >> But, um, high chance that this car is
[16:41] going fast and you're just
[16:43] >> you're just getting going. And you know,
[16:45] my my wife is was going to this school
[16:48] on State Street in Orum and you had to
[16:52] kind of it kind of felt awkward even to
[16:54] pull in because you had to pull off into
[16:55] the shoulder and then inch your way in
[16:57] after you were going like 45 miles an
[16:59] hour and then pulling out was even worse
[17:01] because the street allowed street
[17:03] parking all the way along the road in
[17:05] the shoulder. So you first you couldn't
[17:07] see and then when you finally get out to
[17:09] the the actual lane of road the car is
[17:12] going 45 miles an hour or whatever and
[17:14] so then you have to you hope that no
[17:16] one's there and and then zoom up and
[17:18] catch up with traffic. And that's the
[17:20] nature of roads like State Street is
[17:22] there's so much as it says here
[17:24] potential conflict points but also high
[17:26] speeds that it creates that environment
[17:28] where we just feel like I'm in a car I
[17:30] feel like sometimes I'm not safe and as
[17:32] a pedestrian I definitely don't feel
[17:33] safe either. Right? So I just have this
[17:37] part. Don't look at speed limits in
[17:38] isolation.
[17:40] Look at whether the physical design of
[17:41] the road matches the speed. And the
[17:44] reason why I think I've this has been on
[17:46] my mind and I even thought about this
[17:47] presentation today is because we've had
[17:48] this conversation often and I I think
[17:50] Troy and um Suz were there at our at our
[17:54] conversation about traffic with two
[17:56] council members and Andy Spencer or was
[17:59] it three council members? I can't
[18:00] remember. Um, yeah. And so, and there
[18:03] was like a lot of discussion about this,
[18:04] like there were some council members
[18:05] that were really pushing to lower the
[18:07] speed limit on Main Street here in our
[18:08] city or lower the speed limit on Canyon
[18:10] Crest or something like that because
[18:12] people drive too fast, right? And I was
[18:15] listening to that and I was like, well,
[18:16] really like what slows people down is
[18:18] street design. It's not posted speed
[18:21] limit. It's how you feel as you go,
[18:23] right? And so if you feel safe going 45
[18:26] on Canyon Crest, the only thing stopping
[18:28] you is if you happen to notice or
[18:30] there's a police officer there or
[18:32] something like that, right? Um so uh I
[18:35] think just some fun food for thought to
[18:37] think about as we consider great uh
[18:40] planning as the planning commission
[18:42] team. Um so yeah, so a 50 mph road
[18:45] designed like a freeway can function
[18:46] relatively safely. So, a lot of people
[18:48] think high speed less safe, but what
[18:50] we've just looked at, uh, high speed
[18:52] doesn't necessarily have to be unsafe.
[18:54] It just depends on how the road's
[18:56] designed, right? A 35 a 35 mph road
[18:59] designed like a city street, but
[19:01] carrying freeway like traffic can be
[19:03] extremely problematic.
[19:05] Um, so now I'll just jump over to my
[19:07] presentation which I actually put in and
[19:08] I I won't go through this whole thing
[19:10] because I really wanted to just focus on
[19:11] a few slides here and it was more for
[19:13] you to just kind of kind of have uh some
[19:16] fun like thinking about street design.
[19:18] So um so the purpose of this exploration
[19:21] was just to use our imagination to think
[19:23] about what we have versus what could be
[19:25] with street design. Right? So here's a
[19:29] just a screenshot of Pleasant Grove
[19:31] State Stage Street really close to where
[19:32] I live. Um, so you look at this road and
[19:36] think about how you feel as a driver
[19:38] going down this road. Uh, think about
[19:40] how you feel as someone walking on that
[19:42] sidewalk right there or or a cyclist on
[19:45] the shoulder. There's no designated uh,
[19:48] bike lane there, but probably people
[19:51] would drive down that or ride down that
[19:53] shoulder there on a bike. So, it's
[19:55] funny. I brought up this image with
[19:56] Andrew Young and Sarah Blackwell in just
[19:59] a private meeting we had here last week
[20:01] and they were laughing and joking about
[20:04] how when you see someone like walking on
[20:06] the sidewalk right here, you like Andrew
[20:09] was saying that oh wow like when
[20:11] someone's walking there you feel like oh
[20:13] do you need a ride like can I pick you
[20:14] up and take you somewhere? which I
[20:16] thought was a really interesting
[20:18] observation because it's it's true.
[20:20] Usually on a road like this that's
[20:22] designed more toward leans towards cars
[20:24] and less towards people. Someone is out
[20:27] there on their feet, you feel like, hey
[20:30] buddy, do you need help? Like I can help
[20:32] you out or something like that, right?
[20:33] You shouldn't be out here not in a
[20:35] vehicle, not in two tons of steel. So
[20:37] let me help you out, right? Um, so I
[20:41] aied this image just to kind of give us
[20:44] an idea of, oh, okay, what would it feel
[20:46] like if this road was a little bit more
[20:48] designed towards people riding a bike or
[20:50] walking?
[20:52] And obviously this is AI as you see
[20:54] these medians don't line up. This should
[20:56] be down here more or something, right?
[20:57] But um, but I just think this is
[20:59] interesting. you look at this other
[21:02] road, which is the exact same road, and
[21:04] you feel like, wow, if I was a if I was
[21:06] a pedestrian or riding my bike, and that
[21:10] second image, I would feel fine if I had
[21:13] that dedicated bike lane.
[21:15] Um, or if I was walking along that
[21:18] sidewalk, which is a little bit wider
[21:19] than the first image. It was widened to
[21:21] make it feel a little bit more
[21:23] comfortable for someone using it.
[21:26] Um, so
[21:27] >> that first image feels like 50. The
[21:32] second image feels like 3540, you know.
[21:36] >> Yeah.
[21:37] >> Like it just feels like Yeah.
[21:38] >> Sidewalk makes you feel safer. That
[21:40] little bike lane bike lane is bike lane
[21:44] is an absolute buffer. Even I mean it's
[21:46] just visually you're looking at that
[21:48] going, "Oh, I could walk on that
[21:49] sidewalk because I got some space
[21:50] between me and the cars."
[21:52] >> Yeah.
[21:52] >> It feels a lot. Anyway,
[21:54] >> yeah. did a good job on that.
[21:56] >> Yeah. And if you're riding, you're like,
[21:58] "Oh, I I totally feel comfortable, you
[22:00] know, using this as like a training a
[22:03] training trail for me as as a cyclist or
[22:06] whatever." Right.
[22:07] >> Um, so I thought that was interesting.
[22:09] Anyone else have thoughts about this
[22:11] before I move on to the next one?
[22:13] >> It'd be interesting to know the
[22:14] difference in cost.
[22:17] >> That that's always the question too,
[22:18] right? With city
[22:19] >> one on the right.
[22:20] >> Yeah.
[22:21] >> Pay for how wide of a road you have. We
[22:23] couldn't do that on Main Street. We'd
[22:25] love it, but we just don't have the
[22:27] space. We'd be
[22:28] >> I think that's your next slide. The
[22:30] picture was taken at the widest part of
[22:31] Main Street.
[22:32] >> Problem.
[22:34] >> When I drive home on Alpine Highway, I
[22:36] always think about why do I feel like
[22:38] I'm going slower here than I'm going
[22:40] faster there. And you try to put what is going on in the streetscape,
[22:45] right?
[22:45] >> But Highland has put those medians,
[22:47] >> but their medians south of the Al of the
[22:50] Tempogus Highway. they have kept
[22:53] manicured and the trees are big and as
[22:55] the trees are getting bigger and the
[22:57] side trees are getting bigger the the
[23:00] street is shrinking.
[23:01] >> Yeah.
[23:01] >> And you feel it and so I feel like I go
[23:04] slower on the alpine highway south the
[23:06] tip highway then you go north.
[23:07] >> Oh
[23:08] >> because north they've let all of their
[23:10] planters die in some all the trees are
[23:12] dead
[23:13] >> because they're hard to manage. Yeah.
[23:15] They take water. They They go out and
[23:17] spray that crappy herbicide that's that
[23:20] yellow bright yellow. Think we're all
[23:22] going to die the day they spray it.
[23:23] >> Yeah.
[23:24] >> Because it leaves the rocks and but
[23:26] they're hard to maintain. And so they
[23:28] have maintained their south
[23:30] >> of the Tim Highway. And so I think
[23:33] that's part of the reason people speed
[23:35] up on the north side of the Temp Highway
[23:37] is because it's open again.
[23:40] >> There's no trees that are closing it in.
[23:42] It's wider and the are just the little
[23:46] shrubs because the trees are gone. So I
[23:48] think that's part of the two sides of
[23:51] the alpine highway and south of Tim.
[23:53] >> I love that.
[23:54] >> I think can crrest the problem you're
[23:56] never going to solve is the hill
[23:58] >> because everybody accelerates when you
[24:00] see the hill
[24:01] >> and when you accelerate because you're
[24:03] seeing the hill all of a sudden your
[24:05] speed is just up.
[24:06] >> I don't know if there's anything you can
[24:08] do just because it's a topograph
[24:10] topography kind of thing
[24:11] >> and that's part of dealing with this
[24:12] too. Topography is definitely a factor.
[24:14] >> I think that's the CN crest problem is
[24:17] just, you know, you accelerate because
[24:20] you see a hill. Oh, I better accelerate
[24:22] and so and then smack your your fast.
[24:25] So, my two
[24:26] >> Yeah. No, thank you for sharing that.
[24:29] Anybody else? That was great.
[24:32] >> Yeah. No, I agree. I I think the image
[24:34] on the right we like because it feels
[24:36] good. It feels comfortable. Especially
[24:38] if you're outside of your car, right?
[24:39] You're like, "Oh, I I feel fine." Even
[24:41] though I can tell cars are moving pretty
[24:43] swiftly right next to me, I feel I feel
[24:45] fine. Um, that doesn't mean it's uh
[24:48] cheaper as we just mentioned and it
[24:51] doesn't mean again it's easier to it's
[24:52] easier to ma manage or maintain, right?
[24:56] It's just this is all just about street
[24:58] design and and how it affects speeding
[25:01] and and pedestrian life on the street,
[25:05] right? Or on the road. Okay. So, yeah,
[25:07] we saw this one for our street, too. So,
[25:09] I think here's our main street and and
[25:11] like Greg said, this is the really wide
[25:13] shoulder down by the clock tower. Um,
[25:17] which when I first started working for
[25:19] the city just a few months ago, I was
[25:20] like, "Wow, this is a really awesome
[25:22] opportunity space. Like, this is really
[25:25] wide, especially right here. Like, this
[25:26] could this could something could be done
[25:28] here that could make the main street
[25:30] really active or really great." Right
[25:33] now, it's just a really wide shoulder
[25:34] that really doesn't serve any purpose,
[25:36] right? because I don't know if enough
[25:37] people even park there to to justify how
[25:39] wide that is. Right.
[25:41] >> Does the charter school use the space?
[25:43] Uh it seems like they're using the space
[25:45] right now for turning right. So if
[25:47] you're to do something there like a bike
[25:49] lane or something else, you can put all
[25:50] that traffic on one lane.
[25:53] >> So you compound traffic significantly, I
[25:55] guess.
[25:57] >> Yeah.
[25:57] >> But then when I left, I noticed they
[25:59] were uh seem to be trying to do a better
[26:02] job. And I don't know if it's because of
[26:03] the barricade you put up. It seems like
[26:05] the teachers are parking in the dirt
[26:06] field.
[26:07] >> Yes.
[26:08] >> And today I noticed that to keep the
[26:10] traffic down, they were all in this lane
[26:13] over here on the left hand side.
[26:15] >> Yes.
[26:16] >> For their kids to cross that way now.
[26:18] >> But there's still parents that park over
[26:19] here [clears throat] where people are
[26:20] waiting and dumping their kids off.
[26:23] >> Yeah. Right here. Especially this
[26:24] shoulder. I think I've seen this
[26:25] shoulder backed up to about here from
[26:28] the school which is way down that way.
[26:30] But yeah, people definitely are using
[26:32] that shoulder on this side.
[26:34] Um, yeah, and that's a complicated
[26:36] question, right? We're not going to
[26:37] analyze how uh a better designed street
[26:40] will affect the parking of the school
[26:41] today, but that's something that
[26:44] obviously needs to be taken into
[26:45] consideration if ever action was was
[26:47] taken to to do something, right? But,
[26:50] um, okay. So, if you haven't seen this
[26:52] image, uh, get ready, buckle up. So,
[26:56] again, this is just an AI generated
[26:57] image, so it's not perfect. The person
[26:59] has the bike lane on the left side
[27:01] pointing the other way and they're
[27:02] coming towards us. But um so
[27:06] tell me about what you think about this image here and what do you think it
[27:11] >> it's great
[27:12] >> means for the main streets
[27:15] feel like speeding down.
[27:16] >> This looks like Holiday and Mil Creek.
[27:21] >> That's what we should have. Man, let's
[27:24] >> raise our tax.
[27:26] >> Yeah. And I just think wedged over that
[27:29] same teeny tiny.
[27:30] >> What's the double yellow? Uh, is that
[27:33] >> Yeah, I think that's just an AI error as
[27:35] well. Yeah. Yeah. I think it was
[27:37] thinking this was a two-way. But anyway,
[27:39] we all know this is the one. This goes
[27:41] this way and this comes towards us.
[27:45] >> Yeah. Some little med. But I think I
[27:48] think the good thing about that it threw
[27:49] this in here is like a narrow lane like
[27:51] this is ideal for a main street.
[27:56] >> Yeah.
[27:56] >> Because that also contributes to slower
[27:58] speeds.
[27:58] >> This is basically what the plan
[28:00] suggested.
[28:01] >> Mhm.
[28:01] >> Right.
[28:02] >> To slow them down before they get to the
[28:05] yellow.
[28:07] >> Yes. Don't we love those? They're
[28:10] beautiful out there. Right. But they're
[28:12] kind of serving the purpose that a
[28:13] medium like this would. Right. um which
[28:15] is much more aesthetically pleasing.
[28:18] >> Um
[28:20] >> tell me what you think. Tell me how you
[28:22] feel or what you would think about
[28:24] standing like standing right here versus
[28:28] standing right here if you're just on
[28:29] your feet.
[28:30] >> Safer obviously.
[28:33] >> Yeah.
[28:34] Want to spend a little the right
[28:36] one is just more inviting to foot
[28:39] traffic. And you know, my office is in
[28:41] downtown Holiday and that's this is what
[28:44] it looks like and and so there's lots
[28:48] more foot traffic in that area.
[28:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. It feels like you want to go
[28:53] downtown.
[28:54] >> Yeah.
[28:55] >> Exactly.
[28:56] >> You need to have something downtown. You
[28:58] want to go to
[28:58] >> Oh, that's true.
[29:02] >> Go to the dentist.
[29:03] >> Exercise.
[29:04] >> Go to the dentist.
[29:05] >> The printing press museum.
[29:06] >> Yeah. In the printing press museum.
[29:08] never.
[29:12] » It's true though. No,
[29:16] >> I like that point though. Like that's
[29:17] obviously part of creating an active uh
[29:20] friendly main street is have
[29:22] destinations, right?
[29:22] >> Yeah. Holiday has lots of restaurants in
[29:25] downtown.
[29:26] >> Yeah.
[29:27] >> And they have a Harmons and
[29:29] >> Yes,
[29:30] >> they have lots of good restaurants right
[29:32] by our office.
[29:34] >> Yeah. They have Takaria 27.
[29:56] No.
[30:03] » So
[30:04] >> yeah, but you still [snorts]
[30:06] make it inviting
[30:09] >> and look good and then
[30:11] >> maybe that's the impetus
[30:13] >> for something in the future
[30:19] » well
[30:21] >> if the environment was cool enough I
[30:23] think
[30:24] >> people would come
[30:25] >> it could it could be you know it could be if there was if this was
[30:31] what it looked like
[30:33] >> and there was foot more foot traffic
[30:36] down there.
[30:39] One one business might lead to two,
[30:42] might lead to three. I mean, like in
[30:44] downtown Holiday, they all just didn't
[30:46] come at the same time.
[30:47] >> Right.
[30:48] They didn't go, "Oh, we're all
[30:50] going to go." No, they came one at a
[30:52] time. And now it's really nice.
[30:56] >> I think it's relatively close to ours.
[30:58] >> It's pretty close to ours.
[31:00] >> Maybe 10,000 more. I don't know, but it
[31:02] might even be that many. It
[31:05] >> might be up to 20,000. I'm not sure
[31:07] though exactly,
[31:08] >> but I mean I think Allan brought it up
[31:10] last time with detach because he was
[31:13] saying it was so similar to
[31:15] >> Yeah.
[31:16] >> Alpine in that way.
[31:23] » 31,000.
[31:24] >> Oh, it says 31,000.
[31:26] >> Yeah, it's like three times.
[31:27] >> So, it's three times our size. Yeah.
[31:32] 36.
[31:34] >> Okay.
[31:35] >> So, basically three times.
[31:36] >> So, it's three times our size. Yeah.
[31:39] >> But yeah, I mean, if you can imagine
[31:41] like let's think what's the snow cone
[31:43] place that all the kids love going to
[31:44] right over here.
[31:44] >> Snowasis.
[31:45] >> Snow Aces.
[31:46] >> Yeah. What if Snow Oasis was like in the
[31:48] middle of this right here?
[31:49] >> Used to be
[31:50] >> It used to It used to be down.
[31:51] >> If it looked like this, I think that
[31:53] would
[31:54] >> Yeah,
[31:54] >> there would definitely be a lot of
[31:55] people there, right?
[31:57] >> Yeah. So I think once you have one
[32:00] business that people want
[32:01] >> because Mike Mike didn't Mike didn't
[32:04] want it right there.
[32:24] » Yeah.
[32:25] So, if you had this and you had
[32:27] dedicated bike lanes, like let's imagine
[32:29] this image doesn't show it, but what if
[32:30] this was a little bit more ice separated
[32:34] from traffic, it had like a a raised
[32:37] curb or something or just a different
[32:39] like maybe this is painted all green or
[32:41] something like that that made it even a
[32:42] little bit safer for the rider.
[32:44] >> Yeah.
[32:44] >> The kids were like, "Mom, I'm going down
[32:46] to Snow Oasis down in the center of
[32:47] town." And they'd ride down here and
[32:49] come up in this pedestrian area like
[32:50] >> should be on the sidewalk anyways, not
[32:52] in a bike lane.
[32:54] But if it was dedicated bike, I don't
[32:57] know if parents would be that as
[32:58] nervous, right?
[32:59] >> So, it's all about design. That's all
[33:01] I'm trying to say. It is all about
[33:02] design.
[33:04] >> But I think they're crazy.
[33:08] » Yeah.
[33:09] >> They're confusing.
[33:11] >> No, they're not.
[33:12] >> They are.
[33:13] >> They're like everywhere in Europe.
[33:15] >> Yeah.
[33:16] >> In a lot of places back east. We don't
[33:19] >> we have to just get used to them.
[33:20] >> We don't have them here.
[33:21] >> Yeah. And I mean, again, it's not so
[33:24] much about the color, I would think. I
[33:26] mean, that's the universal color for
[33:27] bikes now, I think, here. But it's about
[33:29] the difference in appearance, I think,
[33:31] for drivers that can help slow people
[33:33] down. Um, yeah. So, those were kind of
[33:35] the main things I want to talk about.
[33:36] Here's like, so the rest of these
[33:37] images, I'll just let you guys can kind
[33:38] of look at them as you want and think
[33:40] about why does this work? Why is this
[33:41] good?
[33:42] >> I liked this crosswalk.
[33:44] >> Yeah.
[33:44] >> Like, you think about this like how many
[33:46] people do you think have died crossing
[33:47] this crosswalk? Probably
[33:49] >> none. [laughter]
[33:51] very few, right? Because like there's
[33:53] this pedestrian island here.
[33:56] >> Again, landscaping. I just think the
[33:59] cars signaled there's different material
[34:01] here for the the brick here versus the
[34:03] concrete here. So,
[34:04] >> drivers are just kind of signaled, oh, I
[34:06] got to go slow just in case someone's
[34:08] crossing. Right.
[34:09] >> Imagine something like that or even just
[34:10] like a red brick crosswalk going even
[34:13] going across this whole entire width
[34:14] right here.
[34:15] >> Yeah.
[34:15] >> If it was a different material like a
[34:17] red brick or something, people would
[34:18] slow down as well. that would cause
[34:20] people to slow down driving.
[34:21] >> Yeah.
[34:21] >> Anyway, so that was my presentation for
[34:23] today. I just wanted to have a little uh
[34:25] discussion about that.
[34:26] >> Thank you.
[34:27] >> Yeah, good job.
[34:31] » Okay.
[34:33] So, we'll move on to action items
[34:35] and we
[34:38] hopefully we can finalize our
[34:40] recommendation for ADUs. So, do you want
[34:43] to give us some update, Kaden?
[34:47] >> Okay. So, um I think [snorts]
[34:52] not sure if everyone knows we had a
[34:54] discussion about ADUs last week with the
[34:56] city council. Um I think it was because
[34:59] it was anticipated that the planning
[35:01] commission was going to approve it last
[35:03] week or the week before and so we were
[35:05] just preparing the the city council for that discussion and since it was
[35:09] already on the schedule, we had that
[35:11] discussion anyway. With our deadline
[35:13] approaching, we figured it was still
[35:14] good to do. So um there were there were
[35:18] different recommendations from them as
[35:20] well that we tried to implement in an
[35:23] updated code here. Um, so here's the
[35:27] state requirements that we've already
[35:28] talked about
[35:31] and um, so what kind of happened is they
[35:35] gave some recommendations alongside what
[35:38] you as the planning commissioners gave
[35:39] last meeting [snorts]
[35:41] and we tried to find a happy medium
[35:42] between the two as well as staff
[35:45] analysis. Um, and if there was like two
[35:49] of the three, the planning commission
[35:50] and the city council wanted something,
[35:51] that's what I have in here. If it was
[35:54] staff and the planning commission,
[35:55] that's what I have in here. If it was
[35:57] staff and the city council, that's what
[35:58] I have in here. So, there's some things
[35:59] you'll recognize are the same as what
[36:01] you recommended last time. There might
[36:02] be some things that have changed. Um, so
[36:06] let's just go over it, I guess. Um, so
[36:09] we have
[36:11] the ADU code language. So, we still have
[36:13] the definition for detached ADU, and
[36:15] then we have the definition for living
[36:17] area. So, I know last time we talked
[36:19] about doing footprint instead of living
[36:22] area.
[36:23] um the council, the few I think there
[36:27] was three that reached out to me after
[36:29] our discussion because we ended abruptly
[36:30] so they weren't all able to give their
[36:32] input, but but all three of them favored
[36:34] living area over footprint. Um just so
[36:37] you're aware. Uh and I think as staff, I
[36:41] don't want to speak for Jason, but for
[36:42] me, I think that still makes more sense
[36:45] to me. um just because I I don't want um
[36:49] someone with a larger building to have
[36:52] trouble converting that into an ADU and
[36:56] instead have to build another building
[36:58] to put an ADU in um if they're over the
[37:01] allotted footprint square footage. So to
[37:03] me that made more sense, but again it's
[37:05] up to you to to go back to footprint if
[37:08] you would like to. Um we have the
[37:09] purpose statement that was asked for by
[37:12] the commission. Um, so we said the
[37:14] accessory dwelling units are meant to
[37:15] assist in the creation of new housing
[37:17] units, support a more efficient use of
[37:19] existing housing stock and
[37:20] infrastructure, and provide housing that
[37:22] responds to changing family needs,
[37:24] smaller households, and increasing
[37:26] housing costs while maintaining the
[37:28] residential character of existing
[37:29] neighborhoods and minimizing impacts on
[37:31] adjacent properties.
[37:33] So that's what we have for the purpose
[37:34] statement. We can reword that if you
[37:38] would you think we should. Um, okay.
[37:41] And then so this was just some
[37:43] added language here just to describe
[37:45] it's also detached now as part of the
[37:47] definition of what accessory dwelling
[37:49] unit is in the paragraph.
[37:52] This was moved down to here uh for
[37:54] internal accessory dwelling units. We
[37:56] added the word internal there.
[37:59] Remembered everything here from letters
[38:02] to numbers. Um and then
[38:04] [clears throat and snorts] we just
[38:05] changed a few words around here. If a
[38:06] lot or parcel already has a detached
[38:08] accessory dwelling unit, no internal
[38:10] accessory dwelling unit will be allowed.
[38:12] So if you recall, the state is
[38:14] permitting municipalities to restrict ad
[38:17] use to one per property. And so that was
[38:20] our I think the consensus among all
[38:23] three of us, all three of our bodies
[38:24] that we think that probably is the best
[38:26] for our city.
[38:28] Um, we added this after a discussion
[38:31] with with you guys last time that an
[38:33] internal accessory dwelling unit may not
[38:35] be rented or offered for rent for a
[38:36] period of less than 90 consecutive days.
[38:38] So, it has that 90-day limit there or uh
[38:40] threshold there.
[38:43] Um, and then we added this paragraph as
[38:46] number 11 as well. So each year, the
[38:48] property owner of a lot or parcel with
[38:49] an accessory dwelling unit must fill out
[38:51] the ADU registration or rental license
[38:53] renewal form provided by us. To certify
[38:57] it remains in compliance with the
[38:58] requirements of this chapter. If the
[39:00] dwelling unit is rented or offered for
[39:02] rent, the property owner shall pay the
[39:04] rental license fee and then no fee is
[39:07] required if it's not offered for rent or
[39:09] rented.
[39:12] So, we just wanted to make that clear
[39:13] for property owners that that will be
[39:15] required every year. And kind of one of
[39:17] the other main reasons we need this
[39:18] paragraph is because that's how we can
[39:20] submit for moderate income housing to
[39:22] the state which we have to comply with
[39:24] every year.
[39:25] >> Okay.
[39:25] >> And having that rental license renewal
[39:27] form slash the ADU registration form
[39:30] that helps us know who's doing it in the
[39:32] city.
[39:33] >> Obviously, not everyone will fill that
[39:34] out, but we hope everyone will.
[39:36] >> Did that language come from another
[39:38] city?
[39:40] No, it came from just what we already do
[39:43] currently with the ADU registration.
[39:46] >> And then we just added rental license
[39:48] renewal as well since uh we want to make
[39:51] it clear and and Mara can correct me
[39:53] too. Um what we do already is people
[39:56] renew every January. And so they they're
[39:59] supposed to call in or confirm with her
[40:02] from the mail she sends out every
[40:04] January,
[40:05] >> okay,
[40:05] >> that they continue to have that rental
[40:07] unit.
[40:07] >> Okay. So we already kind of existed in
[40:10] our code
[40:11] >> essentially. Yes.
[40:12] >> Yeah. We're just making it totally
[40:14] clear. Uh and this is a copy paste in
[40:17] the detach down here as well which
[40:19] you'll see.
[40:20] >> Okay.
[40:20] >> Just so it's consistent.
[40:23] >> Okay. So now the detach ADU code.
[40:26] >> Yes.
[40:30] » Additional infrastructure cost.
[40:34] Is that true?
[40:35] >> From what I understand, yes, that is
[40:36] true. Yeah, we and I think there's no
[40:39] way we can
[40:42] require that.
[40:52] » Additional units.
[40:55] Yeah, we definitely looked into impact
[40:57] fees and if we could charge impact fees
[40:59] for detached ADUs and from what I
[41:02] remember we we cannot. So yeah, please
[41:05] look that up because I think we
[41:07] definitely would like to if we can. So
[41:10] yeah. Okay. Um Okay. So the detachu code
[41:14] which we've which we've looked at but
[41:16] this is the refined version we have for
[41:18] today. TBD by by you all of course. So,
[41:22] um, number one, they're permitted use in
[41:24] the zone. Number two, they shall be a
[41:26] minimum of 300, which we talked about
[41:28] last time, and maybe a maximum according
[41:31] to the table below.
[41:33] So, we talked about last time, and there
[41:35] were some that agree and some that
[41:37] disagree in the city council that we
[41:39] should allow less than 11,000, just so
[41:41] you know. But ultimately, since the
[41:43] commissioners thought it was good, and
[41:45] to be frank, I thought it was good too,
[41:47] we left that in there for now. That will
[41:49] allow any law um to also have one as
[41:52] long as they can meet these
[41:52] requirements. Okay.
[41:55] >> So, less than 10,000 is 800, 10 to 20 is
[41:58] 900, 20 to 40,000, and 40,000 plus is
[42:01] 1,200.
[42:02] >> And as you can see, that's living area
[42:04] is what we have right now.
[42:07] Okay. Okay, number three is just the
[42:09] requirement for owner occupancy with all
[42:11] the stipulations for that. So basically
[42:13] just saying an owner occupied uh
[42:15] property has to uh is the only one
[42:19] that's allowed to have an ADU. Uh number
[42:21] four is the addition or establishment of
[42:24] an ADU shall not cause the aggregate
[42:27] building coverage of all permanent
[42:28] structures on the lot to exceed the
[42:31] following. So less than 10 is 35, 10 to
[42:34] 20 is 30, 20 to 40 is 25, 40 plus is 22.
[42:38] And I think this is exactly what the
[42:40] commissioners recommended last time.
[42:42] >> So that has carried over. Um, one thing
[42:44] I think we will want clarification on
[42:46] one more time is just what permanent
[42:50] structures will entail.
[42:52] Um, I think with the holiday code saying
[42:56] not including pools or ponds or
[42:58] something that we looked at last time
[43:00] and then I think with how long the
[43:02] motion was, it just didn't come out in a
[43:04] way like as clear I think as we wanted
[43:06] it to be. So I think that is one thing
[43:08] we'll want to clarify from you today.
[43:10] What you think that should be. Should it
[43:14] be the main dwelling and the ADU or
[43:16] should it be any structure that's a
[43:19] permanent structure on the property?
[43:22] which would include, you know, the pool,
[43:24] tennis courts, pickle ball courts,
[43:27] anything like that, any accessory
[43:28] building.
[43:29] >> Point of clarification, internal, you
[43:32] cannot charge impact fees. ADUs that are
[43:35] not attached that are detached, you can
[43:36] charge impact fees.
[43:38] >> Okay.
[43:38] >> It's got I'll forward you all the codes
[43:40] and the rules and stuff.
[43:41] >> Okay, that's good to know.
[43:44] >> Thanks.
[43:45] Huh?
[43:48] >> Yeah, it's it's very detailed and it's
[43:49] quotes all the ordinances and stuff, but
[43:51] it's basically proportionate share to
[43:53] cover additional expenses, culinary,
[43:56] water, sewer. It just lists all the
[43:58] stuff. If it's internal, you can't.
[44:00] There's ordinances that prohibit it. But
[44:03] if it's
[44:04] >> Is this Utah State Code?
[44:05] >> Yes, I'll send it to you.
[44:07] >> Yeah. Can you send
[44:08] >> I don't know that we want to do that,
[44:09] but there might based off of I don't
[44:12] know.
[44:12] >> I'll forward it to you guys.
[44:14] That's great.
[44:16] >> I think
[44:17] >> we're not allowing them to create
[44:19] >> new connection.
[44:20] >> Yeah.
[44:22] [snorts]
[44:24] >> Which that's by state law. You can't
[44:25] have a different connection. And it
[44:27] talks about all that and for the
[44:29] internal. But then it goes into detail.
[44:31] So it says utility connections. No, you
[44:32] cannot charge impact fees by code
[44:34] 102133.
[44:36] Paragraph 3. A or whatever. But it does
[44:39] say you can do impact fees on detached.
[44:42] It's up to each city to decide, I guess.
[44:44] >> Okay.
[44:45] >> So, it is something we may want to
[44:47] consider. Yeah.
[44:48] >> Yeah. I think for sure we will. So,
[44:50] okay.
[44:50] >> A,200 square foot house, you don't need
[44:52] a separate connection. You can just tag
[44:56] onto your
[44:56] >> specifically saying you can't do a
[44:58] separate connection.
[44:58] >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know. That seems
[45:02] like a lot of house for
[45:03] >> to put into your
[45:05] >> plug into your existing, but I don't
[45:06] know. You're the engineer. I guess you
[45:08] can.
[45:11] Hayden, can I ask something?
[45:13] >> Yeah, go ahead, Milo.
[45:14] >> Um, Shelley and Jason and I went to the
[45:17] TSSD meeting and they told us that we
[45:19] had to charge impact fees for those
[45:21] buildings.
[45:23] >> Oh, interesting.
[45:25] >> It's required or recommended.
[45:27] >> Jason, do you remember? I've got in my
[45:29] notes and I think they said it's
[45:32] separate sewer and water systems even
[45:35] though they're
[45:37] being buil through the house and kind of
[45:39] connected through the house. So that's
[45:41] something I guess we'll have to double
[45:42] check on.
[45:44] >> So my my what I remembered was they
[45:48] strongly recommended we do.
[45:51] >> Yeah.
[45:51] >> Yes. That
[45:53] >> because it is I mean there's potential
[45:55] for a full family to move in. That is
[45:58] doubling that connections flow.
[46:01] >> So when we should should um answer the
[46:05] question about size of line um 40,000
[46:11] square foot home still has a 4 inch
[46:12] sewer line connecting to it. So,
[46:15] >> okay.
[46:15] >> And a small home, same thing. So, sewer
[46:19] line,
[46:20] >> not so much. Now, water,
[46:23] >> you might have some pressure issues.
[46:24] >> We may have some issues with that. So,
[46:27] that is definitely something we would
[46:29] have to look at. Yeah, I'm reading
[46:31] through my notes and I have written down
[46:33] detached ADU buildings requires a
[46:36] separate TSSD fee
[46:39] >> and that I I think you are correct on
[46:42] that.
[46:43] >> That makes sense.
[46:44] >> Yeah, that TSSD will charge us another
[46:47] fee for that. So now whether we pass
[46:49] that on or not is a [clears throat]
[46:51] different question.
[46:52] >> Yeah.
[46:54] Yes.
[46:54] >> So, you're just saying, Jason, we may or
[46:56] may not charge additional impact fees
[46:58] for that additional sewer line and water
[47:01] line.
[47:02] >> Correct.
[47:05] >> And I think that's why they they're
[47:06] going to charge us. So,
[47:08] >> why would we not? But
[47:10] >> that is something we need to discuss and
[47:12] determine if as the city we want to do
[47:14] that.
[47:16] But
[47:18] is that an ordinance issue or is that
[47:20] just
[47:23] >> I don't think it has to go in the
[47:24] ordinance that we charge impact fees for
[47:26] it.
[47:28] >> We'd have to look more into that. I
[47:29] don't think so%
[47:30] >> talking about annual
[47:33] licenses. We're not outlining.
[47:40] » Yeah.
[47:43] It would probably have to go back
[47:44] through a fee schedule though through
[47:46] the city council. Correct.
[47:48] >> Yes. Yeah. We would have to update the
[47:49] fee schedule. Now whether that's an
[47:52] ordinance to collect the fee or just the
[47:55] fee schedule change.
[47:57] >> Yeah.
[47:57] >> It needs to go to council.
[47:59] >> Yeah. We have been talking about
[48:01] updating the fee schedule. We just make
[48:03] a recommendation
[48:04] >> and and there's and there's no reason why we would ever
[48:10] allow a separate water main or sewer
[48:15] main to an ADU.
[48:20] Like, you know, I'm thinking like three
[48:22] falls, you know, they're like, "Oh, I'm
[48:25] just gonna why why do I have to connect
[48:27] to my house that's over here? We're
[48:30] going to force that, right?
[48:32] >> And I think we can. I think there could
[48:34] be exceptions if you wanted to because
[48:37] if it's a big enough lot, they bought
[48:39] two or three lots and so there's already
[48:42] a connection there
[48:44] >> and now they're paying for a separate
[48:46] fee and you know, it becomes two. So,
[48:49] >> if it were me, I wouldn't allow that. I
[48:50] would say you need to connect. But if
[48:53] their home is built on the upper lot and it doesn't connect,
[48:58] >> then we may have to have that discussion
[49:00] on a case by case. But
[49:02] >> might actually be environmentally
[49:04] destructive to have
[49:07] to go to
[49:14] » But I would say the general rule is you
[49:18] need to connect it.
[49:19] >> Yeah. Okay.
[49:21] >> But right now have guest houses on five
[49:23] acres and they don't have to connect.
[49:25] >> They do. They they they do need to
[49:26] connect.
[49:27] >> Yes.
[49:28] >> Even on the five.
[49:29] >> Yeah. That's because it's kind of built
[49:31] into our code.
[49:32] >> Okay. I just didn't know whether in our
[49:34] field
[49:36] >> and if and as of right now, if you put a
[49:39] bathroom or a shower, whatever, in your
[49:42] garage, that's a separate. So, it's
[49:45] still not a ADU.
[49:47] >> You have to connect that to your
[49:49] primary.
[49:50] >> Yeah.
[49:51] That makes sense.
[49:54] >> Okay, so we kept the percentages.
[49:56] >> Awesome. Great discussion. Okay, so
[49:58] moving on to number five.
[50:00] >> Can I just ask something real quick? Are
[50:02] these the percentages you want or do you
[50:05] want us to look into it a little
[50:06] further?
[50:08] >> I mean, I know we just pulled those from holiday. So I I I don't know
[50:15] >> if you got a more
[50:16] >> I mean what are you going to do you know
[50:18] and and and the and the and it may
[50:20] change very little or none at all
[50:22] >> and it and it may so it's
[50:25] >> it's just a question if you want us to
[50:27] look into it or if you're comfortable
[50:29] with these we're just going to stick
[50:30] with them.
[50:31] >> Yeah.
[50:32] >> You know the thought I had is that since
[50:35] we ended up with the maximum living area
[50:40] what is it 1600 or 1800
[50:42] What did we put in there?
[50:43] >> Uh, 12,200.
[50:45] Yeah,
[50:45] >> 1,200.
[50:47] >> Yeah,
[50:47] >> I don't know if this item is even
[50:50] needed.
[50:54] » We had that we had that in in we had
[50:56] this in there
[50:57] >> to prevent larger lots from creating
[51:00] huge mon monstrous
[51:02] >> ADUs.
[51:03] >> But the biggest impact's going to be
[51:05] this 20 to 40,000 square foot lot.
[51:07] That's where most of our lot sit right
[51:09] in Alpine. And so we need to make sure
[51:12] that 25 that's the one I'm most worried
[51:14] about
[51:15] >> is the 25 is that the appropriate size
[51:19] for you know like our my neighborhood
[51:22] that's
[51:23] >> kind of what that would look like
[51:27] because is that if you were to put the
[51:30] average lot size in Alpine where
[51:34] >> most of the homes sit on half an acre to
[51:35] an acre.
[51:36] >> Yeah, it kind of right. That's the one
[51:38] I'm most curious about. Is that
[51:41] appropriate?
[51:42] >> Yeah.
[51:43] >> For
[51:44] my thoughts,
[51:47] >> the other thing that maybe has changed
[51:49] that is what they've done with living
[51:51] space versus footprint.
[51:53] >> It's going to change.
[51:54] >> Then you could have
[51:57] >> a garage. Yeah.
[51:58] >> Yeah. A massive garage, which means this
[52:01] garage comes into play. Yeah.
[52:05] >> Yeah.
[52:07] >> So, this is needed if if you're going
[52:09] living space because you could have a
[52:11] 3,000t garage and a 12,200 foot
[52:14] apartment above it.
[52:15] >> Yeah.
[52:15] >> And living space instead of
[52:18] >> Yeah. But I understand. But I think you
[52:20] need both, especially in that
[52:23] >> in that sensitive area, I guess.
[52:26] >> Yeah. That that's that's why, John, I
[52:28] would be I would I would recommend that
[52:31] we keep those just for that reason
[52:33] >> and maybe check on the 20 to 40. Look at
[52:36] that sweet spot. This is the appropriate
[52:40] >> size lot coverage for that.
[52:53] Well, yeah.
[52:55] >> My house is probably two.
[52:57] [clears throat] If I go my main level of
[52:59] my garage,
[53:00] >> 20 20 2,000 square foot wonder
[53:04] >> and my lot my lot's bigger than normal
[53:06] though. So, I'm going to go back to the
[53:08] four the 20,000 square foot lot. I have
[53:10] like a 23 acre.
[53:12] >> So, if you've got a 2,000 square foot on
[53:15] a 20, you're still only 10% with your
[53:19] main house.
[53:20] >> Yeah. And I'll say that um originally I
[53:24] felt like these percentages were small,
[53:26] but then I went and tried to map out
[53:28] some homes compared to property size.
[53:30] >> Yeah.
[53:31] >> And it seemed like most homes were a
[53:35] fifth of the lot or less to me as like
[53:37] you're saying.
[53:38] >> So it seemed like it would be okay. Um
[53:41] so we continued with these.
[53:43] >> Yeah.
[53:43] >> Um
[53:44] >> yeah, but I'm not a rambler. I'm a I'm a
[53:47] twotory. You know, a rambler is going to
[53:48] take a bigger footprint. Are you
[53:50] recommending change that?
[53:51] [clears throat]
[53:52] >> No, I just recommend that we make sure
[53:53] it's appropriate and tight enough
[53:55] because I don't want that,
[53:57] >> right?
[53:57] >> You know, if I'm only 10% of my lot,
[54:01] >> I got 15.
[54:02] >> But you're still limited with 12,200
[54:04] square feet. That's 3%.
[54:06] >> Yeah. But not my garage. I could put a
[54:08] bigger garage, 1200.
[54:10] >> You could only have 1,200 livable inside
[54:12] your garage.
[54:13] >> No, that doesn't include garage living
[54:15] space.
[54:18] >> Right. Right. But I think what John's
[54:19] saying is that if you adapt a 3,000 foot
[54:23] garage into a living space of 1,200,
[54:26] >> well, that's all you can do.
[54:27] >> Yeah. I'm just being I'm just going to
[54:29] the big end, right? Yeah. You put a
[54:31] 2,000 foot garage, only 1,200 above it
[54:34] is living because you leave the other
[54:36] open, right? You don't
[54:37] >> do Do you exceed that 25%.
[54:40] >> No, I'd still be under. I'm a 10. I'd
[54:43] still be under if I put a 2,000 foot
[54:45] garage and a,200 living I'd still be
[54:48] under.
[54:51] >> That's a lot.
[54:52] >> Yeah. So, my other thing too,
[54:55] >> Yeah. And so my other thing with living
[54:57] space and and footprint, like today, for
[54:59] example, we were viewing building
[55:00] permits. There was an accessory building
[55:01] coming in that was 1300 square foot uh
[55:05] garage
[55:07] or let's see or basement an,00 foot
[55:10] garage or something like that. And so if
[55:12] the footprint was 1300, that that
[55:15] building automatically disqualifies. as
[55:17] an ADU.
[55:19] >> Yeah.
[55:19] >> So, to me that that seems a little too
[55:21] crazy. I think we should allow those
[55:24] buildings to convert to ADUs as long as
[55:26] they restrict a certain square footage.
[55:29] >> And plus, the state statute says we have
[55:31] to have a method for buildings to
[55:33] convert. Yeah.
[55:34] >> And so, if someone has a 3,000 foot
[55:36] garage, I mean, that is the biggest
[55:37] concern, right? A massive building and a
[55:39] tiny ADU inside of it. That is the
[55:41] biggest concern with living area.
[55:44] But, um, I think
[55:47] >> Yeah. What's the concern?
[55:49] >> Well, I'm just saying because that's
[55:50] what you guys are saying, right? If you allow a 3,000 foot garage to have
[55:54] an ADU in it because it's based on
[55:57] living area, not footprint. Like to me,
[56:01] I think that's okay because then you're
[56:03] not causing someone to just build
[56:04] another building. So then that goes back
[56:06] to lot coverage, right? So I think all
[56:08] these codes just kind of balance each
[56:09] other out in the end. Um, the more we
[56:13] allow people to build in the buildings
[56:14] they already have, the less new
[56:15] buildings we'll have. Right.
[56:20] » Yeah.
[56:21] >> Right.
[56:25] >> Why Why do the brand new ones ha have to
[56:29] have a garage? Because we're not trying
[56:31] to put second homes back there.
[56:34] >> A second home would have a big garage.
[56:36] >> They don't have to, but people are going
[56:38] to do it
[56:40] >> going to want them. It makes them more
[56:42] rentable.
[56:43] >> It makes your living [snorts] area more
[56:46] >> Well, and all I'll say too is like
[56:47] nothing in our code restricts someone
[56:48] from doing a 3,000 foot garage right
[56:50] now,
[56:51] >> right?
[56:51] >> They just couldn't live in it.
[56:52] >> If that's our fear, we already allow it.
[56:55] >> Yeah, exactly.
[56:55] >> You know, so I think it makes more sense
[56:58] to do living area because then someone
[57:00] can take part of that 3,000 and convert
[57:02] it into,200 foot of ADU. I mean, I guess
[57:04] the question is if we're gonna if we're
[57:07] going to cap it at 12, you know, that
[57:10] that's that really restricts the big
[57:14] huge lots like up at Three Falls
[57:17] >> to have a massive living area. Yes, it
[57:19] does.
[57:20] >> Yeah.
[57:20] >> But I think again that's might be part
[57:23] of the goal of an ADU is you're not
[57:25] trying to put a second home on your
[57:27] property. You're trying to put an
[57:28] accessory living area. That's what we
[57:30] want to control.
[57:31] >> And if they want to connect it and go
[57:33] large, they have that ability.
[57:36] >> Yeah, of course.
[57:36] >> Connect and go.
[57:38] An internal ADU is not restricted in
[57:40] size, right? Right. So, if they connect
[57:42] it to their house, they can have a 3,000
[57:44] foot ADU connected.
[57:46] >> Won't be an ADU, though.
[57:47] >> If they bought two or three lots.
[57:49] >> Yeah.
[57:51] >> I mean, I've got two different three
[57:53] different lots.
[57:53] >> Yeah. I wouldn't try to connect it to my
[57:55] house because it's
[57:57] >> logically you can't go uphill sewer,
[57:59] right? Yeah.
[58:00] >> And so I would just take one of those
[58:02] lots. It's a separate lot and I'd build
[58:03] whatever wanted over there.
[58:04] >> Sure.
[58:05] >> So I think that's the thing is like
[58:06] Yeah. If someone most people might not
[58:08] want to connect it or can't because of
[58:10] the because of the topography and so
[58:12] it's best to restrict the size in that
[58:14] case. That way they're not having a huge
[58:16] backyard home or something.
[58:18] >> Okay. So, help me think this through
[58:20] because it appears to me that on a
[58:25] 40,000 square foot lot at our maximum
[58:29] living space, which would the maximum
[58:32] living space would indicate that if
[58:34] we're trying to
[58:37] identify the maximum footprint that it
[58:39] could generate would be 1,200 square
[58:41] feet.
[58:42] >> Yeah.
[58:43] >> Right. So that so then that's what this
[58:45] is kind of talking about is what
[58:47] percentage of the overall lot are we
[58:51] consuming. Mhm.
[58:52] >> Um,
[58:55] so at the very most we're only adding 3%
[58:59] of to a 40,000 square foot lot
[59:02] >> in terms of I what are we calling this
[59:06] >> lot coverage?
[59:10] I I think I think it's it's not needed.
[59:14] >> I I don't think the difference between
[59:16] these percentages
[59:18] amounts to a hill of beans.
[59:21] Well, and if you recall, our our
[59:23] original proposal as staff did not
[59:26] include lot coverage.
[59:27] >> Yeah. Well, we were also we what's
[59:30] changed is that we were using um
[59:33] >> footprint and not living area.
[59:36] >> And we were saying that that uh and we didn't have it governed, 1200
[59:41] square feet.
[59:43] >> So, so you're saying
[59:44] >> we were allowing people to go larger.
[59:45] You're saying by virtue of the 1,200
[59:47] cap,
[59:49] there's no reason to have a percentage.
[59:51] >> That's what I'm saying.
[59:52] >> Because because garages and and
[59:56] accessory buildings
[59:58] don't have a limitation,
[1:00:00] >> right?
[1:00:02] >> Okay.
[1:00:14] » Yeah. Right.
[1:00:15] >> Yeah. The setbacks.
[1:00:17] >> Yeah.
[1:00:19] >> Okay.
[1:00:22] >> And I can understand what you're saying
[1:00:24] there, John, too. I will say the council
[1:00:26] definitely likes lot coverage as well.
[1:00:29] >> That's part of the reason.
[1:00:31] >> They haven't wrestled with it like we
[1:00:32] have.
[1:00:32] >> Probably.
[1:00:33] >> That might be true.
[1:00:34] >> But it feels good.
[1:00:35] >> It feels good. It looks good. But it
[1:00:37] means nothing. It has no practical use.
[1:00:40] >> Yeah.
[1:00:41] >> Because you'll never get that big. It'll
[1:00:43] never be a factor in any analysis.
[1:00:46] >> I never say never and I'll find. So
[1:00:48] >> yeah,
[1:00:49] >> and they might have been split. There
[1:00:51] was a few that liked it and a few that
[1:00:52] didn't take it to a whole different
[1:00:53] conversation because you conver I guess
[1:00:56] the limit would be like on an acre lot,
[1:01:01] you know, you are already limited the
[1:01:04] size of the house, right? It has to be
[1:01:06] 30 feet back.
[1:01:07] >> Yeah. has to be 10 feet from the 15 feet
[1:01:12] from the sides.
[1:01:14] So what I mean what's the what's the
[1:01:17] maximum? You could probably only have a
[1:01:21] footprint that was
[1:01:24] 10,000 at the most, right?
[1:01:27] Could you have a 10,000 square foot home
[1:01:30] on a acre lot?
[1:01:32] >> Jason, I was
[1:01:33] >> on a half acre. You could
[1:01:35] >> if you go 30 by 15 by 15.
[1:01:38] >> Yeah.
[1:01:39] >> So assuming just a square lot h square
[1:01:43] halfacre lot. So literally halfacre not
[1:01:45] two 20,000 um with all your setbacks you
[1:01:49] could build a 10,000 square foot home on
[1:01:52] that
[1:01:52] >> on a halfacre
[1:01:53] >> on a single level.
[1:01:55] >> You could do a 10,000
[1:01:58] level and have 10 in the basement on a
[1:02:00] 20
[1:02:01] >> technically. Yes. Yes.
[1:02:04] 30,
[1:02:05] >> but that is set back to set back to set
[1:02:07] back
[1:02:08] >> in the smaller lots. But I think as you
[1:02:10] get to the big lots, it becomes
[1:02:12] >> Yeah.
[1:02:13] >> moot.
[1:02:13] But it's nice to have it on all of
[1:02:16] them because I think it is most
[1:02:18] important in the small ones.
[1:02:20] >> Yeah.
[1:02:20] >> And that's what our code currently has.
[1:02:22] Only the TR10,000 zone has a 50 50% lock
[1:02:25] coverage.
[1:02:26] >> But why do we have 35 and the code is
[1:02:28] 50?
[1:02:31] This is
[1:02:33] >> I originally thought that too, but this
[1:02:35] is what was recommended originally by
[1:02:37] the planning commission and then
[1:02:39] >> council was fine with it.
[1:02:41] >> Yeah. And it comes from the holiday
[1:02:42] code. So
[1:02:43] >> but if if it's 50 in our code, then it
[1:02:46] should be 50 here.
[1:02:46] >> So I think the goal is just that if it
[1:02:49] has an ADU on the property, all of a
[1:02:51] sudden your lot coverage goes way down
[1:02:53] to 35 instead of just 50.
[1:02:55] >> Even more restrictive,
[1:02:56] >> I think that's the thought process. I
[1:02:57] like that.
[1:02:58] >> Yeah. Okay. So,
[1:02:59] >> thank you.
[1:03:00] >> But but I will say I agree with the
[1:03:03] >> council happy. I'm happy.
[1:03:05] >> Well, and
[1:03:07] I agree with the commission that it
[1:03:09] might not be necessary. I think our
[1:03:11] restrictions already kind of restrict
[1:03:12] lot coverage. But anyway,
[1:03:15] >> yeah, but but I I guess the other issue,
[1:03:18] John, that we're ignoring is this is
[1:03:22] this takes into account all permanent
[1:03:24] structures. So, this is everything
[1:03:30] >> that's permanent, which could be a
[1:03:32] basketball hoop, uh, a basketball court,
[1:03:35] a pickle ball court, a pool.
[1:03:38] >> So,
[1:03:38] >> I thought I thought we were just talking
[1:03:39] about vertical
[1:03:42] decision, right?
[1:03:42] >> Yeah, that's what I would love you guys
[1:03:44] to clarify today.
[1:03:45] >> We got to clarify.
[1:03:46] >> I thought we had this discussion last
[1:03:47] week. We decided
[1:03:49] >> anything below the fence.
[1:03:50] >> It was just
[1:03:52] vertical things. I mean, but I I thought we kind of talked about we
[1:03:56] didn't really care.
[1:03:57] >> I mean, like, if they if you want to get
[1:03:59] your yard and put a pool and a sport
[1:04:01] court, I mean, I don't care if you have
[1:04:03] a lawn or not.
[1:04:04] >> I don't know. Maybe.
[1:04:05] >> I think that sounds about right. Yeah,
[1:04:07] >> pool houses should count. Pool houses,
[1:04:10] garages, permanent structures.
[1:04:13] >> Okay.
[1:04:13] >> Need to go.
[1:04:15] >> So, yeah. I mean, I I guess I'm leaning
[1:04:17] towards John and just remove four
[1:04:21] >> [laughter]
[1:04:23] >> That just complicates it.
[1:04:25] >> No.
[1:04:27] >> Because then there's
[1:04:28] >> Does that mean we don't have to define
[1:04:29] the permanent structure?
[1:04:31] >> Exactly.
[1:04:31] >> Okay. Exactly.
[1:04:33] >> It's a win.
[1:04:34] >> Exactly. It's a win.
[1:04:37] >> Yeah. Because then there's the question
[1:04:38] of, well, a pickle ball court has a
[1:04:40] vertical fence around it that's 10 feet
[1:04:43] tall.
[1:04:44] >> Is that a permanent structure? I'm just
[1:04:46] throwing it out there. All right. But
[1:04:48] >> yeah, I I I guess I mean whoever makes
[1:04:51] the motion.
[1:04:52] >> It keeps your view corridor because you
[1:04:54] can see through the
[1:04:55] >> Yeah, if they if they change holiday,
[1:04:57] the reason why Holiday used this is
[1:04:59] because they were more concerned about
[1:05:01] drain runoff.
[1:05:02] >> Yes,
[1:05:03] >> because they had all that code in there
[1:05:05] about per impermeable surfaces.
[1:05:08] >> Yeah.
[1:05:09] >> Okay.
[1:05:10] >> I think we chose not just to ignore
[1:05:12] that.
[1:05:12] >> Okay.
[1:05:13] >> Yeah. So my recommendation whoever makes
[1:05:15] the motion is to pour and then if the
[1:05:17] city wants to put it back
[1:05:22] » I I don't have a problem with that at
[1:05:24] all.
[1:05:25] >> Do that give some rationale so that they
[1:05:27] understand why we're doing
[1:05:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
[1:05:29] >> Okay.
[1:05:31] >> All right.
[1:05:32] >> I don't see anybody else writing, John.
[1:05:35] >> Okay. Number five is just uh one is
[1:05:38] allowed per lot or parcel
[1:05:40] >> if it already has another. that can't
[1:05:41] have another. Um, number six, we added
[1:05:44] this occupancy
[1:05:46] line according to the planning
[1:05:47] commission.
[1:05:48] >> Um, so should one individual or comply
[1:05:50] with the definition of family, which
[1:05:52] includes four unrelated individuals in
[1:05:54] our code. Okay.
[1:05:56] >> Um, less than 90 days, we already talked
[1:05:58] about that one for number seven. Number
[1:05:59] eight is just that if it's less than 650
[1:06:03] square feet per state code, we can only
[1:06:05] require them to have one parking space.
[1:06:07] If it's over, we can have two. So,
[1:06:08] that's just in there. Great.
[1:06:11] Um same setbacks as those required for
[1:06:13] accessory buildings is what we
[1:06:15] determined. Okay.
[1:06:16] >> Um and then same height requirements up
[1:06:20] to 25 ft not not 30.
[1:06:23] >> Okay. Um shall be built with the design
[1:06:26] is consistent with design main dwelling.
[1:06:29] Uh shall meet international residential
[1:06:30] building codes. Shall connect to the
[1:06:32] same meter.
[1:06:34] >> Not sorry on number 11. You don't need
[1:06:36] to like define that any I mean that's
[1:06:39] seems a little
[1:06:41] >> Yeah. And I think the goal with that is
[1:06:43] like
[1:06:44] >> that kind of it it is a little bit
[1:06:46] ambiguous because you know maybe it's
[1:06:49] not going to look exactly like the main
[1:06:51] structure
[1:06:51] >> modern home in front and a cabin in the
[1:06:53] back.
[1:06:53] >> Yeah.
[1:06:54] Like something like that we would
[1:06:55] determine. Okay. That's not meeting the
[1:06:57] same design. But
[1:06:59] >> I just didn't know if
[1:07:00] >> you can tell there's effort to make it
[1:07:02] match, which I think most people would
[1:07:03] want to
[1:07:04] >> if you need some teeth to enforce that.
[1:07:06] I just didn't know if you needed
[1:07:08] something.
[1:07:08] >> It's a good thought. I think um but and
[1:07:12] maybe we can look into that further. Um
[1:07:14] in my opinion, I thought it was a better
[1:07:16] to leave a little open just because
[1:07:18] someone might not be able to match it
[1:07:20] perfectly, but
[1:07:22] >> might not want to. It's a little
[1:07:23] expensive or something, right? But
[1:07:25] anyway,
[1:07:25] >> might want.
[1:07:26] >> No, I I think it's great. I think it's
[1:07:28] great. I just
[1:07:29] >> Yeah, you know, like you're gonna get in
[1:07:31] a you're gonna get in a little, you
[1:07:33] know, I think it is whatever.
[1:07:35] >> Yeah, [laughter]
[1:07:37] >> it's a good thought. I appreciate it
[1:07:39] >> because it always is nice to have teeth
[1:07:41] with everything. Okay. And then 13. Um,
[1:07:45] same meter. We talked about that one.
[1:07:48] All construction and remodeling to
[1:07:50] accommodate these extra buildings shall
[1:07:51] be in accordance with those codes.
[1:07:54] Uh, a legally, this one's key because
[1:07:56] it's required by state, a legally
[1:07:57] constructed accessory structure may be
[1:07:59] converted to a an ADU with the process
[1:08:03] established by the city. It shall comply
[1:08:05] with applicable accessory structure
[1:08:07] setback requirements and those three
[1:08:09] codes.
[1:08:10] >> Yeah.
[1:08:12] >> Um,
[1:08:14] and then
[1:08:17] this is just saying that they need to
[1:08:18] get an ADU permit if they're doing a
[1:08:20] building. And then number 17 is the same
[1:08:21] as the one we read above that they have
[1:08:23] to do their rental license and cool
[1:08:25] registration.
[1:08:26] >> Okay.
[1:08:26] >> And then this is just re numbered. Any
[1:08:28] questions?
[1:08:29] >> We had a definition of who could be
[1:08:32] rented to or how many people is that?
[1:08:34] >> Yeah, that is in number six here.
[1:08:37] >> So
[1:08:43] » okay. So you put a definition of family
[1:08:46] embedded it in a different place. It
[1:08:48] currently exists in that code right
[1:08:50] there that's listed and it says yeah and
[1:08:53] it lists basically everything that we
[1:08:55] wanted which is okay
[1:08:56] >> related individuals or up to four
[1:08:58] non-related.
[1:08:59] >> Okay.
[1:08:59] >> So I figured that's the easiest. Let's
[1:09:01] just add that.
[1:09:02] >> Good.
[1:09:04] >> Okay. Any other questions about this
[1:09:05] one? Can you go back up to the item
[1:09:09] four?
[1:09:18] » Is there anything detrimental given the
[1:09:20] fact the city council's already approved
[1:09:21] it?
[1:09:25] » Yeah, I that's what I'm saying is it's
[1:09:26] not a big deal. It's it's it's going to
[1:09:28] be meaningless. doesn't change things if
[1:09:30] you just leave it.
[1:09:31] >> Yeah. But it looks
[1:09:33] >> by good policy. By good policy because
[1:09:39] when we die and somebody else is here,
[1:09:42] they're going to
[1:09:44] >> this is be one of the ends of the ham
[1:09:46] that got cut off
[1:09:47] >> and the new and the new city planner
[1:09:49] will go, "Yeah, I'm not [laughter]
[1:09:50] really sure why that was."
[1:09:52] >> Well, look up who was on the commission
[1:09:53] and be like,
[1:09:54] >> and I'll just clarify, too. I think
[1:09:55] there was not consensus by the council
[1:09:57] that they liked this. I think I think
[1:09:59] council member
[1:10:00] >> I think if we just explain why it's not
[1:10:01] good. I just want to use the right
[1:10:02] language.
[1:10:04] >> Um
[1:10:05] >> I think it's good especially in the
[1:10:07] smaller
[1:10:12] » can I just say as a staff member
[1:10:15] >> what
[1:10:16] >> can I just say as a staff member um lock
[1:10:19] coverage is going to be difficult to
[1:10:23] calculate.
[1:10:25] >> Yeah I agree.
[1:10:27] Yeah, I think we've thought about it
[1:10:29] too. Like it's just going to be a little
[1:10:30] bit extra work for us with every ADU
[1:10:33] permit than we've usually had to do.
[1:10:35] >> Mara, why why makes it difficult?
[1:10:38] >> Because um you got to go back and
[1:10:42] research building permits. How big was
[1:10:44] this pool house they built? How big was
[1:10:46] the pool? How big was the detached
[1:10:48] garage? And then I just feel like the
[1:10:50] city's now become this great big HOA.
[1:10:54] >> Yeah.
[1:10:56] Just
[1:10:57] a lot of labor unless the only way I
[1:10:59] could see it working is if when they
[1:11:01] brought their application in they had to
[1:11:03] bring a bird's eye view map of their
[1:11:05] backyard
[1:11:08] >> oh like you have
[1:11:10] >> that already calculated
[1:11:11] >> you have to do that now
[1:11:12] >> but we still then would have have to
[1:11:14] define what constituted per permanent
[1:11:17] structures we haven't done that anywhere
[1:11:18] yet right
[1:11:19] >> no
[1:11:21] >> yeah that would be necessary
[1:11:23] >> we would consider
[1:11:26] We're just considering
[1:11:29] detached garages, pool houses, and your
[1:11:32] home. What else were we considering?
[1:11:34] >> Well, we we're using this this language
[1:11:38] now cause the aggregate building
[1:11:40] coverage of all permanent structures on
[1:11:43] the lot to exceed the following.
[1:11:46] >> What is a permanent structure?
[1:11:49] >> We've already had this discussion and we
[1:11:51] couldn't come to agreement.
[1:11:53] >> Exactly. I the list is kind of endless,
[1:11:56] isn't it?
[1:11:57] >> Yes.
[1:11:58] >> Or stall. I mean, whatever.
[1:12:02] » Your house is mobile and your car.
[1:12:05] [laughter]
[1:12:05] >> That's right.
[1:12:08] >> Yeah.
[1:12:10] I I think I think the smaller
[1:12:13] living space numbers that we have
[1:12:18] >> covers covers this.
[1:12:19] >> Yeah. I think I think I think that's
[1:12:22] right. Yeah.
[1:12:23] >> And I think it has more to do with
[1:12:25] defining permanent structures and
[1:12:26] getting into the weeds on that and
[1:12:29] having it being difficult for st for the
[1:12:32] city to manage.
[1:12:33] >> Yeah. And if we have an issue later on
[1:12:35] when we're all still here,
[1:12:37] >> we can we can add that code, you know,
[1:12:40] if there if it comes back and we're
[1:12:42] like,
[1:12:43] >> "Oh my gosh, we didn't think of this or
[1:12:46] >> this was not anticipated." You know, we
[1:12:50] could add code later. But I don't like
[1:12:52] being railroaded into adding code.
[1:12:56] >> We do that all the time.
[1:12:57] >> I know. But it doesn't feel
[1:12:59] >> we're being we're being railroaded right
[1:13:01] now.
[1:13:01] >> Feel good if somebody always wins and
[1:13:03] then somebody always ends up losing.
[1:13:05] >> This is We're being railroaded right
[1:13:08] now. So
[1:13:08] >> we're making the best of it. So
[1:13:10] >> Okay. Any any questions for Jason or
[1:13:13] Kaden?
[1:13:14] >> If not, I will entertain a motion.
[1:13:19] >> Okay. Okay. So, that's that's the only
[1:13:20] thing that we're modifying is section
[1:13:22] four, right? Item four.
[1:13:24] >> Item four.
[1:13:28] I'll make a motion. I move to recommend
[1:13:31] approval of the detached ADU code
[1:13:33] amendment and amendments to 3.14 of the
[1:13:36] Alpine Development Code as proposed with
[1:13:40] the following
[1:13:42] um change.
[1:13:46] We recommend removing item four
[1:13:51] cover uh addressing maximum lot coverage
[1:13:56] because it is
[1:14:00] um
[1:14:02] not a meaningful measure
[1:14:06] in any circumstance
[1:14:09] after the maximum size of the ADU has
[1:14:14] been changed. changed to be 1,200
[1:14:17] maximum living square feet.
[1:14:21] Previously, when we were considering
[1:14:23] this item, we thought that there may be
[1:14:26] instances where um larger lots could
[1:14:32] build meaningfully larger ADUs and we
[1:14:37] were trying to make sure that those
[1:14:40] could not get out of hand.
[1:14:44] The
[1:14:47] item four as written further introduces
[1:14:51] challenges for city staff to manage in
[1:14:56] identifying what constitutes a permanent
[1:14:59] structure that would be included in that
[1:15:02] calculation.
[1:15:04] And because the ADU size is now limited
[1:15:07] to 1,200 square ft of limited space of
[1:15:11] living space, uh that issue is no longer
[1:15:16] uh relevant.
[1:15:18] >> Okay, we have a motion by John. Do I
[1:15:21] have a second?
[1:15:22] >> I'll second it.
[1:15:23] >> Second by Troy Slade. Any discussions on
[1:15:26] the motion?
[1:15:30] Okay, hearing none. Uh, all those in
[1:15:32] favor say I.
[1:15:34] >> I.
[1:15:36] >> Any opposed?
[1:15:38] Okay. Motion carries unanimous.
[1:15:40] >> Good. Good luck. Good. Oh, you did.
[1:15:42] >> I didn't vote. I
[1:15:44] >> Okay,
[1:15:45] >> we have one nay.
[1:15:46] >> Okay. We have one nay and one, two,
[1:15:48] three, four, five.
[1:15:51] >> Okay. [laughter]
[1:15:52] Okay. Okay. We're going to start again.
[1:15:54] >> No.
[1:15:56] >> Okay.
[1:15:56] >> We're all really quiet.
[1:15:59] >> We don't like going.
[1:16:00] >> You made a really good point.
[1:16:01] I know. I like them both, but Yeah.
[1:16:05] >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm
[1:16:08] gonna do a roll call vote. Troy Slade,
[1:16:11] >> yay.
[1:16:12] >> Michelle,
[1:16:13] >> nay.
[1:16:14] >> John,
[1:16:14] >> yay.
[1:16:16] >> Jeff, yay. Greg,
[1:16:18] >> yay.
[1:16:18] >> Suz,
[1:16:20] >> nay. Okay. One, two, three, four yeses
[1:16:24] and two nos. Okay. The motion passes.
[1:16:28] >> Okay,
[1:16:29] >> Kaden. Next item. Okay. So, this one
[1:16:32] we've looked at a lot, so we will not go
[1:16:34] over it again. It's just all those
[1:16:35] updates to city code that we've looked
[1:16:37] at. Um, the only thing that's going to
[1:16:40] extend our meeting a little bit is just
[1:16:42] we needed to have a discussion about how
[1:16:44] we want to uh consider buildings
[1:16:47] attached in our city. And I know we've
[1:16:49] talked about that before and uh we we
[1:16:53] kind of decided that it was fine the way
[1:16:55] that staff had proposed it. Um, but
[1:16:58] since then we've had some different
[1:17:01] questions and and with the ADU code
[1:17:03] coming in, this detached ADU code coming
[1:17:05] in and questions from council, we just
[1:17:08] want to make sure that that's the way we
[1:17:10] want to do it. We want planning
[1:17:11] commission to give their full and final
[1:17:14] recommendation if that is the right way
[1:17:16] to do it. So, let me go to the code that
[1:17:18] I'm talking about. Um,
[1:17:21] let's see.
[1:17:25] Scroll through. Okay, so this is in each
[1:17:28] of our zones, which is chapter 3 of our
[1:17:30] development code. Um, and it goes from
[1:17:32] 3.02 to I think 3.06
[1:17:36] or 7. Um, so we've just had an issue of
[1:17:41] our code currently doesn't address how
[1:17:46] long can an attachment be uh to still be
[1:17:50] considered attached to a main structure.
[1:17:52] Okay,
[1:17:53] >> it says here that uh a building that's
[1:17:56] 12 feet or closer and attached by a
[1:17:59] common roof or wall is considered part
[1:18:01] of the main building and shall meet the
[1:18:03] same setbacks as the main building. Um
[1:18:05] so the issue with this is it doesn't
[1:18:07] clarify that um
[1:18:11] maybe that is the limit that 12 feet is
[1:18:14] the limit. It could be farther away or
[1:18:15] something. We had someone that was
[1:18:16] proposing something that was 16 feet
[1:18:18] away but was attached by a common river
[1:18:20] wall. And so that took us a few weeks to
[1:18:23] handle with them with their building
[1:18:24] permit. And so we just thought it was
[1:18:26] best to clarify uh if it's farther than
[1:18:29] 12 feet away, even if it's attached,
[1:18:30] it's still not considered part of the
[1:18:33] main structure and has to meet all the
[1:18:35] detached structure codes.
[1:18:37] >> And to put in context, this is the
[1:18:39] situation where we looked out by
[1:18:41] [snorts]
[1:18:43] >> SR92, the one house that has like a
[1:18:46] 60oot easement that they'd call that
[1:18:48] connected
[1:18:49] >> in Highland. Yes. So, and I put that
[1:18:52] here just so we could
[1:18:54] >> see it.
[1:18:54] >> Um,
[1:18:56] okay.
[1:18:58] So, yeah. So, we'll look at this in a
[1:19:00] minute, but yeah, let me go to that what
[1:19:01] Greg's talking about
[1:19:03] >> that one.
[1:19:04] >> So, we have this.
[1:19:05] >> Can I clarify that? Are you just talking
[1:19:08] about interior hallways? You're not
[1:19:09] talking about where it's the 12 foot
[1:19:11] that they can extend by a roof.
[1:19:16] So the way our code currently reads, it
[1:19:18] doesn't have to be interior.
[1:19:21] >> It can just be a breezeway that's
[1:19:22] connected by a common roof or
[1:19:25] >> wall.
[1:19:25] >> Yeah.
[1:19:26] >> Right. But that is defined by you can't
[1:19:27] do more than
[1:19:29] >> 12 feet, but we have let people do an
[1:19:33] interior hallway farther than 12 feet.
[1:19:37] >> Okay. And I And yeah, I didn't know
[1:19:39] that. I haven't seen that. So,
[1:19:40] >> and so that's what we need to change
[1:19:42] because we don't like that. I think
[1:19:44] that's part of this discussion. Yes. I
[1:19:47] council council member definitely
[1:19:49] doesn't like that.
[1:19:50] >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
[1:19:50] >> Yes. Yeah. Thanks, Mara.
[1:19:53] >> Um, so this is the aerial image of this
[1:19:56] property. Yeah. This is in Highland.
[1:19:57] This is a 60 footish length breezeway
[1:20:01] and this was considered attached under
[1:20:03] Highland's code and so that prompted
[1:20:05] them to change their code because no one
[1:20:07] liked that. Um, so they came up with this um Yeah.
[1:20:14] >> So they said that uh it shall include a
[1:20:17] majority or more to be attached and in
[1:20:19] common with the original dwelling. The
[1:20:21] connection shall be a majority of the
[1:20:23] length of the portion of the addition
[1:20:26] that faces the main dwelling. And they
[1:20:28] have this graphic here. So they're
[1:20:31] saying uh 50% or more of this uh of the
[1:20:35] length of the building is attached. So
[1:20:37] this is considered attached. So is this.
[1:20:40] is not and this is not. And
[1:20:43] um I think this has benefits to it. And
[1:20:46] I also think this code actually isn't
[1:20:48] perfectly written because it says the
[1:20:50] connection shall be a majority of the
[1:20:52] length of the portion of the addition
[1:20:55] that faces the main dwelling. And this
[1:20:59] portion which they're saying is what uh
[1:21:02] determines the 50% is not facing the
[1:21:05] main dwelling to me.
[1:21:07] Um, this is so so I think it's actually
[1:21:11] not written exactly right. Uh, I get
[1:21:13] what they're doing though. Um, or for
[1:21:16] example, this image, this portion that
[1:21:19] faces the main dwelling, more than 50%
[1:21:21] of this portion is attached. So, this
[1:21:23] should be considered attached according
[1:21:24] to the language that I understand. I
[1:21:26] don't know if everybody else understands
[1:21:27] that the same way, but I think it's a
[1:21:29] little poorly written, but this is their
[1:21:31] intent is that the length the longest
[1:21:34] length of the new addition coming in,
[1:21:37] >> half of that has to be touching and
[1:21:39] attached to that's where it should say
[1:21:41] the longest length.
[1:21:42] >> The longest
[1:21:43] >> Yeah. And so that's what I did. I I
[1:21:45] Let's see. I think I
[1:21:47] included that here. Yeah. So this is my
[1:21:49] rewriting of their code basically. So
[1:21:53] this is our code. So I take out this
[1:21:54] part with the 12 foot. To be considered
[1:21:57] part of the main dwelling in addition to
[1:21:58] the original dwelling shall include the
[1:22:00] majority or more to be attached income
[1:22:01] with the original dwelling. The
[1:22:02] connection shall exceed 50% of the total
[1:22:05] dimension of the addition that is
[1:22:06] parallel to the side of the addition
[1:22:09] that faces the main dwelling.
[1:22:12] That was my imperfect attempt at
[1:22:15] clarifying what they're trying to do
[1:22:16] here.
[1:22:18] Um, and then number two,
[1:22:19] >> did you just say
[1:22:21] 50% of the longest side of the addition?
[1:22:26] >> Yeah.
[1:22:26] it could it probably could be as
[1:22:28] simple as that. Yeah.
[1:22:29] >> Okay.
[1:22:29] >> Instead of just the part touching it,
[1:22:31] the longest side
[1:22:33] >> of the parallel.
[1:22:34] >> I I I just think the longest the longest
[1:22:37] side
[1:22:38] >> half of the longest side has to be
[1:22:40] attached.
[1:22:42] >> Yeah, I think that's great to clarify
[1:22:45] this.
[1:22:46] So this is an option. So um I I created
[1:22:50] this little part. So the options are
[1:22:52] kind of and this isn't the limit, but A,
[1:22:55] B, and C. A is the one that we have
[1:22:58] already determined could work, which is
[1:23:00] just saying that anything over 12 is not
[1:23:02] attached.
[1:23:03] Um which would say that we would still
[1:23:05] allow something like this in our city. I
[1:23:09] talked to Shane about this. I was like,
[1:23:11] just to be clear, does this is this
[1:23:12] considered attached in our building?
[1:23:14] He's like, "Yeah, I think that would be
[1:23:15] according to how our code's written
[1:23:16] right now." So, this would be detached
[1:23:18] under Highlands and probably would be
[1:23:20] considered attached under ours. And he
[1:23:22] told me it would be
[1:23:23] >> because it has this connection
[1:23:26] >> doesn't have to be internal as it's
[1:23:28] written right now.
[1:23:30] >> Common roof or wall.
[1:23:32] >> Yeah.
[1:23:34] >> It's nailed to the
[1:23:35] >> Yeah. So, and there's a council me
[1:23:37] council member Hanamman doesn't like she
[1:23:39] wants it to be like Highlands Code for
[1:23:41] example. I know for sure she wants it
[1:23:43] like more like this.
[1:23:46] >> Um,
[1:23:47] >> so that aesthetically
[1:23:50] there are some styles. Mhm.
[1:23:52] >> Right.
[1:23:53] >> I mean, I have a a home up at Fish Haven
[1:23:55] Idaho where I have a home that I've got
[1:23:58] a 60 by60 toy barn. It's connected with
[1:24:00] an Eastway like that. And if you look at
[1:24:02] the style of the home and it's looks
[1:24:06] like it's 100 years old with 100 year
[1:24:07] old wood,
[1:24:08] >> it matches where if someone were to say
[1:24:10] you've got to connect them different
[1:24:12] than that
[1:24:13] >> would change the whole design of the
[1:24:15] >> Yeah.
[1:24:16] >> And I think that's that's one of the
[1:24:17] limits of something like like that is
[1:24:20] that topography or style like you're
[1:24:23] saying
[1:24:23] >> the exact same
[1:24:24] >> it can prevent you from connecting.
[1:24:26] >> Yeah. But with the new ADU,
[1:24:30] I don't see why breezeways should be
[1:24:33] long and you know what I mean,
[1:24:35] >> right?
[1:24:36] >> I don't think we need that.
[1:24:37] >> Yeah,
[1:24:38] >> I think that's very lovely.
[1:24:40] >> Yes,
[1:24:40] >> that little short breezeway is this is a
[1:24:43] lovely design, but with the with ADUs,
[1:24:48] >> I think attaching it to the house makes
[1:24:49] more sense.
[1:24:50] >> Well, I think looking at this like we're
[1:24:52] like, "Oh, that's fine. This is not
[1:24:54] fine. So, what do we prevent?" I mean
[1:24:55] again to remember this is like 60 feet
[1:24:58] long. [clears throat]
[1:24:59] >> So if we're talking 12 is the limit that
[1:25:02] would significantly reduce.
[1:25:04] >> Yeah.
[1:25:04] >> Plus we know in our ADU code it has to
[1:25:06] be designed similar to the house.
[1:25:08] >> So if they are putting an ADU in and
[1:25:10] it's considered attached in this way it
[1:25:12] would have to look something like this
[1:25:13] that matches the home.
[1:25:15] >> Were you trying to say something? like a
[1:25:16] little grandma.
[1:25:17] >> I'm also questioning I mean a council
[1:25:19] member that I talked with
[1:25:22] said that they wanted an ADU because
[1:25:25] they're getting older and they want to
[1:25:26] be able to make money and still live in
[1:25:28] Alpine and
[1:25:31] is tired of family members living with
[1:25:34] them playing their loud music at one in
[1:25:36] the morning and she'd rather that
[1:25:38] they're actually further away in a
[1:25:40] separate building [laughter]
[1:25:42] and you can't say that. Plus also say
[1:25:45] you want it to be attached,
[1:25:47] >> right?
[1:25:47] >> You know what I mean? I I don't know if
[1:25:49] I was renting a spot out, I'd want some
[1:25:52] flexibility.
[1:25:53] >> Yeah. Maybe have some distance, I guess.
[1:25:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. I That's true.
[1:25:59] >> So, one thing with making it attached,
[1:26:02] if it's an ad, if you're going to use it
[1:26:04] as an ADU, if you attach it, your height
[1:26:06] can be taller.
[1:26:08] >> You can go up to that
[1:26:10] >> 30. Yeah, that 34 feet.
[1:26:16] to 30 or 25.
[1:26:19] >> Say that again.
[1:26:20] >> We limited it to 25.
[1:26:21] >> 25.
[1:26:22] >> If it's an ADU,
[1:26:24] >> this with a 12oot breezeway, could you
[1:26:28] go 35 if the home is 35?
[1:26:30] >> Yes.
[1:26:31] >> Just by putting a 12oot breezeway.
[1:26:36] » So, that's what we're deliberating
[1:26:37] tonight. Yeah.
[1:26:38] >> That's what we like that.
[1:26:40] >> Yeah.
[1:26:42] But it would also not be a
[1:26:44] >> external ADU at that point, right?
[1:26:47] >> Correct.
[1:26:48] >> So then they could build another one.
[1:26:49] >> They can do it now.
[1:26:50] >> They can do this now. Yes.
[1:26:52] >> I mean, they can do it now.
[1:26:53] >> You could call this part of your house
[1:26:55] >> and then you could build an ADU.
[1:26:57] >> Yeah.
[1:26:57] >> Correct.
[1:26:58] >> They could rent this out.
[1:27:00] >> No, you couldn't rent them, but you can
[1:27:01] still put your kids in there.
[1:27:03] >> They can do it now. So
[1:27:05] >> Well, I know they could do it now, but
[1:27:06] now they couldn't add the third
[1:27:07] building.
[1:27:10] So yeah, I mean again the difference is
[1:27:13] >> if if they they're not allowed to do
[1:27:14] this type of breezeway thing or
[1:27:16] something and someone's really
[1:27:18] determined to have both like Michelle's
[1:27:21] saying they could attach this on and
[1:27:23] then do another one or something and
[1:27:24] then they have
[1:27:26] like if someone attaches their building
[1:27:28] it can be it can match the house right
[1:27:30] that's what an addition is it just
[1:27:31] matches the house in any way and
[1:27:34] >> so
[1:27:35] that
[1:27:36] >> yeah
[1:27:38] I think the good thing about the 12 is
[1:27:40] it matches our current code. It's easy
[1:27:42] to administer for staff uh because it's
[1:27:45] clear are you within 12 feet? Okay,
[1:27:47] you're you're in attached addition then.
[1:27:50] Um the bad thing is yeah, it could lead
[1:27:53] to people using that 12 feet or less to
[1:27:58] attach another structure. It's pretty
[1:28:02] substantial and this can be up to 34
[1:28:04] feet tall because it can match the house
[1:28:05] >> and still add a ADU if it's with meeting
[1:28:08] the offsets,
[1:28:09] >> right? If it only meets the offsets, but remember that. Yeah. If it's
[1:28:12] attached, it has to meet the setbacks of
[1:28:14] attached, which is 30 feet front and
[1:28:17] rear.
[1:28:17] >> Yeah.
[1:28:18] >> A detached building doesn't have that
[1:28:19] deep of setbacks.
[1:28:20] >> It's 15, right?
[1:28:21] >> It's 15 rear, 10 foot side. So, I feel
[1:28:24] like the height and setbacks kind of
[1:28:26] balance each other out.
[1:28:27] >> Do you want to be attached? Great. You
[1:28:29] can be really tall, but now you have to
[1:28:30] be far away from your property lines.
[1:28:32] >> If you want to be close to your property
[1:28:34] lines, you have to be detached. So, they
[1:28:36] kind of bounce each other out. And it
[1:28:37] might it might not be as big of a deal
[1:28:39] as we think sometimes, but
[1:28:44] » and aesthetically there might be some
[1:28:45] instances
[1:28:47] where it being similar height as the
[1:28:50] existing structure. Aesthetically, it
[1:28:52] might be better. Maybe not always, but
[1:28:55] in some instances like this one,
[1:28:57] >> I don't think you have like this little
[1:28:58] Watty house next to it looks a little
[1:29:00] flat roof next to this one. It would
[1:29:02] >> it would look as good.
[1:29:05] >> Yeah. And so let's see. Let me go back
[1:29:07] to my options real quick. So A was just
[1:29:09] the option we talked about in the
[1:29:10] packet. B I think I just added on
[1:29:14] specifically that a bree a breezeway is
[1:29:16] not does not constitute a common roof or
[1:29:19] wall. So we could keep it the same and
[1:29:22] just add in this extra line that a
[1:29:24] breezeway doesn't count. It has to be
[1:29:27] attached by something a little bit more
[1:29:28] substantial like a like an enclosed
[1:29:30] hallway like Marlo was talking about and
[1:29:32] then we just keep the 12 and 12 foot or
[1:29:36] closer 12 foot or farther away part that
[1:29:40] makes it either attached or detached. Um
[1:29:42] so that that's another option. We could
[1:29:44] just say no breezeways allowed in this
[1:29:46] case but again that would take away this
[1:29:48] white house we've been looking at. Um
[1:29:51] and then option C is kind of doing
[1:29:53] something similar to Highland. So, and
[1:29:57] is this a is this the limit of options?
[1:30:00] No, there's definitely more things we
[1:30:01] could consider as well, but this is what
[1:30:02] we have today. So,
[1:30:07] oh, okay. And I also added these images
[1:30:09] of port cochares, which are these
[1:30:12] structures that allow people to kind of
[1:30:14] pull up and get out outside of the
[1:30:16] weather.
[1:30:16] >> Is this the one that's in American Fork?
[1:30:19] >> Uh,
[1:30:19] >> there's a beautiful one down there.
[1:30:21] >> Is there Okay. I think I just got these
[1:30:22] off the internet, so I don't think so.
[1:30:25] There's there's homes like that on
[1:30:26] Alpine Boulevard.
[1:30:27] >> There's there's definitely some homes
[1:30:29] like this in in our city.
[1:30:32] >> How to rotate this, but
[1:30:34] >> I think that's a nice feature. I don't
[1:30:35] think we want to kash it.
[1:30:37] >> Yeah.
[1:30:37] >> So, to me, like I don't know. How do I
[1:30:39] rotate this?
[1:30:43] » Oh, right here.
[1:30:45] >> Yeah.
[1:30:46] >> So, like to me, I I think that Highland
[1:30:48] would consider this detached, especially
[1:30:50] if it was added on later.
[1:30:52] >> Yeah.
[1:30:52] >> Right. And so I don't know if we want
[1:30:54] our code to restrict something like
[1:30:56] this.
[1:30:56] >> No, I don't think so.
[1:30:58] >> You know,
[1:31:01] >> or like this. I mean, this
[1:31:02] >> once again, I think your home style,
[1:31:05] it's part of the architectural design.
[1:31:08] >> Yes.
[1:31:11] >> Yeah. Like to me, I think all of us
[1:31:12] would look at this and be like, that's
[1:31:14] an attached garage or something. You
[1:31:15] know, like it's Yeah. There's a little
[1:31:17] walkway here, but that's part of the
[1:31:19] house.
[1:31:19] >> Yeah.
[1:31:20] >> So, I don't know. So, um I don't want to
[1:31:23] say for sure they would consider this
[1:31:25] detached, but I think according to how I
[1:31:27] read it that they would, especially if
[1:31:30] it's added on later or something. So,
[1:31:32] anyway,
[1:31:35] and once again, and you went through it
[1:31:38] fast, if it's attached like that, it's
[1:31:41] 30 feet
[1:31:43] sides and back. Where it's 15 side, it's
[1:31:47] five back if it's detached. So someone
[1:31:50] could take and not put that east way
[1:31:52] there and they could stick it back in
[1:31:53] the corner closer to their neighbors
[1:31:56] which everybody always does, right? They
[1:31:57] put the chickens in the furthest more
[1:31:59] corner from their house.
[1:32:00] >> Yeah.
[1:32:02] So So yeah, that's the thing is going
[1:32:04] back to this crazy image of the Highland
[1:32:06] had. Yeah. So I think
[1:32:08] >> like no one would there's this fear that
[1:32:10] if we allow 12 feet or less to be
[1:32:13] attached someone's going to do this huge
[1:32:16] structure attached to their home but
[1:32:19] again it's 12 feet so yeah sure they can
[1:32:22] have this huge thing I guess within 12
[1:32:24] feet but
[1:32:25] one it has to match the home if they're
[1:32:27] going to do an ADU and then it can only
[1:32:28] be up to 25 feet right or no it can be
[1:32:31] up to the same but they would have to
[1:32:33] match the home and design so anyway I
[1:32:36] don't So, like
[1:32:38] it seems like a non-issue overall, but
[1:32:41] we just want to make sure we're
[1:32:43] >> covering all our bases.
[1:32:45] >> Not to stir the pot here, but if it's
[1:32:48] >> after discussing it, is you where you at
[1:32:51] with this?
[1:32:54] >> I just don't like that you could put a
[1:32:57] third structure. I guess that's where my
[1:32:59] brain is going. Yeah, the pictures were
[1:33:01] very lovely. They were very integral
[1:33:03] part of the plan.
[1:33:06] >> But but if you do that and you have the
[1:33:10] law is running the right direction, you
[1:33:13] know, there's an if and an if and if to
[1:33:15] everything, right? But they could put a third one
[1:33:20] >> beats the system by building a second
[1:33:22] building, putting an easeway between
[1:33:23] them, and then building a third and it's
[1:33:25] detached.
[1:33:25] >> And that's where I kind of go
[1:33:28] >> mean, are you talking about two ADUs
[1:33:30] >> or just a
[1:33:32] You could put your mom in there and rent
[1:33:34] out the other space. I mean, there's
[1:33:36] nothing to say you can't
[1:33:39] >> Well, and I want to clarifying,
[1:33:55] two dwelling units outside of the home.
[1:33:58] >> Yes. Like the goal is one the home plus
[1:34:02] one unit,
[1:34:03] >> right?
[1:34:03] >> It's not one plus the one for your
[1:34:05] family plus the one for your renters,
[1:34:06] >> right?
[1:34:07] >> And so I think we're still trying to
[1:34:08] 100% figure out how we're going to
[1:34:10] manage that because the code clearly
[1:34:11] says you can only have one.
[1:34:13] >> If you have an internal ADU, you can't
[1:34:14] have an external ADU or detach. So we're going to use the
[1:34:19] >> But everybody has a kitchen basement,
[1:34:21] you know, but yeah.
[1:34:24] >> So
[1:34:25] >> would this be Yeah, that was my
[1:34:27] question. This would be
[1:34:30] >> correct. So this would be an internal
[1:34:31] ADU
[1:34:32] >> if it was licensed as an ADU. But they
[1:34:34] don't have to license.
[1:34:35] >> They don't have to if you put in family
[1:34:36] >> as long as I meet the setbacks and all
[1:34:38] the other things and they're fine just
[1:34:41] part of the house.
[1:34:42] >> And it's impossible to manage every
[1:34:44] situation. Like that's I think the the
[1:34:46] realization we came to today talking
[1:34:48] about this is
[1:34:49] >> right
[1:34:49] >> we can't prevent someone from renting
[1:34:51] out something they shouldn't or
[1:34:53] whatever. But the goal is to
[1:34:56] >> to see
[1:34:57] >> removing the lot coverage and renewing
[1:34:59] that and then not tightening this up.
[1:35:03] There is a possibility
[1:35:05] >> and that's that's a fair point.
[1:35:07] >> Yeah.
[1:35:08] >> I don't like this picture that's up
[1:35:10] because I feel like that little
[1:35:11] breezeway is too ticky tacky. Our
[1:35:14] ordinance says the the roofs have to
[1:35:16] match.
[1:35:17] >> But Michelle, if you were to take that
[1:35:19] little breezeway out and scoosh those
[1:35:21] two together, that's just part of the
[1:35:23] house.
[1:35:24] >> Yes.
[1:35:24] >> A lot of people are using these for an
[1:35:26] art studio, for a she shed, for the
[1:35:29] husband's office when he works from
[1:35:31] home. They're doing taxes out of it. And
[1:35:35] we just have to say you're allowed to
[1:35:37] have one apartment per property and
[1:35:40] trust that that's what people are going
[1:35:42] to do.
[1:35:43] Whether there's a breezeway there or
[1:35:44] not, people are allowed to add on to
[1:35:46] their home.
[1:35:47] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:35:48] >> And I agree with Greg that those homes
[1:35:50] that Kaden showed are gorgeous that have
[1:35:53] that little bit of a separation with the
[1:35:55] right roof.
[1:35:56] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:36:00] So if if you put somebody into this if
[1:36:04] you built an accessory structure
[1:36:07] like say it was your artist studio or
[1:36:09] your garden studio when they put that in
[1:36:13] is what's this set back to the front and
[1:36:16] to the side and the rear?
[1:36:19] >> Same as the house.
[1:36:20] >> Same
[1:36:22] >> 30 on the rear 30 on the front.
[1:36:24] >> It's the same as the house. If it's an
[1:36:26] accessory structure, does it go to the
[1:36:28] 10 ft
[1:36:28] >> right for the side property? Yeah.
[1:36:30] >> For the neighbors, it could actually be
[1:36:32] more
[1:36:35] » as appealing or
[1:36:36] >> Yeah. Exactly.
[1:36:37] >> Worst case scenario.
[1:36:38] >> Exactly. To the neighbors, it's worst
[1:36:40] case scenario as you push this out and
[1:36:42] push it to them.
[1:36:44] >> Yeah.
[1:36:46] So, if you allow this to be attached, I
[1:36:48] think you might get a few more attached
[1:36:53] additions, ADUs that are closer to the
[1:36:56] house, that are taller, but again, that
[1:36:58] means they're farther from their
[1:37:00] neighbors.
[1:37:02] >> To balance Yeah.
[1:37:04] >> can bring it closer,
[1:37:05] >> right?
[1:37:07] >> They don't want those people close, they
[1:37:09] won't do it.
[1:37:11] >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
[1:37:13] >> At the Exactly.
[1:37:21] [laughter]
[1:37:22] >> Okay. Are are there any more are there
[1:37:25] any more questions for Jason or Ken? If
[1:37:29] not, I will
[1:37:30] >> Are we landing on an option here?
[1:37:32] >> Just to Yeah, just to say one more time.
[1:37:34] So, if Michelle if the concern is real
[1:37:36] that we're saying we like this, but we
[1:37:38] just don't want it to be a breezeway.
[1:37:41] That's what option B was for.
[1:37:42] >> Yeah. eliminate breezeways but allow
[1:37:45] other more substantial connections.
[1:37:48] So that is an option too. But
[1:37:50] >> the same thing for walls
[1:37:55] or something,
[1:37:56] >> right?
[1:37:59] >> So like something like
[1:38:01] >> Yeah. So something like this wouldn't be
[1:38:02] allowed, but something like
[1:38:04] >> something like this.
[1:38:06] >> Yeah.
[1:38:06] >> Because that's not a breezeway now.
[1:38:09] >> That is a carport of some sort. What do
[1:38:11] they call those? Port kosher. It's a
[1:38:13] French term.
[1:38:15] >> Port kosher,
[1:38:17] which means carport. Yeah.
[1:38:20] >> Yeah,
[1:38:21] >> I have the right term.
[1:38:22] >> Okay.
[1:38:25] >> Yes, I'm okay. And Marlo was bringing up
[1:38:28] interior walls, interior walkways. I
[1:38:31] don't I didn't catch all that. I'm
[1:38:32] sorry.
[1:38:36] Like interior meaning like
[1:38:38] >> if it makes a difference to you to have
[1:38:40] an open breezeway
[1:38:42] walls on its
[1:38:45] so you don't get any breeze. It's f
[1:38:49] >> no freeze breezeway.
[1:38:51] >> Okay. Just it was just connecting with
[1:38:55] >> full material.
[1:38:56] >> Yes.
[1:39:02] » Do you make the addition look like the
[1:39:06] main home?
[1:39:08] Is that in the code already? It's in the
[1:39:10] ADU code that we're putting in, but is
[1:39:12] it in
[1:39:14] this?
[1:39:14] >> Mara would know that.
[1:39:16] >> I thought it was. Mara could maybe corre
[1:39:19] clarify.
[1:39:21] I thought it was
[1:39:24] >> if we don't like the main
[1:39:27] >> Mara, do you know
[1:39:28] >> what was your question?
[1:39:29] >> Double down.
[1:39:30] >> Do you know, Mara, if an addition is
[1:39:32] required to match
[1:39:34] >> the main structure
[1:39:37] >> in design?
[1:39:39] When we had our attorney, David Church,
[1:39:41] he said, "We do we cannot regulate
[1:39:44] ugly." [snorts]
[1:39:46] >> So
[1:39:47] >> that's funny. [laughter]
[1:39:48] >> You can't fix stupid and you can't
[1:39:50] regulate ugly. Those are the questions.
[1:39:51] >> So the only thing that can help that is
[1:39:53] if you're in a strict HOA and then they
[1:39:56] could require certain materials.
[1:40:00] >> Most people here in Alpine are are going
[1:40:02] to make it look nice.
[1:40:05] >> Not all except when they're not.
[1:40:08] >> [laughter]
[1:40:09] >> But no, I do not know of an ordinance
[1:40:11] that says it has to match.
[1:40:13] >> Okay. Thanks, Mara.
[1:40:17] >> Okay. I will entertain a motion.
[1:40:27] » So, what are we playing B off of?
[1:40:31] >> Did you have a
[1:40:34] >> Let me go to the motion real quick. I
[1:40:36] don't know if I said option A through C,
[1:40:38] but you can you can include that as part
[1:40:40] of your
[1:40:43] um motion to approve with with
[1:40:46] conditions or something. Um and that
[1:40:49] would be for the
[1:40:52] um
[1:40:53] >> I think that's what John's asking where
[1:40:55] in the code.
[1:40:57] >> Yeah, sorry.
[1:40:58] So, it's everywhere in the code, but you
[1:41:01] could just say under customary
[1:41:03] residential accessory structures in
[1:41:05] every zone because it's in like five
[1:41:07] spots in the code.
[1:41:10] So, under customary residential
[1:41:12] accessory structures, I want to do
[1:41:14] option A, B, or C.
[1:41:16] >> Okay,
[1:41:17] >> this is option A.
[1:41:19] >> Can you open up another window to put
[1:41:21] the A, B, and C options side by side?
[1:41:23] >> Sure, let me do that. So what you wrote
[1:41:25] in the code is just saying you can't be
[1:41:28] more than 12 feet apart to be considered
[1:41:30] part of the
[1:41:31] >> Exactly. Attach that. That sounds pretty
[1:41:34] easy to me.
[1:41:34] >> Yes, exactly.
[1:41:35] >> It's definitely easiest for staff.
[1:41:36] >> That that's that's the one I That's the
[1:41:38] one I most flexible.
[1:41:41] >> That's the one I prefer.
[1:41:43] >> Cool. I like it. Sorry, Michelle.
[1:41:46] [laughter]
[1:41:49] » This is going to be a historic night for
[1:41:50] you. Yeah,
[1:41:53] >> it will be historic. [laughter]
[1:41:56] >> The only question is whether Suz will
[1:41:58] join you.
[1:42:02] » Just a little ghost there. [laughter]
[1:42:05] >> Okay. I
[1:42:07] >> Can you get the uh proposal?
[1:42:09] >> Let me go back to the motion now. Yeah.
[1:42:14] » So, I would like Are you open for
[1:42:16] motions?
[1:42:17] >> Yep. And I'm here.
[1:42:19] >> I would like to motion to approve with
[1:42:21] the following move recommendation of
[1:42:23] approval to city council of proposed
[1:42:25] text amendments to development code as
[1:42:27] presented subject to the following uh
[1:42:30] conditions and changes
[1:42:33] that in I don't know exactly the
[1:42:36] conditional reference
[1:42:38] >> customary
[1:42:40] >> accessory buildings that we go with
[1:42:44] option A.
[1:42:47] >> Okay. We have a motion by Greg
[1:42:48] Butterfield. Do I have a second?
[1:42:50] >> I'm gonna second that.
[1:42:52] >> A second by Suz Wittenberg. Okay. Any
[1:42:54] discussions on the motion?
[1:42:57] >> Is that is option A adequate
[1:43:00] >> or do we need to say
[1:43:01] >> that was our original proposal? So I
[1:43:03] would say yes.
[1:43:04] >> Option A is option A is a 12.
[1:43:06] >> Oh for the motion. Yeah, you could say
[1:43:08] >> proposed
[1:43:08] >> option A as proposed in the packet today
[1:43:11] or something. Yeah, that's fine.
[1:43:13] >> Yeah.
[1:43:14] >> Okay. Any other discussion?
[1:43:19] Okay, I'm gonna do a roll call vote.
[1:43:22] Troy Slade,
[1:43:23] >> yay.
[1:43:24] >> Michelle Shmer,
[1:43:25] >> yay.
[1:43:26] >> John McCay,
[1:43:27] >> yay.
[1:43:28] >> Jeff Davis, yay. Greg Butterfield,
[1:43:31] >> yay.
[1:43:32] >> Suz Whittenberg,
[1:43:33] >> yay.
[1:43:34] >> Okay, it's unanimous. Okay.
[1:43:38] >> Okay. Communications.
[1:43:46] John uh Jason.
[1:43:49] >> Um so our our next meeting is on the
[1:43:54] 15th.
[1:43:56] >> Yes.
[1:43:57] >> And do we have items?
[1:43:59] >> We do. We will talk about a proposed
[1:44:01] development agreement which is a new
[1:44:04] thing for our city. We haven't dealt
[1:44:05] with them maybe at all but a developer
[1:44:08] proposing one.
[1:44:09] >> A developer agreement. development
[1:44:12] agreement. Yes.
[1:44:13] >> Which means what?
[1:44:14] >> Uh it's a a regulation allowed by state
[1:44:17] code to
[1:44:19] basically one time modify your code to
[1:44:24] come to an agreement with a developer
[1:44:25] about how they should develop their
[1:44:28] properties.
[1:44:30] So it has it's the same process as a
[1:44:32] code update like we've been doing today.
[1:44:34] So they have to have a public hearing
[1:44:36] and the both the planning commission and
[1:44:38] city council have to determine if they
[1:44:40] want that development agreement or not.
[1:44:42] >> Okay. So it's basically an exception.
[1:44:44] >> Yeah.
[1:44:45] >> It's basically an exception, but they
[1:44:47] have to meet all these requirements that
[1:44:48] state code requires.
[1:44:50] >> Yeah.
[1:44:50] >> Can you get us to that? Get that to us
[1:44:52] faster than
[1:44:54] >> Yeah, sure.
[1:44:54] >> Right. If it's already done, we know
[1:44:56] what it is. We should get it. And I'll
[1:44:57] just say I the the exception is uh the
[1:45:01] developer is proposing to have a private
[1:45:03] road instead of a public street for
[1:45:05] their development which our code does
[1:45:07] not allow private roads but they're pro
[1:45:09] they're asking for that.
[1:45:11] >> Okay that's gate that's gated
[1:45:15] >> not gated.
[1:45:16] >> Okay.
[1:45:16] >> It just helps them achieve one extra lot
[1:45:18] on the property.
[1:45:20] >> Okay.
[1:45:20] >> And so and so they're willing to give
[1:45:22] concessions to the city to get that
[1:45:24] >> the approved widths. Yeah.
[1:45:26] >> Yeah. It will still meet all the other
[1:45:28] code requirements,
[1:45:29] >> but they're just they're willing to help
[1:45:30] the city devel
[1:45:34] Yeah. needs
[1:45:36] >> to do that.
[1:45:37] >> Okay.
[1:45:38] >> And then I think there should be a
[1:45:39] couple other items, but I can't remember
[1:45:40] them right now.
[1:45:41] >> Okay.
[1:45:42] Um I will take a motion to approve
[1:45:46] the planning commission meeting minutes
[1:45:48] from August 4th.
[1:45:53] Any any changes? editions.
[1:45:58] » I think it's the 18th.
[1:46:00] >> I put the wrong one in here. Sorry. I'll
[1:46:02] put in August 18th next time.
[1:46:04] >> Okay. August 18th.
[1:46:06] >> Yeah, because I was like, we already did
[1:46:08] this one.
[1:46:08] >> We already did the fourth. Sorry about
[1:46:10] that.
[1:46:10] >> Okay. So, do I have a motion to approve
[1:46:13] the minutes from August 18th?
[1:46:17] >> Well, we don't have it before us, so we
[1:46:19] need to table it.
[1:46:22] Oh, what wasn't it wasn't it in our
[1:46:24] packet?
[1:46:25] >> I accidentally included the fourth
[1:46:26] August 4th.
[1:46:27] >> Oh, so apologies.
[1:46:29] >> So, we can't make a motion.
[1:46:31] >> Okay. So, we will put that on our next
[1:46:34] one. Okay. So, then I will
[1:46:36] >> then I will take a motion to adjurnn.
[1:46:41] >> Suz Wittenberg. [laughter]
[1:46:44] >> Second.
[1:46:45] >> Okay. And second by Michelle. Okay. All
[1:46:48] those in favor say I.
[1:46:49] >> I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion
[1:46:52] adjourned or meeting adjourned.
[1:46:55] >> Thank you.
[1:46:56] >> Okay.
[1:46:57] >> Great.
[1:46:58] >> Thanks everybody.
[1:46:59] >> Good job.
[1:47:01] I just I just wanted to know