[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

9.1.26 Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript