[0:13] [sighs]
[0:14] >> Okay.
[0:16] Uh we welcome everybody
[0:18] uh to Planning Commission on this day,
[0:20] Tuesday, August 4th, 6:00 at City Hall.
[0:24] Uh
[0:25] let the record show that today's agenda
[0:29] has been duly noted and noticed to the
[0:32] community.
[0:34] We will and it's also being broadcast
[0:37] online.
[0:39] Um
[0:40] we are all present here but uh except
[0:43] for our chair, Alan McDonald, but if we
[0:46] can just start uh
[0:49] and do a quick roll call and we'll start
[0:51] with Troy. Say your name and we'll just
[0:54] get that on the record.
[0:56] >> Troy Slade.
[0:58] Sorry, Troy Slade.
[0:59] >> Michelle Schrummer.
[1:00] >> John McKay.
[1:01] >> Jeff Davis.
[1:02] >> Greg Butterfield.
[1:03] >> Susan Wittenberg.
[1:04] >> Thank you.
[1:06] Okay.
[1:07] Um let's begin with an opening prayer.
[1:10] Michelle, can you offer that and then
[1:12] we'll have
[1:13] uh Greg lead us in the pledge.
[1:18] » Our heavenly Father, we're so grateful
[1:21] for the many blessings we've been given
[1:22] and we're grateful that we're able to um
[1:26] visit and talk about this beautiful city
[1:28] of Alpine and make decisions that will
[1:30] continue to
[1:33] um
[1:34] encourage and produce a city the city
[1:37] that we love and the neighboring and
[1:39] community neighbors and community. We're
[1:41] grateful for all that we've been given
[1:42] and for this country
[1:44] and for its 250th anniversary. We say
[1:47] these things in thy son, Jesus Christ.
[1:48] Amen.
[1:48] >> Amen. Thank you.
[1:50] >> All right.
[1:53] » [clears throat]
[1:54] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[1:56] United States of America and to the
[1:59] Republic for which it stands, one nation
[2:02] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[2:05] justice for all.
[2:09] » [clears throat]
[2:09] >> I failed to recognize from our city we
[2:12] have Marla Fox who's recording the
[2:14] minutes and then we have Jason and Caden
[2:18] here
[2:19] with us, our
[2:21] city planner and city engineer.
[2:24] Okay.
[2:25] Um I don't believe we have any reports
[2:27] or presentations, so we'll go on to item
[2:30] three.
[2:31] We have two items on the agenda today,
[2:34] so we'll turn the first item
[2:36] the review of proposed detached ADU code
[2:40] language and uh we'll start turn over to
[2:42] you Caden, you can
[2:44] introduce that
[2:46] item to us.
[2:47] >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.
[2:50] Um I want to make note before I jump to
[2:52] that, there was a public hearing that
[2:54] was noticed for um
[2:57] different items in our the action items
[2:59] on our agenda today.
[3:00] Um
[3:02] it it also noted on their discussion of ADUs as as noted here. I just want to
[3:08] make it clear that this is not the
[3:09] formal public hearing for the detached
[3:11] ADUs.
[3:12] Um it's only for the action item today.
[3:15] There was also one other thing note that
[3:17] was noticed that was a review of a
[3:19] proposed development agreement that we
[3:21] thought was going to be on the agenda
[3:22] today and it is not after discussion
[3:24] with our city administrator, so that
[3:26] will also be noticed and have a public
[3:28] hearing in the future as well.
[3:30] So I just want to
[3:31] leave that on the record. Thank you.
[3:34] Okay.
[3:35] Yeah, so let's jump to the first item,
[3:37] which is a discussion item.
[3:40] So
[3:41] um
[3:42] this is for the chance for the
[3:45] commissioners to provide their first
[3:47] round of input
[3:49] for proposed detached ADU code language
[3:52] for our city. Um kind of an exciting
[3:55] time for Alpine. We all know that the state passed the Senate Bill 284, so
[4:00] that's requiring us to now implement a
[4:03] detached ADU ordinance into our code.
[4:06] Um and so to make steps toward this,
[4:09] we've put together this first attempt at
[4:11] some ADU code language for the Planning
[4:13] Commission to review and and consider
[4:14] today.
[4:16] Um and then at a future date, probably
[4:18] the next Planning Commission meeting,
[4:20] we'll bring it before you as an action
[4:21] item to uh make a formal motion on. But
[4:24] today again is just discussion
[4:27] and feedback. Um
[4:29] and so we would just request, Jason and
[4:31] I and all staff, that you can just give
[4:33] your input for this, provide suggestions
[4:35] for improvement, and then uh we'll go
[4:38] from there. So
[4:39] um
[4:41] I guess I wanted to start off, before I
[4:42] jump to the two exhibits that I included
[4:44] in the packet, uh I sent an email to all
[4:47] the commissioners just about 2 hours ago
[4:49] that had two presentations in it. I
[4:52] don't know if you all saw that,
[4:54] but I thought I would
[4:55] bring up
[4:57] um
[4:58] just
[5:00] maybe just a
[5:02] uh preamble to talking about the code
[5:04] language more in depth. Um I think
[5:06] there's a lot of fear sometimes around
[5:09] >> [clears throat]
[5:09] >> adding detached accessory dwelling units
[5:12] that uh into a community. Um and so a
[5:15] lot of communities around Utah have not
[5:17] had a detached ADU
[5:19] ordinance or even a attached ADU
[5:21] ordinance for that matter until the
[5:23] state started requiring it, and now the
[5:24] state is requiring the detached as well.
[5:26] And so um I think this is a cool quote,
[5:29] "A healthy community has housing for
[5:30] families at all stages of life.
[5:33] ADUs fill an important niche, allowing
[5:35] seniors to age in place
[5:37] and young adult children to stay close
[5:40] to home."
[5:41] Um
[5:42] >> [clears throat]
[5:42] >> I, as a city planner, I think ADUs are a
[5:45] great thing. I think they they do allow
[5:47] for these two things that you know, a
[5:50] lot of people
[5:52] maybe don't realize the benefit of ADUs
[5:54] until their kids get old enough and then
[5:56] they can't afford to stay in the
[5:57] community they live in and they have to
[5:58] move far away or their parents get old
[6:00] enough that they have to they have to
[6:02] move out or
[6:04] go somewhere else and
[6:06] um
[6:07] and when I was in Wasatch County before
[6:09] coming here to Alpine City, that was one
[6:11] thing I remember that that made me
[6:14] you know, question
[6:16] what [snorts] really should be in our
[6:17] ordinances to allow for healthy
[6:20] community as it says here and allow for
[6:21] families to stay close together. Um up
[6:24] in Wasatch County to have detached ADUs
[6:26] were allowed, but they were
[6:28] conditional use.
[6:30] Um and they were only allowed for
[6:34] uh visitors. And so there was no one
[6:36] could stay there long-term.
[6:38] So I remember working with someone that
[6:39] wanted to create a detached ADU space
[6:42] for his mom that was aging and then he
[6:45] wanted to live on his property and he
[6:46] wasn't able to do it. And so I think it
[6:49] um that kind of opened my eyes to the
[6:50] reality of
[6:52] you know, I think we we can fail our our
[6:54] community. We can fail our people if we
[6:56] don't have the right ordinances in place
[6:57] to allow them to uh to live and to stay close to their
[7:02] families as they would like to. So I
[7:03] think um that's a great thing to keep in
[7:05] mind as we're we're considering this. I
[7:07] love this book. Um I had to read this
[7:10] book when I was in school and uh it's called The Option
[7:15] of Urbanism.
[7:16] And uh the main thing the main takeaway
[7:19] from the book basically is
[7:21] right there in the title, The Option of
[7:23] Urbanism. And it talks a lot about how
[7:26] really the best communities are ones
[7:28] where people have options and they have
[7:30] choices. If we have a code that
[7:33] restricts too much then only one type of
[7:36] building or one type of commercial
[7:38] development will come in to a city. And
[7:40] so if we have options and we we allow
[7:43] those in our community then our
[7:44] community has more opportunities to
[7:46] thrive.
[7:48] Um so, yeah. So, I sent you guys this presentation. These are just a
[7:52] couple slides from it. Um
[7:55] I think
[7:58] ADUs really can help and
[8:01] you know, like it says here, they might
[8:02] not solve the whole crisis, but it could
[8:04] solve one family's crisis and so that matters.
[8:07] And then um
[8:10] you know, we all
[8:12] can recognize the ADU size limits also
[8:14] vary and do matter.
[8:17] All cities require ADUs to be smaller
[8:19] than the main home, which is a great
[8:20] thing.
[8:21] And I think people realize that that's
[8:23] what it's they're supposed to be.
[8:24] small and
[8:24] affordable so that people can
[8:26] live in them. They don't have to be
[8:27] monstrosities that dominate the the main
[8:29] dwelling already on a property.
[8:32] Um and so, just a few examples here and
[8:36] you know, one bed, one bath, less than
[8:38] 600 square feet, three bed, two bath,
[8:40] less than 1,200 square feet.
[8:42] Um it's
[8:43] as we're considering this ordinance, I
[8:45] think it's good to keep in mind all the
[8:46] different varieties that could come into
[8:48] the city
[8:49] and to try to leave options for people
[8:53] to to do
[8:54] you know, a lot of different
[8:57] choices with this while also making sure
[9:00] our the spirit of our code and the
[9:03] community we want to build is met.
[9:05] All right, let me go back now to the
[9:08] packet.
[9:11] So, hopefully that kind of just warms us
[9:12] up for this discussion.
[9:14] Um exhibit A that I was I sent in the
[9:16] packet was the ADU state requirements
[9:20] that went into effect or that were
[9:22] adopted and will go into effect on
[9:24] October 1st.
[9:25] Um yeah, so if I haven't clarified that,
[9:28] this will
[9:29] the ADU requirements for detached ADUs
[9:32] go into effect on October 1st. So, we do
[9:34] have to have an ordinance adopted before
[9:37] that date.
[9:38] Uh that per state statute. Um so the
[9:41] first one
[9:42] that the new state requirements call for
[9:45] is that any lot over 11,000 square feet
[9:50] is allowed to have a detached ADU as
[9:52] long as it's zoned for uh single-family
[9:54] dwellings.
[9:56] Um and then this part right here,
[9:58] anything
[9:59] uh the section also does not prohibit a
[10:01] municipality from adopting a regulation
[10:04] to allow smaller 11,000 square feet uh
[10:06] onto
[10:07] to have detached ADUs as well. So that's
[10:09] a good thing to keep in mind. Really,
[10:10] most of our city is over 11,000 square
[10:13] feet. We have a TR 10,000 zone. So there
[10:16] are some 10,000 uh square foot lots, but
[10:19] other than that, most most lots in our
[10:22] city that are zoned for residential will
[10:23] be allowed to have a detached ADU.
[10:27] Um number two, they have to meet these
[10:28] fire, health, and and building codes. So
[10:31] I'll jump over that one quick.
[10:33] Um
[10:34] number three,
[10:36] so municipalities may not require them
[10:40] to be conditional uses. They have to be
[10:41] permitted uses.
[10:43] Um a municipality may also not require
[10:46] more than two parking spaces
[10:49] um for a a detached ADU that is over 650
[10:53] square feet.
[10:55] And a municipality may also not
[10:59] require more than one onsite parking
[11:00] space
[11:02] for anything that's under 650 square
[11:04] feet.
[11:06] Um and then number four is where it gets
[11:08] interesting. So this is where we have uh
[11:10] authority essentially. This is where we
[11:12] can make a difference for our own local
[11:14] ordinance. So Alpine City, we can uh
[11:18] allow or require the detached ADU to
[11:21] conform to applicable land use
[11:23] regulations governing size, dimension,
[11:25] height, and lot coverage.
[11:28] Um we currently don't have a lot
[11:30] coverage ordinance except for in the TR
[11:32] 10,000 and the business commercial zone.
[11:34] So, just to keep that in mind as well.
[11:37] And then Alpine City, we can also
[11:39] require these detached ADUs to conform
[11:41] to setback requirements with all these
[11:43] things in consideration for those
[11:45] setbacks.
[11:47] And then we can also require that
[11:49] detached ADU be designed consistent with
[11:51] the design of the single-family
[11:53] dwelling,
[11:54] which I think is a great thing as well
[11:56] to make sure we have
[11:57] conformity and uniformity with our with
[11:59] the look and feel of our city.
[12:03] So, another thing. So, Alpine City can
[12:06] prohibit a detached ADU from being
[12:07] larger in size than the single-family
[12:09] dwelling.
[12:10] Uh can prohibit it from being within a
[12:12] easement, within a front yard, or rented
[12:15] for less than 90 days. So, we can
[12:18] require these to be long-term rentals,
[12:20] um which is usually implied. Usually
[12:22] it's
[12:23] uh anything over 30 days is a long-term
[12:25] rental,
[12:26] but this would allow us to to boost that
[12:28] to 90 days if we would want to.
[12:32] Um we can also require
[12:34] uh the property owner to reside in
[12:37] either the single-family home or the
[12:38] detached ADU on their property. That can
[12:40] be something we require in our
[12:42] ordinance.
[12:44] We can also require that if uh current
[12:46] detached garage becomes an ADU, that all
[12:50] required parking spaces that were in the
[12:51] garage be replaced on site.
[12:55] And this one's key as well, I think.
[12:58] Uh Alpine City, we can we can prohibit
[13:00] more than one accessory dwelling unit on
[13:03] a lot or parcel. So, if someone already
[13:05] has an an uh attached or interior ADU,
[13:09] they could be prohibited from getting a
[13:11] detached ADU.
[13:15] Um let me just finish this out and then
[13:16] I'll turn to the commissioners if they
[13:17] have any questions. Uh and then we can
[13:20] also prohibit a detached ADU to to go in
[13:24] if they will not have adequate access to
[13:27] sanitary sewer,
[13:28] culinary water, electrical, or storm
[13:30] water.
[13:31] And if the utility system the utility
[13:34] system does not
[13:36] have sufficient capacity
[13:38] with those things as well.
[13:42] And then number five is just
[13:43] limitations. So it's just saying that um
[13:46] this does this only regulates
[13:49] uh detached ADUs, it doesn't regulate
[13:50] other accessory buildings.
[13:52] Um
[13:53] or anything outside of that.
[13:56] Okay, before we look at our code that we
[13:59] have proposed so far, does anyone have
[14:00] any questions or comments?
[14:04] » No, I think I think
[14:06] Go ahead and
[14:07] >> Think you're good? Okay.
[14:08] >> proposed code and then we can have
[14:09] discussion.
[14:10] >> Okay.
[14:11] All right, access So exhibit B, this is
[14:13] the proposed detached ADU code that we
[14:15] have put together so far.
[14:17] So this includes adding a definition to
[14:19] our definition section for detached
[14:21] ADUs, and this comes straight from the
[14:23] state website, this definition. An
[14:25] accessory dwelling unit that is not
[14:26] attached to or within a primary detached
[14:29] single-family dwelling
[14:31] and located on the same lot or parcel as
[14:33] the primary detached single-family
[14:34] dwelling. So pretty straightforward
[14:36] there.
[14:38] Um okay, so now jumping to our ADU code,
[14:40] which is 314 in the Alpine Development
[14:43] Code.
[14:44] So we would
[14:46] re-number these so the
[14:49] uh
[14:49] internal accessory dwelling units would
[14:51] now get their own section 020 and then
[14:54] detached would be 030.
[14:56] And then this one would become 040,
[14:58] non-residential accessory structures.
[15:01] So first I'm just looking at the code in
[15:02] general. So 314 talks about accessory
[15:04] dwelling units.
[15:06] Um
[15:08] took out this line and put it underneath
[15:10] the internal section.
[15:13] Uh which we would now have. So in the
[15:14] internal accessory dwelling units may be
[15:16] permitted use subject to the following.
[15:18] Under 020
[15:20] add the word internal here so we've
[15:23] uh
[15:23] so we designated this is talking about
[15:25] internal units now.
[15:28] Uh number two, we were adding if a
[15:30] property
[15:31] >> Can you go up a little bit?
[15:32] >> Yeah.
[15:34] >> Um
[15:39] » [snorts]
[15:43] » I'm just looking at the requirement of
[15:45] owner occupancy. So, they still need to
[15:47] be owner occupied.
[15:49] And this isn't a change, I'm just trying
[15:50] to understand the current ordinance.
[15:52] >> Yeah.
[15:52] >> Um
[15:59] So, we're just allowing a temporary
[16:00] absence as opposed to
[16:03] vacating it and having it entirely
[16:05] non-owner occupied.
[16:07] >> Correct. That's what our current current
[16:08] zone current code allows, yeah.
[16:10] >> Yeah.
[16:13] Um
[16:16] Okay, and so this for number two, we
[16:18] just added in here to clarify if a
[16:20] property already has a detached
[16:21] accessory dwelling unit, no internal
[16:22] accessory dwelling unit will be allowed.
[16:26] So, we're kind of
[16:28] for now, we're going off the state
[16:30] statute which allows us to restrict more
[16:34] than one on a property. That's our
[16:35] proposal right now.
[16:37] Everything else stays the same here.
[16:40] And then the brand new code would be
[16:42] 314030,
[16:43] which is detached ADUs.
[16:46] Okay, so first I'll just say this is
[16:49] we
[16:49] tried to mimic
[16:51] very much the internal
[16:54] ADUs,
[16:55] the all the language up here for most of
[16:57] it that works.
[16:59] So, if you read both of these, you'll
[17:01] notice there's a lot of copying language
[17:02] there just to make it consistent.
[17:05] So, number one,
[17:09] detached ADUs will be allowed if they're
[17:10] permitted use in the zone.
[17:12] Um they should they'll only be permitted
[17:15] on lots greater than 11,000 square feet
[17:17] and only in owner-occupied single unit
[17:18] detached dwellings.
[17:20] So, for now, we are proposing that
[17:23] uh anything under 11,000 is not allowed.
[17:26] The state statute allows us to
[17:28] uh to do that, but um
[17:31] but for now we want to restrict that to
[17:32] 11,000. That's our original
[17:34] proposal.
[17:36] Um these are all the same as we just
[17:38] read above.
[17:39] On owner-occupied requirements that John
[17:41] was just asking about.
[17:43] Um this one clarifies a maximum of one
[17:46] shall be permitted in each unit each
[17:48] unit if appropriately has an internal no
[17:51] detached will be allowed.
[17:53] The access the detached accessory
[17:54] dwelling unit shall provide at least one
[17:56] on-site parking space in addition to the
[17:57] parking spaces required for the
[17:59] dwelling.
[18:00] >> [snorts]
[18:00] >> So, the state statute allows us to have
[18:02] up to two.
[18:04] Uh for now I've just put one just to try
[18:06] and to make it easier for people that
[18:08] are going to occupy these units.
[18:10] But that's up to the commissioners and
[18:11] the council to decide if we want to
[18:13] require two parking spaces.
[18:16] Uh the detached accessory dwelling unit
[18:18] shall have a living space of no more
[18:20] than 1,200 square feet in size. So, this
[18:22] is our original proposal for size
[18:24] limits.
[18:25] And that's of living space.
[18:27] Uh so, it doesn't include a garage or
[18:29] anything like that, but it it's just for
[18:31] the living space to have a maximum of
[18:32] 1,200 square feet.
[18:36] The detached accessory dwelling unit
[18:37] shall meet the same setbacks as those
[18:38] required for accessory buildings in the
[18:40] zone in which is located.
[18:43] Um
[18:45] built with materials and design that
[18:46] match those of the main dwelling.
[18:49] Comply with all internal international
[18:51] residential building codes.
[18:53] And then this one's key as well, connect
[18:55] to the same meter as the main [laughter]
[18:56] dwelling
[18:57] for water, gas, electricity utility
[18:59] service, and the meter shall be in the
[19:01] name of the owner. That's that's
[19:02] straight from our internal code that
[19:04] would currently exist.
[19:06] Um and these two are as well.
[19:10] Currently exist, so So, just added those
[19:12] in as well.
[19:13] And then, [clears throat] yeah, this
[19:14] four was added in, too, to update that
[19:17] section.
[19:19] And that is it. So,
[19:21] any discussion that we want to have on
[19:23] this, we are now open for comment.
[19:27] Comments from
[19:29] the review.
[19:33] » Yeah, my my thought is why are we
[19:35] limiting it to 1,200 square feet?
[19:37] State kind of self-limits it. It just
[19:39] needs to be smaller than the primary
[19:40] residence, right?
[19:42] >> I'm right.
[19:43] >> Why why are we put placing that?
[19:45] >> [snorts]
[19:45] >> I think it was an initial number. Um
[19:50] There's
[19:52] Yeah, where I worked before, the limit
[19:53] was 1,000 square feet, even in Wasatch
[19:56] County, which has a lot of big open
[19:57] properties. Um
[20:00] I I don't think it has to be 1,200. It
[20:03] was just the initial number we wanted to
[20:04] put out for you guys to consider.
[20:06] >> A question I had is should you tie it to the size of the
[20:09] lot? So, 11,000 square feet is basically
[20:12] a quarter of an acre.
[20:14] And so, the question I'd have, there's
[20:15] lots of positives from negative
[20:17] standpoint, what does it do to property
[20:18] value for neighbors and others that are
[20:20] associated? And should you associate the
[20:23] size relative to the lot? So, if you
[20:25] have a half-acre lot, does it make sense
[20:26] to allow a 2,400
[20:30] But, do you limit so you don't end up
[20:31] where you You know what I mean? Where
[20:33] you have a quarter of an acre, and I
[20:34] don't know the size of the home that's
[20:35] there, but then if you put too big of a
[20:37] ADU, then you basically have an
[20:39] apartment complex. You know what I mean?
[20:40] >> Mhm.
[20:41] >> You get rid of open space, and so my
[20:42] question was should you tie the size to
[20:45] the size of the lot so that you
[20:48] eliminate maybe
[20:50] some negative
[20:51] aspect for neighbors and stuff with
[20:53] regards to overpopulated, and you're
[20:56] still going to have the ordinances where
[20:57] offsets and stuff need to be in place,
[20:58] but
[21:00] >> I don't know if that makes sense.
[21:01] >> think so. I like that idea.
[21:02] >> Cuz
[21:03] worst case scenario, I mean, you You a
[21:05] quarter like acre lot, and
[21:07] I don't know a
[21:08] 1,200 square foot could
[21:10] That's pretty big, right? I think for a
[21:12] quarter acre
[21:14] lot with a decent size house on it. I
[21:16] mean
[21:17] >> And then you said that that's just the
[21:18] living space. So I'm assuming that you
[21:20] could have a garage.
[21:22] >> Mhm.
[21:22] >> Got some height limits and stuff as I
[21:23] read through this, but the question is
[21:25] if you tied it to the lot size then
[21:27] maybe it wouldn't be
[21:29] >> [clears throat]
[21:29] >> as offensive. I mean I've got a meeting
[21:31] after this one and I went through the
[21:33] public sector and people always complain
[21:35] someone build a big garage and ruin my
[21:36] view or this or that and I'm assuming
[21:39] for people that don't have ADUs that
[21:41] live in the neighborhood.
[21:43] You know, I just used AI what are the
[21:44] negatives of ADUs and there's as many
[21:46] negatives as positives.
[21:48] >> Yeah.
[21:48] >> And one's property value, it's you know,
[21:51] overcrowding at streets, it's it's
[21:53] safety, it's school systems, it's
[21:55] infrastructure, it's sewer, it's
[21:57] electricity, it's all that stuff.
[21:59] >> Mhm.
[21:59] >> And so I'm just trying to think on both
[22:01] sides. How do you get all the benefit
[22:03] while minimizing some of maybe
[22:05] >> Maybe the negatives that people might
[22:06] think about.
[22:07] >> Mhm.
[22:08] >> I don't know.
[22:09] >> That's a good thought process. Yeah, go
[22:10] ahead Susan.
[22:11] >> I already have I know there's people
[22:12] that are renting out their homes for
[22:13] Airbnbs. Microphone.
[22:17] Okay, using it there place for Airbnbs.
[22:20] And so a lot of people who I've talked
[22:22] to I mean they know it's illegal but
[22:23] it's just kind of a
[22:25] So to me this is just like a green light
[22:28] for that and I mean we may be I have I
[22:30] got to look at that where it talks about
[22:31] I'm assuming what you brought up John or
[22:33] when they leave for a while. That's
[22:35] probably somebody is serving a mission
[22:36] or going taking another job for a while
[22:38] so the property property owner doesn't
[22:40] have to have to be there. But an Airbnb
[22:42] I mean I just I just think
[22:44] I don't know.
[22:46] If that's not what we allow, I just feel
[22:48] like we ought to probably address that
[22:49] at the same time because that is going
[22:51] to
[22:51] >> Yeah, didn't you say that the primary
[22:52] person needs to live in one or the other
[22:54] and then I think there was like a 90-day
[22:56] >> it said two year.
[22:57] >> Well, that's that's an exception if
[22:59] someone were to go do a service or
[23:01] >> Yeah, that
[23:02] was
[23:02] >> something but
[23:04] What's the limitation for rentals? Was
[23:06] it 90 I'm going off memory. Is it 90
[23:08] days?
[23:10] But someone can
[23:11] >> Oh, short-term rentals is anything under
[23:12] 30 days is a short-term rental. Anything
[23:14] over is a long-term rental.
[23:16] >> 30 days.
[23:17] >> Yeah, we don't allow short-term rentals
[23:19] in our city.
[23:20] Yeah.
[23:21] >> I don't know if we can write an write an
[23:22] ordinance that
[23:24] says we really meant it when there's no
[23:26] short-term rentals in the city. You
[23:27] can't can't use it here for any use
[23:29] here.
[23:30] >> I I I do think that adding that code
[23:32] would be good.
[23:33] >> Do you? Okay.
[23:33] >> Mhm.
[23:34] >> That could be good.
[23:35] >> So, you you mentioned getting up on
[23:37] setbacks.
[23:39] They wouldn't they would just be the
[23:40] same, all right? That we currently have.
[23:42] We're not
[23:43] doing any kind of change in setbacks.
[23:46] And
[23:46] >> That's our current proposal. Yeah. So,
[23:49] for for the TR-10,000 zone that would be
[23:51] 5 ft on the side, 10 ft in the rear.
[23:54] And then for the other two major
[23:56] residential zones it would be 10 ft on
[23:57] the side, 15 ft on the rear.
[23:59] >> Yeah.
[24:00] I mean
[24:01] I probably am fine with whatever size
[24:06] that they want
[24:07] as long as that they comply to the
[24:10] >> setbacks
[24:11] >> the setbacks. You know, because
[24:15] it's going to be awfully I mean
[24:17] you know, if you have a quarter acre or
[24:21] bigger, let's say you have a half acre
[24:23] and uh
[24:24] what maybe a 3,000 ft square foot home
[24:28] you know, you're going to be hard
[24:29] pressed to put anything
[24:32] bigger than 12
[24:33] >> It's self-limiting, yeah.
[24:34] >> Yeah, it's self-limiting. Yeah, I guess
[24:36] it's
[24:37] but I'm I'm fine either way of
[24:39] explicitly stating having some kind of
[24:42] ratio that you're saying, you know, then
[24:45] that's just more code that we have to
[24:46] put in and go if it's you know, so what
[24:49] if it's in between, you know, or I guess
[24:51] that we could write it generic and say
[24:53] it's you know
[24:55] the size of the ADU is some function of
[25:00] the lot size
[25:02] divided divided by, you know, yeah.
[25:07] >> [clears throat]
[25:09] >> Just to make a comment real quick to the
[25:11] to Troy's point earlier about if a
[25:13] quarter acre lot so quarter acre lots
[25:15] will only exist in our TR 10,000 zone
[25:18] and those are those do have lot coverage
[25:20] requirements which is 50% of the lot.
[25:22] >> Oh, okay.
[25:23] >> Yeah.
[25:23] >> Oh, okay.
[25:24] >> So really it's only we're we're talking
[25:26] about half acre-ish and up.
[25:27] >> [snorts]
[25:27] >> That's what we're talking about for
[25:28] size. Yeah.
[25:30] >> Cuz we're setting 11,000 as a minimum
[25:32] >> Yeah.
[25:32] >> Correct. Yeah.
[25:34] >> So I know when this has come up before,
[25:36] knowing that [clears throat] this code
[25:37] was good this statute was going to pass
[25:40] you know, we've had discussions on
[25:44] water and waste water. I mean
[25:48] on the PI system we're actually going to
[25:51] come out ahead, right?
[25:53] So so it's just going to be an increase
[25:56] in culinary and an increase in waste
[25:59] water.
[26:01] Um
[26:03] I guess at what point Jason do we have to like
[26:08] consider that in in our I mean our next
[26:12] update is not going to be for another 4
[26:14] years.
[26:16] So do we just say, well, we're we're
[26:19] okay we're okay and then in 4 years when
[26:21] we're doing our next update we've had
[26:25] you know, 100 ADUs applications or
[26:28] something and we'll just incorporate
[26:30] that into our
[26:31] planning.
[26:33] >> That's probably the smart way to do it I
[26:36] would say just because we don't have the
[26:37] data. Uh I do have a meeting with TSSSD
[26:40] next week and I wanted to bring that up
[26:43] and
[26:43] their perception of
[26:46] >> Because with the discussion right now,
[26:48] let's say we've got a 4,000 square foot
[26:50] home and they put a 3,999
[26:53] >> Yeah.
[26:54] >> square foot home
[26:55] >> Right.
[26:56] >> ADU I should say behind their house and
[26:59] they have their brother live there.
[27:00] >> Yeah.
[27:01] >> We now basically have doubled
[27:04] >> Yeah, exactly.
[27:05] >> the impact there for all the utilities.
[27:08] >> So So on those ADUs, do they just run a
[27:12] brand new sewer line to the street?
[27:15] >> So in the code, they have to use the
[27:17] existing one that's there. So they would
[27:19] have to connect into it.
[27:21] >> here in Los Angeles. You have to use the
[27:22] same
[27:23] >> Okay. Okay. I I saw you right there, but
[27:26] I didn't click that it has to be part of
[27:30] the same system.
[27:31] >> Yeah. Now, one comment on the PI system,
[27:34] let's say I had 5 acres and well, just
[27:37] under 5 acres because it'd be four they
[27:39] could have with 5 acres.
[27:41] Um in the back field, there was nothing
[27:43] there.
[27:45] Well, now I'm putting a
[27:46] ADU back there. I want to make that nice
[27:48] around it.
[27:50] >> Yeah.
[27:51] >> actually be times where PI is
[27:54] >> could increase.
[27:54] Overall, I would agree
[27:56] more than likely it won't.
[27:58] >> Yeah. Yeah, I think more than likely
[28:00] it's going to decrease in most cases.
[28:02] >> Yes.
[28:03] >> If you have 5 acres, you probably
[28:04] subdivide it and sell the whole thing
[28:05] off as a half an acre or [laughter] a
[28:06] lot.
[28:07] >> Exactly.
[28:08] >> three lots.
[28:09] >> We've got a lot of people that have 5
[28:11] acres that love it.
[28:12] >> Have you forecasted how many ADUs there
[28:15] would be and the impact on
[28:16] infrastructure?
[28:17] >> I haven't. Cayden, have you?
[28:19] >> We tried to figure out what the
[28:21] >> That's a good question.
[28:22] >> best case, worst case, most likely it
[28:23] would be and what kind of impact cuz
[28:27] >> Now, I know we did look
[28:31] a couple months ago, probably a year
[28:32] ago, we had a resident that wanted to
[28:35] take our current current code down from
[28:37] 5 acres to two and a half and we put it
[28:39] back to five.
[28:39] >> I remember that one.
[28:41] >> If you wanted to, we could probably
[28:44] But as Cayden said, it'll be most lots
[28:47] in the city besides the the TR 10,000s.
[28:51] >> What is the state requiring? How many do
[28:53] you need to have? I mean, what does the code from the state say?
[28:57] >> They're they're not requiring
[28:58] >> do ADUs, but they're not saying if
[29:00] you've got 15,000 residents, you need to
[29:01] have a thousand or they don't have a a
[29:04] number
[29:05] or something.
[29:05] >> property owner decision.
[29:07] >> Yeah.
[29:07] forcing us to make to do it. To
[29:09] allow
[29:09] >> Just to allow them.
[29:10] >> Yeah.
[29:11] >> It's just to address the housing
[29:12] shortage.
[29:13] >> Yeah.
[29:15] >> Like the smaller lot size at 1,200, I
[29:18] think then it is an accessory dwelling.
[29:21] Um otherwise it does get complicated if
[29:23] you like you said, even if
[29:26] >> Yeah.
[29:27] >> if it's tied to the lot
[29:30] that just says less than the main house
[29:33] you you can get pretty large pretty
[29:36] fast.
[29:37] >> Sure.
[29:37] >> And um
[29:39] Yeah, I do like the 1,200 square foot
[29:42] cuz then it is an accessory dwelling and
[29:44] not
[29:46] >> another house
[29:47] >> And that's probably how we'll go end up
[29:49] going, Michelle, frankly, because
[29:52] I mean
[29:53] everywhere every city does not allow you
[29:56] to build two homes on a single on a
[29:58] single parcel. I mean, that's that's against, you know, that's
[30:02] >> Until now.
[30:03] >> Well, and now we're trying to
[30:06] >> I know. I also like the two cars.
[30:09] >> Yeah.
[30:10] >> Instead of just the one
[30:12] we could use the language like the state
[30:14] does. It designates it. I just worry
[30:17] that if you try to sneak
[30:19] 1,200 square foot and you don't put a
[30:21] garage and you only have to have one
[30:24] spot on some pea gravel
[30:25] >> Yeah.
[30:26] >> then you're going to have cars in
[30:27] streets and neighborhoods and stuff.
[30:30] >> And you know
[30:31] >> I'm just thinking on the small end.
[30:32] >> Yeah, and but here in Alpine from
[30:35] November to March, you
[30:36] >> You're not allowed, but
[30:37] >> that, so
[30:39] >> [laughter]
[30:39] >> Yeah.
[30:41] Unless you run and move your car right
[30:43] before it snows. Oh, it's going to snow
[30:45] tonight. I better get it off the street.
[30:47] >> Which it doesn't snow here now, so
[30:48] >> Last year was four times.
[30:50] >> to be a big one this [laughter] year.
[30:53] >> Yeah.
[30:53] >> Cross your fingers.
[30:55] >> Yeah, those those are all those are all
[30:57] really good comments.
[30:59] >> Jeff, can I just add something? Are you
[31:01] looking Do you want us to kind of figure
[31:04] out a
[31:06] equation of how to something to to do
[31:09] with that for the next meeting of
[31:12] if it's you can do 10% of your lot as
[31:15] long as the unit isn't over 1,500 square
[31:18] feet or cuz there some ideas that you
[31:21] want with that? Do we Do you want us to
[31:23] take a stab at that?
[31:25] Do you want to think about that?
[31:27] >> I mean, I think it's either that or or
[31:30] what Michelle is saying, you know.
[31:33] So,
[31:34] you know, and I and I think we could debate it and maybe yeah, if it's not that much effort
[31:41] >> Like we can come
[31:41] >> come up and then and then we're and then
[31:44] basically we end up
[31:46] propose making a proposal to the city
[31:49] council and go, "Okay, we discussed it
[31:51] and we felt as a commission
[31:54] a set size maximum, no matter the lot
[31:58] size, was better fit.
[32:01] >> And
[32:04] like on the TR-10,000 where you have 50%
[32:07] has to be
[32:09] land
[32:10] >> Mhm.
[32:11] >> unbuilt
[32:12] >> Yes.
[32:13] >> There may need to be something in here
[32:16] >> [snorts]
[32:16] >> so that we maintain
[32:18] this more open feel if that's what we're
[32:20] going for.
[32:21] >> Exactly.
[32:23] >> That maybe somebody's lot really will
[32:25] only let them build a 1,000 square foot
[32:28] home on their half acre lot because that
[32:31] plus their big home
[32:33] you know, is maxes is the buildable
[32:36] space.
[32:36] >> Yeah, this massing concept. yeah.
[32:39] >> Yeah.
[32:40] and that's the tricky thing about
[32:41] the ordinance, too. I mean, we can be
[32:42] very specific with a lot of different
[32:44] scenarios, but then an ordinance gets
[32:46] really complicated, right? So, we try to
[32:48] do kind of a comprehensive number, and
[32:50] then we just hope that the other checks
[32:52] and balances will will monitor the size
[32:54] people will put.
[32:55] >> me of what the state required.
[32:57] In terms They don't have a requirement.
[32:59] >> It doesn't advise it all?
[33:00] >> No.
[33:01] >> Yeah.
[33:02] >> I have one more concern. So, I did I did
[33:04] look at the
[33:05] >> microphone.
[33:06] >> Can I get one of those little
[33:07] >> Yeah.
[33:08] >> I did look at your
[33:09] >> [laughter]
[33:10] >> that you did send out. One of the things
[33:12] that they that they really talked about,
[33:14] um,
[33:16] was how like for first-time owners, I
[33:18] mean, we've really priced a lot of that
[33:20] out of this little town for people to
[33:23] even have a chance, but their solution
[33:26] is to be able to have, you know, while
[33:27] they're building their home or something
[33:29] to plan on having that as extra income,
[33:31] so then they can qualify for that amount
[33:32] of money that they have to to get a
[33:35] >> Sure.
[33:36] >> So, I'm like, well, of course I have a
[33:37] soft heart for that, you know, when you
[33:39] have kids, but at the same time,
[33:42] we're really and we need younger people
[33:44] moving in and stuff, so I like that,
[33:47] but I also if you That's just turning it
[33:49] into the stuff that's been a problem
[33:51] with the rental properties.
[33:53] So, I when you own something, you take
[33:56] better care of it. There's just There's
[33:58] just like not judgy, that's just
[34:00] something if you
[34:02] look into
[34:03] behavioral science.
[34:04] >> I think I think that's
[34:05] >> the value of having an owner-occupied.
[34:07] >> Yeah.
[34:07] >> Even on the main property or or the
[34:09] other property.
[34:10] >> But but if they're I mean,
[34:12] that could very easily be abused
[34:14] as far as like even the owner going, "Oh
[34:16] my gosh, what if you know, and it just just taking care of it or
[34:21] >> But we don't we don't have a choice. We
[34:23] can't we can't say we don't want them.
[34:25] >> Yeah, I don't
[34:26] >> That ship has sailed.
[34:27] >> I don't I don't think this ordinance
[34:30] >> You're so hard on
[34:30] >> is helping
[34:32] It's helping young people
[34:34] >> on things we don't have any control
[34:35] over.
[34:36] >> I know it. Yeah. I don't think this
[34:38] ordinance is helping young people buy. I
[34:40] think it's helping
[34:44] entrenched people either allow their
[34:47] children to live with them because or
[34:49] their parents
[34:51] or maximize their income.
[34:53] >> Maybe it's flipped. The parents have a
[34:55] space and they
[34:56] can have a
[34:57] >> think we look I think there's other ways
[34:59] to encourage younger people into the
[35:02] town and owning.
[35:04] I think this is
[35:06] not. This is
[35:08] >> people It's letting older people stay. I
[35:11] had one person call me today and cuz
[35:13] they apparently knew this was going to
[35:14] be on and
[35:15] said
[35:16] right now a family member's living in
[35:18] the basement. She said he plays his
[35:20] music loud. I don't want him in my
[35:22] basement. I want to stick him as close
[35:24] to my neighbor's house as possible.
[35:26] >> [laughter]
[35:27] >> And ruin his life.
[35:29] >> At least they're owning.
[35:29] >> Exact quote.
[35:31] >> Okay, there's the there's the intent
[35:32] right there.
[35:33] >> Rock [laughter] band out of the
[35:34] basement.
[35:35] >> I love it.
[35:35] >> So are there are there are Can you any
[35:38] of you think of
[35:39] any alternatives besides the come up
[35:42] with a set amount or to have staff come
[35:46] up with a a ratio? Is there any other
[35:50] options between those two?
[35:53] I I I I do think we ought to pick one of
[35:56] those two or another one instead of not
[35:58] having it specified. I think
[36:00] >> Even though I brought I brought I
[36:01] brought the issue up, I I'm happy with
[36:03] 1,200 ft as a standard. It It just kind
[36:07] of moderates
[36:08] people going crazy.
[36:11] >> The one ex- The one thing I was thinking
[36:12] there on though however is
[36:15] >> [snorts]
[36:15] >> how many exceptions people you know, how
[36:18] many people are going to come in and go
[36:20] I want Is there any way I can get 1,300?
[36:23] Is there any way I can get 1,400? I have
[36:24] a 2 and 1/2 acre lot. Can I just have a
[36:28] 1,400?
[36:29] >> No.
[36:30] >> Okay.
[36:30] >> No, I think the ratio will look good.
[36:32] [laughter]
[36:32] >> And and that's fine.
[36:35] >> Yeah, now we There's no
[36:36] >> the ratio would lead to that more.
[36:38] >> I mean, in the ordinance we would write
[36:39] exception criteria, but let's not write
[36:41] any exception criteria. We'll do
[36:44] Yeah, I'm the one that said ratio and
[36:46] land based off John's comment and
[36:47] >> I know.
[36:48] >> I discussed it. I actually like
[36:50] keeping it at ADU and smaller than
[36:53] >> Yeah.
[36:53] >> And if somebody has 5 acres, they'll
[36:54] subdivide it.
[36:55] >> Yeah.
[36:56] >> They They need to move to a ranch.
[36:57] >> Yeah. Can I add one thing?
[37:00] >> So, like um
[37:02] you know, do some of the big houses with
[37:04] big lots, do they have ADUs on them now? I mean,
[37:08] some, right? Do they not?
[37:10] >> Not detached.
[37:11] >> Only if they're over 5.
[37:12] >> If they're over 5.
[37:14] >> Yeah, I remember that. Yeah. Well, cuz
[37:17] he has one,
[37:17] >> right?
[37:18] >> recommended approval. City Council
[37:20] [clears throat] denied it.
[37:21] >> Yeah.
[37:22] yeah. I I was going to That's what
[37:24] That was my comment.
[37:25] >> He said, "Don't we feel stupid now?"
[37:26] >> He said, "He's okay." [laughter]
[37:28] >> Yeah.
[37:30] >> And and the way around it, it was just
[37:33] to attach it, right? You know, to
[37:35] >> Yeah. Yeah, so he was just going to
[37:36] attach it.
[37:38] >> easement roof thing, you know.
[37:40] >> I I think they fixed that, too.
[37:41] >> [clears throat]
[37:42] >> City Council just shut him down.
[37:45] >> Well,
[37:45] >> can I add one thing to kind of consider
[37:47] as well? Something I was thinking about.
[37:50] We see all these stuff, all these plans
[37:52] come in.
[37:54] Um and I I just thought of this one
[37:55] thing. Someone builds a four-car garage,
[37:59] it's 2,000 square feet. "Oh, I'm going
[38:02] to put an accessory above it that's only
[38:04] 1,200 square feet."
[38:06] >> Yeah.
[38:06] >> When it ends up being
[38:09] the whole 2,000 square feet, and it
[38:11] would.
[38:12] So,
[38:13] right now we don't have anything in
[38:15] there for Right. For garage size.
[38:20] Maybe there's a limit on garage size
[38:23] that's part of the ADU. Just something
[38:25] else I thought of.
[38:25] >> Yeah, that's that's what I was
[38:27] >> have a 1,200 for living space, but you
[38:29] also have a
[38:30] >> 1,200
[38:31] >> square footage. It kind of goes to what
[38:32] we talked about the school. I can't
[38:34] remember the exact technical term.
[38:36] But it didn't have the requirements
[38:37] relative to space something or other.
[38:40] >> Bulk and massing.
[38:41] >> Yes, bulk and massing.
[38:42] >> So you have kind of a bulk and massing
[38:43] for square footage.
[38:46] >> For a five-car garage.
[38:50] >> I mean, I've done that at I've got
[38:52] property up in Fish Haven, Idaho, and I
[38:53] have a
[38:54] big garage for all the toys.
[38:56] >> Right.
[38:57] >> I've got a 2,000 square foot above it.
[39:00] And
[39:01] yeah.
[39:02] >> Well, there's I know there's some
[39:03] >> Which would be allowed under our current
[39:05] ordinance.
[39:06] >> Yes.
[39:07] >> There's like some pool pool houses and
[39:09] stuff, right? Cuz I mean, it went to
[39:10] some parade homes, and I know there's
[39:12] pool houses.
[39:14] They're pretty darn big, you know, with
[39:16] bedrooms and bathrooms and whatever, and
[39:19] so I know there's some that exist,
[39:20] right? Maybe they're not I don't know.
[39:22] Maybe they're
[39:23] under a different umbrella or something,
[39:24] but
[39:27] » Okay, what's different then? Do you
[39:29] remember that darling couple that came
[39:30] from the Midwest, and they were all
[39:32] dressed in their Sunday best, and they
[39:34] brought a PowerPoint to talk about that
[39:36] older couple?
[39:37] You guys weren't here. They were going
[39:38] to rezone to they had an acre
[39:40] [clears throat] lot in the in in this
[39:42] beautiful neighborhood that's
[39:43] established with all acre lots, and they
[39:45] said this the older couple said, "Would
[39:47] you want to build in the back of, you
[39:49] know, on this second this half of the
[39:52] other half acre?"
[39:53] >> Yeah.
[39:53] >> And we had a public hearing, and people
[39:55] were like ruthless to them. Like, "We
[39:57] don't change code. Zoning's too hard."
[39:59] And we knew as a commission we probably
[40:00] wouldn't be able to do it. And remember
[40:02] how people were very mean about that?
[40:04] >> Yep.
[40:05] >> And then what then everybody else is
[40:06] going to want to put another home. So to
[40:08] me, it's just the same thing, only we
[40:10] have to do it.
[40:11] >> Yeah.
[40:11] >> So I mean,
[40:12] >> split ownership, though.
[40:13] >> But no, but that's true. That's the
[40:15] difference, so we changed the ownership.
[40:17] Because otherwise, you know, this is
[40:18] just you're just and it happened without
[40:20] rezoning.
[40:24] >> Yeah.
[40:25] >> Okay.
[40:26] >> They had to be they probably
[40:27] >> Any other comments?
[40:31] We did this will come back to us.
[40:33] >> like the 1,200 square feet and just make
[40:35] it simple?
[40:36] >> I That's for now.
[40:37] >> I mean, we want to address
[40:39] I was I was garage at sizing issue, bulk
[40:41] and massing issue.
[40:43] >> Is that going to be managed by this
[40:45] current ordinances with offsets and
[40:46] stuff, do you think?
[40:48] >> That's a good question. I think it's a
[40:50] current
[40:51] uh debate among among people. Council
[40:53] members are talking about bulk and
[40:54] massing. Um
[40:58] you know, like John was saying, our
[40:59] current ordinance allows for certain
[41:01] things and doesn't allow for others. And
[41:03] so, if someone puts a 1,200 square foot
[41:05] ADU inside a garage they already have,
[41:08] which is allowed by ordinance, I don't
[41:09] know how much it affects.
[41:12] >> Um
[41:13] >> Well, you know, that's what's currently
[41:14] going on.
[41:15] >> I guess [clears throat] the other point
[41:16] on the 1,200, I'm I'm totally good if
[41:19] that's what we want to put forward. And
[41:21] then we can just see, you know. We may
[41:24] end up modifying the code in future
[41:26] years.
[41:28] >> So, if we can get through and we get
[41:30] public feedback on it.
[41:31] >> Yeah. Yeah, we will get public feedback.
[41:34] So, cuz this will go Yeah, we'll get
[41:36] public
[41:38] uh here.
[41:39] >> It'll be a good one.
[41:40] >> A lot of feedback.
[41:41] >> Can you tell me what what meeting that's
[41:42] going to be on?
[41:43] >> I'm I'm already going to be out.
[41:46] » So, can I ask a question?
[41:48] >> Sure, Marla.
[41:49] >> There was a section in there that said
[41:51] some people already have existing
[41:52] garages, and I get a lot of calls about
[41:55] people wanting to convert those. What
[41:57] happens when those are already over 12
[41:59] [snorts] square feet?
[42:00] >> Yep, that's a good question.
[42:01] >> Yeah. And they're the perfect spot, they
[42:03] meet the setbacks, they meet I mean,
[42:06] it's the perfect little place to put
[42:08] their kids or grandma.
[42:10] >> Yeah, so to me
[42:11] >> That's going to come back to be your
[42:12] exception you're talking about.
[42:14] >> So to me
[42:16] it might be a an issue of a
[42:18] grandfathered in type thing as long as
[42:21] it
[42:22] complies with this, you know, if we're
[42:25] going to the setbacks and the bulk and
[42:27] massing and every, you know,
[42:31] so
[42:33] yeah.
[42:33] >> If it's existing, it's already going to
[42:35] be compliant.
[42:35] >> Yeah, that's true.
[42:36] >> If it's not compliant, then I would say
[42:38] that we wouldn't consider that anyway.
[42:41] >> Correct.
[42:41] >> Yeah.
[42:42] >> So that that's that would be one option,
[42:44] Marla, is just to put in code,
[42:47] you know, an exception piece in 3.14030
[42:53] that existing
[42:58] buildings
[43:00] you know,
[43:00] >> being converted into an ADU
[43:02] >> could be converted
[43:04] but
[43:06] >> with planning commission and city
[43:07] council approval.
[43:09] >> Yeah.
[43:10] >> We've got some garages out there that
[43:12] are
[43:14] pretty large.
[43:15] >> Yeah.
[43:15] >> you were to convert the whole
[43:17] >> But they would lose
[43:18] the whole purpose of those garages.
[43:20] >> Mhm.
[43:21] Yeah, and I don't think too many of them
[43:23] would actually be converted.
[43:24] >> Right.
[43:25] >> Yeah.
[43:25] >> And they're doing it anyway.
[43:27] >> Yeah, and they're doing it anyway.
[43:28] >> Yeah, exactly.
[43:31] >> Yeah, and I think if a permit came in
[43:32] for an ADU and an existing garage, I
[43:34] mean, we'd we would obviously verify
[43:36] that it meets the square foot
[43:37] requirement of the living space that
[43:39] they're putting in.
[43:40] >> Okay.
[43:40] >> So they wouldn't be able to occupy the
[43:42] entire garage anyway.
[43:44] >> Yeah.
[43:44] >> One thing I'll note, too, I realize that
[43:46] we didn't
[43:48] >> Is that what you're saying? Only 600
[43:50] 1,200 could be living and the rest could
[43:52] be a
[43:53] >> Right. Right. Yeah.
[43:56] One thing I'll note, too, I I realize
[43:58] that we don't have an explicit height
[43:59] requirement in this code. Um so it's
[44:02] just implied that it also meets the
[44:05] accessory building height, um but I
[44:07] think we'll we'll want to put that in as
[44:09] well.
[44:09] >> I I agree. I agree.
[44:11] >> So, it's in that next section that we're
[44:13] talking about.
[44:14] >> It's in the
[44:16] Yeah, it's in this section. It'll be
[44:19] probably one of you know, instead of 10,
[44:21] it'll be 11.
[44:23] >> items
[44:28] » Yeah.
[44:29] >> next section's 27 ft except for pool
[44:31] houses or something.
[44:33] So, are we adding that to XY or are we
[44:34] keeping that number or
[44:37] coming up with a new one?
[44:38] >> So, yeah. So, I would say, if I'm
[44:41] understanding what you're asking, so it
[44:42] would be the 20-ft requirement. Yeah.
[44:46] And then, if it's set back an extra 20
[44:49] ft, it could be 10 up to 10 ft higher.
[44:51] So, it could be get up to 30 ft tall.
[44:54] Um,
[44:55] that's what our current accessory
[44:57] building height is. So, I think that's
[44:59] what we would want to match unless the
[45:00] commission has any other suggestions for
[45:02] that.
[45:03] >> I agree.
[45:04] Yeah, I'm fine.
[45:07] >> Okay.
[45:09] Thanks, Kayden.
[45:11] >> Okay.
[45:13] Well, this is This is great. Thanks for
[45:15] all the feedback.
[45:16] >> Sorry, one So, if if the home was a
[45:18] rambler
[45:20] and the accessory dwelling unit could be
[45:22] 30 ft even though the home is only 20
[45:24] ft, you can still be large taller than
[45:27] the home.
[45:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. Homeowners can currently
[45:30] have an accessory building that's taller
[45:31] than their than their home. Um, but it would have to again, it would have to
[45:35] be 20 ft extra set back to get that
[45:38] extra 10 ft of height.
[45:39] >> from the side
[45:40] >> From the property lines, yeah.
[45:42] >> front property line and the side
[45:44] >> From and the rear. Yeah.
[45:46] >> All of them.
[45:53] Oh, yeah. Uh, so, Jason's just asking is
[45:55] there a limit to putting this in the
[45:57] front? Um, the code doesn't explicit
[45:59] explicitly say it, but again, it it says
[46:01] that needs to meet the setback
[46:02] requirements of the of accessory
[46:04] buildings in the zone. And that
[46:06] currently is 40 ft from the front
[46:08] property line.
[46:09] >> Right. Yeah.
[46:09] >> And and the main dwelling is 30, so it's
[46:12] 10 ft behind the main dwelling at least.
[46:14] Yeah.
[46:15] >> Yeah, that makes sense. So, do we want
[46:17] to
[46:18] specify
[46:20] the in the in the code like all of the
[46:22] setbacks?
[46:24] >> We could. Yeah, I mean that's that's
[46:26] what we're here discussing just to see
[46:27] what you guys all think.
[46:29] >> Yeah. Just make a reference or or make a
[46:31] reference.
[46:32] >> Yeah.
[46:33] >> Okay.
[46:33] >> We could we could reference it. Yeah.
[46:35] >> Yeah, you could just add an item and say
[46:38] must comply with set setback
[46:40] requirements in code 3.0 blah blah.
[46:43] >> Yeah, and we would just have to choose
[46:45] one of the set because it's funny our
[46:47] the way our code's written every zone
[46:49] has the accessory building setbacks in
[46:50] them.
[46:51] >> Yeah.
[46:51] >> Most codes are just one code section is
[46:53] all about accessory.
[46:55] >> Yeah.
[46:55] >> Ours every zone has it, so we'll just
[46:57] have to choose one of those I guess and
[46:58] reference it that way.
[46:59] >> Okay.
[46:59] >> Yeah.
[47:00] >> So, I don't want to make this last too
[47:01] long. Do you change the setbacks
[47:04] on now knowing now that it's not going
[47:06] to be like a pool pump or a tough shed,
[47:09] it's going to be a 1,200 square foot
[47:12] Do you change your setbacks knowing that
[47:15] somebody's going to stick it as far to
[47:16] their neighbors as possible and it's not
[47:18] going to be a chicken coop or a 10 by 10
[47:21] shed, it's going to be a
[47:24] >> 30 ft
[47:24] >> Yeah, it has 30 30 ft.
[47:27] >> 20 ft
[47:27] >> 30 ft
[47:28] >> I just
[47:29] >> have something 30
[47:30] >> I know we don't want to make a
[47:30] concession, but if somebody puts a 30 ft
[47:32] tall building 5 ft
[47:34] >> No, 30 ft.
[47:35] >> 10 ft
[47:36] >> 30 30 ft
[47:37] >> height requirement is 20 ft and it has
[47:39] to be depending on the zone, the most
[47:42] common zone is obviously the CR 20,000,
[47:44] so that would have to be 10 ft from the
[47:45] side and 15 from the rear.
[47:48] If they want to go any higher than 20 ft
[47:50] tall, they have to be an extra 20 ft
[47:51] away from the property lines.
[47:53] >> All right.
[47:54] >> So, you're
[47:55] >> They already kind of do it.
[47:56] >> Or they can yeah.
[47:56] >> You're far away.
[47:57] >> They currently do it.
[47:59] >> Yeah.
[48:00] >> I'm just thinking what they're putting
[48:01] there now is different than what's going
[48:02] to be put there.
[48:03] >> But, we'll have an open session and
[48:05] >> Yeah.
[48:05] >> It'll
[48:06] >> But, it's a way off.
[48:07] >> Yeah.
[48:09] >> We don't want to ruin your track record
[48:10] of fast meetings.
[48:12] >> It's okay.
[48:14] >> Hey, next item.
[48:19] » Okay, let's go to the action item today.
[48:21] So, this is just some amendments to the
[48:24] development code that we've been looking
[48:26] at for
[48:27] a while now, I think since I got here.
[48:29] There's some of them that we've we've
[48:30] noticed. Um
[48:32] and
[48:33] I don't know if I I'm just not reading
[48:35] state code correctly or some of them or
[48:38] how Ryan did it in the past, but from
[48:40] what I've understood, even for clerical
[48:43] updates, we do need to have a a public
[48:45] hearing and and bring this to you guys.
[48:47] So,
[48:48] Okay. So, he did do that. Okay.
[48:51] Um I think Don was saying to me that
[48:53] sometimes he wouldn't, but maybe Don
[48:55] doesn't know.
[48:55] >> [laughter]
[48:56] >> Anyway. Okay, so let's look at the first
[48:59] one. So, this is just a conglomerate of
[49:01] different code sections that needed some
[49:02] updates,
[49:04] um either substantially or just
[49:06] clerically.
[49:08] Um and I I tried to put them all in
[49:10] order, but the way that the word
[49:11] document was functioning was really hard
[49:13] to kind of reorganize these. So, they
[49:15] are kind of sporadic, um but I
[49:17] definitely will reference every code
[49:19] section as we talk about it. So, this
[49:21] one This first one is just the building
[49:23] permits code in 301060.
[49:25] All we had to do was eliminate this
[49:27] random G that's currently existing in
[49:29] our code and shift all these up.
[49:31] So, that's what that one is.
[49:37] Part four.
[49:38] Yeah, that one that one's good.
[49:40] >> [laughter]
[49:42] >> Um 307 A, uh site design,
[49:48] uh just has
[49:50] this paragraph in an awkward spot.
[49:53] Um it doesn't relate to the setbacks or
[49:56] anything, so we just took it out of that
[49:57] spot and brought it down here and
[49:58] numbered it number five.
[50:01] Um 3023060.
[50:03] Okay, so this one's a substantial code
[50:05] change and uh does require your approval
[50:08] of this. Um so this is about home
[50:10] occupations.
[50:12] So, we've gotten quite a few home
[50:14] occupations since I've been here uh for
[50:16] different things. Most of them just, you
[50:18] know, home offices or whatever it might
[50:19] be.
[50:20] Um but there was one that
[50:23] uh a lady was baking goods and leaving
[50:27] them on her porch and people were coming
[50:28] by and picking them up. According to our current code, if
[50:32] someone does that, they need to come get
[50:33] approval from you as the body, the
[50:35] planning commission.
[50:36] >> approved one like that.
[50:38] >> Okay.
[50:39] And so to me, um
[50:41] and that's right here in uh
[50:44] Roman numeral 17 here, it says no
[50:46] customers or clients will visit the
[50:47] property in connection with the home
[50:48] occupation.
[50:50] So, um
[50:51] to as as we reflected on this, it seemed
[50:54] like it might be a little bit too
[50:55] restrictive um for people that want to
[50:57] do something like that or just have
[50:59] people coming over for piano lessons or
[51:00] something like that. Why would they have
[51:02] to
[51:03] come to the planning commission for
[51:04] approval on that? Um so we added this
[51:07] code that only a limited number of
[51:09] customers or clients may visit the
[51:10] property in connection with the home
[51:12] occupation, provided such visits take
[51:14] place during regular business hours,
[51:16] remain incidental to the residential
[51:17] character of the dwelling, and do not
[51:19] create impacts beyond those normally
[51:20] associated with residential use.
[51:22] Um
[51:23] so, kind of as we considered again, we
[51:26] just felt like this might be a little
[51:27] bit more
[51:29] uh
[51:30] open to to property owners that are
[51:31] trying to just do a basic home
[51:33] occupation uh without um you know,
[51:36] creating impact, but uh allowing them to
[51:39] avoid coming to a public meeting for
[51:41] that. Um so, I'd be interested in your
[51:44] feedback. I think since we have so many,
[51:46] maybe it'd be good to just talk about
[51:47] this right now and see if what the
[51:49] commissioners think about that.
[51:51] >> Well, if I remember right, with the
[51:55] Baker person, that ended up being like a
[51:57] conditional use, right?
[51:59] >> Mhm.
[52:00] >> So, with with with this language, I guess
[52:06] you're trying to make it easy
[52:10] and avoid
[52:12] people having to come in for a
[52:14] conditional use permit.
[52:16] >> So,
[52:17] >> home occupations are always conditional
[52:19] use permits. This is the conditional use
[52:22] permit code, yeah.
[52:23] >> This doesn't require planning commission
[52:24] involvement.
[52:25] >> Right.
[52:26] >> Okay.
[52:26] >> Yeah.
[52:27] >> And then like we had to decide how many
[52:30] come that day, how to spread them out,
[52:32] what time they should bring. Would you
[52:34] do that after they would just meet with
[52:37] you instead?
[52:38] >> Right.
[52:39] >> how you're going to limit
[52:42] >> Correct. Yeah, the staff would be able
[52:44] to handle that with each applicant that
[52:46] applies for that.
[52:47] >> I vote yay.
[52:48] on that, too.
[52:50] >> [laughter]
[52:52] » Well, like I said, most of the ones
[52:54] we've received I've seen so far have
[52:55] been very basic, and so I just I get
[52:58] nervous when they apply and they say how
[53:00] many people are coming to your house,
[53:01] like three.
[53:02] >> Yeah.
[53:03] >> And I go, "Great. According to our code,
[53:04] that requires the planning commission
[53:05] sign off." That's like, "That doesn't
[53:07] make any sense."
[53:07] >> how it was with the Baker. You know, she
[53:10] came and
[53:11] we're like,
[53:12] >> Just selling lessons?
[53:13] >> You know, we're like, "You could have
[53:14] brought You could have brought some
[53:16] bread."
[53:16] >> Yeah.
[53:17] >> [laughter]
[53:18] >> And we we wouldn't
[53:19] >> make us happy.
[53:20] >> We wouldn't even had the discussion.
[53:22] >> Yeah.
[53:28] >> Okay. I mean, I'm I'm totally good with
[53:32] that. I mean, I guess we have to approve
[53:34] these changes, so
[53:36] I mean, while we're on this,
[53:38] Sue, do you have any comments on three?
[53:43] Greg?
[53:45] >> John
[53:46] Michelle, Troy
[53:48] >> I think so.
[53:49] >> Okay.
[53:49] >> Can we have thank you?
[53:51] >> [snorts]
[53:51] [laughter]
[53:53] >> Okay.
[53:53] >> Thank you, Kate.
[53:54] >> Yes.
[53:56] Yeah, and our goal was to just word that
[53:57] well enough that like it makes sense for
[53:59] staff to evaluate it. Um,
[54:02] and if [snorts] there is anything that
[54:03] we might have questions on, obviously
[54:04] the code does allow us to bring it to
[54:06] you as well, so you can you can take on
[54:08] the harder cases.
[54:09] >> You might want to just grab a policy or
[54:11] some kind of
[54:12] matrix you can look at so that it's
[54:14] consistent, right? So, you've done a
[54:16] good job of limited number
[54:18] of regular business hours. What is that?
[54:20] I mean, just you might want to have
[54:21] something so that
[54:23] people don't hate you or love you if you
[54:25] treat one person different than the
[54:26] other.
[54:27] >> Yeah. That's a good point.
[54:28] >> Yeah, that's all right.
[54:30] Regular business hours are 8:00 to 6:00,
[54:32] and
[54:33] >> of equity
[54:34] >> limited number is less than 10 a day or
[54:37] whatever you come up with just so that
[54:38] you don't get
[54:40] or people hating you or making your life
[54:42] miserable.
[54:43] >> That's a good point. Thanks, Greg.
[54:46] >> [clears throat]
[54:46] >> Okay.
[54:48] Oh, and so this is just the same
[54:50] conditional use code 323 is just
[54:52] updating that box. So, instead of just
[54:54] saying part two, we're adding on and
[54:57] that meet the five criteria in the DCA
[55:00] 323060 part two number 17.
[55:03] >> Great.
[55:03] >> So, and that will be the land use
[55:05] authority city staff for that case.
[55:06] >> Great.
[55:08] >> Okay. And then, um,
[55:10] I think this is just another clerical
[55:11] one.
[55:13] Yeah, so this was just up in this
[55:14] paragraph for some reason, so we just
[55:16] moved that down there. We renumbered
[55:18] those two.
[55:19] Ensure, just trying to spell things
[55:21] right here.
[55:22] Um,
[55:23] eliminate uh, capital letter plat for
[55:26] 405040.
[55:29] 406020
[55:31] uh,
[55:32] right here. It's not in green, but it
[55:34] should be part six according to our
[55:35] subdivision
[55:36] um,
[55:38] code instead of part five.
[55:40] Okay, and then 302070,
[55:43] um just changing the word than to that.
[55:45] I think that makes more sense in the
[55:47] flow of the sentence there.
[55:49] Um okay, and then adding a definition uh
[55:52] for minor subdivision since we do have a
[55:55] entire code dedicated to to subdivision
[55:59] developments of three lots or fewer, I
[56:01] figured it would be prudent to have a
[56:03] definition for minor subdivision. Just
[56:06] add that in there.
[56:07] Um
[56:08] 3 uh 10 0 10 0 or 0 10, uh just add the
[56:12] word of there just to make it flow.
[56:14] >> So, why did you put the minor
[56:16] subdivision there?
[56:19] >> Oh, this is Sorry, these are separate.
[56:21] It's just all kind of pushed together,
[56:22] but yeah, this is in the 301110
[56:25] definition.
[56:25] >> it's further down, I guess, that you
[56:29] were going to talk about minor
[56:30] subdivisions.
[56:32] >> Uh
[56:34] I think maybe. I don't remember. But no,
[56:36] sorry, this is just here because it's uh
[56:38] it's just another thing we're adding in.
[56:41] >> Okay. I was just curious why it's not
[56:43] >> together here. I should have added more
[56:44] space.
[56:44] >> Why it's not under the
[56:46] Why why is that why is there
[56:49] Why why the why why are we defining a
[56:52] definition
[56:54] >> [snorts]
[56:54] >> in the middle of the
[56:55] >> I don't I think So, a lot of these I
[56:57] think I put together as the issues came
[57:00] up.
[57:00] >> Okay.
[57:01] >> And so, I I probably just threw it in
[57:03] there once we realized we needed it as
[57:05] well.
[57:06] So, sorry. It's Yeah, it's probably an
[57:07] awkward location, but it's just showing
[57:09] you
[57:09] >> cuz where where are we referencing minor
[57:12] subdivision?
[57:14] >> So, just in the definition section.
[57:17] >> Yeah, but don't we don't we have a
[57:19] definition section? Oh.
[57:20] >> We do, but we don't have the definition
[57:22] for minor subdivision.
[57:23] >> Oh, okay. So, this this is just
[57:25] >> This is going to go
[57:26] >> into that part.
[57:27] Yeah, sorry. Yeah, it's
[57:29] Like I said, it's a little pushed
[57:30] together here. It's disorganized.
[57:31] >> Yeah, Sorry about that.
[57:33] >> Yeah, no, you're good. Okay.
[57:35] Um so, that word there and then 408-040
[57:39] um
[57:39] adding the definite another definition
[57:42] or no, sorry. 408-040 is eliminating
[57:44] this phrase by the city council
[57:47] um because final plat approval is no
[57:48] longer usually by the city council
[57:50] anymore. So, just makes sense to take
[57:52] that out.
[57:53] >> Okay.
[57:53] >> Um
[57:55] adding a definition for accessory
[57:57] structure cuz we have a definition for
[57:58] structure, we have a definition for
[58:00] accessory building, but we don't have a
[58:01] definition for accessory structure and
[58:03] our code is replete with that term. So,
[58:05] figured it'd be good to have that in
[58:07] there.
[58:08] And this was just kind of a combination
[58:09] of
[58:11] the definition of structure with the
[58:12] definition of
[58:14] uh accessory building kind of pushed
[58:16] together. That's what this how we got
[58:18] this
[58:19] uh
[58:20] definition.
[58:22] So, if there's no questions on that,
[58:23] move on. Okay, so this is another
[58:25] substantial part. So,
[58:27] in each of our zones, we have the
[58:30] customary residential accessory
[58:31] structures section.
[58:34] And uh under setbacks from main
[58:37] building, talks about being 5 ft away
[58:39] and that any accessory building that's
[58:41] within 12 ft
[58:43] uh and is connected by a common roof or
[58:45] wall is also considered part of the main
[58:47] building and shall meet the same
[58:49] setbacks as the main building.
[58:51] Um so,
[58:53] we wanted to add in here accessory
[58:54] buildings which are more than 12 ft away
[58:56] from the main building whether attached
[58:58] or not are not considered part of the
[58:59] main building and are considered
[59:00] detached.
[59:02] Um
[59:04] And
[59:06] >> where where is that coming from?
[59:08] >> So, the purpose of this
[59:11] is to
[59:13] we had a situation came up come up where
[59:15] someone was trying to claim a part of
[59:19] uh a new building they were putting in
[59:21] was attached to their house, but it was
[59:23] pretty substantially far away.
[59:25] I think it was 16 ft away.
[59:28] Uh and they had it connected through
[59:29] like an underground
[59:31] tunnel.
[59:33] And so we
[59:35] determined that we don't want people to
[59:37] be able to just attach anything through
[59:39] a breezeway, anything underground, or
[59:41] something like that. And have it go on
[59:43] for a long stretch. And then still be
[59:46] able to consider that building part of
[59:47] the main structure.
[59:49] So we figured there should be a limit.
[59:52] And
[59:53] kind of our code implies here that 12 ft
[59:55] or closer is part of the main building.
[59:57] Anything farther than that is not.
[1:00:00] Um
[1:00:01] and in fact it kind of implies that if
[1:00:03] you look right here as well.
[1:00:05] Um if you want to get the exception to
[1:00:07] an accessory building, you have to meet
[1:00:09] all these nine criteria, which I'm sure
[1:00:11] you're familiar with, to be like really
[1:00:13] close to your property line. And the
[1:00:15] first one is accessory structure is
[1:00:17] located more than 12 ft from an existing
[1:00:19] dwelling. So I think this line here kind
[1:00:22] of shows that it's implying that
[1:00:25] something farther from than 12 ft away
[1:00:27] is an accessory building.
[1:00:29] Um so we decided it would be better best
[1:00:33] to just codify that and make sure it's
[1:00:34] clear that anything farther than 12 ft
[1:00:36] away
[1:00:37] is not part of the main structure.
[1:00:39] Um just so it's not an issue. Um we had
[1:00:42] to work with our city attorney kind of
[1:00:44] extensively on this problem that came
[1:00:46] up. And it was just a hassle that
[1:00:48] probably shouldn't exist.
[1:00:50] So.
[1:00:51] >> A tunnel, huh?
[1:00:53] >> Yeah.
[1:00:54] >> And the ADU?
[1:00:56] It would have
[1:00:57] will have to be 12 ft away
[1:01:00] to be Is this all play into that?
[1:01:03] >> Yeah, so this would play in as well. Um
[1:01:06] obviously if you have an accessory
[1:01:07] building that's less than 12 ft, but
[1:01:10] it's not attached at all, it's still a
[1:01:12] detached structure. Like it says here,
[1:01:14] if it's within it can be at least within
[1:01:16] 5 ft.
[1:01:17] So you could have a detached structure
[1:01:19] within 5 ft. But if someone's trying to
[1:01:21] attach it and claim it as attached,
[1:01:23] >> Claim it's not attached.
[1:01:23] >> then there's more regulations, right.
[1:01:25] >> The main
[1:01:26] >> Yes.
[1:01:27] So, I think the key thing to keep in
[1:01:29] mind here is there's benefit and
[1:01:32] um detriment to having
[1:01:34] an accessory, a new structure attached
[1:01:37] to your structure or detached. I mean,
[1:01:39] the benefit is you can have a higher
[1:01:40] building because it meets main structure
[1:01:42] height requirements.
[1:01:43] >> Mhm.
[1:01:44] >> If it's detached, it can be a shorter
[1:01:46] setback.
[1:01:47] So, it really kind of depends on the
[1:01:48] property owner, but I think that's a
[1:01:50] check and balance of that. If someone's
[1:01:51] trying to claim a building is attached,
[1:01:55] they have to meet more strict setbacks
[1:01:58] and vice versa. So.
[1:02:00] Um I will make a note with this, too.
[1:02:02] This could be something we
[1:02:04] um
[1:02:07] we don't approve as part of the approval
[1:02:09] today and it just
[1:02:11] we we look at it a little bit further
[1:02:12] because Councilmember Hannemann also was
[1:02:15] looking at this
[1:02:16] and so uh I wanted to bring up this cuz
[1:02:19] she sent this to me.
[1:02:21] Um this is Highland City's code for a
[1:02:23] main dwelling and distances.
[1:02:26] So, they say that any addition to the
[1:02:28] original dwelling shall include a
[1:02:30] majority or more to be attached and in
[1:02:32] common with the original dwelling.
[1:02:35] And the connection shall be a majority
[1:02:36] of the length of the portion of the
[1:02:38] addition that faces the main dwelling.
[1:02:41] A lot of words there, but this is what
[1:02:42] they're kind of describing is
[1:02:44] if you're adding on something to your
[1:02:46] structure, 50% or more of the length of
[1:02:49] that new building has to be attached.
[1:02:52] As you can see these two images.
[1:02:55] And if it's not, then it's not permitted
[1:02:57] and it's considered a detached building
[1:02:59] or or I guess just wouldn't be permitted
[1:03:01] cuz it's too close.
[1:03:02] Um so, this is what Highland does and
[1:03:05] she just thought we should consider it
[1:03:07] as well.
[1:03:08] Um
[1:03:10] I think there there is some trickiness
[1:03:12] with this as well. Like, for example, if the lot shape is awkward and it's
[1:03:17] hard to attach a building 50% of that
[1:03:20] site to your home structure,
[1:03:22] it could be it could be hard to get
[1:03:24] that. Like you could have everything
[1:03:26] in shipshape, but only 40% works, and
[1:03:29] then you just can't have that addition.
[1:03:31] You would have to make it accessory.
[1:03:33] Um so I think there's
[1:03:35] positives and negatives to both these
[1:03:37] different codes. Um
[1:03:40] Here's an image too. Um so like this for
[1:03:42] example would be considered detached in
[1:03:44] their Highland ordinance, but would be
[1:03:45] considered attached under our ordinance.
[1:03:48] Yeah. Has this like breezeway structure
[1:03:51] here, and it's less than 12 ft away. So
[1:03:54] we would consider this building part of
[1:03:56] the main structure. Highland would not
[1:03:58] consider this part of the main
[1:03:59] structure.
[1:04:00] So just things we could consider and
[1:04:02] like push this ordinance further down if
[1:04:04] you guys think we should maybe think
[1:04:05] about that a little bit more. The thing
[1:04:07] I like best about um
[1:04:09] what we've proposed is just that it it
[1:04:13] kind of matches what our ordinance
[1:04:14] already says in two different locations.
[1:04:16] Uh here and down here.
[1:04:19] Just kind of implying that anything
[1:04:20] farther than 12 ft away is detached. Um
[1:04:25] and I think
[1:04:27] this our ordinance is a little bit more
[1:04:28] lenient for property owners. They're
[1:04:30] able to to get a little bit more into
[1:04:32] their lot. Um which is a plus for for
[1:04:35] property rights, but um there's there's
[1:04:38] positives to both. I can also see the
[1:04:40] positive in the Highland ordinance as
[1:04:41] well. So
[1:04:42] >> I like what you have here. I don't think
[1:04:44] we need to delay it.
[1:04:45] >> Okay.
[1:04:46] >> Yeah. Just my thoughts.
[1:04:49] » And yeah, I'll leave it up to you guys
[1:04:51] if you want to discuss more about that
[1:04:52] right now before we move on, but
[1:04:56] » Just tie level benefits or attached
[1:04:59] versus detached.
[1:05:01] I mean it's
[1:05:03] >> That the benefits of attached versus
[1:05:04] detached. So I think the main one is
[1:05:06] just
[1:05:07] >> What I want to detach versus attached.
[1:05:09] >> So if you if you want it as tall as your
[1:05:11] main structure, you want a addition. You
[1:05:13] want it attached to your house.
[1:05:16] Um if you want to use your lot area
[1:05:19] better, you would want it detached cuz
[1:05:20] then you can have shorter setbacks.
[1:05:22] >> And your taxes, utilities, those kinds
[1:05:24] of things.
[1:05:26] >> That's a good point as well. I don't
[1:05:27] know how how much do detached structures affect
[1:05:31] your property taxes? I don't know.
[1:05:34] >> Taxes, I don't know, but we would still
[1:05:35] require them to connect to the existing
[1:05:38] services.
[1:05:39] >> Existing services.
[1:05:40] >> Yeah.
[1:05:40] >> So, one thing where this has come up in
[1:05:43] the past is people wanted a accessory
[1:05:46] dwelling unit, but they couldn't have a
[1:05:48] detached accessory dwelling unit. So,
[1:05:51] they were like, "Well, we'll just
[1:05:52] connect it to the house." Which then
[1:05:54] makes an internal accessory dwelling
[1:05:57] unit. Which they could have under the
[1:05:59] old code. So, that's where from my
[1:06:02] perspective, where we saw a lot of
[1:06:04] those, "Oh, we want to add a garage with
[1:06:06] a room above it. Oh, we have to attach
[1:06:09] it."
[1:06:09] >> Yeah.
[1:06:10] >> Exactly. And that kind of goes away.
[1:06:12] >> But yeah, because if they even if they
[1:06:15] attach it, it's still considered a
[1:06:18] dwelling unit, so they couldn't build
[1:06:20] another one.
[1:06:21] >> Yes.
[1:06:22] >> Now, they they're going to have to
[1:06:24] decide one or the other because they're
[1:06:26] only allowed one.
[1:06:27] >> One. Yeah.
[1:06:28] >> Which I think is another reason why it
[1:06:30] would be prudent for us to have that in
[1:06:32] our detached ADU code is just or our ADU
[1:06:35] code in general is just one ADU is
[1:06:37] allowed on the property.
[1:06:38] >> Yeah.
[1:06:38] >> In bold letters.
[1:06:40] >> Yeah.
[1:06:41] >> [laughter]
[1:06:44] » Okay.
[1:06:45] >> Any other questions on this one?
[1:06:48] If you guys like that, then we'll
[1:06:50] go forward with it. Um okay, so this one
[1:06:53] is
[1:06:54] just a little update to the swimming
[1:06:56] pool code. Um
[1:06:58] So, Shane was telling me that people
[1:07:01] were
[1:07:02] having issues maybe situating
[1:07:05] uh
[1:07:06] like uh a pool changing structure on
[1:07:10] their property or just other storage
[1:07:12] structures for pool stuff on their
[1:07:14] property.
[1:07:15] This code kind of makes it seem like
[1:07:18] uh you have to have more strict setbacks
[1:07:20] that are laid out here for anything
[1:07:22] that's related to a pool. So, if you
[1:07:25] have a shed that you store all your pool
[1:07:26] supplies in, you need to have you need
[1:07:28] to meet these setbacks instead of the
[1:07:30] general uh accessory building setbacks,
[1:07:34] which are less stringent than these
[1:07:36] ones. This For example, this one
[1:07:38] requires
[1:07:39] 10 ft from the side and rear
[1:07:41] um for a storage structure for pool
[1:07:43] stuff, whereas our normal accessory
[1:07:46] building code allows you to be up to 2
[1:07:48] ft away 2 and 1/2 ft away from the
[1:07:50] property line for a shed or something
[1:07:52] like that as long as it meets all those
[1:07:53] requirements.
[1:07:54] And so, it just seemed illogical to have
[1:07:56] a
[1:07:57] if someone calls their structure a pool
[1:08:00] shed, then they all all of a sudden have
[1:08:02] really strict setbacks for that
[1:08:03] structure.
[1:08:04] It seems like they could just rename it
[1:08:06] and then we would allow them to be a lot
[1:08:08] closer to the property line for that.
[1:08:09] So, we just wanted to eliminate that um
[1:08:12] that ambiguity there. And so, in terms
[1:08:14] of this section, pool houses and storage
[1:08:16] structures are not considered related
[1:08:18] facilities and are evaluated based on
[1:08:21] the accessory structure requirements of
[1:08:22] the underlying zone.
[1:08:23] >> Can I ask a quick question? This is
[1:08:25] where I came up with the question on
[1:08:27] the you know, attached detached where
[1:08:29] you might change the ordinance. I'm just
[1:08:31] trying to put it in context why someone
[1:08:32] would do this. I mean, I have a pool
[1:08:34] house and if you look at what's in
[1:08:37] those, you've got pumps, you've And that
[1:08:39] was my concern with another unit that
[1:08:40] you put 5 ft from the It's got an air
[1:08:43] conditioning unit that might be close to
[1:08:45] someone else's bedroom and you've Is it
[1:08:46] noise related or why did they do this in
[1:08:48] the first place? There had to be a
[1:08:50] reason why somebody said a pool house is
[1:08:52] different than a shed that has someone's
[1:08:54] lawnmower in it and it doesn't make any
[1:08:56] noise.
[1:08:56] >> Yeah, no, I I think you were on the
[1:08:58] right track there of saying like these
[1:09:00] pipes and pumps or whatever are can be
[1:09:02] obstructive and and and you know be
[1:09:05] bothersome to neighbors and stuff. And
[1:09:07] so that doesn't go away with this
[1:09:08] change. Any any of those structures that
[1:09:11] make the pool run still have to meet
[1:09:13] these setbacks. This is specifically for
[1:09:15] storage
[1:09:17] and
[1:09:18] like a structure for someone to change
[1:09:20] and a pool changing structure something
[1:09:22] like that where there's nothing
[1:09:24] mechanical going on
[1:09:26] in that sense. Yeah.
[1:09:27] >> As soon as that pool house gets a
[1:09:28] bathroom and a shower [clears throat]
[1:09:30] then the setback falls in and they have
[1:09:32] to be 10 ft?
[1:09:35] >> Yes. Yes. So it would just be only
[1:09:39] Well, let's see. So pool houses and
[1:09:40] school structures and storage structures
[1:09:42] are not considered related facilities.
[1:09:45] Um
[1:09:47] That's actually a good question, Jason.
[1:09:48] Did you
[1:09:49] >> Well, in in my mind is Greg brought it
[1:09:52] up. A pool house has the pumps in it.
[1:09:55] And so that should be further away than
[1:09:57] 2 ft. Do we have a
[1:10:00] I if for me I would take out pool
[1:10:02] houses.
[1:10:04] >> Okay.
[1:10:04] >> We have a definition for pool house.
[1:10:08] >> I'm not sure.
[1:10:09] >> Cuz I think there's also a safety I mean
[1:10:11] this last year I had a pool pump
[1:10:14] blow up, blew my whole roof off. I'm
[1:10:16] still in litigation with the And a month
[1:10:18] before that a guy died
[1:10:20] uh with that. And so if you're putting
[1:10:22] something that's got hazards and risk
[1:10:24] associated with it next to someone
[1:10:26] else's house or property line I don't
[1:10:28] know if there's risk there.
[1:10:29] I lost the whole roof to a pool house.
[1:10:32] >> Hm.
[1:10:32] Where your equipment was?
[1:10:35] >> Pressurized blew up and roof went off.
[1:10:37] >> What What What pressurized?
[1:10:41] The
[1:10:44] Yeah, cuz see
[1:10:46] Cuz we cuz we don't we don't have a
[1:10:48] structure
[1:10:50] on around our pool equipment and it's
[1:10:53] extremely quiet.
[1:10:56] Um but we've considered putting a
[1:10:59] structure over it.
[1:11:01] But
[1:11:02] it doesn't I think it's less than
[1:11:05] 10 ft.
[1:11:07] If I If I put the structure in, it would
[1:11:09] be less than 10 ft
[1:11:11] from the
[1:11:13] property line.
[1:11:16] >> I guess I'm saying we may just need to
[1:11:18] look at this a little further. Sorry,
[1:11:20] Cayden.
[1:11:20] >> No, it's okay.
[1:11:21] >> But it may just be worth
[1:11:22] >> That's what we're here for.
[1:11:22] >> spending some time and really dialing
[1:11:25] this in.
[1:11:25] >> Yeah, it looks like we don't have a
[1:11:27] definite definition for pool house.
[1:11:29] Um
[1:11:32] » Cuz I Cuz
[1:11:32] >> Cuz I thought the Yeah, I thought the intent was to not have some big
[1:11:39] structure of
[1:11:42] I've seen some of the ones here in
[1:11:44] Alpine where it's way different than
[1:11:46] mine, you know, and it has this big old
[1:11:48] structure where they jump off.
[1:11:50] >> Yeah.
[1:11:51] >> You know.
[1:11:52] >> Like Disneyland or some resort. Yeah.
[1:11:54] >> And it's right up you know, and it's
[1:11:56] right up against the property. And I'm
[1:11:58] like, how in the world did that get
[1:11:59] approved?
[1:12:01] >> Jeff, can I just
[1:12:02] >> Yeah. Yeah, Marla.
[1:12:03] >> There's two separate types of
[1:12:05] application. One comes in and they call
[1:12:07] it a pool house.
[1:12:09] And that is your changing room, your
[1:12:12] bathroom, your outdoor or indoor shower,
[1:12:16] with maybe a laundry to do towels, maybe
[1:12:18] an outdoor kitchen. And those are the
[1:12:20] great big structures that are next to
[1:12:22] the pool. Other people are coming in
[1:12:24] with an application calling it a pool
[1:12:26] house, and it's just a little shack
[1:12:29] that's got your pool equipment in.
[1:12:31] >> Yes.
[1:12:32] >> Third one is a combination. They have
[1:12:35] They've got the bathroom and the
[1:12:36] changing room on one end, and and the
[1:12:39] wall in between with their pool
[1:12:41] equipment on the other. So, we kind of
[1:12:43] get a combination and they all come in
[1:12:45] and they're called pool houses.
[1:12:46] >> Yeah, so maybe we should create some definitions.
[1:12:51] >> Mhm.
[1:12:53] >> And so, because of their class
[1:12:55] their def their
[1:12:57] what they're calling themselves, they
[1:12:59] get a more favorable setback.
[1:13:01] >> Yes.
[1:13:02] >> But, we usually go off of size, because
[1:13:04] the bigger ones that have the great big
[1:13:06] kitchen, bathroom, changing rooms, those
[1:13:09] are going to have to have a probably
[1:13:10] your 10-ft side setback and a 15 rear,
[1:13:13] because they're massive.
[1:13:14] >> Yeah.
[1:13:15] >> The little shack that's just got the
[1:13:16] pool equipment in it
[1:13:18] could be closer to the property line.
[1:13:20] >> Yeah. That's what
[1:13:21] >> Unless
[1:13:21] >> That's my hope.
[1:13:23] >> Yeah.
[1:13:24] And I'm glad Myra brought that up.
[1:13:25] That's a good point. So, like something
[1:13:27] that is more substantial has a shower,
[1:13:29] has all this space, will obviously not
[1:13:31] meet the 200 sq ft requirement.
[1:13:33] >> Yes.
[1:13:33] >> And so, it won't be able to do the 2-ft
[1:13:35] setback anyway.
[1:13:36] >> Yes. I agree.
[1:13:38] >> Yeah.
[1:13:38] >> Okay.
[1:13:39] so
[1:13:41] you can come back on swimming pools and
[1:13:44] related facilities, that code.
[1:13:46] >> Okay.
[1:13:47] Yeah, I think it's I think it's a good
[1:13:48] idea to define
[1:13:50] pool house. Yeah, I think it's a great
[1:13:52] idea. Okay.
[1:13:55] Um and then just yeah, renumbering
[1:13:57] sports courts to see there.
[1:13:59] And then I just have this repeated
[1:14:00] throughout all our zones. So, the pool
[1:14:03] house and the accessory structures,
[1:14:05] that's what these ones are.
[1:14:07] Just zoom through those.
[1:14:10] Pool again. This is the other I think
[1:14:12] this is CR5 zone.
[1:14:15] Swimming pool again.
[1:14:17] Add the word "the" there, and take away
[1:14:19] kind of random
[1:14:20] see right there.
[1:14:22] Um yeah, there's like a shed just to
[1:14:24] examples of things that we were
[1:14:27] thinking about.
[1:14:28] >> Sure.
[1:14:29] >> Okay.
[1:14:31] Oh, this is just a clean version. Okay.
[1:14:33] So, that that is the end, actually.
[1:14:38] » Excellent. Okay.
[1:14:40] Well, with that, let
[1:14:42] I If we don't have any other questions
[1:14:44] for Caden or Jason,
[1:14:46] we can open it up to a public hearing.
[1:14:57] Okay, seeing as how there is no one here
[1:15:00] to comment or have questions,
[1:15:04] we will close the public hearing.
[1:15:08] So
[1:15:11] with that
[1:15:13] uh
[1:15:14] we have some recommendations to staff
[1:15:19] on that code and then it will come back
[1:15:22] to us for approval, right? Or
[1:15:25] recommendation for approval?
[1:15:27] >> Do we need to [snorts] table it
[1:15:27] officially?
[1:15:28] >> Or or yeah, I I guess we have to make a
[1:15:32] motion. I I just saw the public hearing
[1:15:35] but
[1:15:38] is that all we're doing here or we're
[1:15:40] actually
[1:15:41] going to
[1:15:42] have a motion?
[1:15:45] >> Yeah, sorry. This is an action item so
[1:15:47] you can do Yeah, so you can motion to
[1:15:49] approve everything except for the pool
[1:15:51] house
[1:15:53] section or the pool section and then
[1:15:55] that will be
[1:15:57] a condition of
[1:15:58] revisiting the commissioners.
[1:16:00] >> And just so you know, we're finding more
[1:16:03] stuff in the code, these little things
[1:16:04] that need to be changed. So
[1:16:06] when this comes back we'll have more to
[1:16:08] add to it.
[1:16:09] >> Sure, okay.
[1:16:11] so then with that I will entertain
[1:16:14] a motion
[1:16:15] uh from somebody on this action item.
[1:16:19] >> [snorts]
[1:16:24] » I'll make a motion to table the proposed
[1:16:30] a uh ordinance changes
[1:16:32] uh
[1:16:33] specifically with regard to the pool
[1:16:36] house section
[1:16:38] » [snorts]
[1:16:38] >> for staff to rework and come back to us
[1:16:42] uh
[1:16:42] to review.
[1:16:45] >> Okay.
[1:16:46] We have a motion to table the proposed
[1:16:48] text amendments to the development code
[1:16:51] by John McKay. Do I have a second?
[1:16:54] >> I'll second it.
[1:16:55] >> A second by Sue Wittenberg. Any
[1:16:57] discussions on the motion?
[1:17:02] » Are you proposing that you approve the
[1:17:03] others and just have
[1:17:04] >> Yeah, that's what he mentioned. I don't
[1:17:06] know if that
[1:17:07] makes a difference.
[1:17:08] >> Just efficiency to not have to go over
[1:17:10] the same
[1:17:11] >> Right. Other stuff again is a question,
[1:17:13] I guess.
[1:17:13] >> Yeah, I was thinking more at large and
[1:17:16] have it
[1:17:17] brought back clean, but we can go either
[1:17:20] way.
[1:17:20] >> Is there an advantage? What's the
[1:17:22] feeling?
[1:17:24] >> I I don't I think it's fine either way.
[1:17:26] So.
[1:17:27] >> Okay, I think it's fine either way. I
[1:17:28] think it's fine either way. Okay, I
[1:17:29] think it's I think it's fine either way.
[1:17:31] >> Okay, I'll leave my motion in place
[1:17:33] then.
[1:17:35] >> Okay, if there's no more discussions
[1:17:37] on the motion, we will vote. All those
[1:17:40] in favor?
[1:17:42] Yes.
[1:17:42] >> Thanks, Sue.
[1:17:45] >> Okay, so with that we will
[1:17:48] vote. All those in favor say I.
[1:17:50] >> I.
[1:17:51] >> Any opposed?
[1:17:54] The vote is unanimous, Marla.
[1:17:57] And now we will go on to the next item
[1:18:00] section or number four, communications.
[1:18:03] Cayden.
[1:18:05] >> None for me. Just more code code updates
[1:18:07] coming soon probably with the fence
[1:18:08] ordinance and different things, so.
[1:18:11] >> I have a question about the rifle
[1:18:15] shop.
[1:18:16] I thought that was Long Shooters. I I
[1:18:18] thought that was going to come back to
[1:18:20] us. It didn't. Can you tell us what
[1:18:22] happened?
[1:18:23] >> Yeah, so the the city council was very
[1:18:26] hyper aware of the parking lot layout
[1:18:29] and really wanted to make sure it met
[1:18:31] the code
[1:18:33] just cuz there was so much uproar in in
[1:18:35] neighborhood.
[1:18:36] So uh originally they had one parking
[1:18:39] stall that was going to be in the
[1:18:41] setback, and so they were going to have
[1:18:43] to come back to the planning commission
[1:18:44] for a recommended approval of that stall
[1:18:46] in the setback.
[1:18:48] Uh after that, they they ended up
[1:18:50] changing their parking lot layout and so
[1:18:52] not needing that recommendation anymore.
[1:18:54] That's why you guys didn't see it again.
[1:18:56] >> There was no more exceptions, so it just
[1:18:58] fell within the code.
[1:18:58] >> building smaller.
[1:18:59] >> And they and they didn't give you any
[1:19:01] hard time about that design?
[1:19:03] >> Change
[1:19:04] >> historic design design guidelines where
[1:19:06] there were some changes on that?
[1:19:07] >> Yeah.
[1:19:09] >> There were a few changes from what you
[1:19:11] guys saw. Um you can look at the the
[1:19:13] city council minutes that approved it
[1:19:15] and just see it's a little bit more
[1:19:17] substantial, I would say now. There's
[1:19:18] more wood on the front.
[1:19:20] Um yeah, the ACM panels are no longer
[1:19:23] there, uh at least on the same to the
[1:19:25] same degree they were before.
[1:19:27] Um so, but
[1:19:28] >> They changed the parking lot collect.
[1:19:29] They also reduced the size of the
[1:19:31] structure a little bit based off the
[1:19:33] parking change.
[1:19:33] >> They did. They had to reduce the
[1:19:34] structure uh
[1:19:36] quite a lot, actually. I think it ended
[1:19:38] up being close to 800 square feet
[1:19:40] smaller.
[1:19:41] >> Yeah.
[1:19:41] >> So.
[1:19:42] >> Okay, thanks.
[1:19:44] Okay, um do any
[1:19:47] uh
[1:19:48] any items that we should be looking
[1:19:50] forward to on the 18th?
[1:19:55] >> Um probably just this pool one and then
[1:19:58] um
[1:19:59] hopefully by that time we'll have a
[1:20:00] formal detached ADU code for you guys to
[1:20:02] adopt.
[1:20:03] >> Okay.
[1:20:04] >> Um
[1:20:05] might have the fence ordinance as well.
[1:20:07] >> to have that done by end of August?
[1:20:10] >> October 1st.
[1:20:10] >> Okay, so we
[1:20:11] >> So, we're ahead of time, yeah.
[1:20:14] Um
[1:20:16] yeah, we might have you guys see the
[1:20:19] a proposed upgrade to the fence
[1:20:21] ordinance as well. That's something that
[1:20:22] council member Andrew Young has been
[1:20:24] working on extensively and Jessica
[1:20:26] Specht.
[1:20:27] >> Okay.
[1:20:27] >> Um so.
[1:20:29] >> Excellent.
[1:20:30] Okay, any other questions or
[1:20:32] communication?
[1:20:33] >> Yeah.
[1:20:34] >> Okay.
[1:20:36] Approval of the planning commission
[1:20:38] minutes from July 7th.
[1:20:40] I will entertain a motion to approve
[1:20:43] those or any First I any questions or
[1:20:45] edits changes.
[1:20:50] Okay.
[1:20:51] With that, no changes.
[1:20:54] I will entertain a motion to approve.
[1:20:56] >> Move to approve the minutes
[1:20:58] of July 7th, 2016.
[1:21:00] >> Motion to approve by Greg Butterfield.
[1:21:03] Do I have a second?
[1:21:04] >> I'll second it.
[1:21:05] >> Second by Michelle Schirmer.
[1:21:07] Any discussion? Nope. And so all those
[1:21:10] in favor say I.
[1:21:11] >> I.
[1:21:13] >> Any opposed?
[1:21:14] Motion carries unanimously.
[1:21:17] Okay.
[1:21:18] With that, I will entertain a motion to
[1:21:21] adjourn.
[1:21:23] >> I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[1:21:24] >> Motion to adjourn by Susan Weinberg.
[1:21:27] Second by
[1:21:29] >> I'll second.
[1:21:31] >> By Michelle Schirmer. All those opposed
[1:21:33] All those in favor?
[1:21:34] >> I.
[1:21:36] >> Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:21:40] » Well done. Well done. Good job.
[1:21:42] >> Good job.
[1:21:43] >> And we have another meeting, right?
[1:21:45] >> Yep. And in 32 minutes.
[1:21:49] >> Okay.