[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.

8.4.26 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript