[0:00] Uh welcome uh planning commission

[0:02] members uh city employees and uh members

[0:07] of the pl public public who may be here

[0:09] present or zoom to the Alpine City

[0:12] Planning Commission meeting held

[0:13] Tuesday, August 18th, 2026 uh at 6 PM uh

[0:18] physically at City Hall, 20 North Main

[0:21] Street, Alpine, Utah. and let the record

[0:23] reflect that this meeting has been duly

[0:26] and legally noticed uh and is being held

[0:30] at the time and place of publication. Uh

[0:33] let's start with uh general business. I

[0:37] just like to recognize the folks here

[0:40] from uh the city that are helping us and

[0:42] working with us. We have Kaden Lions,

[0:44] Jason Jud, Mara Fox, and am I missing

[0:48] something? Am I including Heidi on that?

[0:50] Okay. And the esteemed Heidi. What is

[0:52] Heidi's last name?

[0:53] >> Smith.

[0:53] Okay. I I knew her way back in

[0:55] the day when she had a different last

[0:56] name. Um, okay. Heidi Smith. Uh, and

[1:00] here on Planning Commission, Troy Slade,

[1:02] Michelle Shurmer, John McCay, myself,

[1:04] Alan McDonald, Greg Butterfield, Suz

[1:07] Wittenberg, and the esteemed Jeff Davis.

[1:10] Um, okay. Let's uh start. Oh, well, that

[1:14] was a roll call. Welcome, I guess. Just want to say once again to a big

[1:19] thanks to all of the city employees and

[1:23] multitude of volunteers who pulled off

[1:25] an amazing maybe best ever alpine days.

[1:30] The parade was well attended and fun and

[1:34] great. The carnival, the fireworks, all

[1:36] the activities all week long. It was

[1:38] just top-notch. Very, very, very well

[1:42] done. Except there was one particular

[1:44] member um who was leading the Alpine

[1:48] Days hike who apparently lost a

[1:49] resident, but that individual will

[1:52] remain unnamed. Um both individuals

[1:55] remained unnamed.

[1:56] >> Back safe.

[1:57] >> Yes. Found and back safe. Um is is all

[2:00] we need to know. Uh with that uh we

[2:03] would like to start the meeting with a

[2:05] prayer which will be uh offered to us by

[2:08] Greg Butterfield followed by the pledge

[2:09] of allegiance led by Suz Whittenberg.

[2:11] Our

[2:14] dear kind heavenly father, we come

[2:16] before thee this Tuesday night to give

[2:17] thee thanks for many blessings as

[2:19] already been so. We're grateful for the

[2:21] citizens of Alpine and for the Alpine

[2:23] days, the city employees and ask that

[2:25] they thou bless them uh for all their

[2:28] good work and for the service that they

[2:30] provide us at this time. Heavenly

[2:32] Father, we pray and invite thy spirit to

[2:33] be with us so that we might be able to

[2:35] discuss those things that need to be

[2:36] done at this particular time to make

[2:38] sure that Alpine continues to be a safe

[2:41] and a wonderful spot for us to live.

[2:43] We're grateful for this free country.

[2:45] We're grateful their h for your hand in

[2:46] our lives and we say it's in the name of

[2:48] Jesus Christ. Amen.

[2:49] >> Amen.

[2:55] » I aliance to the flag of the United

[2:58] States of America and to the republic

[3:01] for which it stands, one nation under

[3:03] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[3:06] justice for all.

[3:08] >> Okay. Thank you everybody. Much

[3:10] appreciated. Okay. Before we dive into

[3:13] um action items, uh do we have any

[3:15] reports and presentations?

[3:17] >> We do not.

[3:18] >> Okay. Anything from any member of the

[3:19] planning commission?

[3:22] Okay. Let's jump right into action

[3:24] items. The first one we have a is uh

[3:27] proposed detached ADU and uh that does

[3:31] require a public hearing. So uh Kaden,

[3:34] let's go ahead and have you introduce

[3:35] the topic and uh briefly and then we

[3:38] will open it up for public hearing and

[3:40] uh once we close a public hearing, I

[3:42] expect a lively uh and informative

[3:44] debate. So Kaden.

[3:48] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:50] So yeah, so we were able to discuss the

[3:53] detached ADU code last planning

[3:56] commission meeting uh to warm ourselves

[3:58] up to formally recommend it uh to the

[4:02] city council coming up here soon. And so

[4:06] um you know the state Senate Bill 284

[4:09] passed for the state of Utah. So by

[4:11] October 1st as a city we need to have a

[4:14] detached accessory dwelling unit code

[4:16] adopted. Um, so we've put together this

[4:20] uh detached ADU ordinance for the

[4:23] planning commission to review and

[4:24] recommend and we took in the

[4:25] recommendations

[4:27] uh that we talked about last time and uh

[4:30] have this new this code prepared for you

[4:32] today. Um, I know we do have some

[4:34] discussion that uh Allan potentially

[4:36] wants to have or Commissioner McDonald

[4:38] wants to have uh to maybe uh continue to

[4:41] update it and continue to look at it and

[4:44] that's definitely fine. Um, we're open

[4:45] to to any and all suggestions that we

[4:48] might need for our city. So, um, so I'll

[4:52] go ahead and say that we will recommend

[4:54] that the planning commission can

[4:55] consider the the detached ADU code and,

[4:59] you know, suggest provide suggestions

[5:01] for improvement as needed and if they

[5:03] find it satisfactory, go ahead and

[5:05] recommend the approval of the of the

[5:07] code.

[5:09] So, um, exhibit A, as we went over last

[5:12] time, these are the detached ADU state

[5:14] requirements for municipalities.

[5:16] And we went over these kind of line by

[5:18] line last time, so I won't do that

[5:19] today, but um, we definitely made sure

[5:23] that our municipal uh, accessory

[5:27] dwelling unit code will meet all these

[5:29] requirements. And there's a few of these

[5:31] that the state allows the municipality

[5:33] to

[5:35] uh be more restrictive on than the state

[5:37] requires. And so that we have taken

[5:39] measures to do so. Um

[5:43] obviously this these requirements that

[5:45] the state has gone over probably don't

[5:47] reflect any and all requirements we

[5:49] could think of that would be beneficial

[5:51] to ADUs. And so that's kind of up to the

[5:54] up to us. If we there's other things

[5:56] that we think are important for our city

[5:58] that we want to add in there as long as

[6:00] it's not violating these requirements

[6:01] from the state, we can we can most

[6:03] likely add them in to our own code. Um

[6:06] so we've tried to take all these things

[6:08] into consideration and and that's what

[6:10] we've produced for you today. Um so

[6:15] there's another voice talking. Oh, there

[6:18] we go. Did I just shut it off? Okay. Oh,

[6:20] and now I just exited out of the Let me

[6:24] pull it back up real quick.

[6:45] So yeah, so as I was saying, these are

[6:47] the state requirements that we took into

[6:49] consideration and implemented into our

[6:51] own code. And so then exhibit B here is

[6:54] the updated ordinance to accessory

[6:57] dwelling units in our own Alpine

[7:00] development code. So as you can see

[7:02] here, we added a definition for detached

[7:05] accessory dwelling unit and this comes

[7:06] straight from the state.

[7:09] Uh this is the exact same definition

[7:10] that they have for that. So we just

[7:12] decided to do that same thing. We have

[7:13] the updated sections. Um so we have a

[7:16] little bit of updated language here to

[7:19] just kind of make the the ordinance flow

[7:21] better. Um so an accessory dwelling unit

[7:25] shall be considered a subordinate

[7:26] dwelling unit within part of a principal

[7:27] dwelling or detached from a principal

[7:30] dwelling and located on the same lot or

[7:31] parcel as the principal dwelling and

[7:33] which has its own cooking, sleeping and

[7:35] sanitation facilities. So updating that

[7:37] so we're um covering both internal and

[7:40] detached ADUs.

[7:42] Uh internal accessory dwelling units

[7:44] will now be 314020.

[7:48] And so this section will focus on

[7:50] internal ADUs. So, we added the word

[7:52] internal here.

[7:54] Most of the most of the section will

[7:56] stay the same. We just have some

[7:57] renumbering going on here as you can

[7:59] see. And then a little bit of language

[8:01] change on here just to make it sound

[8:04] better. So, it's not just focused on u

[8:07] you know uh internal ADUs anymore. Um

[8:10] but just to make it make sense. Oh, and

[8:12] right here as well, if a water parcel

[8:14] also has a detached accessory dwelling

[8:16] unit, no internal ADU will be allowed.

[8:19] So, that's not required by the state,

[8:21] but it's something that um we've

[8:24] considered to be potentially beneficial

[8:26] for the city to consider only allowing

[8:28] one ADU per property, but that's

[8:31] something we could hash out tonight.

[8:35] So, and then this is the new 31430 for

[8:39] detached accessory dwelling units. So,

[8:41] everything here is in green because this

[8:42] is new to our code.

[8:44] Um, we did go over this line by line

[8:46] last time. I'm happy to do it again. Um,

[8:49] it's basically the exact same. There

[8:50] might be a few little uh word changes

[8:53] that that were in here. Um,

[8:56] one thing we talked about last time is

[8:59] how many parking spaces we want to

[9:01] require on site. We talked about just

[9:03] having one because the state only has

[9:04] one required, but I ended up putting two

[9:06] in here. Um, just seemed to make more

[9:09] sense for Alpine, but the requirement is

[9:12] only one from the state. So, that is an

[9:14] option.

[9:16] We talked about last time having 1,200

[9:18] square foot sizes. Sorry.

[9:20] >> Okay. Um,

[9:23] are we still in definitions or are we

[9:25] getting into the ordinance?

[9:26] >> No, this is the ordinance.

[9:28] >> Yeah.

[9:28] >> Um,

[9:30] so we're talking about occupancy

[9:34] and I thought that the holiday ordinance

[9:38] had some good points to talk about uh

[9:41] what the relationships are.

[9:43] >> So,

[9:45] If I if I had a suggestion, it would

[9:48] just be this that basically run through

[9:50] it.

[9:50] >> Yeah. Kaden runs through his

[9:51] presentation. We do the public hearing,

[9:54] close it, and then

[9:56] >> run through things.

[9:57] >> I agree.

[9:58] >> That would Would Would that work for

[9:59] you, John?

[10:00] >> Okay. I certainly don't mean to shut

[10:01] down. What? Okay,

[10:02] >> that dandy. Yeah.

[10:03] >> Okay, good.

[10:04] >> Okay, sounds great. Yeah, we'll do that.

[10:07] Um, so we're we were talking about

[10:08] number six here. Uh, this was discussed

[10:12] together as a body last time. We talked

[10:14] about if there should be a size limit,

[10:16] what should it be? Um there was

[10:19] discussion about if if we just say it

[10:21] can be smaller than a principal

[10:24] dwelling, then someone could potentially

[10:25] build a very large ADU. Um and so it

[10:29] seemed to to the commissioners from my

[10:32] recollection that that 1,200 square foot

[10:34] seemed to be a good a good size there.

[10:37] Um and it good comp comprehensive size

[10:40] there. Um, obviously, you know, there's

[10:43] no one-sizefits-all in any of this, but

[10:45] uh it seemed to be the number we landed

[10:46] on last time. Um, so we just made sure

[10:50] here that we have the setback

[10:52] requirements and they're the same as

[10:54] accessory buildings in the zone. That's

[10:56] what we talked about last time and it

[10:58] seemed to be to be good there. Uh, I

[11:00] made sure to add in here that we have

[11:03] the height requirements called out

[11:04] because we didn't have that last time.

[11:05] But here it says the same height

[11:07] requirement is required for accessory

[11:09] buildings for ADUs as for accessory

[11:11] buildings in the zone in which they're

[11:13] located. Um, we have the materials

[11:15] requirement that it needs to match the

[11:17] house and then capacity requirements

[11:20] here and um

[11:24] and how to remodel or add an ADU

[11:26] following the correct international

[11:27] residential building codes. and then

[11:29] getting a accessory dwelling unit permit

[11:32] that I was actually working on today

[11:33] updating with Mara Fox. Um, so we're excited about getting that all

[11:39] ship shape as well. Um, and then as you

[11:42] can see here, we're just renumbering

[11:43] this last part of the of the ADU code

[11:45] that talks about non-residential

[11:46] accessory structures. So, um, yeah. So,

[11:50] like I said, we kind of already went

[11:51] over this. That's why I kind of blaze

[11:53] through it right now, but I'm happy to

[11:54] talk about any and every part of it that

[11:56] we want to. um and decide what what we

[12:00] think.

[12:01] >> Okay, that's great, Kaden. Thank you. Um

[12:04] and hey, I'm going to Kaden, at this

[12:06] point, I'm going to go ahead and kind of

[12:07] jump through the hoops for a public

[12:09] hearing.

[12:09] >> Just want to give you a quick heads up.

[12:11] I just texted you three pictures and so

[12:14] if you want to, you know, drop them onto

[12:15] your desktop or something at some point,

[12:17] I'm going to ask you to pull them up,

[12:19] >> uh you know, when when it's relevant in

[12:21] the discussion. Um okay, thank you,

[12:23] Kaden. Appreciate that introduction. Uh,

[12:26] we need to hold a public hearing. So,

[12:28] I'm going to go ahead and open the

[12:29] public hearing. Um,

[12:32] would anyone is there? Yeah, there's

[12:35] nobody. Let the record reflect that

[12:36] there is no uh individual or person here

[12:41] uh physically present uh at this

[12:44] planning commission. So, um unless I've

[12:48] opened the hearing, I'm inviting anybody

[12:50] to come up. Uh unless somebody can see

[12:53] something I don't, there's nobody out

[12:54] there. So, uh, it doesn't look like

[12:56] we'll have any anybody come up to the

[12:58] podium. Uh, Kaden, is there anybody on,

[13:02] you know, like on YouTube or is there

[13:04] anybody?

[13:05] >> Just Marla's in the Zoom room.

[13:07] >> Okay.

[13:07] >> YouTube,

[13:08] >> okay,

[13:09] >> is not allowed to comment.

[13:10] >> Then I'm going to go ahead and close the

[13:11] public hearing. Okay. And let's open up

[13:14] for discussion. All right. So, um, let

[13:18] me just tell you what. So, yeah, Kaden's

[13:21] always a good sport. actually called him

[13:22] this morning and said, "Okay, this

[13:23] really great, but I'm going to just dump

[13:25] a whole bunch of stuff on you and I just

[13:27] want you to know what's coming." I'm

[13:29] used to it. Thank you. So, um, here, let

[13:32] me just tell you what I did. And, and

[13:35] again, again, just so the record

[13:37] reflects in case anybody's listening, I

[13:40] think everybody knows at this point that

[13:41] there is a state law requiring

[13:45] municipalities to adopt ordinances for

[13:49] uh, det.

[13:52] It's accessory dwelling units, right?

[13:54] But also but but like specifically

[13:56] detached ADUs and and there's reasons

[13:59] for that, right? One of the first things

[14:00] I'm going to get into is perhaps

[14:01] including in our ordinance kind of a

[14:04] mission statement, you know, on that. I

[14:06] think it would be helpful. Um but just just so you know everybody

[14:10] understands yeah there are very good

[14:12] public policy reasons that that we need

[14:16] to amend our you know ADU ordinance

[14:20] because it's been very restrictive in

[14:22] the past but for a variety of reasons

[14:24] including affordability the ability for

[14:27] um

[14:29] oh you know lower income families or new

[14:33] you know new families just starting out

[14:34] or you know etc to What's that?

[14:37] >> Aging in place.

[14:38] Lots of reasons to have

[14:40] a little more flexible housing options

[14:43] for people. So, I think this is a good

[14:45] thing and a step in in the right

[14:47] direction. So, that being said, um I

[14:50] think that that and again, my apologies.

[14:52] I was not here a couple of weeks ago, so

[14:54] you guys discussed all this. Um I'm

[14:56] coming in a little bit, you know, 11th

[14:58] hour, but you know, is what it is. Um,

[15:01] when I took a look at what what you guys

[15:03] had had all looked at a couple of weeks

[15:04] ago and that Caden and staff had put

[15:06] together, I think it looks great. Um, I

[15:09] think it is consistent and incorporates

[15:13] all of the requirements that the state

[15:16] has for the city, but I think there are

[15:19] other elements that should go in it or

[15:22] could go in it and I think we should

[15:25] consider those tonight. And so I

[15:27] prepared and handed out to all of you.

[15:30] Um Jason Kaden, sorry I don't have one

[15:33] for you, but I sent you the attach just

[15:35] a word document. I sent you the

[15:36] attachment. Um you know, I I apologize

[15:39] for that and I should add one for Mara

[15:41] as well, but uh I suppose you can print

[15:44] those out, but just for sake of ease, I

[15:46] included that uh here. And what these

[15:49] are, I took all of these essentially

[15:52] copied and pasted. I did a little bit of

[15:54] I just ran out of time this morning cuz

[15:56] you know I was up early trying to put

[15:57] all this together and then I was running

[16:00] you know I I can't live on my city

[16:02] paycheck so I have another job I had to

[16:04] go to unfortunately and was running

[16:06] meetings all day on that and and then

[16:08] you know barely got here in time but

[16:09] this is this is a little rough but

[16:11] essentially I wanted to put before this

[16:14] commission you know about oh a half a

[16:18] dozen or so additional

[16:21] detached ADU issues

[16:23] that I think that we should consider.

[16:26] And also I didn't want to leave Kaden

[16:28] and and Mara and Jason and whoever just

[16:31] you like wandering in the wilderness

[16:34] about well okay what what were these

[16:35] particular issues and what language did

[16:38] you want and let's go back into the

[16:40] minutes and try to divine what what

[16:43] somebody said. I basically copied and

[16:45] pasted language and just so all know

[16:47] this came right out of the holiday

[16:50] um they call them they don't call them

[16:52] daddos they had some other name for them

[16:54] but basically just detached ADUs and so

[16:57] this is language copied and pasted right

[17:00] out of the holiday ADU ordinance and my

[17:04] assumption is several things is a city

[17:08] in a lot of ways very similar to Alpine

[17:10] probably deals with a lot of things like

[17:12] Alpine does you know smaller lots,

[17:15] bigger lots, trees, mature, you know,

[17:18] mature vegetation. Um

[17:23] like like like some some home, you know,

[17:26] and again the the dirt, you know, lots

[17:28] being so valuable now that some homes

[17:29] are being purchased, scraped, and then

[17:33] built on, right? I think we're also

[17:35] going to find out because I mean, I know

[17:37] I have neighbors that have done this,

[17:38] right, who have garages that are already

[17:41] built. In other words, accessory

[17:42] buildings, but those are plumbed and

[17:44] wired and they are ready to convert to

[17:47] an ADU, a detached ADU, if and when the

[17:50] city ever

[17:52] um um change its ordinance. However, you

[17:57] know, are are those immediate

[17:58] plug-andplays as as ADUs? You know,

[18:01] maybe not. So, anyway, there's a few

[18:02] things that that that I wanted to go

[18:04] through and um if we can just start

[18:07] there. Oh, there's my glasses. Um thing

[18:10] number one

[18:12] and and I'm not necessarily going to

[18:13] know have any opinion you know what the

[18:15] way I would like to proceed is this um

[18:18] that that we just kind of like take each

[18:20] of these in turn and the first one is

[18:22] purpose second one rental restriction

[18:24] third dwelling occupancy we'll just take

[18:25] them in order um and just decide as a

[18:28] body you know what that makes sense we

[18:30] ought to include it um with

[18:34] these modifications right and then I

[18:36] don't really have an opinion caden about

[18:38] where in our in in this this um proposed

[18:43] ordinance, right? I mean, you can figure

[18:45] out where they would most fit. Um but I did want to provide language

[18:50] that's, you know, basically battle

[18:52] tested and went through the entire

[18:53] process in holiday and made it into

[18:56] their, you know, made it into their

[18:57] ordinance book. So that said, I felt

[18:59] like we ought to have a a basically a

[19:01] mission statement or a purpose, which is

[19:04] accessory dwelling units are meant to

[19:05] assist in the creation of new housing

[19:07] units, support a more efficient use of

[19:09] existing housing stock and

[19:10] infrastructure, and provide housing that

[19:12] responds to changing family needs,

[19:14] smaller households, and increasing costs

[19:16] within the city, and not a response to

[19:19] supplemental income or vacation rental

[19:21] opportunities. In other words, they were

[19:23] not proscribing those or necessarily

[19:25] prohibiting. Although, I do want to

[19:26] discuss a rental restriction, but some

[19:28] sort of purpose or mission statement

[19:30] that is this is what this is for. Okay.

[19:32] So, that's thing number one. Any

[19:33] thoughts on that?

[19:35] >> Add it.

[19:36] >> I love it.

[19:36] >> I totally agree.

[19:37] >> Okay.

[19:38] >> You could add that it's also

[19:40] because of state law if you felt like.

[19:46] >> Okay. So, there's some proposals

[19:48] replacing anything you already have

[19:49] there.

[19:49] >> Yeah. Just to provide context. Is that

[19:51] what you're saying? Yeah.

[19:52] >> Yeah. Just for context.

[19:53] >> Yeah.

[19:54] >> So, okay. So, um there's some proposed

[19:57] mo and I'll just call them proposed

[19:58] language or model language caden. And

[20:01] you know, eventually we'll get to the

[20:02] point of emotion where, you know, if

[20:03] people just kind of want to keep track

[20:05] of, you know, whoever's thinking about

[20:07] emotion um might just make notes on on

[20:10] this document as we go. Okay. Thing

[20:12] number two. Um and again, again, slight context here. This is not the

[20:19] copy and paste of the entire holiday ADU

[20:23] ordinance. There's a lot there. There

[20:25] there's probably half again as much

[20:27] stuff that was really complicated. And I

[20:29] was talking to Jeff earlier this this

[20:31] morning because a lot of stuff about

[20:32] imper like or impervious

[20:35] about round groundwater runoff storm

[20:37] drainage and things I didn't understand.

[20:39] I asked Jeff about. Anyway, a lot of

[20:41] stuff I end up just leaving off because

[20:43] I didn't think it was terribly

[20:45] applicable to alpine. So um so I just

[20:48] wanted you to understand this is not the

[20:50] entire holiday ad ordinance. Okay. Uh

[20:54] next thing I include rental restriction.

[20:56] If rented detached accessory dwelling

[20:59] units must be rented for a minimum of 30

[21:02] consecutive days. A rented ADU is

[21:03] subject to annual approval of a license.

[21:05] I just put here. Do we require rental

[21:08] licenses? I didn't know. Apparently

[21:09] Holiday does. That was just kind of an

[21:12] informative note for the city. But my

[21:14] point on this one would be that we don't

[21:17] want our detached ADU ordinance to

[21:18] become a green light for VBOS's and

[21:20] Airbnbs. And so, for example, I have a

[21:23] um I I have a a a beach cottage, beach

[21:26] condo in Carl's bed, where we spend a

[21:28] lot of time. And we don't allow it's

[21:31] just kind of a small community, and we

[21:34] don't allow short-term rentals or or

[21:36] what are baked into our CCNRs as STRs.

[21:39] We only allow rentals for 30 days or

[21:41] more. And so I think then that's kind of

[21:44] the reason I kind of linked that with

[21:45] purpose was I thought it made sense to

[21:47] have a rental restriction so our

[21:48] detached ADU ordinance doesn't become

[21:50] just a green light for VBOS's.

[21:53] >> This is very common.

[21:56] >> Um hey uh uh real quick just want to recognize Andy you know having

[22:03] come blanketing on your name Andy I've

[22:05] known you forever.

[22:07] >> Spencer I know say I b it's not Andy

[22:10] Burgess Andy Spencer. I know you as

[22:12] Andy. Um, we already closed the public

[22:14] hearing, Andy, but did you did you want

[22:18] have anything that you want to say just

[22:20] as in the public hearing? I would like

[22:22] to have you here. So, every does

[22:24] everybody know Andy Spencer? Okay. And know Andy, what is your your your uh

[22:29] title? What is it you do with it? It was

[22:31] Highland City, right?

[22:35] » Okay.

[22:36] >> Appreciate that. or whatever. So, uh

[22:40] >> there's a button on the mic that you can

[22:42] >> down at the base.

[22:42] Okay. Uh yeah. So, uh

[22:45] I used to be Highland City's city

[22:47] engineer and public works director. Uh

[22:50] since that time, I've moved over to UD

[22:52] do. I actually worked for UD do these

[22:54] days, but uh I spent a number of years

[22:56] working in local government uh in uh

[22:59] city staff position, often in Jason's

[23:02] seat there. Uh, and uh, so I actually

[23:04] just came this evening because there's a

[23:06] uh, meeting after this on on uh,

[23:09] >> well, we love having you here. We may

[23:11] tap in as we're going through this

[23:12] detached ADU ordinance and and and you

[23:15] know, like if if it's okay, maybe we'll

[23:17] just say, hey, you know, Andy, what do

[23:18] you know about this or what what's your

[23:20] experience on this or something? So, I

[23:21] just saw you come in. I was like, "Oh,

[23:22] geez. We'll we'll take advantage of that

[23:24] man's expertise if if we need to or if

[23:26] we could."

[23:26] >> Yeah. No, absolutely. and and uh I I

[23:29] have both experience on the city staff

[23:31] side and then we built a uh detach

[23:34] detached accessory structure uh a few

[23:37] years ago.

[23:37] >> Yeah, I heard about that.

[23:38] >> And uh so I have some some goods and

[23:41] some bads and some lessons learned and

[23:43] some things that uh you know I would

[23:45] probably do better or different uh you

[23:47] know uh both looking at how it fit with

[23:49] our parcel and then also how it

[23:50] interacts with the neighbors. Um you

[23:52] know hopefully fairly

[23:53] >> impartial. I do want Yeah, because there

[23:55] is a part where I want to talk about

[23:56] that. So glad you're here. Thanks, Andy.

[23:57] Um, and appreciate you being willing to, you know, chat with us as as

[24:01] necessary. Um, and geez, I've known you

[24:04] for almost 25 years. I can't believe I

[24:05] was blanking on your your last name

[24:07] there. My apologies.

[24:09] >> Um,

[24:09] >> I do that all the time.

[24:11] >> I know it is an age thing. I'm sorry.

[24:13] Uh, okay. So, um, thoughts on a rental

[24:16] restriction?

[24:18] >> Yeah, we can.

[24:20] >> 90. Are we doing 30 or 90 or

[24:22] recommending?

[24:25] >> Uh, you know what? I I would have zero

[24:27] issue with 90. Um if would that make

[24:32] >> consistent with

[24:32] >> Yeah.

[24:34] >> Okay.

[24:35] >> So, all right. So, so basically this

[24:38] body feels good about the rental

[24:40] restriction except modify it to 90 days

[24:43] and Kaden, you think that's code

[24:45] consistent?

[24:45] >> Yeah. Yeah. That's great. Yeah. And to

[24:48] address your question with do we require

[24:50] rental licenses, I think Mara could

[24:52] probably speak to that better because

[24:53] she's the one that manages those. But I

[24:55] do know that there is an annual renewal

[24:57] process for those that have internal

[24:59] ADUs as of right now in the city.

[25:01] >> Are we going to have a similar process

[25:03] for I I would assume we'll have a

[25:05] similar process for detached.

[25:07] >> I would assume so as well.

[25:08] >> So we would probably just want some

[25:09] language in that consistent with our

[25:11] current code which I didn't you don't

[25:14] know off top of my head. Okay. Um all

[25:16] right. So

[25:18] rental restrictions looks like it's a

[25:20] go. Three dwelling unit occupancy. Um,

[25:23] Kaden, I I looked through your the

[25:27] proposed ordinance and I didn't see

[25:30] this particular

[25:33] um

[25:36] uh line item or this issue, right? This

[25:39] provision.

[25:40] >> Um,

[25:43] would this like why do you think high

[25:45] why do you think Holiday has this? And

[25:47] what's the what's what's what's why

[25:50] would we think about wanting to have

[25:51] this dwelling unit occupancy or define

[25:54] who the occupants of a dwelling unit,

[25:56] you know, would be. I guess my thought

[25:58] was just that we wouldn't want it to

[26:02] like I don't mean to be offensive by

[26:03] saying this, but like like

[26:07] this is going to sound crappy. Oh well,

[26:09] said like like packed full of 20day

[26:11] laborers, right? All all sleeping on a

[26:14] floor in somebody's

[26:16] you know, ADU. I probably wouldn't want

[26:18] that in my neighborhood. So, I'm

[26:21] assuming that that this dwelling unit

[26:24] occupancy, it was meant to

[26:28] um narrow the scope of the occupants

[26:32] that could inhabit a detached ADU. And

[26:35] so, thinking that, you know, that that

[26:37] probably is would be worthwhile. Um, I

[26:40] think neighbors in and around somebody

[26:42] that had a detached ADU that uh that was

[26:44] renting it for something more than 90

[26:46] days would probably appreciate

[26:48] um the definition of dwelling unit

[26:51] occupants. So, thoughts on keeping that

[26:55] in?

[26:57] >> So, basically two friends couldn't rent

[27:00] at the place.

[27:01] >> Well, I think it's up to four unrelated

[27:02] persons living as a single family

[27:04] housekeeping unit.

[27:05] >> Okay.

[27:05] >> Yeah. See,

[27:06] >> I don't It kind of contradicts this. I

[27:08] don't

[27:09] >> Well, I think you know because you could

[27:10] have up to four. So, you could maybe

[27:11] have four college students.

[27:13] >> Yeah, but then you should have four

[27:14] parking spots.

[27:18] » I don't like that line personally, but

[27:22] >> Well, okay. But, but the thing is that

[27:24] you Okay, but how do would you look

[27:27] [clears throat] Well, no, because I

[27:29] think you Well, okay, just just to to

[27:31] debate that point. um

[27:35] those those four unrelated persons.

[27:38] There's only you know like like like the landlord is going to make sure

[27:43] have to make sure that his tenants

[27:46] comply with the off- streetet parking

[27:49] right. So I mean those two things can be

[27:52] consistent. I mean, you might have four

[27:54] unrelated people, but you know, you may

[27:56] not necessarily have four cars.

[27:58] >> Yeah.

[27:58] >> Or or un unless you unless you have

[28:00] enough off- streetet parking to have

[28:02] that many tenants. So, I think that the

[28:07] you know, I think I think the size of

[28:08] your your your

[28:11] availability of parking would dictate

[28:14] how many people you could rent to or

[28:17] have in your you have in your ADU. So, for that, for that reason, I would I

[28:21] would argue to keep it. Are you fine

[28:24] with one and two, but not three?

[28:25] >> Yeah.

[28:27] But what's in the current code that we

[28:31] were looking at that? Well, not current

[28:34] because we're rewriting this

[28:36] technically, but there's no cap in an

[28:38] internal ADU, is there? There's nothing

[28:40] that says you couldn't rent a four

[28:42] college students

[28:44] >> in internal.

[28:45] >> No, there there's not. I don't think we

[28:46] have anything

[28:47] >> or unrelated. Is there any definitions

[28:49] for

[28:51] >> what constitutes a rental unit in our

[28:54] internal one?

[28:55] >> I don't think I don't believe we have

[28:56] that. No,

[28:57] >> I thought there was or unrelated people

[29:00] or a family.

[29:01] >> Let me pull it up real quick because you

[29:03] know it better than me, Marlo.

[29:07] » The point being is you'd prefer single

[29:10] dwelling versus multi-tenant

[29:13] uh 10 15 whatever however many people

[29:16] can fit in a room.

[29:17] >> [laughter]

[29:18] >> Yeah.

[29:19] Just Yeah. Exactly. You probably

[29:21] don't Yeah. I mean, you don't want

[29:23] people stuffed in like sardines.

[29:24] >> Yeah.

[29:24] >> It just because I see why you need to

[29:27] have a max. I was just current curious

[29:30] what our internal

[29:31] >> We do have.

[29:32] >> It just says

[29:33] >> an internal has to have four off-

[29:35] streetet parking spaces with the single

[29:37] unit dwelling

[29:40] because they have the ADU, but only one

[29:41] has to be designated for the ADU.

[29:44] >> So, that's parking though. That's not I

[29:47] but but that's not dwelling that's not

[29:49] dwelling unit occupancy.

[29:51] >> No, it doesn't talk about family or

[29:52] anything.

[29:53] >> So I mean so I mean perhaps this ends up

[29:55] being

[29:57] I mean I Well

[29:59] >> no it's nice to have we need to have a

[30:02] limit.

[30:03] >> It limits it to four which is good.

[30:05] >> Okay.

[30:05] >> I I can see the point in that. It just

[30:08] yeah

[30:08] >> frightens me. Can I ask a question? What

[30:11] if you had just hypothetically say I put

[30:14] one of these in my backyard and I had a college aids page grandson or

[30:19] something. I could only rent or let him

[30:22] stay there but no roommates, right? Like

[30:24] if we had four

[30:27] >> up to four, don't you have to be Don't

[30:29] you all have to be related?

[30:31] >> No.

[30:31] Well, not if we put this in, right?

[30:33] Up to four unrelated persons. Sorry.

[30:36] Yeah, I should have gone down one more.

[30:38] >> Yeah. So that I mean that's why that

[30:39] provision is there I think for for

[30:41] example college students.

[30:43] >> Did you look at Provo or other areas

[30:46] where they do deal with line item three

[30:48] [laughter]

[30:49] because I've looked at theirs a little

[30:50] bit and it's

[30:52] >> it was let's say 22.

[30:54] >> Well no they're they've changed it

[30:55] because of this problem.

[30:56] >> Oh

[30:57] >> because of safety because of fire

[30:59] because of all kinds of reasons that

[31:01] come back and they have now put caps on

[31:03] things. So I I just thought it made I I

[31:05] just thought it made sense to bas look

[31:06] it's a one person living alone or it's

[31:08] people related by blood you know by

[31:10] family by blood etc adoption or

[31:13] up to four unrelated persons living as a

[31:15] household unit

[31:16] >> square foot house really is threebedroom

[31:20] max right

[31:23] >> my first house in Oregon

[31:25] >> yeah my first was 900 but we

[31:27] >> put four of us in

[31:28] >> I got my three bedrooms in a lot smaller

[31:30] than that so did

[31:30] >> I [laughter]

[31:33] Okay. So, apparently they'll have three

[31:36] bedrooms

[31:38] or

[31:40] >> So, so are we good with dwelling unit occupancy?

[31:43] >> Sure.

[31:44] >> Yes.

[31:44] >> I like it as is.

[31:45] >> Okay. I think it's good.

[31:47] >> The parking, but we can't tie parking to

[31:50] that, but they should have enough off

[31:52] street parking.

[31:54] >> Okay. Cover.

[31:56] >> Um,

[31:58] okay. So, the next one is uh Oh, I'm

[32:01] sorry, Michelle. I was Did Did I not Did

[32:03] I cut you off?

[32:04] >> No, not at all.

[32:04] >> Okay. Okay. Next one then is footprint,

[32:07] right?

[32:08] and and like just so you're just going

[32:10] to notice that this look I don't I don't

[32:12] think I got this necessarily internally

[32:14] consistent but my understanding is that you all discussed last time and

[32:19] this is a little bit in in conflict with

[32:22] the proposed

[32:25] >> ADU because it would be number

[32:30] 1200

[32:30] >> but but to me it's like okay why do you

[32:34] have it didn't make a whole lot of sense

[32:35] for me to have a one-sizefits-all and so

[32:37] I thought the holiday seemed to make a

[32:39] lot of sense like

[32:40] >> and and you know I I don't I'm not

[32:43] really wed to this like for example I

[32:45] think we have something in here it's

[32:46] less than or it's got to be more than

[32:47] 11,000 ft which

[32:50] >> maybe we should talk about actually

[32:51] because all because we've got a lot of

[32:54] Did you guys do 11,000 ft I think I saw

[32:56] on that was that to have a detached ADU

[32:59] >> that's a minimum.

[33:00] >> Oh that's a state minimum.

[33:01] >> They will allow us to limit ADUs to

[33:03] 12,000 or larger lots.

[33:05] >> Okay. Do but Okay. Okay. So, if we adopt

[33:07] that and we adopt the 11,000, which I

[33:10] think I saw in your in the proposed

[33:11] ordinance,

[33:12] >> that would restrict

[33:15] a lot of the smaller quarter acre lots,

[33:18] the 10,000 square foot lots that we have

[33:21] in in well, the 10,000, you know,

[33:23] CR10,000. Is it was it the intent was

[33:26] did you have discussion around was it

[33:27] the intent to to prohibit

[33:31] the the CR10,000 zone from having any

[33:34] detached ADU?

[33:37] because that's effectively what it's

[33:38] show what it is, right?

[33:40] >> I don't know that we specifically

[33:41] targeted that. It was just but that's

[33:43] what it would

[33:44] >> minimum size lot that we thought this

[33:46] was too small to do anything.

[33:48] >> Well, that's because we we standardized

[33:49] on a single

[33:50] >> single size ADU.

[33:52] >> That's true.

[33:52] >> And it wasn't to just thinking that like

[33:56] >> so so there's two so this and then we'll

[33:58] set we'll follow this up. In fact, maybe

[34:00] we should follow this with lot coverage

[34:02] because I think two concepts here,

[34:03] right? And the first one is tying like basically we would allow ADUs in

[34:09] our CR10, our CR20 and our CR 40,000

[34:13] zones, right? And and you know and up,

[34:17] but we would tie the the size of the ADU

[34:23] >> to the size of the lot. So I would just

[34:28] say for me like I like I think you could

[34:32] like is is you know I I walk and it was

[34:36] you know when when you know back in the

[34:38] day when you know Andy and I were in the

[34:39] same ward for 20 years or whatever it

[34:42] was Andy and and um we know was walking

[34:45] all through I lived just south of

[34:46] Burgess and and all of our you know a

[34:49] bunch of our friends were just you know

[34:51] right over here in the CR10

[34:54] and

[34:55] you can conceive of I mean those lots

[34:58] are big enough to have an

[35:01] appropriatelysized

[35:03] detached ADU

[35:05] where you could where where you could

[35:07] also make sure that in that that when

[35:09] you look at lot coverage right there's

[35:11] footprint and lot coverage so in other

[35:13] words you take the footprint of the home

[35:15] the primary dwelling the footprint of

[35:17] the ADU and that comes up to you know

[35:20] some certain amount the concept of lot

[35:23] coverage which we'll get to is like,

[35:25] okay, what we do not want is a primary dwelling and an ADU that

[35:34] covers 60 to 70% of that lot. It just

[35:38] it's like a McMansion. They've overbuilt

[35:40] the lot. They've crammed too many people

[35:42] and cars on it. They're cramming out

[35:44] this the the you know the the setbacks

[35:46] and it just looks terrible and

[35:48] encroaches on the neighbors. Um but I

[35:51] think that you can if you connect like

[35:53] if you make like like footprint

[35:57] um and you consider footprint and lot

[35:59] coverage the way Holiday has um I think

[36:02] you can in you you can include that even

[36:06] our that that our CR10,000 zone could

[36:09] have the opportunity to have an ADU but

[36:12] the ADU because of the size of the lot

[36:15] is probably not going to be a 1,200

[36:17] square footprint. it might be a three or

[36:19] 400 you know you know footprint. So for

[36:23] example, if you look at what

[36:26] um the the detached ADU what Holiday did

[36:30] um they include with their footprint

[36:32] here this chart and this is their chart

[36:36] right so if a lot so we could for

[36:38] example have a lot that is

[36:41] less than 11,000

[36:43] or less than you know yeah less than 11

[36:45] or what whatever it would be right to

[36:47] fit our our CR 10 20 and 40,000 um they

[36:52] have a a maximum footprint of that ADU

[36:56] on a smaller lot would be 800 and then

[36:59] you know they they go up from there to

[37:01] where if you end up over you know once

[37:03] you're over 80,000 that's a twoacre lot

[37:05] and the max they can go is a 1400 square

[37:08] foot you know is 14 footprint. So if it

[37:12] happened to be two story it would be

[37:13] 2,800 right but the footprint itself is

[37:16] 1,400. So, it just seemed to me to make

[37:19] sense to do two things. Allow

[37:23] um all of Alpine to have a detached ADU,

[37:27] including CR10,000,

[37:29] but tie the max footprint of that ADU to

[37:34] the size of the lot. And the larger the

[37:37] lot, the larger ADU you could have.

[37:39] >> Sure. But it would be limited by when we

[37:42] talked about lot coverage the percent of

[37:44] the primary dwelling plus the ADU can be

[37:48] no more than the next thing we'll talk

[37:51] about is is a percent covering of the

[37:54] structures on the lot. So that's the

[37:56] concept presented here in footprint and

[37:59] it's different than what we have in

[38:04] whichever one oh detach.

[38:06] >> It's different than number six. because,

[38:10] you know, I think there's a better

[38:10] approach than a one-sizefits-all. So,

[38:12] that's my

[38:13] >> put things in context. We did talk right

[38:15] out of the gate about allowing different

[38:17] size based off the size of the lot. What

[38:19] we didn't have is the research prior to

[38:21] coming to the meeting to have a

[38:23] methodology or format that seemed to

[38:25] make sense that we could wrap our our

[38:26] heads around.

[38:27] >> Like lot coverage,

[38:28] >> lot coverage and those things you've

[38:30] talked about the size of the house, the main dwelling house and then based

[38:34] off ordinances, we just kind of came to

[38:36] the conclusion to keep it simple. That's

[38:38] how we came up with that 1,200. Then we

[38:40] use the states number not going below

[38:41] 11,000. So it was not trying to be

[38:43] discriminatory saying we're going to

[38:45] take a specific size and limit it. We

[38:47] just didn't have the opportunity before

[38:50] the meeting to have a formula or some

[38:52] methodology that allowed us to say this

[38:54] makes sense.

[38:55] >> Okay.

[38:55] >> So we did discuss it kind of

[38:57] >> take a length of 10 minutes.

[38:59] >> So so let's so let's get past just the

[39:01] block then. So, so, so the option then

[39:03] is to adopt some form of of of this

[39:07] footprint with a chart or stick with

[39:11] just the flat number six 1,200 or some

[39:14] other number. I would argue for

[39:16] something similar to what Holiday has

[39:18] done. So I think we should just see like

[39:19] okay what's what's the consensus of this

[39:21] planning commission with respect to this

[39:24] issue of footprint

[39:27] >> and so you so you would cap it to

[39:30] eliminate I mean if I look at the data

[39:31] here you're not going to have someone

[39:33] with a 20,000 foot home have a

[39:36] >> but but it's a footprint not a total

[39:38] square footage.

[39:39] >> Yeah.

[39:39] >> I don't know how we defined it in our

[39:42] closed ordinance. We just said flat 1200

[39:44] ft. So we're talking

[39:46] >> Yeah. I I I think it should be by

[39:48] footprint. I think it should be the way

[39:49] Holiday has done it.

[39:54] » So footprint meaning one the one floor

[39:57] essentially.

[39:58] >> Yes. Yeah. The the footprint on the lot.

[40:00] >> So I mean so if you got So if you have a

[40:02] 3,000 foot primary dwelling

[40:05] >> and it's 1500 on the main floor and 1500

[40:10] on the second floor, it's 3,000 square

[40:11] feet total. It's a 1500 square foot.

[40:14] It's it's 1500 square footprint.

[40:16] >> And the same with your ADU, right?

[40:18] Whatever the footprint is, it might be a

[40:19] twotory, maybe, maybe not, but it's it's

[40:22] the footprint because you're looking at,

[40:24] >> you know, again, like

[40:26] >> lot coverage is sort of part two of

[40:28] this.

[40:29] >> Okay.

[40:30] >> Allan, does the garage count as the

[40:32] footprint?

[40:34] >> It would of a home

[40:36] >> of the ADU.

[40:38] >> It would of the ADU of the main main

[40:42] home of the main. Oh, yeah. I'm sure it

[40:43] does.

[40:44] >> of the ADU. If the Does the garage of

[40:46] the ADU count as the footprint?

[40:49] >> Yep.

[40:50] >> I believe. Yeah, I think so. I think so.

[40:53] I mean, because because I mean, I've

[40:55] always understood that that like when

[40:56] we've talked about setbacks before and

[40:58] footprints, it's

[41:00] >> your your walls. Like, so I don't think

[41:03] it includes driveway. I It doesn't

[41:05] include a slab driveway.

[41:06] >> That's why they got into

[41:07] >> I don't think it includes covered

[41:08] porches.

[41:09] someone

[41:10] >> if I you know John I mean we've had this

[41:11] discussion before like like we we have

[41:14] it I think we have a definition of

[41:16] >> do we have a definition of footprint

[41:19] >> hey Kaden do we have in our alpine

[41:23] ordinances a definition of footprint

[41:26] >> I am not sure I can try to look it up

[41:29] >> because we were just talking that that I

[41:32] mean I recall that when we've looked at

[41:34] setback issues it goes from like okay

[41:38] you're your your your walls

[41:40] and covered, you know, and and is it

[41:44] covered decks or is it all decks or just

[41:45] covered decks?

[41:46] >> Covered decks.

[41:48] >> I think, is what we Yeah.

[41:49] >> Yeah. So,

[41:50] >> anything that has a structure sitting on

[41:52] top of Yeah, I thought it was based on

[41:55] the foundation.

[41:56] >> Yeah.

[41:57] >> Overhangs.

[41:58] >> So, yeah. So, I mean, I think that

[41:59] that's footprint, right? We're not

[42:01] talking about height and total square

[42:02] footage. We're talking about footprint.

[42:03] The square footage of the footprint.

[42:06] So, do we do we go ahead

[42:10] >> I I was just do we need to put a minimum

[42:13] square footage? I mean, is that a is

[42:14] that something?

[42:15] >> So, yeah, what I was going to comment on

[42:17] is I mean, what we talked about last

[42:19] time is if someone has a a footprint of,

[42:22] you know, 1,200 square feet, but then

[42:24] they can do a second floor because

[42:26] they're far enough from their setback,

[42:27] that's another 1,200. That's a 2400

[42:30] square foot ADU. That's basically a

[42:32] second home. And so I'm I'm just

[42:35] imagining Shane, our public works

[42:36] director, talking about how

[42:38] >> Yeah, but that

[42:38] >> how we're going to have the capacity for

[42:39] all these large homes.

[42:41] >> Yeah.

[42:42] >> Um

[42:43] >> we did talk about

[42:44] >> but

[42:46] >> just a thought.

[42:47] >> Well, yeah, but it gets into that,

[42:49] right? It's also subject to the

[42:50] availability for utilities,

[42:53] >> right? All this is subject to

[42:54] >> also it maxes out at 1400, but you're

[42:57] right. That's just the footprint.

[42:59] >> Yeah, it's just the footprint. It could

[43:00] be 2,800. and and I mean it can be look

[43:04] this is just holiday's numbers right

[43:07] there's engineering that goes into that

[43:09] there's public works that goes into that

[43:12] I'm just saying that it makes and and

[43:14] like you know I don't really know why

[43:15] Holiday went less than 8,000 800 to 14 to 21

[43:20] I mean I I like the kind you know maybe

[43:23] it's

[43:26] zero to to 11,000 11,000

[43:32] 21,000. I mean, I don't know. Something

[43:34] that fits Alpine. I We have We have

[43:36] three.

[43:37] >> You could do it. Yeah. We have three.

[43:39] >> You could do it just that.

[43:40] >> Yeah.

[43:41] >> Make and and

[43:42] >> Yeah. So sliding.

[43:44] >> So yeah, I mean you could have you could

[43:45] have maybe no more than you know four,

[43:47] right? Which is 0 to 10,000 10,0001 to

[43:53] >> 20,000 20,0001 to 40,000 and then

[43:57] greater than 40,000. Yeah. And you have

[44:00] four and then you tie based on what you

[44:02] know, city engineers said, hey, look, if

[44:05] that's the footprint and they could go

[44:07] up, you know, another level in that ADU,

[44:11] >> then uh you know, basmulas

[44:15] and everything else. I I am not tied to

[44:18] either the lot size square feet or total

[44:20] footprint. I just like the concept

[44:23] >> sure

[44:23] >> of proportional

[44:26] >> of of an ADU proportional in size to

[44:31] >> is anybody in favor of allowing ADUs

[44:37] on properties less than 12,000

[44:40] >> less than the 11 that the state manage

[44:42] >> or or less than 11.

[44:45] I I I would recommend that we don't

[44:48] allow it and to say that's state.

[44:50] >> Let me pull up this map while you guys

[44:51] are thinking.

[44:52] >> To Allan's point, we're we're

[44:54] >> excluding all of the 10 TR 10,000.

[44:58] >> Well, I mean I wouldn't, right? I mean,

[45:00] I would say he wouldn't. I'm saying I'm

[45:04] saying we should

[45:04] >> if they meet setback and parking and

[45:07] it's a small enough footprint that it

[45:09] doesn't overwhelm the

[45:12] lot coverage then you know per but that

[45:15] is but I mean I'm not wed to it but Andy

[45:18] you've got a thought on that

[45:21] >> and while he's coming up I'll just say

[45:23] the city engineer put together this map

[45:24] showing lots over 11,000 square feet in

[45:26] the city. Oh,

[45:28] >> I happen to live down here in the

[45:30] CR10,000 zone, but I mean our lot is

[45:34] almost 20,000 square foot. So, uh it

[45:37] seems

[45:39] uh unfair if you're going to allow the

[45:41] rest of the city um to have that to just

[45:44] flat out strike that as a zone, right?

[45:46] something that's I I think that uh the

[45:49] idea of doing something that's

[45:51] proportional to the lot size so that you

[45:53] ensure that there remains a portion of

[45:56] the lot that's open and uh that that

[45:59] really is what preserves your

[46:00] >> Well so let's ask you right your lot I

[46:02] mean yeah your lot goes

[46:03] >> it's really deep we're super we're super

[46:06] narrow and we're super deep

[46:07] >> so you're like a half acre right

[46:08] >> yeah we're we're just under a half acre

[46:10] >> so so I mean look a lot of your

[46:11] neighbors that are on a 10,000 square

[46:14] foot lot

[46:15] >> yeah we got We we have every every lot

[46:18] size under the under the sea in our

[46:19] neighborhood because it is there was no

[46:22] zoning ordinance at the time, right? But

[46:23] yeah, I have a I have a number that that

[46:25] actually have a couple that are, you

[46:27] know, approaching an acre and then we

[46:29] have a number of them that we probably

[46:31] have everything from

[46:32] >> so it wouldn't be by zone, right? If it

[46:33] were by lot size in your in your

[46:35] opinion, right, both both living in the

[46:37] CR10,000 and you know, city engineer,

[46:40] >> is there just in your in in Andy

[46:42] Spencer's opinion, is there a lot size

[46:45] below which it makes no sense to put

[46:47] even a small ADU?

[46:49] >> Yeah, I I'm much smaller than than than

[46:52] you guys in in answering that. I think

[46:53] you're you're down more at the size of

[46:55] like a uh 6,6500

[46:59] square foot uh because you know and and

[47:02] my opinion is a little bit skewed uh

[47:04] because of I I served a LDS mission in

[47:07] Australia and uh they had ADUs were

[47:11] quite common there and they referred to

[47:12] them as granny flats uh and uh so uh I

[47:16] had a lot of experience with granny

[47:17] flats etc on on fairly small lots and the and the size of the ADUs in

[47:22] those cases. were actually very modest.

[47:24] They would often be, you know, what I

[47:27] would guess, I wasn't smart enough as a

[47:29] missionary to measure them, but I would

[47:30] guess that they, you know, you were

[47:31] talking about something in the

[47:32] neighborhood of about a 500 footprint,

[47:35] you know. So, you take uh a lot that's

[47:38] 6,000 foot, 6,500 foot, something like

[47:41] that. You you know, most of those homes

[47:43] on those are going to be maybe a 1500

[47:45] footprint, maybe around there. you throw

[47:47] another 500 square foot, you've got

[47:49] about uh you know, throw in a driveway

[47:52] there and you've got about 50% of the

[47:54] lot is covered with some type of

[47:55] impervious structure. That's probably

[47:57] about at least my personal threshold at

[48:00] that point. Then you start to get all

[48:01] structure all impervious and then that's

[48:03] where you start to lose that character

[48:05] of alpine. Um, so,

[48:07] >> so, so I would just tell you, you know,

[48:08] when I switch over to lot coverage, at

[48:10] least in Holiday, Andy, uh, you know,

[48:13] they they they do allow ADUs on on a lot

[48:16] less than 10,000 ft, but it can't be any

[48:20] Well, they they have the total footprint

[48:22] at 850. When you flip over to lot

[48:24] coverage, um there's there they've got

[48:27] in here that that the primary dwelling

[48:29] unit plus the ADU

[48:31] uh on a lot size less than 10,000 ft uh

[48:34] cannot exceed 35%

[48:38] lot coverage,

[48:39] >> which which is somewhat proportional to

[48:41] what I was tossing out off the top of my

[48:42] head, right? Because that that that

[48:44] footprint doesn't include all your other

[48:46] impervious surfaces, your driveway,

[48:47] everything else. So, so you know, in my

[48:50] head, what I'm trying to say is by the

[48:52] time you mix in your ADU, your primary

[48:55] structure, and your driveway, you still

[48:57] want 30% I mean 50% uh roughly 50% uh

[49:02] landscape, right? Landscape does not all

[49:04] landscape's just grass, right? Something

[49:06] that's not a building and not a

[49:07] driveway.

[49:09] >> Broader definition of landscape. To me,

[49:11] that's that's reasonable. I think at the

[49:14] point that you get below somewhere in

[49:16] that 6 to 7,000 ft range, you start to

[49:19] get where it's going to be difficult to

[49:21] also get your parking in there and have

[49:22] all those other constraints. And so, you

[49:25] know, I really haven't done a real deep

[49:26] dive on that. Uh, you know, as far as

[49:29] how can I get my parking because that's

[49:31] the other element of these ADUs. Uh, you

[49:33] know, the the number one complaint

[49:36] you're going to get from them is how

[49:37] many people are living in them. And I

[49:39] sat and listened to you. I'll discuss

[49:40] that and and and the number two is going

[49:44] to be uh the the height as it pertains

[49:47] to the neighbors and number three is

[49:49] going to be the parking.

[49:49] >> Yeah. Well,

[49:50] >> you know, and those are all things

[49:51] you're wrestling with tonight, right?

[49:53] And uh uh but I but I do think just

[49:55] restricting it by straight across by

[49:57] zone.

[49:57] >> No, I don't think I think that that's

[49:59] the one where I spoke up and I was like,

[50:01] look, I don't think that sounds fair if

[50:02] you happen to have a lot that's big

[50:04] enough, but I I like the idea of

[50:06] proportionality like you're talking

[50:08] about. uh you know it's proportional to

[50:11] uh you know your lot because that's

[50:12] where you're going to maintain a certain

[50:14] feel of openness.

[50:15] >> So in holiday it's kind of flat. Is

[50:17] there any concern with us living where

[50:20] you have more mountains from a resale

[50:23] value or now you get more density you

[50:25] get more lights those types of things. I

[50:27] know in Holiday they talked about LED

[50:29] lights and stuff.

[50:30] >> We'll get to light I mean but we will

[50:31] get to lighting and density right which

[50:32] is a lot. Do you have any feedback on

[50:35] just what it does to property values by

[50:38] >> increasing density, those kinds of

[50:40] things?

[50:40] >> Well, I guess, you know, the one that

[50:44] I'll take exception to is is is

[50:46] lighting. Um, you know, because if you

[50:49] come down to my neighborhood, be it that

[50:51] there because I only live a block east

[50:53] of here. I live on 200 East. You know,

[50:55] I'm just, you know, stones throw from

[50:58] here. Uh but uh come down to my

[51:01] neighborhood and uh you can walk up and

[51:04] down at night and there's a few homes

[51:05] that have their porch porch lights on

[51:07] but it's fairly dark. You go to a new

[51:09] single family home neighborhood in town

[51:12] here and it's lit up like Salt Lake

[51:14] Airport runway. So I don't know that ADU

[51:16] is going to be the tipper on that. You

[51:18] know I I think that uh that that uh you

[51:22] know there there's other other elements

[51:24] that are going to be the tipper to me. I think that that setback becomes very

[51:28] critical as you work with with your your dive into that next.

[51:35] >> So I think I think setback and height

[51:38] are what helped preserve uh the

[51:40] neighbors property value, right? Um and

[51:44] uh like I said, some of the personal

[51:45] lessons that I learned through building

[51:48] our own. I've built a few structures for

[51:50] cities, etc. that are fairly close to

[51:52] adjacent property lines. But, uh, some

[51:54] of the things that we didn't see coming

[51:57] when we built ours because ours is

[51:59] twotory. Um, it's a almost 1300

[52:02] footprint and so we built a garage on

[52:05] the bottom. We built a big bonus room on

[52:07] the top. Um, it could easily be

[52:09] converted to an ADU one day. Um, we

[52:12] right now have a covenant with the city

[52:13] that we won't do it. That's what the

[52:15] current code is. And we didn't build it

[52:17] for that purpose. We built it because

[52:18] our house is small and we needed a place

[52:20] as the family grew where we could have

[52:23] Sunday dinners and all the other things

[52:25] that you

[52:25] >> where you where you where you guys could

[52:27] all rock out, right? Put get the band

[52:28] together.

[52:29] >> Exactly. Get the band back together. Um

[52:31] but uh but you know uh ours because of

[52:35] some dreams or whatever that I have I

[52:38] made it a little bit taller and uh you

[52:41] know the height definitely influenced

[52:43] our neighbors opinions of how it you

[52:45] know how it how it came together and and

[52:47] our setbacks right um you know I think

[52:51] we probably hit it right on our rear

[52:52] setback on our side setback I would have

[52:55] loved to been able to slide it a little

[52:57] more adjacent but I think that those

[52:59] >> those are elements that that are really

[53:01] going to influence how your neighbors

[53:02] feel about it because it does have a big

[53:04] impact on the neighbors.

[53:06] >> No, that's great input because we're

[53:08] going to get into height setbacks and

[53:10] all that, but I think we've got to look

[53:11] at So, awesome. Thank you. Okay.

[53:13] >> Okay. Allan, can I just propose so we

[53:16] can keep moving?

[53:17] >> Okay. Here's my proposal.

[53:20] >> 0 to 10,000, 10,000 to 20,000, 20,000 to

[53:24] 40,000, 40,000 to 80,000.

[53:29] Okay.

[53:30] >> And and I wrote down on the 0 to 10,800

[53:37] 10,000 to 20,900 20,000 to 40,100

[53:42] and 40,000 to 800,400.

[53:46] That's my proposal. So

[53:51] » So it's 20 to 40 and 40 to 80.

[53:53] >> Yeah. So it's basically,

[53:56] you know, a quarter acre to half acre, to an acre, acre, one acre to

[54:02] two acres.

[54:04] Okay.

[54:05] >> And and then I think there should be

[54:07] some language there that because it's

[54:08] got to be like, look, this is a

[54:09] recommendation or proposal subject to

[54:12] review by our city engineer. And there is language in here about if

[54:16] utility because utilities have to

[54:18] support it.

[54:18] >> And that's something that I just don't

[54:21] >> know about, right? like look how big are

[54:23] these ADUs? How many people are going to

[54:25] build ADUs? What what's the exper what

[54:27] you know what's the experience of other

[54:29] cities who have sure who who have opened

[54:31] up you know the floodgates because they

[54:32] had to I don't know the answer to any of

[54:34] those things and and you know um

[54:37] >> yeah Jason you you know your crew you

[54:39] guys can can all like that that might be

[54:41] our recommendation based on holiday but

[54:43] maybe we're in a different situation

[54:45] with water and sewer than they are. So

[54:49] perhaps when we was come up with a

[54:50] recommendation, but it'll be subject to,

[54:53] you know, again, review and comment by

[54:56] >> No, I'm I'm just trying to move us. I

[54:58] just want to try to move us forward.

[54:59] >> Let me just add one more thing on this.

[55:01] We didn't talk about it. We're talking

[55:02] about lot size here in all of these

[55:04] discussions. We're not talking about

[55:06] buildable envelope.

[55:08] >> Um should we be considering it on a

[55:11] buildable envelope versus lot size?

[55:14] >> So I think we'll cover that next on lot

[55:17] coverage. So, can we do lot coverage and

[55:19] then you can see if that

[55:22] >> covers what you're talking about because

[55:23] I mean

[55:24] >> I know you're talking about an envelope

[55:25] within a lot but that starts having I

[55:27] think the city has to go back and like

[55:29] we'll redraw a building envelope for

[55:30] every lot where I think you cover that

[55:32] with lot coverage

[55:34] >> and a percentage of your lot

[55:35] >> I I would agree

[55:36] >> can can do that. So, all right. So, if

[55:38] we're good on that, can we dive into lot

[55:40] coverage?

[55:40] >> Well, no it's it's more footprint than

[55:43] that. Um,

[55:46] >> so are you just talking about setbacks?

[55:48] >> I'm No, I'm talking about grade.

[55:50] >> No, he's talking about buildable area.

[55:53] But I think but I think we could do the

[55:56] percentages. I think what Allan's trying

[55:58] to say is we could we could do a

[56:01] percentage

[56:03] and and maybe and and maybe the

[56:05] percentage is tied. I think maybe the ti

[56:09] the percentage is tied to the buildable

[56:12] space. the build ordinances about that,

[56:15] right? I mean, like like what what the

[56:17] buildable area of a lot is.

[56:19] >> The buildable area is determined at

[56:21] plat.

[56:22] >> Yes.

[56:23] >> At Plat review, so it's way earlier than

[56:26] >> anything is built on the property.

[56:29] ordinances are still going to go

[56:32] >> relative to.

[56:33] >> So, so do we do we need to add an

[56:34] element in the ordinance that just

[56:37] reminds people that we we can't encroach

[56:41] upon or outside the buildable areas that

[56:44] are in that their own plants.

[56:46] >> Yeah. Is that Yeah. I mean, it might

[56:49] conflict. It might satis I guess what I'm seeing is it might satisfy one

[56:54] but not satisfy that.

[56:56] >> Yeah. I I can see very easily that we

[56:58] get such a large footprint between the

[57:02] primary and ADU that we now longer have

[57:05] space within the buildable area.

[57:07] >> Um even though they have a huge lot.

[57:10] >> Yes.

[57:10] >> They might have a twoacre lot.

[57:12] >> It's all going up the mountain.

[57:13] >> Yes.

[57:15] >> Exactly. That's why I'm saying, you

[57:17] know, maybe maybe has to satisfy

[57:19] >> the ground water. I mean the rain water

[57:21] and

[57:22] >> Yeah. Maybe it just has to satisfy A, B,

[57:25] and C. has to satisfy the footprint, has

[57:29] to satisfy the percentage, and it has to

[57:31] satisfy the buildable area.

[57:34] >> Footprint, lot coverage, and then

[57:37] >> buildable area or the envelope.

[57:39] >> Yeah.

[57:41] Does that

[57:41] >> I just I I just don't

[57:45] know that it um

[57:49] informs

[57:51] the decision of what makes good land use

[57:55] in terms of you know being good

[57:57] neighbors and

[57:58] >> well I think we'll get into that with

[58:00] respect to setbacks and height

[58:03] >> but what I don't yeah I do not know but

[58:05] look if yeah I don't know the answer to

[58:08] like I I I just live in a flat part of

[58:11] the city. So, I don't ever think about

[58:14] hillside dwellers. I just suspect that

[58:17] there's some hillside lots hillside

[58:20] hillbillies. Hillbillies are flatlanders

[58:24] versus hillbillies. Um I would

[58:26] [clears throat] just suspect there's

[58:27] hillside lots that you like they they

[58:31] just might not even lend themselves to

[58:32] ADUs because you just like there's just

[58:35] nowhere to put one, right? Right. So

[58:37] even even though you could even though

[58:38] it might might satisfy lot coverage, you

[58:39] look at it just like hey we don't I mean

[58:41] we we don't have anywhere to like

[58:44] >> yeah where to put one. I I suspect it

[58:46] take care of

[58:47] >> I think a simple line could be all this

[58:50] is subject to having space in the

[58:54] buildable area of their lot.

[58:56] >> Yeah. But but there has I think there

[58:57] has to be something some kind of

[58:59] criteria not just subject to buildable

[59:01] area. What does that mean?

[59:02] >> But we have we have that somewhere in

[59:03] our ordinance. Right.

[59:04] >> So yeah. So, I'll I'll just say this. We

[59:06] look if a lot has a building envelope,

[59:08] we'll see it on the plat. We'll make

[59:11] sure any accessory building is in the

[59:13] building envelope, just like a main use,

[59:15] >> right?

[59:16] >> A main accessory building has to be 5t

[59:18] away from the main use. That's the

[59:20] current code requirement. If it meets

[59:22] all those requirements, then it's a it

[59:24] can be built.

[59:24] >> We don't need to mention it.

[59:25] >> I don't I don't think so personally

[59:27] because we look at that anyway.

[59:28] >> That's fine.

[59:28] >> Yeah.

[59:29] >> Okay. Did you find that footprint

[59:31] definition? There is no footprint

[59:33] definition in our code.

[59:35] >> Well, yeah, might need one. So, perhap

[59:37] might need one.

[59:37] >> Yeah.

[59:38] >> Do we want a minimum? Do we want a state

[59:40] minimum?

[59:41] >> Well, I was just going to say that's

[59:42] what my question. I mean, 200 square

[59:44] foot minimum that that's like a trailer

[59:46] house.

[59:47] >> Yeah.

[59:48] >> Oh, you know what? They Well, the weird

[59:49] thing about that though is Troy. It's

[59:51] like they they have detached ADU shall

[59:54] provide a footprint of minimum 200

[59:56] square feet, but then a lot less than

[59:58] 800. They say that that like the total

[1:00:02] Oh, is that

[1:00:03] >> Yeah, it can be max 800 but minimum two.

[1:00:06] >> Okay. Yeah. I look I I have no opinion

[1:00:09] on 200. That would be a 400 square foot.

[1:00:13] >> That's what holiday. I don't know why

[1:00:14] they put 200 in.

[1:00:15] >> Yeah. Well,

[1:00:16] >> I think it really is a 10 by 20

[1:00:19] >> any dwelling. That's what

[1:00:21] >> Yeah. I mean I mean may maybe I don't

[1:00:23] know why that's their minimum. Maybe the

[1:00:24] minimum should be 400 or 500. I don't

[1:00:27] have an opinion. It's just why I think

[1:00:29] we'd want it.

[1:00:29] >> I'll say our current internal ADU is a

[1:00:32] minimum of 300.

[1:00:33] >> Okay.

[1:00:35] >> So, it could match that.

[1:00:36] >> Okay. We then let's match it.

[1:00:38] >> Okay.

[1:00:38] >> Then it's consistent.

[1:00:40] >> Okay.

[1:00:41] >> All right. So, it' be 300. Okay. So,

[1:00:43] >> you're good with those numbers. What

[1:00:45] about the 800, 900, 1100, 1400?

[1:00:51] » It doesn't I mean it doesn't mean that

[1:00:53] much to me,

[1:00:55] right? I mean, it it It will. It will

[1:00:58] when somebody has a two acre lot and

[1:01:01] they want to build

[1:01:02] >> they want to build something bigger.

[1:01:04] >> But to me if it's if it's coming in with

[1:01:07] right like because

[1:01:10] >> as you look at lot coverage for example

[1:01:12] the larger your lot gets your primary

[1:01:16] dwelling plus the ADU the percent that

[1:01:20] it can cover gets smaller.

[1:01:23] >> Yeah. So let's go what? 8 n a thousand

[1:01:26] and then 14.

[1:01:26] >> Yeah. I mean if if like okay

[1:01:30] to bigger than two acres

[1:01:34] >> and and that the tallest or or the

[1:01:36] largest footprint is 1,400 square feet

[1:01:41] is does that does you know and and you

[1:01:44] don't exceed

[1:01:46] uh

[1:01:47] >> 20 20%

[1:01:48] >> 20% lot coverage. Are you are will you

[1:01:51] have overbuilt the lot?

[1:01:56] » No, I'm just saying. I'm I'm just asking

[1:01:59] if if those numbers are good.

[1:02:02] >> And you're you're saying I don't have

[1:02:04] anything I don't have a opinion on the

[1:02:06] numbers.

[1:02:07] >> I I I don't I mean

[1:02:09] >> we Holiday pulled them out of thin air

[1:02:11] or they made sense based on their

[1:02:13] engineering,

[1:02:14] >> based on people's use, based on size of

[1:02:17] the lot. It's when I look at their lot

[1:02:18] coverage,

[1:02:20] the larger the lots are, the total

[1:02:23] cover, you know, the primary dwelling

[1:02:25] plus ADU gets smaller and smaller and

[1:02:28] smaller compared to the total lot.

[1:02:33] » How about this?

[1:02:34] >> But but Jeeoff, honestly, I have no I

[1:02:36] have no real opinion like should the

[1:02:37] biggest one be 1400 square foot, 1,000

[1:02:40] square foot, or 2,000 square feet

[1:02:42] footprint? I don't

[1:02:44] >> how do how do you

[1:02:44] >> I don't have any I don't have any real

[1:02:46] opinion about it.

[1:02:47] >> Yeah.

[1:02:47] >> How do you determine infrastructure? I

[1:02:49] mean last time I asked worst case

[1:02:50] scenario or best case scenario depending

[1:02:52] upon how you look at it. If you make it

[1:02:55] available to this number of lots,

[1:02:59] sewer, water safety, snow cleaning, all

[1:03:04] that stuff. At what point do you hit a

[1:03:06] threshold where you say, "All right, we

[1:03:08] created this ordinance where we and the

[1:03:10] people that did it first can do it and

[1:03:11] then all a sudden you've got to cut it

[1:03:12] off."

[1:03:12] >> Yeah.

[1:03:13] >> I mean, I look at boxel maybe a bad

[1:03:14] example,

[1:03:16] >> but

[1:03:17] >> you know, you talk with the snow removal

[1:03:19] or you talk with safety or you talk with

[1:03:20] flood. All of a sudden, you've got a

[1:03:22] problem because the density is different

[1:03:24] than the county approved it versus the

[1:03:26] city.

[1:03:27] >> What happens when you open this up and

[1:03:29] now you've got potentially double the

[1:03:31] density? Well, it's proportional. So, so

[1:03:34] A, we have to open it up, right? Yeah.

[1:03:37] B, we can't like like anything greater

[1:03:39] than we have to open up to any lot

[1:03:41] greater than 11,000, right, Kaden?

[1:03:43] >> Correct.

[1:03:44] >> And so, Kaden already threw up the map

[1:03:45] of like other than than basically, you

[1:03:49] know, downtown.

[1:03:53] » I mean, it's right here. Like,

[1:03:54] >> it's everybody.

[1:03:55] I mean, almost everybody

[1:03:57] in Alpine can build an ADU if they want.

[1:03:59] So, somebody that knows water and safety

[1:04:01] and sewer and everything else, what does

[1:04:03] that do to Alpine?

[1:04:05] >> That's a great question for Jason and

[1:04:07] Shane.

[1:04:08] >> But but I mean like I have no idea,

[1:04:09] right? I'm sure there are stats on just

[1:04:12] because you could. I mean, look, I'm not

[1:04:13] going to go build an ADU.

[1:04:15] >> It's your neighbor Mike.

[1:04:16] >> That's the problem. You can't forecast.

[1:04:18] >> Well, you probably can forecast because

[1:04:20] it probably is experience. I don't know

[1:04:22] it. I don't know the number. We know

[1:04:23] it's something less than 100%.

[1:04:26] >> Yeah.

[1:04:26] >> Right. I mean, not everybody's going to

[1:04:27] do it, but it's but if but if 50% did

[1:04:30] it, if 30% did I I I I don't know that

[1:04:33] number, but it doesn't it's like

[1:04:35] apparently the state didn't take that

[1:04:37] into consideration when they said thou

[1:04:38] shalt do this.

[1:04:41] >> So, what what were you say? What were

[1:04:42] you going to propose, John?

[1:04:46] >> It was actually a different kind of

[1:04:47] category. I was gonna like you broke up

[1:04:49] the uh footprint. I was going to break

[1:04:52] up the

[1:04:53] >> percentage.

[1:04:54] Okay, great.

[1:04:55] >> Okay. Okay. What are you proposing?

[1:04:57] >> Yeah. So, yeah, let's let's

[1:04:59] >> cap the whole thing at 1,200 instead of

[1:05:01] 1400. Use your same scale, but go 800,

[1:05:03] 900, 1,000, and 1,200.

[1:05:05] >> Sure, I'm fine with that.

[1:05:07] >> So, 20 to 40 would be a,000. 40 to 80

[1:05:10] and up is 1,200 and go back to that me.

[1:05:13] >> I got 40 and up.

[1:05:16] >> 40 and up is 1,200. 20 to 40,000. 10 to

[1:05:20] 29.

[1:05:21] >> Why, 1200, not 1400? Um because the city

[1:05:26] went to 12.

[1:05:28] >> Yeah.

[1:05:28] >> Okay.

[1:05:28] >> Yeah. I'm I'm totally good with making

[1:05:31] that recommendation.

[1:05:32] >> I Yeah. I No, I I've I have I have

[1:05:34] frankly no just other than arbitrary,

[1:05:37] >> right? But that was what where where did

[1:05:39] you guys get 1,200?

[1:05:42] It was I mean in the in the there was

[1:05:45] some data we looked at in the

[1:05:46] PowerPoints presented by uh Utah League

[1:05:50] of Cities and Towns and that seemed to

[1:05:51] be a on the higher end but also had a

[1:05:55] limitation that number 1,200.

[1:05:58] >> I'm good. I'm good with those numbers.

[1:05:59] Okay. Me too.

[1:06:00] >> Percent coverage. Okay.

[1:06:02] >> So So maybe it makes sense to like ne

[1:06:04] next jump to lot coverage. We'll we'll

[1:06:08] cover setback and height after because

[1:06:10] this is sort of part and parcel

[1:06:11] literally. So total allow this this is

[1:06:14] this holiday total allowable lot

[1:06:15] coverage for all structures including

[1:06:18] the primary single dwelling and the

[1:06:20] detached accessory or detached accessory

[1:06:23] dwelling unit but excluding swimming

[1:06:26] pools, ponds with artificial liners and

[1:06:27] other water features which is what

[1:06:29] Holiday had um is set forth on the

[1:06:32] following chart expressed as a

[1:06:33] percentage of lot size. So, um you know,

[1:06:36] Jeff and John, I mean, maybe we take

[1:06:38] that chart here if people are because

[1:06:41] look, I think I think if you're going to

[1:06:42] do what we just did on um footprint,

[1:06:47] then then you got to do the same thing.

[1:06:50] You've got to also include lot coverage,

[1:06:51] right?

[1:06:52] >> Yep.

[1:06:53] >> You have to. And and so just make it a

[1:06:55] little bit

[1:06:55] >> Yeah. So just so just make

[1:06:58] >> ju just just just make this one

[1:06:59] consistent with what you did.

[1:07:00] >> Is less than 10,000 35%.

[1:07:03] >> 10,000 to 20,000 31%

[1:07:06] >> or go 30 just because it's

[1:07:08] >> Yeah, I I I said 30.

[1:07:11] >> 30. [laughter]

[1:07:12] >> I like I like round numbers.

[1:07:14] >> 20 to 40. Mathy, Michelle.

[1:07:17] >> So 20 to 40 25%.

[1:07:19] >> Okay.

[1:07:20] >> And 40

[1:07:22] >> 40 and up.

[1:07:23] 22.

[1:07:25] That's where they go. Where we stopped.

[1:07:28] at 12, which was the 60, and

[1:07:32] they stop at 22 for the 60 for the,200

[1:07:35] foot lot.

[1:07:36] >> So, they get they get down to 20.

[1:07:38] >> But that's bigger than we're going.

[1:07:40] We're not going to 1400. So, if we stop

[1:07:43] at 1,200, then we stop at 22.

[1:07:46] >> Sure.

[1:07:47] >> Okay. Great.

[1:07:48] >> 22.

[1:07:49] >> Sure.

[1:07:50] >> That last.

[1:07:51] >> Yeah. I think that's Okay,

[1:07:53] >> totally workable

[1:07:54] >> then. All right, we're actually we're

[1:07:56] getting to the end of this, believe it

[1:07:57] or not. Okay, set back. I think we like

[1:08:00] personally I think we have a big problem

[1:08:03] here.

[1:08:03] >> Alan, can I ask you on this? Um, sorry.

[1:08:06] Is this So, just lot coverage, are you

[1:08:09] wanting, as Andy brought up,

[1:08:12] >> 50% needs to be not needs, but

[1:08:16] recommended to be um landscaped. Are you

[1:08:19] wanting What are you wanting on that?

[1:08:21] Are you wanting these exact verbiage

[1:08:23] that you have here under lock coverage?

[1:08:28] [snorts]

[1:08:29] >> Um,

[1:08:31] >> are you talking structures only?

[1:08:34] >> So I Yeah, look, just total allowable

[1:08:37] lot coverage for all No,

[1:08:40] >> very good point.

[1:08:41] >> Um,

[1:08:42] >> structures percent cover

[1:08:44] >> for all structures including the

[1:08:46] primary. So, so okay, the only exclusion

[1:08:49] that Holiday had was swimming pools,

[1:08:51] ponds with artificial liners and other

[1:08:53] water features. Okay. So, for all

[1:08:55] structures, what structures are going to

[1:08:57] be on?

[1:09:00] >> So,

[1:09:00] >> a property you're going to have a

[1:09:01] primary dwelling.

[1:09:02] >> Primary dwelling.

[1:09:03] >> You're going to have the ADU,

[1:09:04] >> ADU, a pool house,

[1:09:07] >> accessory building,

[1:09:10] you know. Yeah. I mean, there's a tough

[1:09:12] Well, I don't think

[1:09:15] >> and That's why I'm asking.

[1:09:18] >> Um, I do not Well, okay, that's a really

[1:09:22] good question. And so,

[1:09:24] we probably should modify that because

[1:09:26] to your point, Jason, it's a really good

[1:09:28] question. They had a whole section of

[1:09:30] their code about imper like it's all

[1:09:33] about drainage and impervious stuff and

[1:09:35] like ah got so far down in the weeds.

[1:09:38] So,

[1:09:40] >> which is something we should probably

[1:09:41] consider.

[1:09:42] >> We should. So may so do we do we say the

[1:09:44] total totalable total allowable lot

[1:09:46] coverage for all structures which shall

[1:09:49] include which shall be the primary

[1:09:51] dwelling plus the ADU

[1:09:54] >> or do we include more than that

[1:09:55] >> plus access accessory structures

[1:09:59] >> any accessory do you want to include the

[1:10:01] pool do you want to include the slide

[1:10:02] you because as of right now when we're

[1:10:04] reviewing some of these lots people are

[1:10:06] they're almost building out

[1:10:09] like they have no landscaping

[1:10:12] And so that

[1:10:14] >> pools and patios,

[1:10:15] >> pools, patios,

[1:10:16] >> driveway sports,

[1:10:17] >> pool houses,

[1:10:18] >> all of that.

[1:10:18] >> You know, it's like I think I think we

[1:10:20] get a real hard time as a city going in

[1:10:22] and saying to people that look, we're

[1:10:25] going to legislate what hardscaping you

[1:10:28] do.

[1:10:28] >> Yeah.

[1:10:28] >> You know, I I think that however we

[1:10:30] draft lot coverage, it can probably only

[1:10:32] be the primary structure and the ADU.

[1:10:35] Would you agree with that? and then and

[1:10:38] then kind of figure out, you know,

[1:10:39] accordingly,

[1:10:41] you know, what what's what's

[1:10:44] like what's the right then if that's the

[1:10:47] case, what's the right percentage

[1:10:49] >> because because look, when you're

[1:10:50] driving by somebody, I mean, yeah,

[1:10:52] somebody might have a pool house, but if

[1:10:54] you've got pickle ball courts and

[1:10:56] swimming pools and a basketball court

[1:10:59] and whatever, I mean, it's it's

[1:11:00] typically below their seven foot fence,

[1:11:03] you don't see it. It's not bugging the

[1:11:05] neighbors. you don't have a big massing

[1:11:07] problem. You know, I think the problem

[1:11:09] where we're trying to really solve is is

[1:11:12] having a massing problem where where it

[1:11:14] just looks like a a McMansion on a tiny

[1:11:16] lot and you're encroaching on your

[1:11:18] neighbors,

[1:11:20] >> right? And I don't think we want to get

[1:11:21] into the business of legislating how

[1:11:24] much hardscaping somebody can have in

[1:11:26] their backyard. So I think the

[1:11:29] structures would probably be defined as

[1:11:31] more narrowly defined as primary

[1:11:33] dwelling plus the ADU and then

[1:11:37] accordingly maybe we have a smaller

[1:11:40] percentage coverage because like you you

[1:11:43] see over here on this this chart I don't

[1:11:45] know if you guys have it up Jason that

[1:11:46] there was a third

[1:11:49] um um column

[1:11:51] and it was about the impervious stuff

[1:11:54] right and I just deleted it and got rid

[1:11:56] of it. So, but their structures,

[1:12:00] I mean, maybe they did include pool

[1:12:03] houses and

[1:12:05] I don't know what I don't know what all

[1:12:06] they included, but maybe point it should

[1:12:10] now there are accessory structures that

[1:12:13] are garages or indoor pickleball courts

[1:12:16] that they're 30 feet tall and they're 10

[1:12:18] feet off the property line. Are you

[1:12:21] wanting to include that or sorry, 20

[1:12:23] feet off the prop 30? Anyway, there's

[1:12:26] some big exceptions.

[1:12:27] >> Yeah. Well, go.

[1:12:29] >> I mean, probably, right?

[1:12:31] >> We need to

[1:12:32] >> Yeah, probably

[1:12:34] because may So, maybe the definition of

[1:12:36] structures does include those permanent,

[1:12:39] you know, like permanent structures,

[1:12:41] which is which is probably not

[1:12:42] somebody's tough shed, but it probably

[1:12:45] is a more permanent structure with a you

[1:12:47] know, I mean, do we define permanent

[1:12:49] structures? I mean, Andy, do you have

[1:12:52] any insights on this? I mean, but it's

[1:12:55] Yeah, I think you're right, Jason,

[1:12:56] because you don't like because if you

[1:12:58] somebody's already got

[1:13:01] a garage in back and maybe they've got a

[1:13:04] 20, you know, a 12 or 15 foot pool

[1:13:06] house. I mean, permanent structures, you

[1:13:09] probably would want to say, "No, you

[1:13:11] know what? You're you're already over

[1:13:13] the percent coverage, so no, you're not

[1:13:16] going to be able to do an ADU."

[1:13:17] >> Yeah.

[1:13:18] >> So, I think those I think those I think

[1:13:19] it probably should be permanent

[1:13:21] structures to include

[1:13:25] any accessories,

[1:13:27] >> you know, garages,

[1:13:29] >> building,

[1:13:30] >> pool houses,

[1:13:32] primary structures, and the proposed

[1:13:36] ADU. Okay.

[1:13:37] >> All of which would be permanent

[1:13:39] structures.

[1:13:40] I don't think you want to start lumping

[1:13:42] in pickleball courts, tennis courts,

[1:13:44] >> and that's fine, too. I was just it was

[1:13:45] other examples,

[1:13:46] >> but that's a really good point.

[1:13:47] >> So, okay,

[1:13:48] >> Alan, what three numbers are you using?

[1:13:51] Uh, less than 10,000, 10,000 to 20, 20

[1:13:54] to 40.

[1:13:55] >> Uh, John will answer or Jeff, one of the

[1:13:58] two.

[1:13:59] >> I've got less than 10,000, 35%, 10,000

[1:14:03] to 20,000, 30% 20 to 40,000, 25%

[1:14:08] um 40 and above 22%.

[1:14:12] >> Yeah.

[1:14:14] >> 40,000. And and then to Jason's point,

[1:14:17] the language of lot coverage would need

[1:14:21] to be modified to to to contemplate

[1:14:24] permanent structures. And maybe we need

[1:14:27] to define permanent structures.

[1:14:29] >> Well, it just in in here just says for

[1:14:32] all structures.

[1:14:33] >> Yeah.

[1:14:34] >> For all structures. And then

[1:14:36] >> and then

[1:14:37] >> so that that would be a shed. That'd be

[1:14:39] a pool house. That' be a garage. Yeah.

[1:14:40] Andy,

[1:14:41] >> I I was just going to say since you

[1:14:42] asked, I came up. Uh I like Allen's

[1:14:45] definition of permanent structures. Um

[1:14:48] uh you know, because uh often times your

[1:14:51] tough sheds or whatever are somewhat

[1:14:52] transient. I've got uh you a couple on

[1:14:55] my lot, one I'm planning to tear down. I

[1:14:57] just need to get there. And and but I

[1:14:59] think if you define your permanent

[1:15:00] structures as a structure that is

[1:15:02] attached to the ground with a permanent

[1:15:04] foundation, then you get at what you're

[1:15:06] really driving at, which is the

[1:15:08] collective lot massing. What you're

[1:15:10] trying to really say is, yeah, you can

[1:15:12] have your landscape be what it is. Um,

[1:15:14] but the, you know, that lo lot lot

[1:15:16] structure massing that's going to be

[1:15:18] there forever because if you come in and

[1:15:19] you build a foundation and then you

[1:15:21] attach a structure to it, be it a pool

[1:15:23] house or be it

[1:15:24] >> some type of accessory structure or an

[1:15:26] indoor pickle court, whatever it is,

[1:15:28] it's a, you know, permanent structure

[1:15:30] massing that influences how your

[1:15:33] neighborhood feels and the perception of

[1:15:35] uh your neighborhood both as you drive

[1:15:37] down the street and as you live next to

[1:15:38] it. So, I like the permanent structure

[1:15:40] definition more than somehat.

[1:15:43] >> Jason, did you catch that awesome

[1:15:44] definition of permanent structure that

[1:15:46] Andy just rattled off?

[1:15:47] >> So, probably did.

[1:15:49] >> Things that don't go vertical.

[1:15:51] >> You look at the mass. I I wouldn't I

[1:15:54] wouldn't because to me I I think that

[1:15:58] that's where I was getting at with with

[1:16:00] there's lots of different forms of

[1:16:01] landscape, you know, as long as as long

[1:16:04] as it's not intrusive on the neighbor's

[1:16:07] yard, uh you know, or the neighbor's

[1:16:09] view or how you feel as a neighborhood.

[1:16:11] To me, uh, my definition is lot a lot

[1:16:15] how the building massing affects my

[1:16:17] perception of the neighborhood as I go

[1:16:20] down the street and I, you know, it's

[1:16:22] those permanent structures that really

[1:16:24] affect your perception of massing. Uh, a

[1:16:26] lot of these, you know, landscape

[1:16:28] elements or recreational elements don't

[1:16:31] necessarily have that same, at least in

[1:16:33] my opinion, effect on you. Like I don't look at a by comparison I don't

[1:16:38] look at a a lot with a primary dwelling

[1:16:43] and a pickle ball court the same way as

[1:16:45] I view would view as far as building

[1:16:47] massing when I think of a lot with a a

[1:16:50] large accessory structure. That's what

[1:16:51] I'm getting is you have a pickle ball

[1:16:54] court with lighting that's maybe 20 feet

[1:16:55] tall and it's on or you've got a pool

[1:16:58] that has a tube slide or some big

[1:17:01] structure that's like a volcano that's

[1:17:02] got a tube coming through it you can't

[1:17:04] see

[1:17:04] >> yeah I wasn't thinking about the tube

[1:17:05] slides there is a lot of ornate uh slide

[1:17:09] features these days but oft times those

[1:17:11] are hooked to the uh to the pool house

[1:17:14] or something to where I think they would

[1:17:15] be tied into that permanent structure

[1:17:17] but you've got an excellent point that

[1:17:18] there are some elements that I wasn't

[1:17:20] really thinking have uh but I was just

[1:17:22] trying to think of you know what do I

[1:17:24] see from the street as I as I go down

[1:17:26] the street that's that's where in my

[1:17:28] perception I I was going you know but if

[1:17:30] it's a little tough shed or whatever

[1:17:32] that might come or go I don't I don't

[1:17:34] think that I would get as worried about

[1:17:35] that as I would you know those permanent

[1:17:38] >> I think it's vertical I guess the

[1:17:39] question is if you have nonbuilding

[1:17:41] vertical is that an issue from your

[1:17:43] perspective

[1:17:45] >> non-building vertical I mean something

[1:17:47] like about a light pole you know a light

[1:17:49] pole or Most people [clears throat] take

[1:17:51] pickle balls offensive just because of

[1:17:52] the dang sound, not the view of it. But

[1:17:55] >> yeah, I to me the lights are less

[1:17:57] obtrusive than the fencing that often

[1:17:59] times goes around it. You know, most

[1:18:00] people that do do pick a ball will put

[1:18:02] up a a 15oot fence or so. And often

[1:18:06] cities ordinances allow that where

[1:18:08] you're only allowed, you know, an 8 foot

[1:18:10] fence, I think, in a few peaks. So

[1:18:12] that's an interesting that's an

[1:18:13] interesting uh element. I think uh to to

[1:18:17] narrow down your um question in my mind.

[1:18:22] Um I think a single lights a little not

[1:18:25] as much but something that is

[1:18:27] permanently a fixed that you know is is

[1:18:30] visible above your fence is something

[1:18:31] that you would begin to count into that.

[1:18:34] Uh, like I said, I wouldn't consider a

[1:18:36] tough shed that because oft times those

[1:18:38] are portable, but you know, like the

[1:18:40] tube slide probably would.

[1:18:43] >> Well, and that's where my my definition

[1:18:45] is. If if you if you came in and you put

[1:18:48] a foundation and you fixed it to the

[1:18:49] ground, then it's permanent.

[1:18:51] >> Yeah. Some cities have 24 hours. If you

[1:18:54] can move it in 24 hours, it's

[1:18:56] non-permanent.

[1:18:57] >> If you could pick it up and get rid of

[1:18:59] it in 24 hours. I've seen that as a

[1:19:04] >> John

[1:19:06] back. You can get rid of a lot of stuff

[1:19:08] for

[1:19:08] >> other

[1:19:10] meeting in 32 minutes.

[1:19:12] >> Okay. Well, let's let's

[1:19:14] >> Okay. Well, let's blaze. Okay.

[1:19:17] >> Um All right. So, let let's cover

[1:19:20] setback and height really quickly.

[1:19:21] Here's my only issue with uh the

[1:19:27] AD ordinance that that was proposed to

[1:19:30] us is that it uses the setback of

[1:19:33] accessory dwellings and it uses height

[1:19:37] requirement for accessory dwellings. So

[1:19:39] here's my issue, right? Because you

[1:19:40] might have an ADU that like we just

[1:19:43] decided our smallest ADU is 1,200 square

[1:19:46] foot footprint. So if it's I mean it

[1:19:49] like okay if it's right it could be that

[1:19:52] big

[1:19:53] >> and if like let's just say we allow it

[1:19:55] to go 24 feet tall or 25t tall.

[1:19:58] >> Okay right if you look at our current

[1:20:03] setback requirements

[1:20:05] uh this is Alpine City Accessory

[1:20:07] Structures. Uh if if a building stands

[1:20:10] between 10 and 20 feet tall the rear

[1:20:12] yard setback is 10 ft from the rear lot

[1:20:15] line. The sideyard setback is five feet

[1:20:17] from the side lot line. Distance to main

[1:20:21] house must maintain a minimum gap of

[1:20:22] five feet from the primary residential

[1:20:24] dwelling. If built 12 feet or closer,

[1:20:27] shared by a roof wall, it's calculated,

[1:20:29] but but I don't know that that's going

[1:20:30] to necessarily

[1:20:34] like okay, I don't I'm not sure how this

[1:20:36] works, but the big issue and Kaden can

[1:20:39] probably like like help clear that my

[1:20:41] mind is if we're like we have to allow

[1:20:43] these ADUs. They're going to be like a

[1:20:45] small house. Yeah.

[1:20:46] >> Nobody wants a small house. I don't

[1:20:48] think I just don't think we want the

[1:20:49] same setbacks that are applicable to

[1:20:52] accessory dwellings.

[1:20:52] >> I agree.

[1:20:53] >> I think they have to be setbacks that

[1:20:55] are either the what primary dwellings

[1:20:57] are

[1:20:58] >> or something

[1:21:02] >> closer to a primary dwelling. Yeah, that

[1:21:04] was my issue with how this is written is

[1:21:07] we got to allow these ADUs. Nobody wants

[1:21:10] them to Andy's point, right? Nobody

[1:21:12] wants them right on their, you know,

[1:21:15] like I don't want my neighbor. You I get

[1:21:17] it. You get to have one. I don't want

[1:21:19] you to put it five feet off the

[1:21:21] property.

[1:21:22] >> What What What do we have currently for

[1:21:23] the setbacks in the co?

[1:21:25] >> Yeah. So, I'll say this. It will only

[1:21:26] feel like a second house if we don't if

[1:21:28] we based on footprint and not on living

[1:21:30] space like we were planning on. If we

[1:21:33] limit it in that way, it will feel like

[1:21:35] an accessory dwelling unit, not a second

[1:21:37] house on a property. Uh, with the

[1:21:39] setback question, you were saying five

[1:21:41] feet away at 25 feet. That that doesn't

[1:21:44] comply with code. Five feet and 10 feet,

[1:21:46] that's only in the TR10,000 zone.

[1:21:49] >> Otherwise, you have to be 10 feet from

[1:21:50] the side and 15 feet from the back. And

[1:21:52] if you go want to go up to 25 ft, you

[1:21:54] have to add 10 feet more of setback.

[1:21:56] >> Yeah.

[1:21:57] >> So, I I feel like it's a non-issue.

[1:22:00] >> Okay. All right. Well, then then that

[1:22:01] was just me thinking

[1:22:04] >> like like a tough shed

[1:22:06] >> can be right. If if you're saying it's

[1:22:08] already

[1:22:09] >> in

[1:22:10] >> um Yeah, then that's fine. So So yeah, I just

[1:22:15] >> It's not It's not the same setbacks as

[1:22:18] accessory structures. It's the same

[1:22:21] setbacks as the primary home.

[1:22:23] >> Yes.

[1:22:24] >> Currently, we have it written as

[1:22:25] accessory structures, but you can have

[1:22:28] it for primary homes if you would like.

[1:22:30] >> It it really just depends on what you

[1:22:32] think.

[1:22:33] >> It's written right now, but Okay. But

[1:22:35] the setback of an accessory structure

[1:22:37] that is let's say it's let's say

[1:22:39] somebody had an ADU

[1:22:41] >> and it was 12 feet or less. What what

[1:22:44] would be the required setback for that

[1:22:46] ADU? Basically, it's a onestory ADU,

[1:22:50] right?

[1:22:51] >> What would be the what would be the rear

[1:22:53] and the side setback?

[1:22:54] >> 15 feet in the rear, 10 feet on the side

[1:22:57] >> for Okay. For for a 12 foot

[1:22:59] >> for a 12oot a small one.

[1:23:01] >> Yeah, I think that's fine. Okay. then then we can leave it. I was

[1:23:05] thinking it could get closer. I just

[1:23:06] want to make sure it wasn't

[1:23:08] >> right on either of the property lines.

[1:23:11] Okay.

[1:23:12] >> But we have we have setbacks that are

[1:23:14] different than that or accessary.

[1:23:18] >> Exactly.

[1:23:21] » The sheds are

[1:23:22] >> first the smallest accessory buildings

[1:23:24] they can be up to two feet away.

[1:23:26] Correct.

[1:23:27] >> Yes. Well, and and then look fally, let

[1:23:31] me just revisit something you quickly

[1:23:33] said. If you guys come back to us and

[1:23:35] say, "Hey, look, you were talking about

[1:23:38] a 1,200 square footprint, a 1,400, a

[1:23:43] 1,600." Dude, that's You don't

[1:23:46] understand how big that is. That's too

[1:23:48] big of a footprint. I think everybody in

[1:23:50] this commission would say, "Hey, we just

[1:23:52] sort of like that's what Holiday did. We

[1:23:55] because I can see you going like I don't

[1:23:56] know if you guys understand how big that

[1:23:58] is and we probably are not. So I think

[1:24:01] everybody here would just say hey look

[1:24:03] >> we came back to a max of 1200 which is

[1:24:06] what we had

[1:24:06] >> in the original was it?

[1:24:08] >> No the original was 1,200 living space

[1:24:12] >> and now we're talking about footprint.

[1:24:13] So his would have been 600. Yeah. His

[1:24:15] would have been a 600 foot garage to

[1:24:17] that 1200 foot living space like a 600

[1:24:20] foot garage. We're now

[1:24:23] >> no because that footprint is going to be

[1:24:26] the footprint is typically going to be

[1:24:28] in most of these ADUs or a lot of them a

[1:24:30] garage with a second story ADU.

[1:24:33] >> Right. But in the original where it says

[1:24:35] 1,200 square feet of living space

[1:24:36] there's no definition of the garage.

[1:24:38] >> No there's not. And so it may that

[1:24:41] probably is a little smaller. Michelle,

[1:24:43] that probably is smaller than than what

[1:24:46] we're doing. 1,200, but we're talking

[1:24:48] about the 1,200 footprint, which would

[1:24:50] include the garage.

[1:24:51] >> It would include whatever.

[1:24:53] >> So, we're not that far off.

[1:24:55] >> No,

[1:24:56] >> that's probably true.

[1:24:56] >> No, like unless somebody's ADU did not

[1:24:59] have a a garage

[1:25:02] >> and and

[1:25:03] >> which there might be some that don't.

[1:25:04] Yeah,

[1:25:04] >> there might be. Just depends.

[1:25:05] >> And again, we're combining that

[1:25:07] footprint with the lot percentage.

[1:25:12] >> True. Because yes. Yes, you're right.

[1:25:14] Yeah. So, if you had a garage that would

[1:25:16] it would even Okay, good. All right,

[1:25:18] that makes sense. Okay, then then I'm

[1:25:19] fine. And and Jeff's moving. You know,

[1:25:21] Jeff's really good at hurrying me along.

[1:25:24] >> Actually, he's good at reminding me that

[1:25:25] actually hurry.

[1:25:27] >> Um Okay. Do uh

[1:25:29] >> now on the height.

[1:25:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. Do do we want to do anything

[1:25:32] with the height, right? Because it can

[1:25:33] go as like currently. So, how high can

[1:25:35] an ADU go?

[1:25:37] >> So, currently accessory buildings can go

[1:25:39] 20 feet tall if they meet the setbacks.

[1:25:41] If they go farther away from the

[1:25:42] setback, they can get up to 30 feet

[1:25:44] tall.

[1:25:44] >> Okay. Do we want ADUs to ever be 30 feet

[1:25:47] tall?

[1:25:47] >> Do we want to cap ADUs at 20?

[1:25:50] >> I mean, that would be like, if you think

[1:25:52] about it, that would be

[1:25:54] >> 30 feet away from the side

[1:25:57] and something like that as well. 30 feet

[1:26:00] from the rear. I mean, it's like the

[1:26:02] same location as a primary dwelling,

[1:26:03] which is already

[1:26:04] >> time you go that high. Yeah. But

[1:26:06] >> you're very far away from the property

[1:26:08] line.

[1:26:09] >> Okay. Okay. For Oh, guess

[1:26:12] [laughter]

[1:26:13] >> that

[1:26:13] >> for hypothetically,

[1:26:16] >> can we like cap it at 25 ft?

[1:26:19] >> Andy,

[1:26:20] >> that is an option for sure. Yeah,

[1:26:21] >> Andy.

[1:26:24] >> You You just yell from back there,

[1:26:25] brother. [laughter]

[1:26:28] >> I I know she's doing minutes. Um, so so

[1:26:31] this is probably the number one thing

[1:26:33] that that I would learn from my

[1:26:35] building.

[1:26:36] So, um, ours is 26 and 1/2 ft tall. Um,

[1:26:41] and I've looked at how it impacts the

[1:26:44] neighbors, etc. And, and my problem is I

[1:26:47] had this dream of having, and I still

[1:26:48] have it of having a little mini Winnie

[1:26:50] type thing, and I wanted a garage tall

[1:26:52] enough I could fit it in. Um, so I went

[1:26:54] a couple feet taller. But, uh, the the difference between the 24 and the 26

[1:26:59] and a half is is big. And to me, um, you

[1:27:04] know, I think, uh, that that you really

[1:27:07] ought to cap this out at 24. That's as

[1:27:10] tall as as any of these either accessory

[1:27:13] structures or, uh, ADUs. And I'm looking

[1:27:16] at DI and saying, "Hey, I have a 26 and

[1:27:18] a half, but I think it's too tall for my

[1:27:20] lot. I think it's too tall for, you

[1:27:23] know, if I had it to do over again, I

[1:27:24] would I would go a little shorter. I've

[1:27:26] looked at it and and and I definitely

[1:27:28] don't think you want them to go 30."

[1:27:30] Yeah. 25 foot cap is is reasonable.

[1:27:33] Anything more than that starts to become

[1:27:34] very imposing on on the neighbors. Um

[1:27:38] and uh

[1:27:39] >> even if it's 30 ft off, you're still

[1:27:40] blocking someone's view on a quarter

[1:27:42] inch.

[1:27:42] >> I Yeah, I would say 20 ft.

[1:27:44] >> I think I'd say 20. So

[1:27:47] >> 20's 20 is a little impractical to me

[1:27:49] because you can't do two stories in 20.

[1:27:51] You can't get a you can't get a peaked

[1:27:53] roof in 20. So if you have garage plus,

[1:27:55] you can't get it in 20. So maybe so

[1:27:58] you're going to be more like by the time

[1:27:59] you get a a peak roof, I think you're

[1:28:01] going to be 25 24 25

[1:28:03] >> 24, you know, maybe 24.

[1:28:05] >> So one thing I'll say is the only one

[1:28:07] issue with just putting a limit at 25 is

[1:28:10] if someone currently has a 30 foot

[1:28:12] accessory building and now they want to

[1:28:13] put an ADU in it, they have to build a

[1:28:16] new building.

[1:28:16] >> Yep.

[1:28:17] >> No, no, we'll get to that.

[1:28:19] >> We'll get to I mean maybe but Okay,

[1:28:22] we'll get to that and let's go we'll go

[1:28:24] quickly. Okay. So, the number is the

[1:28:26] number is what?

[1:28:27] >> 25.

[1:28:28] >> Okay.

[1:28:30] >> And and we'll support we'll revisit

[1:28:32] because there is Okay. Let's go quickly.

[1:28:34] And the last thing is we can do quickly.

[1:28:35] There's two left.

[1:28:36] >> Okay.

[1:28:36] Design standards. Um

[1:28:42] again, Holiday had some design standards

[1:28:44] with respect and I think it's a good

[1:28:47] idea, right? Because we've talked about

[1:28:48] dark skies and and indirect lighting and

[1:28:51] you know to Andy's

[1:28:52] >> we've already put that all in ordinance

[1:28:53] already. Okay.

[1:28:54] >> I think this is really I think we can

[1:28:56] just

[1:28:57] >> So bas basically then can we just have

[1:28:59] under does does the current lighting

[1:29:02] restrictions that we have Kaden apply to

[1:29:05] an ADU?

[1:29:07] >> I would say they would. Yes.

[1:29:09] >> Yeah. I would I would agree.

[1:29:10] >> Okay.

[1:29:11] >> So then then all right we already have

[1:29:12] all that then. Um, so last thing on

[1:29:15] there is do do let's see any interest in

[1:29:18] having a landscaping

[1:29:21] requirement for an ADU to write a buffer

[1:29:25] to neighboring properties

[1:29:29] » or are we micromanaging at that point

[1:29:32] >> a landscaping requirement?

[1:29:34] >> We're requiring larger setbacks than

[1:29:36] holiday does.

[1:29:37] >> Yeah.

[1:29:39] >> So so so we can get rid of design

[1:29:41] standards. Okay. But what about B that

[1:29:44] you can't open into your setback?

[1:29:46] >> Well, but you know, but but that's not a

[1:29:48] big deal because again, we've got much

[1:29:49] larger setbacks

[1:29:51] >> then. I think

[1:29:52] >> I think I think that that's fine.

[1:29:53] >> So, I think we're can probably nyx the

[1:29:55] entire design standard. Okay. Okay.

[1:29:57] >> This last one's important. It kind of

[1:29:59] just is a follow on to what um Kaden

[1:30:02] just mentioned and I thought this was

[1:30:03] really interesting. They put in here

[1:30:04] conversion of existing accessory

[1:30:06] buildings because Kaden this is going to

[1:30:08] happen, right?

[1:30:09] >> I mean, okay. Now, for example, our good

[1:30:12] friend Andy here. Woohoo. Okay. You've

[1:30:14] got your, you know, you've got your um

[1:30:17] you just passed this ADU ordinance and I

[1:30:20] want to now come and get my my uh garage

[1:30:23] licensed as an ADU.

[1:30:25] So, um what we say here is that okay,

[1:30:28] conversion of existing accessory

[1:30:29] buildings, including non-conforming

[1:30:31] structures, which for examples Andy

[1:30:33] might be if he's built if he has a

[1:30:36] pre-existing building, a non-conforming

[1:30:37] building inside the setback,

[1:30:39] >> right? So, he's got to meet all design

[1:30:41] standards. Structures that do not

[1:30:43] conform to the building footprint sizes

[1:30:45] must apply for a conditional use permit.

[1:30:47] And I don't know if that would be I

[1:30:48] don't know if we want him to have a

[1:30:49] conditional use permit or an exception.

[1:30:51] I don't know what the right verbiage is

[1:30:53] in that context, but so there is a

[1:30:56] process where an ex because I know this

[1:31:00] happened, right? I have like Enlo's,

[1:31:02] right? You know, Andy and our friend

[1:31:03] Enlos. I mean, they they built a a two

[1:31:06] or I guess that's a two-car garage, you

[1:31:08] know, deep one. It's all plumbed. It's

[1:31:11] all framed. It's all wired for an ADU,

[1:31:14] but it's detached. So, you know, but but

[1:31:18] they're just waiting. Problem is, um I

[1:31:21] don't know what the height on that thing

[1:31:22] is, but I know that it's I mean, it's it's on the side. It it it's it's

[1:31:29] inside the setback on the Rosses and on

[1:31:31] the Romney's behind them. neither of

[1:31:33] them who were happy with that, you know,

[1:31:35] when it went in, but but it went in as

[1:31:37] an accessory building, so they could do

[1:31:39] it. The problem is I don't know that

[1:31:42] those people just get necessarily get a

[1:31:44] freebie

[1:31:45] >> when Yeah. You know, it doesn't it

[1:31:49] doesn't automatically grandfather in.

[1:31:50] So, what this says is conversion of

[1:31:53] existing structures like like basically

[1:31:56] if you've got a non-conforming structure

[1:31:58] and you want to license it as an ADU,

[1:32:01] you're going to have to come in on a

[1:32:02] case-byase basis. And I hate creating

[1:32:05] work for planning commission, but but

[1:32:09] there's some kind of process where I

[1:32:10] don't know that it's automatic.

[1:32:12] >> I agree.

[1:32:13] >> So, that's what the that's what the

[1:32:16] purpose of conversion of existing

[1:32:18] accessory buildings is. But and so and

[1:32:21] so it just is has to come before the has

[1:32:24] to come

[1:32:25] >> while we're messing around here. Can you

[1:32:26] throw those pictures up that I texted

[1:32:28] you?

[1:32:30] >> So you're saying that type of specific

[1:32:32] date and once this is approved somebody

[1:32:33] can't go do an accessorary building and

[1:32:35] then so so take a look at this and this is just just cautionary tales,

[1:32:40] right?

[1:32:41] >> This is the reason that this stuff is

[1:32:43] important because like okay this

[1:32:46] building is like like this look I mean

[1:32:49] You can sort of see to the right. Like

[1:32:51] this is when you're going down the

[1:32:53] Alpine Highway just coming out of

[1:32:55] Highland into American Fork.

[1:32:56] >> Oh my gosh.

[1:32:57] >> It's like how [sighs] the hell Yeah.

[1:32:59] >> did somebody build that on that piece of

[1:33:02] property?

[1:33:04] >> And and I mean their neighbor just to

[1:33:06] the south. I mean they got to be the

[1:33:07] Hatfields and McCoys, right?

[1:33:09] >> Yeah.

[1:33:10] >> See the fence on the other side?

[1:33:12] >> It is right. I mean look at that thing.

[1:33:15] It's a really nice neighborhood.

[1:33:17] >> Oh my good. I mean, what they did is

[1:33:19] unbelievable. So, all right. So, go to

[1:33:20] the third one that I sent you, Kaden.

[1:33:23] >> Um, yeah. So, that's the right that

[1:33:24] that's this is that's B this one's

[1:33:26] basically Kitty Corner, northeast from

[1:33:27] the one I just showed you, right? Like

[1:33:29] just south of this is the golf course,

[1:33:31] right?

[1:33:32] >> And like like who how could they build

[1:33:36] that thing? So, and and then okay, then

[1:33:39] here's the last one, right? And this is

[1:33:40] not necessarily what's before us, but

[1:33:42] I'm just saying that the next thing I

[1:33:44] think we need to tackle is

[1:33:46] um like like boy, do our ordinances

[1:33:50] allow something like this?

[1:33:52] >> No.

[1:33:52] >> And Okay, good. [laughter] Good. And

[1:33:54] then and then do they allow like like okay look look at this one. This

[1:33:58] person basically said like like hey this

[1:34:01] is a remodel here and so because look we

[1:34:04] attached it to our house,

[1:34:06] >> right?

[1:34:07] >> Could this happen in Alpine?

[1:34:09] >> No. Okay, great. Okay,

[1:34:11] >> we'll actually get into something

[1:34:12] similar to this. I actually have the

[1:34:13] same exact image

[1:34:15] >> for our next code. [laughter]

[1:34:16] >> Okay, good. So, I just wanted to make

[1:34:19] sure, hey, what we're doing is like,

[1:34:20] look, there's some real shizzy stuff

[1:34:22] that happens out there and and I hoping

[1:34:24] to address it. Okay, get rid of that. We

[1:34:26] can get rid of that then.

[1:34:26] >> From what I understand, this this caused

[1:34:28] Highland to change their ordinance, but

[1:34:30] >> yeah, I think so. Okay.

[1:34:31] >> Okay. So, so if we like this language of

[1:34:34] conversion of existing accessory

[1:34:37] buildings,

[1:34:38] >> um Kate and Jason, do you guys see like an issue with that or what issues

[1:34:44] do you see with because I think we've

[1:34:46] got to have some kind of language about

[1:34:48] these what are going to be retroactive

[1:34:51] applications for ADUs for existing

[1:34:54] buildings like Andes

[1:34:56] and you know they're not you know they may or may not like like if they

[1:35:03] fit our ADU, well, you can probably just

[1:35:06] Yeah, okay. You're good to go. You fit

[1:35:08] the ordinance. But if they don't,

[1:35:10] >> I mean, it's fair that there's a process

[1:35:13] for them to come apply for either a

[1:35:15] conditional use permit or

[1:35:18] >> an exception. I don't know what it would

[1:35:20] be.

[1:35:20] >> Exception, right?

[1:35:22] >> Yeah, I don't think it' be a conditional

[1:35:23] use. I think it probably be an

[1:35:24] exception. They they may maybe use those

[1:35:26] terms differently,

[1:35:28] >> but

[1:35:29] >> um but but but I think our but I think

[1:35:30] ours needed something like this.

[1:35:32] >> So you're just saying replace. So any

[1:35:36] conversion of an existing building,

[1:35:38] accessory building that doesn't meet the

[1:35:42] setbacks and height and the footprint

[1:35:45] and the percentage

[1:35:48] >> envelope.

[1:35:49] >> Yeah.

[1:35:49] >> And the envelope

[1:35:50] >> and then I think it could come

[1:35:51] >> has to come Yeah. for planning

[1:35:54] commission approval.

[1:35:55] >> Yeah. Because then we're gonna have to

[1:35:56] look and say, "Okay, well, you know

[1:35:57] what? Maybe there's an issue where you

[1:35:58] know what, like you got to let your

[1:36:00] neighbors know or um hey, we want to see

[1:36:04] the lots around you. What is like case

[1:36:06] byase basis?" Right.

[1:36:08] >> Yeah.

[1:36:08] >> Is is allowing you to convert that

[1:36:12] accessory dwelling, that garage into an

[1:36:15] ADU,

[1:36:17] going to put a hardship on your

[1:36:20] neighbors? I mean, the building's

[1:36:22] already there.

[1:36:23] >> The building is already there. Yeah. So, we'll have to say, well, but what

[1:36:27] Okay, but but if now somebody's living

[1:36:29] in that, do do you have off- streetet

[1:36:31] parking? Do you have enough?

[1:36:32] >> Yeah.

[1:36:32] >> How many I mean, maybe there's

[1:36:34] limitations we can put on them, but I'm

[1:36:36] just saying

[1:36:37] >> there there there's going to have to be

[1:36:39] a method for existing

[1:36:42] nonconforming structures to apply to be

[1:36:47] licensed as an ADU. Right now it just

[1:36:49] seems like it's a little handwaving.

[1:36:51] Okay. Well, you're not conforming, so

[1:36:54] you're gonna have to come and make your

[1:36:55] case.

[1:36:55] >> Yeah. But but you know, I I don't I

[1:36:57] mean, I don't think I don't think

[1:36:58] somebody the city is going to want to

[1:36:59] have to deal with that.

[1:37:00] >> Yeah.

[1:37:01] >> I mean, so there's a process in Holland.

[1:37:03] It seems to me like it's reasonable to

[1:37:05] have a process.

[1:37:07] >> I mean,

[1:37:07] >> usually when we have a exception or

[1:37:10] conditional use thing, we'll have a

[1:37:12] criteria.

[1:37:13] >> And that's what I'm that's what I'm

[1:37:15] that's the point I'm kind of making.

[1:37:17] Yeah, got to have it somewhat objective

[1:37:18] and then meeting the neighbors come and

[1:37:20] complain.

[1:37:21] >> I agree. So, okay,

[1:37:23] >> process. Are we trying to address those

[1:37:25] issues right now or not?

[1:37:28] >> Well, this is something that needs I

[1:37:30] think needs because because we're on it.

[1:37:31] We're we're the clock's ticking on

[1:37:34] >> this ADU, right? Yeah.

[1:37:35] >> And and and it needs to come back to our

[1:37:37] next meeting.

[1:37:39] >> What's the criteria? I don't know.

[1:37:42] >> They can figure it out.

[1:37:43] >> That's something that we would have to

[1:37:44] figure out if we want to go that route.

[1:37:45] I mean, I think staff would obviously

[1:37:49] lean towards no conditional use permits

[1:37:51] because it's just

[1:37:52] >> I agree

[1:37:52] >> more more work and with already limited

[1:37:55] staff and so

[1:37:57] >> yeah or or or something. I mean I think

[1:37:59] our original thought was either meet the

[1:38:00] ADU code or or

[1:38:03] >> you can't do an ADU

[1:38:04] >> another agenda.

[1:38:05] >> So

[1:38:07] >> yeah, so if we did go that route, we

[1:38:08] would have to really come up with good

[1:38:10] criteria for that. Um

[1:38:12] >> Okay. But but I don't like

[1:38:13] >> Yeah.

[1:38:14] >> Okay. Okay. But I just I mean, all

[1:38:16] right, but you got a lot of folks going

[1:38:17] to be sitting out there like, look,

[1:38:19] you're going to get a lot of hate mail

[1:38:22] from

[1:38:23] >> that was

[1:38:24] >> I'm not saying I'm just going to say the

[1:38:25] Andy Spencers of the world. I'm not

[1:38:26] saying Andy Spencer, but you got people

[1:38:28] built these things. Well, we thought we

[1:38:31] built them with what we thought were the applicable setbacks, right?

[1:38:36] >> Yeah. But we don't fit the ones that

[1:38:37] you've made for ADUs, but

[1:38:39] >> but damn it, I want I want a license up

[1:38:42] as an ADU. If you just tell them,

[1:38:44] "Sorry, Charlie.

[1:38:46] >> If you want to take that heat, fine. I'm

[1:38:47] fine never seeing it."

[1:38:48] >> That's part of the motivation of trying

[1:38:50] to match current accessory building

[1:38:52] requirements because if they went

[1:38:54] through the proper process, their

[1:38:55] building should already meet those

[1:38:57] requirements

[1:38:58] >> and all they're doing is adding in the

[1:39:01] living space.

[1:39:01] >> I guess they would because because like

[1:39:03] Andy's for example, B would fit the

[1:39:05] current

[1:39:06] >> set back.

[1:39:07] >> Yeah. I got a I got a permit in the

[1:39:09] city. I build it with a permit.

[1:39:10] Everything met code. But I I guess I was

[1:39:13] going to speak up in favor of I think

[1:39:14] there should be a process if you're

[1:39:16] going to make these more restrictive.

[1:39:17] And I think that what you're trying to

[1:39:18] do is be very careful so that you don't

[1:39:21] open Pandora's box, right? An experience

[1:39:23] might show that hey, we can massage most

[1:39:25] codes massage over time and you go,

[1:39:27] okay, this wouldn't be too bad. We've

[1:39:28] got this experience or whatever. But I

[1:39:31] do think it's appropriate that uh there

[1:39:33] is an ex an exception process um whereby

[1:39:37] you can come in and and I realize that

[1:39:38] puts an onus on uh the staff to come up

[1:39:41] with some criteria but I think when

[1:39:43] you're evaluating that what you're

[1:39:44] really trying to say is

[1:39:45] >> okay under these conditions uh you know

[1:39:49] this could be acceptable because this

[1:39:51] clearly meets the intent that we define

[1:39:54] this code you know so still meet that

[1:39:56] intent but I I think there needs to be a

[1:39:58] process but I'm not just speaking up cuz

[1:40:00] I have that one. Yeah. I say I think

[1:40:02] Ellen's right.

[1:40:02] >> So, for the sake of time, here's what I

[1:40:04] would just say. We'll probably include

[1:40:05] that in the motion.

[1:40:07] >> Um, and then just say, look, you know,

[1:40:11] ask staff to just like give that some

[1:40:14] thought because there's there's things

[1:40:16] that happen from your side that we just

[1:40:17] don't understand, right? But but if

[1:40:19] you're say, you know, but but if you

[1:40:21] come back to us like, you know, in two

[1:40:22] weeks and say, "Hey, this is this this is a solution to a problem that

[1:40:28] doesn't and won't exist, and we

[1:40:30] recommend that that, you know, we don't

[1:40:32] need this this in there." Okay. Or you

[1:40:35] look at say, you know, okay, yeah, we

[1:40:37] listened to, we look, we read that, we

[1:40:38] listen, Andy, we do have some things out

[1:40:41] there. Here's what we would recommend,

[1:40:42] right? And not a conditional use permit.

[1:40:44] and it's a pain in the butt, but maybe

[1:40:45] an exception process, but perhaps we

[1:40:48] just leave that like give that some

[1:40:50] thought and and and and give us a

[1:40:53] proposal in a couple of weeks. Okay,

[1:40:56] that's the end of it. And so with that,

[1:40:58] unless there's any further discussion.

[1:41:00] Oh, and I don't you know what? I don't

[1:41:01] there was some little tag along there. I

[1:41:03] don't even understand this one. E, so

[1:41:06] forget it. That would that was part of

[1:41:08] conversion.

[1:41:08] >> E.

[1:41:09] >> Me either. Um well I guess that's yeah

[1:41:14] anyway I don't either. So um conversion

[1:41:17] of existing accessory buildings will a

[1:41:19] little little bit tbd based on staff

[1:41:22] recommendations uh at our next meeting.

[1:41:24] Sure. So that's it for that and any

[1:41:27] further discussion or we can take a

[1:41:28] motion.

[1:41:35] » I think we probably discussed it out

[1:41:37] discussed it to death. What do you think

[1:41:38] Troy? I think we've thoroughly went over

[1:41:41] it.

[1:41:44] >> John's got copious.

[1:41:46] >> Okay.

[1:41:47] >> I'll give it a shot.

[1:41:49] >> Okay. Can you bring up a sample motion?

[1:41:57] » So, we're going to table this

[1:42:00] re.

[1:42:04] » Yeah.

[1:42:06] Are we supposed to have a motion here?

[1:42:09] I I I don't I don't I don't think

[1:42:11] there's a motion here.

[1:42:16] » Well, I think Yeah. Wouldn't it be a

[1:42:18] motion to table

[1:42:19] >> public hearing? We have to have a

[1:42:21] motion.

[1:42:21] >> Yeah. So, there it's right there.

[1:42:25] >> Okay. I

[1:42:26] >> I think I'm realizing that for some

[1:42:28] reason we don't have a table for this

[1:42:29] item.

[1:42:30] >> No.

[1:42:30] >> So, here's here's the table for the next

[1:42:32] item. You want to just modify it? Yeah.

[1:42:34] >> So, you just didn't put it on there.

[1:42:36] >> Yeah. I think I just missed putting it

[1:42:37] in there. Sorry about that.

[1:42:40] >> Okay.

[1:42:41] I move to table the proposed

[1:42:43] amendments to the development code for

[1:42:45] the accessory uh dwelling units

[1:42:49] um for staff to rework some of the

[1:42:52] language to include

[1:42:55] uh language from the holiday ordinance.

[1:43:00] specifically

[1:43:02] uh to include a purpose statement

[1:43:05] similar to the holiday state uh

[1:43:08] ordinance

[1:43:09] uh add a minimum rental term of 90 days.

[1:43:13] Add language to require

[1:43:16] >> Can you hear me?

[1:43:18] >> I just uh turned on my microphone. Okay,

[1:43:21] Marlo, did you get that?

[1:43:26] » She not there.

[1:43:28] >> Yes, I'm here. Yeah. Did Did you catch

[1:43:30] the beginning of John's motion?

[1:43:32] >> Um, yes. I I'll go back over it though

[1:43:35] on the recording to get it right.

[1:43:37] >> I'm just want to make sure you you were

[1:43:38] able to record it properly because my my

[1:43:40] microphone was off.

[1:43:43] >> Yes. Um,

[1:43:44] >> should I start over?

[1:43:45] >> No. I have John McCain move to table the

[1:43:48] detached accessory dwelling unit of the

[1:43:50] development code as proposed with

[1:43:53] reworking the language to include

[1:43:55] language from Holiday City. And then

[1:43:58] you're wanting to put in the um

[1:44:01] >> coverage and purpose

[1:44:03] uh rent. Are we doing the rental

[1:44:05] restriction?

[1:44:06] >> Yeah, we're

[1:44:07] >> occupancy footprint all of those four.

[1:44:10] >> Um

[1:44:12] >> okay. Yeah. Yeah. Go make the motion

[1:44:13] now, John.

[1:44:15] >> Okay. Uh I haven't you're up to speed

[1:44:17] with me now, so I'll just keep continue.

[1:44:19] Uh add language to require a rental

[1:44:22] license as required with current um

[1:44:30] in

[1:44:31] >> interior

[1:44:33] >> dwelling units.

[1:44:34] >> Internal uh dwelling units.

[1:44:37] uh

[1:44:42] to incorporate the dwelling occupancy

[1:44:45] language from the Holiday City uh

[1:44:47] ordinances to include a footprint for

[1:44:51] lots of 0 to 10,000 square feet of a

[1:44:55] maximum footprint of 800 ft

[1:44:58] from 10,000 to 20,900

[1:45:03] uh square feet from 20,000 1 to 40,000

[1:45:08] square ft. 1,000

[1:45:11] square feet of footprint and above

[1:45:14] 40,000

[1:45:15] uh a 1,200

[1:45:18] square footprint.

[1:45:26] Then on the percent of of coverage

[1:45:32] » of lot coverage we want to modify the

[1:45:36] language that the total allowable lot

[1:45:39] coverage for all permanent structures

[1:45:43] uh adding permanent to that.

[1:45:47] um

[1:45:50] and

[1:45:52] delete

[1:45:54] everything after the dwelling unit. So

[1:45:58] you're we're not going to specify

[1:46:00] excluding outdoor swimming pools, ponds,

[1:46:03] and art with artificial liners or other

[1:46:06] water features. But we do want to

[1:46:08] include is set forth on the following

[1:46:10] chart expressed as a percentage of lot

[1:46:12] size. And those percentages will be

[1:46:15] broken down into four uh bands of less

[1:46:20] than 10,000 square feet will be uh 35%

[1:46:24] coverage of all structures. Second band

[1:46:28] is from 10,01 to 20,000 and that will be

[1:46:31] 30 uh%

[1:46:34] coverage.

[1:46:36] The third band will be from 20,01 to

[1:46:39] 40,000 square feet and that percentage

[1:46:43] will be 25%

[1:46:46] and then from 40

[1:46:49] uh,000 and beyond the occupancy or the

[1:46:53] percentage coverage will be 22%.

[1:46:56] We will delete the section from the

[1:46:59] holiday language that is falls under

[1:47:02] design standards entirely.

[1:47:05] We will incorporate the conversion of

[1:47:08] accessory uh buildings

[1:47:12] um

[1:47:13] to include a process and criteria for

[1:47:19] granting exceptions andor conditional

[1:47:22] uses that staff will alpine staff will

[1:47:26] come up with.

[1:47:29] >> And what about setback and height?

[1:47:32] >> Oh, skip that. Sorry.

[1:47:38] um sections between the two tables

[1:47:42] entitled setbacks will leave as written.

[1:47:46] [clears throat]

[1:47:47] The height we're going to modify to 25

[1:47:50] ft is the maximum height of an ADU

[1:47:58] and that should do it.

[1:47:59] >> Did you want to change it?

[1:48:01] >> Minimum square feet to 300. Oh, that's

[1:48:04] right.

[1:48:04] >> Match. Yes, I had it written here. I

[1:48:07] couldn't remember what it represented.

[1:48:09] Okay. So, when we're talking about the

[1:48:12] maximum uh footprint

[1:48:15] >> minimum

[1:48:16] >> the table that discusses the footprint,

[1:48:20] we are also going to reference that the

[1:48:22] minimum for a footprint is 300 square

[1:48:25] feet.

[1:48:27] >> John, I have a question. I thought we

[1:48:30] were using the same setbacks as a de as

[1:48:33] a de um an accessory dwelling because

[1:48:36] that would have been something that Andy

[1:48:39] built his building on, not a single

[1:48:41] family dwelling.

[1:48:43] >> Yeah, I don't think John referenced um

[1:48:46] modifying the proposed

[1:48:50] um ADU ordinance

[1:48:53] setback requirements. I think we're just

[1:48:55] going to adopt those adopt the city

[1:48:56] >> the way the way it's written right now.

[1:48:58] It'll be

[1:49:00] what we're what we're accepting is

[1:49:03] Holiday's language that we're using the

[1:49:05] same setback provisions as the primary

[1:49:07] single family dwelling.

[1:49:08] >> Correct. For the zone on which it's

[1:49:10] located.

[1:49:11] >> Correct. Not.

[1:49:12] >> Yeah. But that that's not then Andy

[1:49:14] wouldn't be able to or anybody that

[1:49:16] built an accessory building would not be

[1:49:18] able to convert because they would have

[1:49:20] to have

[1:49:20] >> Correct.

[1:49:21] >> which is a conditional use

[1:49:22] >> which is why they're going to have to

[1:49:23] come back through a conditional use

[1:49:25] application. the the exception. They'd

[1:49:27] have to come back for an exception.

[1:49:30] >> Okay. So, everybody going forward

[1:49:32] building.

[1:49:33] >> No, this is this is for people who have

[1:49:35] an existing structure.

[1:49:36] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:49:38] >> If they're if if it's new construction,

[1:49:40] they're just going to have to meet those

[1:49:42] setback requirements as the primary

[1:49:44] dwelling unit.

[1:49:45] >> Correct.

[1:49:48] And and and then I think John, if you

[1:49:50] could just have your motion also clarify

[1:49:51] that these addition these

[1:49:55] additional items that you just went

[1:49:57] through are to be added to to the extent

[1:50:01] that they are, you know, that they are

[1:50:03] consistent, right? They're to be added

[1:50:05] to the

[1:50:06] >> existing language proposed.

[1:50:09] >> Yeah.

[1:50:10] So that

[1:50:13] >> I just want to

[1:50:14] >> that should have been part of my opening

[1:50:16] statement. If it wasn't, that's where it

[1:50:17] should be added that that these uh

[1:50:21] adjustments are to the proposed alpine

[1:50:25] uh ADU ordinance.

[1:50:30] Okay. Sorry. So just to make 100% clear,

[1:50:32] we don't want to do the setbacks of

[1:50:34] accessory buildings in Alpine. We want

[1:50:36] to do the setbacks of main structures in

[1:50:39] Alpine.

[1:50:40] >> Correct.

[1:50:42] >> Well,

[1:50:44] no. No, that's not correct. Jeeoff, you

[1:50:47] explained to us, Kaden, that that see I

[1:50:50] was mixed up with accessory buildings.

[1:50:51] It was like tough sheds. So, I think

[1:50:53] that we are the setbacks are as con are

[1:50:57] as set forth in your proposed ADU

[1:51:00] ordinance. That was my understanding.

[1:51:02] Right.

[1:51:02] >> Accessory structures use the same

[1:51:04] setbacks, right, as primary No, no,

[1:51:07] they're they're but

[1:51:08] >> they have shorter sides and shorter rear

[1:51:10] setbacks,

[1:51:11] >> but but we decided they were far enough,

[1:51:13] right? Because these ADUs the setbacks

[1:51:15] as you proposed to us, right? Yeah.

[1:51:18] >> We I think we decided, oh yeah, okay,

[1:51:20] those are that those are sufficient

[1:51:23] >> because what were those setbacks?

[1:51:24] >> So, John, in your motion, if you're

[1:51:26] saying you want them to match the main

[1:51:27] structure, that would have to be a 30ft

[1:51:29] rear.

[1:51:30] >> Oh, yeah. Okay.

[1:51:31] >> 12 foot side. If they're matching

[1:51:32] accessory buildings, then it's only the

[1:51:34] 15 foot rear, 10 foot side for most

[1:51:36] zones.

[1:51:37] >> So, I I think as far as setbacks, we

[1:51:39] aren't requesting or we we we aren't

[1:51:42] requesting any modification to the

[1:51:44] language of the proposed AD ordinance.

[1:51:48] Okay. Same setbacks.

[1:51:50] >> The only weight

[1:51:52] the height at 25.

[1:51:54] >> We're not using the language from

[1:51:55] holiday.

[1:51:56] >> Correct.

[1:51:56] >> Yeah.

[1:51:57] Yeah. I I would say we're not

[1:51:59] using the language from holiday on

[1:52:01] either height or setbacks,

[1:52:04] >> but but yeah, but we are capping the

[1:52:08] height of the ADU at 25 ft,

[1:52:13] >> right?

[1:52:14] >> Yes.

[1:52:15] >> Okay. And sorry, one more clarification.

[1:52:18] And that 25 ft is based on having a

[1:52:21] deeper setback than the required

[1:52:23] ordinance. Because for example, right

[1:52:26] now if you're 10 and 15 with your

[1:52:28] accessory building, you're only allowed

[1:52:30] to be 20.

[1:52:31] >> Mhm.

[1:52:32] >> Yes.

[1:52:32] >> If you want to get to 25, you have to go

[1:52:34] farther and farther into your lot.

[1:52:37] >> Is that what you're saying? Are you

[1:52:38] saying any building with an accessory

[1:52:40] dwelling unit can now be 25 ft?

[1:52:45] >> I I think

[1:52:45] >> Well, it can I mean, what we had talked

[1:52:47] about is having it be no more than 25 ft

[1:52:49] because we just didn't want visual

[1:52:51] obstructions, you I mean you look your

[1:52:53] primary dwelling can be we were just

[1:52:55] trying to put a height cap

[1:52:59] but he's just saying if you go above 20

[1:53:01] the setbacks have to change

[1:53:03] >> correct

[1:53:03] >> like like 25 ft.

[1:53:05] >> So I was just clarifying that that is

[1:53:06] the maximum you're saying you're not

[1:53:07] saying

[1:53:08] >> and do we do we have that in the prop in

[1:53:10] the proposed language now

[1:53:12] >> that it adjusts with

[1:53:15] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yeah.

[1:53:18] >> Okay.

[1:53:20] Okay, I sec I second that motion.

[1:53:22] >> So, we have a motion by John McCay,

[1:53:24] >> second by Jeff.

[1:53:25] >> We have a second by Jeff. Any discussion

[1:53:28] on the motion?

[1:53:31] >> I think you got it pretty good. All in

[1:53:33] favor? I

[1:53:34] >> I Any opposed?

[1:53:37] Okay. Unanimous. Um,

[1:53:41] >> so all right, we we're running up

[1:53:44] against a meeting, but that like we

[1:53:45] needed to do that.

[1:53:46] >> That's that's fine. I think I think the

[1:53:48] next one can go pretty quickly. What

[1:53:51] >> said I think the next item can go pretty

[1:53:52] quick.

[1:53:53] >> I I mean I think so too. So uh Kaden,

[1:53:56] can you give us a very quick

[1:53:58] introduction of

[1:54:00] action item B?

[1:54:02] >> Okay. Yeah. So we we went over this last

[1:54:04] time. It was tabled just because we

[1:54:06] wanted to add a little bit of different

[1:54:07] language for the pools that we were

[1:54:09] talking about if the commissioners

[1:54:11] remember. Um so this was just kind of a

[1:54:14] mass code update that we have. So this

[1:54:16] exhibit A is the red line version of

[1:54:18] that updated code and we went through

[1:54:20] this last time. Um there was some

[1:54:22] clerical ones like this one where we

[1:54:24] just reumbering.

[1:54:26] Um there was other that were this one's

[1:54:28] just putting this paragraph in a new

[1:54:30] location just to make more sense with

[1:54:32] the flow of the code.

[1:54:34] Um, we talked about home occupations

[1:54:36] that we're trying to uh allow people to

[1:54:40] just come to staff instead of having to

[1:54:42] go to the planning commission if they're

[1:54:43] doing a really basic home occupation.

[1:54:45] And the the commissioners thought that

[1:54:47] was a good idea. Um, if we want to talk

[1:54:49] about it again, we can. This is also

[1:54:51] about that home occupation, just saying

[1:54:53] that city staff can review certain home

[1:54:56] occupations that meet those requirements

[1:54:58] that we put in there. Um, again, if

[1:55:01] there's any questions on that, we can

[1:55:02] stop. Um yeah, this is a clerical one.

[1:55:05] just cleaning up these l

[1:55:07] this language here.

[1:55:10] Um adding a definition for minor

[1:55:13] subdivision here. Adding a definition

[1:55:14] for accessory structure and adding a

[1:55:16] definition for pool house. Um so for

[1:55:19] pool house, we talked about this last

[1:55:21] time. We were there was I think some

[1:55:22] discussion from the commissioners that

[1:55:24] there was uh maybe some hesitancy that a

[1:55:27] pool house could contain pool equipment

[1:55:29] and how far away it could be. Um, so we

[1:55:33] just made it abundantly clear that a

[1:55:35] pool house can have pool equipment, but

[1:55:37] if it has pool equipment, it has to meet

[1:55:38] the required setbacks for related

[1:55:41] facilities because related facilities

[1:55:44] have a 10 foot by 10 foot setback. And

[1:55:46] so any pool house would have to meet

[1:55:48] those those setbacks if they have the

[1:55:50] pooluma inside them. So hopefully that

[1:55:52] clears that up.

[1:55:53] >> Yeah, that's that's new.

[1:55:55] >> Yes, this is a new definition in our

[1:55:56] code.

[1:55:57] >> Pool house.

[1:55:58] >> Yep. Um, so the only one big thing that

[1:56:02] we probably should take some time

[1:56:03] discussing unfortunately and and we can

[1:56:05] maybe table this one part if we want to

[1:56:08] um just because it might be a kind of

[1:56:10] more substantial discussion is this this

[1:56:13] part in our zones. Um

[1:56:17] so right now an accessory building which

[1:56:19] is 12 feet or closer and is attached by

[1:56:22] common roofer mall is part of the main

[1:56:23] building. We wanted to make that

[1:56:25] abundantly clear that buildings that are

[1:56:27] more than 12 feet away, whether they're

[1:56:28] attached or not, are not attached.

[1:56:30] They're detached. Um, and I think the

[1:56:34] commissioners overall liked this

[1:56:36] language, but we have had some

[1:56:38] discussion with uh city council member

[1:56:41] Hanaman and she thinks there's a better

[1:56:43] way to go about doing this. Um, and I'm

[1:56:46] happy to go into that right now if we

[1:56:48] want to and consider that maybe instead.

[1:56:51] Um, but

[1:56:53] yeah, it could it could be a long

[1:56:55] discussion and it kind of relates to

[1:56:56] that building we looked at in Highland

[1:56:58] earlier with the long breezeway and the

[1:57:00] huge building attached to the back. Um,

[1:57:03] so just

[1:57:04] >> Okay. So, yeah. So, what if we just went

[1:57:08] through basically and said, you know,

[1:57:10] had a motion to like

[1:57:12] >> table this discussion code to approve

[1:57:14] all changes except for this one which

[1:57:17] shall which will be tabled and come back

[1:57:19] to us two weeks along with the ADU.

[1:57:21] Okay,

[1:57:21] >> that worked.

[1:57:22] >> I think that'd be great. Yeah.

[1:57:24] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:57:24] >> That's great.

[1:57:25] >> Does any Oh, sorry. Did I cut you off?

[1:57:27] >> No, no, no. You didn't. So, just to make

[1:57:29] it Yeah. When you table it, just make

[1:57:31] sure you talk uh the customary accessory

[1:57:34] structures in each zone. That's the language you need to table.

[1:57:37] >> Okay. So, there's that accessory caden.

[1:57:39] And then I also know that that that that

[1:57:44] um

[1:57:45] councilwoman council person Haniman also

[1:57:48] has concerns and I don't know if that's

[1:57:50] part of this development code about

[1:57:53] remodeling.

[1:57:55] Right. Right. And and and how look I

[1:57:57] mean a remodel uh is it like you can't

[1:58:00] just basically build a whole new giant

[1:58:03] building

[1:58:04] >> that looks nothing like the primary

[1:58:07] dwelling.

[1:58:08] >> Yeah. connect it with a covered

[1:58:10] breezeway and call it a remodel.

[1:58:13] >> Right.

[1:58:13] Is is

[1:58:14] >> that is exactly related to this? Yes.

[1:58:17] >> Is is okay. So So we can discuss that in

[1:58:20] two weeks.

[1:58:20] >> We will. Yeah. Okay. So yeah, we will we

[1:58:22] will let's do that then. Yeah, we we'll

[1:58:24] All right. Is that everything you wanted

[1:58:26] to introduce, Kaden?

[1:58:27] >> Um and then let's see. Let's let me just

[1:58:30] get through this. So this is the

[1:58:30] swimming pool code we were talking

[1:58:32] about. So just again to make it clear,

[1:58:33] we're now we're saying that storage

[1:58:35] structures and pool houses that do not

[1:58:38] have considered do not have related

[1:58:40] facilities which it contains that pool

[1:58:41] equipment that we were worried about um

[1:58:43] are evaluated based on accessory

[1:58:45] structure requirements of the underlying

[1:58:46] zone. Again, the reason we're changing

[1:58:48] this is some people have pool houses

[1:58:49] that they want to put closer to their

[1:58:52] property line and if they label it pool

[1:58:54] house on their plans, we have to tell

[1:58:55] them label it as a shed instead. And

[1:58:58] then you can have those. And so it just

[1:58:59] makes more sense to say, yeah, if you

[1:59:01] have a pool house that just is for

[1:59:04] storage, you can have it as just a

[1:59:06] normal accessory building. That's the

[1:59:08] whole point of that change.

[1:59:10] Um, and then I just have these repeated

[1:59:13] throughout because we have to have that

[1:59:14] in each zone. So again, yeah, accessory

[1:59:16] structures, which we're going to table

[1:59:18] swimming pools again. Accessory

[1:59:20] structure, swimming pools, accessory

[1:59:22] structure, swimming pools,

[1:59:25] just a few little sheds. And then that

[1:59:28] is it.

[1:59:30] >> This is the clean version.

[1:59:31] >> Those are cute little shees sheds. I

[1:59:33] wanted one of those.

[1:59:34] >> Um.

[1:59:36] >> Wow. Okay. All right. So, thank you,

[1:59:38] Kaden. All right. So, we've gone through

[1:59:40] a whole bunch of revisions to the

[1:59:42] development code and the ordinances. Any

[1:59:43] questions on that? There is one

[1:59:45] particular provision that we will table

[1:59:47] and revisit. Uh, but I would entertain a

[1:59:49] motion to approve to to to approve all

[1:59:52] the others, but table the one.

[1:59:55] >> Yeah. What what was that section again,

[1:59:58] Kaden? The customary what?

[2:00:00] >> Accessory structures.

[2:00:02] >> Customary accessory structures.

[2:00:04] >> Custom

[2:00:04] >> for each zone. Yeah, because each zone

[2:00:06] has an accessory structure section. So,

[2:00:11] [snorts]

[2:00:11] >> okay.

[2:00:17] So I I I move to recommend

[2:00:19] approval to the city council of the

[2:00:22] proposed text amendments to the

[2:00:23] development code as presented

[2:00:26] subject to the following change and that

[2:00:30] is we will table

[2:00:34] for all sections or all zones the

[2:00:39] specific code dealing with customary

[2:00:42] accessory structures.

[2:00:45] Okay, we have a motion by Jeff. We have

[2:00:49] a second.

[2:00:50] >> I'll second it.

[2:00:51] >> Second by Suz Whittenberg. Discussion on

[2:00:53] the motion.

[2:00:55] >> He's got a table. He's got a

[2:00:57] recommendation

[2:00:58] >> to approve

[2:00:59] >> same motion.

[2:01:03] >> Um,

[2:01:05] that's a good question.

[2:01:06] >> That might be a Robert's rule issue,

[2:01:08] right?

[2:01:09] >> Should we have two separate motions?

[2:01:10] Should we have a motion? Okay. So,

[2:01:12] >> just table it with with the reason for

[2:01:14] the tableing.

[2:01:15] >> Well, but

[2:01:16] >> we pick it up at next meeting

[2:01:18] >> and we could do that. I'm f I'm fine

[2:01:20] with that.

[2:01:22] Okay. I I'm I move to table the proposed

[2:01:25] text amendments to the development code

[2:01:27] as presented to a future meeting in

[2:01:30] order to allow additional time for the

[2:01:32] revisions and discussion by planning

[2:01:35] commission on the customary accessory

[2:01:38] structures for each zone.

[2:01:41] Okay. U have a motion to table by and Kaden that won't timetable wise that

[2:01:47] doesn't that doesn't cause you any

[2:01:48] heart. That's fine. Okay. Great. All

[2:01:49] right. We have a motion to table by Jeff

[2:01:52] Davis. Do we have a second?

[2:01:54] >> I'll second it.

[2:01:55] >> S. We have a second by Suz Whittenberg.

[2:01:57] Discussion on the motion.

[2:01:59] >> All in favor?

[2:02:00] >> I. Any opposed? Okay. Uh motion passes

[2:02:03] unanimously. Uh any communications?

[2:02:09] Okay. No communications. Uh

[2:02:11] >> sidebar going over here.

[2:02:13] >> Yeah. Um

[2:02:16] >> Kaden, Jason, anything that needs to

[2:02:17] come before commission? Okay. Yeah, no

[2:02:19] worries.

[2:02:20] >> Um they're talking about like like

[2:02:22] you're going to go to Del Taco or Taco

[2:02:23] Bell after after this meeting. They're

[2:02:25] like I'm wondering the same thing. I'm

[2:02:26] going with you. Um okay. Anybody read

[2:02:29] the minutes or want to do a motion?

[2:02:35] » Well, I was here. So, I will approve

[2:02:37] these move to approve the minutes from

[2:02:40] August 4th, 2026 planning commission

[2:02:43] meeting as written.

[2:02:44] >> We have a motion by John McCay to

[2:02:46] approve the uh minutes. Do you have a

[2:02:48] second?

[2:02:48] >> I'll second.

[2:02:49] >> Second by uh Jeff. All in favor? I

[2:02:52] >> I

[2:02:54] >> uh motion to adjurnn. Anyone?

[2:02:56] >> So moved.

[2:02:57] >> Okay. So moved and seconded. Somebody

[2:02:59] did. Uh

[2:03:01] all in favor I. Motion or meeting

[2:03:04] adjourned.

[2:03:06] Thank you everybody. That was some uh

[2:03:09] heavy lifting and and deep waiting.

[2:03:11] Thank you.

[2:03:16] » No, I came to show my support. No one

[2:03:18] else has live tattoo. [laughter]

[2:03:24] » No one else has it. And I bought this

[2:03:26] city council meeting.

[2:03:29] >> Is that a brand new?

[2:03:30] >> It's not brand new. I got when I was 15

[2:03:32] but touched up because I got it touched

[2:03:34] up for days.

[2:03:36] >> A guy for a company's logo tattooed it

[2:03:39] on his arm. Sold the company.

[2:03:47] » Hey, we love it. Every case.

8.18.26 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript