[0:00] here. Jason just barely put this cost
[0:02] estimate together. Um, one of the
[0:06] provisions in the proposed development
[0:07] agreement is that their contractor
[0:11] would do the city work. Um, Steve's
[0:15] reviewed this. We have a few concerns
[0:17] with that with our procurement process
[0:19] and and our, you know, competitive bids
[0:22] that we always do. Um, so that's
[0:25] something that would need to be worked
[0:27] out and and that would end up affecting
[0:30] final price and everything, too. So,
[0:32] that's an estimate. And Jason doesn't
[0:34] want to build it, so it's he doesn't
[0:37] want to be the low bidder.
[0:38] >> Nice. [laughter]
[0:40] Um, and then how often do we get
[0:42] requests from developers for private
[0:45] streets? I'm just curious. Does that
[0:48] come up often? Uh we've in the last year
[0:51] we've had one other that I can think of
[0:54] and uh I thought you were going to ask
[0:56] these development agreements and they're
[0:58] brand new here. For whatever reason the
[1:01] development community here hasn't
[1:04] approached that
[1:06] >> and we really didn't know too much about
[1:08] them until we dug into it. So um so not often besides the senior housing
[1:14] projects. They'd be the more common.
[1:16] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:18] >> Yeah. Um I guess my my feelings,
[1:20] thoughts, opinions is that I mean I love
[1:22] the the idea of getting something in
[1:24] return that benefits the city. Um
[1:27] understanding what percentage um of the
[1:30] cost, you know, would be covered by that
[1:32] will also play into kind of is it is it worth that? I don't know. Anyway,
[1:37] so just still still some things I'm
[1:39] thinking about, but I do I do appreciate
[1:42] that. So,
[1:44] >> as a followup just to that, just to make
[1:46] sure I'm clear, would we want to do that
[1:48] improvement regardless of whether this
[1:50] was a four lot development or a five or
[1:53] so even if it was undeveloped?
[1:56] >> This this properties came on the market
[1:58] just over the last I don't know six to
[2:01] 10 months probably, I'd say. And we've
[2:03] had
[2:05] probably at least four parties come in
[2:08] and talk to the city about it. It's just
[2:10] something that we kind of threw out
[2:12] there like, hey, it'd be great for us to
[2:14] have this if we could. Um, but of the
[2:18] two improvements, for sure the water
[2:20] line would be the more important if if
[2:24] one wasn't possible.
[2:26] >> So, those are both optional, but you the
[2:29] staff is recommending we do both for
[2:31] now.
[2:32] uh if we can work out the terms and can
[2:36] you know
[2:38] financially make it work too.
[2:40] >> I think staff's planning ahead that both
[2:42] will be needed eventually whether both
[2:45] happen right away or not. That was my
[2:47] understanding is that the water line
[2:49] should go in first and that's the
[2:50] priority.
[2:51] >> If it works out then yes also did the
[2:53] storm drain.
[2:54] >> Yeah. Thanks.
[2:56] >> I don't have any other questions or
[2:57] comments.
[2:58] Thank you for the information and Brent
[3:01] for those points. I had those same
[3:03] questions about what would be the
[3:05] disadvantages of a private road which um
[3:07] we've already evaluated. Um I did have a
[3:12] question on the um
[3:16] the
[3:18] uh the area around that. So considering
[3:22] that we're putting in um five lots, not
[3:26] being familiar like Brent with the area,
[3:28] is most of that already developed around
[3:30] there or would this opportunity not come
[3:32] again in another property?
[3:34] >> The only property in Alpine that's not
[3:36] developed on on that south side of
[3:39] Healey Boulevard would be the Ber
[3:40] property.
[3:42] >> I'm sorry, I don't know our properties
[3:44] by name.
[3:44] >> It's the corner of Canyon Crest and
[3:47] Alageni. I always forget if it's circle
[3:50] or court. So, in that vicinity,
[3:52] everything else has been platted and and
[3:54] everything's all done. Okay. All right.
[3:56] That was my only question. Otherwise,
[3:57] I'm like Brent. I feel like there's more
[3:59] the advantages outweigh the
[4:00] disadvantages. I wasn't familiar why we
[4:03] didn't allow private roads in Alpine. I
[4:05] don't know if there's anything
[4:07] additional than what Brent has listed,
[4:09] but um
[4:11] >> and and this property was actually
[4:12] approved uh years ago for a uh church
[4:17] building.
[4:17] >> Oh. But then they never move forward
[4:20] with it.
[4:20] >> It didn't pan out. Okay. Anyways, thank
[4:23] you. That's I don't have any other
[4:25] questions.
[4:27] >> Uh just a few here. [clears throat]
[4:30] So, I did talk to the residents around
[4:32] here. Um they would prefer we don't make
[4:35] these exceptions, just so you know. Um
[4:40] >> they think uh well they've got several
[4:42] but they think that uh
[4:46] we shouldn't allow this because no one
[4:47] else gets this privilege or these
[4:50] exceptions. And I think this
[4:52] neighborhood has had a lot of
[4:55] bizarre things happen. I think they're
[4:56] reeling from it across the street up the
[4:59] road. We recently approved a
[5:02] um I'm getting it nearly daily. We
[5:05] recently approved a exception to a
[5:06] four-sided lot
[5:09] and uh because of what's happening, it's
[5:12] not only that neighborhood, but the
[5:14] surrounding two neighborhoods are asking
[5:16] how in heaven's name was it allowed
[5:18] because you can see it now from so far.
[5:22] Um I don't know. I I was curious how
[5:24] Brent would handle this because you're
[5:26] such a legal mind. So I was curious. I I
[5:29] should have called you. I was curious
[5:30] how you'd handle this. um uh given that
[5:33] it is so against code. Um
[5:38] but anyways,
[5:38] >> do you want me to answer that?
[5:39] >> Sure. Well, I think you already did when
[5:41] you talked, but
[5:42] >> and I've said this before, maybe not as
[5:44] often since you've been on the council,
[5:45] is land use is not an exact science and
[5:51] no ordinance is perfect.
[5:53] >> Wow. Quote,
[5:54] >> no. I mean, [laughter]
[5:56] and so generally you have exceptions
[5:59] within the ordinances. Almost everything
[6:01] has exceptions, conditional uses, other
[6:03] exceptions because not every property
[6:05] fits perfectly into the code. Um, as far
[6:08] as the the residents, um, hey, we didn't
[6:11] get this. Why should someone else get
[6:12] it? I think it's actually the other way
[6:14] around. These residents of these five
[6:16] units, this is more of a benefit to the
[6:19] developer. They're going to get five
[6:20] lots instead of four.
[6:22] um the residents of these five lots,
[6:25] they're going to have the burden of
[6:26] maintaining those roads on their own,
[6:29] snowplowing, everything else.
[6:31] >> So, it's really less of a benefit, I
[6:33] think, than what the maybe the people on
[6:35] Alageney just to the south of this or
[6:37] southwest of southwest of this. Um, so
[6:41] again, yes, we do have an ordinance that
[6:44] says no private roads and there are
[6:45] reasons for that and I kind of
[6:47] articulated those. I I researched why
[6:49] they why they exist.
[6:51] Um, I see this more as a shared drive,
[6:54] like a pipe stem or a shared driveway
[6:56] that I've seen all over the country. Um,
[6:58] I don't know if I've seen it very much
[7:00] here. I don't
[7:01] >> we have it up in Alpine up, but is it
[7:03] North Point? other people have those
[7:05] >> those experiences. But I think this is I
[7:09] don't think this is would have any
[7:10] impact on those other residents just
[7:12] because the developer of those lots
[7:14] several years ago when they subdivided
[7:16] and sold them, they didn't get to get an
[7:19] extra lot out of it. Maybe that's a a a
[7:21] disadvantage to that developer, but I
[7:23] don't see it as a disadvantage to the
[7:25] residents. Um, I think the residents
[7:28] should probably, especially the ones
[7:29] that use Healey, would be much more uh
[7:32] in favor of having one street exit onto
[7:35] Healey than having four driveways that
[7:37] they have to worry about when they
[7:38] travel back and forth. I think that's a
[7:40] significant safety issue and maybe they
[7:42] weren't that wasn't explained to them
[7:43] when you spoke with them
[7:45] >> about what the potential safety benefits
[7:47] could be for that area. So, just some
[7:49] thoughts. But again, just going back to
[7:51] your basic question is there there's
[7:53] there are room for there's room for
[7:54] improvement in in an ordinance as you
[7:57] come up with with um issues that aren't
[8:00] foreseen or unique properties that
[8:02] aren't foreseen and most of our
[8:03] ordinances have exceptions for that
[8:06] purpose and we just don't happen to have
[8:08] one for this one.
[8:09] >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Well, we do have
[8:10] a way to get to the same the same um
[8:14] conclusion, but there's not an exception
[8:16] to the private road one other than this
[8:18] the the statues that were cited by our
[8:20] attorney.
[8:20] >> And what is the difference between
[8:22] private road and a private drive?
[8:25] >> It's really the same thing, right?
[8:27] >> Really the same thing.
[8:28] >> Okay.
[8:28] >> Yeah.
[8:29] >> So, we have that already which we
[8:32] allowed in other parts of the city. Um,
[8:35] and I think for me the main thing would
[8:37] be that the city actually benefits. It's
[8:40] saving us
[8:42] money and it's giving us access to
[8:44] things that we don't have currently. I
[8:46] think if it if those things weren't
[8:48] involved, if the water if the water line
[8:50] easement and the sewer easement were
[8:52] involved, I think it would be more
[8:54] clear-cut. There's, you know, there's no
[8:56] advantage to the city. Um,
[9:00] >> okay. How staunch are the developers
[9:03] with the $100,000 towards the cost of
[9:05] the projects?
[9:06] >> That was my question. Next question.
[9:09] >> So, if we do, if they're willing to do
[9:12] some of the work and it's in kind, I
[9:14] mean, is that negotiable?
[9:18] » I I can answer that for Brett, but I I
[9:21] let him.
[9:21] >> Go ahead.
[9:22] >> So, everything's negotiable, guys. We're
[9:24] developers. But um
[9:27] I mean in our mind after running the
[9:29] financial performer, we all know that's
[9:31] how it comes down for us, right? Is we
[9:33] thought it would be better not having it
[9:35] on Healey and we had to give something
[9:36] up to the city. So at first we were just
[9:38] going to give up the easements like
[9:40] being completely candid and our attorney
[9:42] Paxton Gman who's done a lot of work
[9:43] with the city, he's like we gota we got
[9:46] to help them out a little bit here. So
[9:48] even giving us we would be happy to even
[9:50] give up the easement and give the
[9:52] $100,000 to you guys as a fee in Lou
[9:56] that you guys can then use however. Um
[10:00] and then you can put in that you would
[10:01] then have the easement and could put in
[10:03] those facilities when you wanted. Um
[10:06] contributing more than $100,000 being
[10:10] canned would be a little challenging.
[10:12] Our our hope is
[10:13] >> but you're getting what a million
[10:14] dollars for the extra lot. We've got to
[10:16] build the private drive and the lots are
[10:18] so
[10:20] we could Yeah, we could go over those
[10:23] numbers another time, but um
[10:25] >> is there a way that since you guys are
[10:27] developers and you're going to be
[10:28] tearing up the road and the property to
[10:31] do something? I know you said that we
[10:33] have um
[10:35] our um sourcing process and going
[10:37] through the RFPs, but if we do some kind
[10:39] of a joint venture in maybe utilizing
[10:42] your equipment and
[10:44] >> that's what we were trying
[10:45] >> maybe getting the $100,000 and then
[10:47] maybe some little extra
[10:49] >> excavation or something or
[10:51] >> we could do that. So what we what we had
[10:54] thought about doing I hate saying this
[10:56] on public record but it is what it is.
[10:57] We develop cheaper than you guys because
[10:59] we don't have to go competitive bid. We
[11:02] have a different process. So our thought
[11:03] was
[11:05] we can probably do the work cheaper than
[11:07] you guys can. So we would share those
[11:09] numbers with you guys. But again, I
[11:11] can't speak for your legal consequences
[11:12] that you guys would have. But that's why
[11:14] we offered to do the work was an extra
[11:18] incentive. And then you guys could even
[11:20] bid it out against your own. But yes,
[11:22] >> and and if this were to move forward uh
[11:26] and they did the construction, we have
[11:28] costs from last fall,
[11:30] >> so fairly recent that we could compare
[11:33] an
[11:33] >> idea. Okay.
[11:34] >> Yeah.
[11:35] >> Thank you.
[11:35] >> Actually, could he stay up there? I was
[11:37] going to finish mine. Uh since he's up
[11:39] here, I can already ask. So, um just a
[11:41] couple questions so I can get to know
[11:43] you guys. Are you guys from Alpine by
[11:45] chance?
[11:46] >> Uh we have developed all over. Uh we we
[11:49] both live in Riverton right now. Okay.
[11:51] >> But we do a lot of high-end
[11:52] subdivisions. We just did a project up
[11:54] by Pepperwood and Dimple.
[11:55] >> Cool. And this helps me like more for
[11:56] the property tax philosophical
[11:59] thing going on in all of our heads or
[12:02] mine for sure. Um, do you guys currently
[12:04] own it or is it contingent on this deal?
[12:06] >> We own it.
[12:07] >> So, you own it outright.
[12:08] >> We've already purchased it. Yes, sir.
[12:09] >> Financed or full out?
[12:12] >> Okay. Come on.
[12:14] >> That's That's not That's not relevant.
[12:15] >> No, let's move on.
[12:17] >> And it's not appropriate.
[12:17] >> I'm going through all my questions.
[12:18] >> Okay. Okay. So you don't you don't have
[12:20] to they don't have you don't have to
[12:21] answer
[12:21] >> you can look at public record. I don't
[12:23] have a loan on it. It's all my money.
[12:24] >> Okay, cool. So and then is the intent to
[12:27] just for you guys to use some of the
[12:29] properties for your own homes or is it
[12:30] to sell it to other people for their
[12:32] homes?
[12:33] >> Again,
[12:34] >> what's wrong with that question? It's
[12:35] sincere because if he lives there, it
[12:37] might be different than if it's just for
[12:38] someone else because at the end of the
[12:40] day, the property owner will be that
[12:42] person. So the reason we started looking
[12:43] at it is one of those homes right up the
[12:45] street was my neighbors in Riverton and
[12:46] that's why we started looking at it and
[12:48] okay
[12:48] >> he is trying to get me up here but quite
[12:51] it's a beautiful community. I have my
[12:53] kids I'm raising that are really in
[12:55] involved in our high school and junior
[12:56] high so they've already got me as a dad
[12:59] so I quantif
[13:02] you'll sell them to and then those will
[13:04] be the folks that will
[13:05] >> Yeah. So our our specialty is a
[13:06] developer. I feel bad Shane I'm
[13:08] hijacking your meeting. You already told
[13:09] me you got
[13:10] >> So yeah, let's Okay, you know what? You
[13:13] get one more question, then we're going
[13:15] to go on to Chrissy and then we're
[13:16] moving on. Okay, we have three more
[13:18] things on the agenda and we have 45 more
[13:20] minutes. Okay,
[13:22] >> so you get one more question.
[13:24] >> Okay, the last question. Um
[13:31] I guess it's just comments now. I just
[13:33] uh one thing that will help, we have a
[13:34] lot of residents that come in and they
[13:36] pitch for things. Um, it just looks like
[13:40] there's a lot of time that's been spent
[13:42] or some degree of time by u Mr. Doxy
[13:45] with the agreement and then Shane and I
[13:48] think it would just help if we gave the
[13:49] residents the same amount of um time and
[13:53] priority when they come in and pitch
[13:54] things and then
[13:55] >> they actually drafted it.
[13:57] >> Yeah, we already we're already out legal
[13:59] expense. That wasn't done by Steve Doxy.
[14:00] It was done by our attorney with
[14:02] >> Oh, well in the report it just said he
[14:03] looked over it then. Either way, um just
[14:05] the fact that it's coming up. I mean,
[14:06] there's we've had a lot of residents try
[14:07] to push things. They just take a long
[14:09] time and we're not able to get them
[14:11] prioritized. And the last thing is I
[14:12] it's it's more for the council. Um
[14:16] the I mean, we got elections coming up
[14:18] and these are I I suggest you talk to
[14:21] these folks. They're not pleased with
[14:23] the last exceptions we've made. They're
[14:26] not pleased with this. Um just to
[14:28] consider that. Uh at the end of the day,
[14:30] we represent the residents. So, thank
[14:32] you.
[14:32] >> Thank you, Chrissy.
[14:33] >> I already asked my questions. Thanks.
[14:35] Just one one just one more general
[14:37] comment is again as a
[14:40] I don't know what I think you're a very
[14:42] fairly conservative politically person
[14:45] generally conservative people and a
[14:48] conservative state is
[14:51] airing on the on the on the rights of
[14:53] the land owner. Um yeah we generally do
[14:57] want to consider the public benefit
[14:58] that's how zoning and all land use is
[15:01] applicable. And while the courts say
[15:02] yes, you can impose restrictions on
[15:05] people's ability to use our land, but it
[15:07] has to be reasonable. It has to be for
[15:08] the public benefit. So Utah law
[15:11] basically says to heir on the side of
[15:13] the land owner when the law is ambiguous
[15:16] or when there's no significant public
[15:18] benefit. And I just don't see the public
[15:20] benefit here of not allowing this. I
[15:23] think it actually is is in the public
[15:26] benefit to allow it for the safety
[15:27] reasons that I articulated. It would be
[15:29] another thing if they were asking for
[15:31] halfacre lots and they're not. Each of
[15:33] the lots
[15:34] >> are over the 40,000 that is required in
[15:37] the zone.
[15:38] >> So just just to explain
[15:39] >> and of all those reasons of why why you
[15:41] would not want to allow a private
[15:42] street. This is the only reason that's
[15:44] the only thing we're talking about here
[15:45] is a private street versus four
[15:47] driveways.
[15:48] >> Well, yes. Okay.
[15:49] >> They're going to develop the land
[15:50] regardless
[15:51] >> to explain. These are great points to
[15:52] explain.
[15:53] >> None of them are applicable in my if you
[15:55] think they are, that's great. So great.
[15:57] I think we do need to move on. But hold
[15:59] on. Thank you very much. I appreciate
[16:01] you coming and addressing our concerns.
[16:03] Thank you.
[16:04] >> Hold on. To explain what Brent said,
[16:06] it's it's valuable because he asked he he made he made inferences about uh
[16:11] me being conservative.
[16:13] >> We can take it offline.
[16:14] >> No, no, this will this will help. This
[16:15] will help. It's very quick. It's
[16:16] >> I don't think it's going to help
[16:17] anything.
[16:18] >> So So that was the reason I was asking
[16:20] him about who would be the ultimate
[16:22] owner. I was trying to derive who would
[16:24] be the ultimate property owner and
[16:26] generally they want lots that are as we
[16:29] have them. The other thing is whenever I
[16:31] am I I ran as a deep conservative. I
[16:33] spend most of my time working in very liberal cities and they all fail
[16:37] for one thing. They overdevelop. We're
[16:40] talking Chicago, DC, San Francisco. They
[16:42] overdevelop. They over densify and then
[16:45] they have a big big difference.
[16:46] >> Let's move on. Okay. No, let's move on.
[16:48] It's time to move on. You're going on to
[16:50] a diet trap. We understand where you're
[16:51] coming from,
[16:52] >> right?
[16:53] >> We're going on on to item D, detached
[16:55] accessory dwelling units, ADUs. As we
[16:57] all know, is allowed by um the state
[17:00] legislature this year and so we need to
[17:02] come up with an ordinance that addresses
[17:04] it and so how we are going to kind of
[17:08] work on that. I know Kaden's been
[17:10] working on it. We've asked him to um
[17:12] come up with them some stuff. Kaden, did
[17:14] you want to take that over or
[17:17] Shane wants to add it?
[17:18] >> No, go ahead.
[17:18] >> Okay.
[17:20] >> Yeah. So, um, since we don't have a lot
[17:23] of time today, the kind of the goal was
[17:24] just to get council's input as we try to
[17:26] formalize this this code update. Like we
[17:30] said, it's mandatory. So, this is not a
[17:32] discretionary choice, but we're trying
[17:34] to get in the in the best way possible
[17:36] for our city. Um, we've talked with
[17:39] planning commission twice about this
[17:40] already. So, they provided a lot of
[17:42] input. If you were able to look through
[17:43] the packet, you could see all the input
[17:46] they provided as well as the state
[17:47] requirements. That was exhibit A here.
[17:50] Um the staff initially came up with uh a
[17:53] proposed code for for this new state
[17:56] requirement that was exhibit B.
[17:59] And so I'll just go through I'll just
[18:01] skip through that. If you have any
[18:03] questions, let me know. Um we took it to
[18:06] the planning commission and they brought
[18:08] in this holiday city code that is
[18:11] focused on detached ADUs and everything
[18:14] that the city of Holiday does. And so
[18:16] the planning commission ended up
[18:17] recommending a lot of elements from this
[18:19] code. Um, and that was in their motion
[18:22] that's right here. Um, so
[18:26] what I tried to do is just go ahead and
[18:29] kind of use a lot or most of what the
[18:33] planning commission recommended. There
[18:34] were some things I I still personally
[18:36] didn't agree with, so I didn't include
[18:38] them. But that's that's why it's a
[18:39] discussion. uh we want to be open to to
[18:42] everyone's suggestion and ultimately
[18:44] come up with the best solution. So this
[18:47] is what I've kind of come up with mixing
[18:48] the the original staff proposal and then
[18:51] the planning commission recommendations.
[18:53] Um so we have a definition for what a
[18:56] detached ADU is. This is just straight
[18:57] from the state code. So we're just copy
[19:00] pasting there. Um I have a definition
[19:02] for living space here. So this was one
[19:04] of the the hot topic points between
[19:07] staff and planning commission. Um, at
[19:09] least me, I I feel like detached ADU
[19:12] should be based on living space, not
[19:13] footprint. That's my opinion. I think it
[19:15] keeps them smaller. Um, keeps them more
[19:17] accessory feeling. Um, doesn't allow
[19:20] second home type feels to go on
[19:22] properties. Um, planning commission
[19:25] recommended doing footprint instead. So,
[19:28] looking for input on that from the
[19:29] council. Um the planning commission
[19:33] recommended we have a purpose statement
[19:35] at the beginning of the ADU code which
[19:37] is 314. And so that's what this is. Um
[19:41] adding these in obviously just as the
[19:43] titles for the internal and detached
[19:45] ADU. So we separated it out. So internal
[19:47] will now have its own section here. Um
[19:50] so we change took this line from here
[19:52] and put it down here.
[19:54] Um,
[19:55] >> so Katie, can we do a footprint and then
[19:58] a total square footage? Also,
[20:02] >> I think that could be an option as well.
[20:03] I mean, the main reason I don't like the
[20:05] footprint is because if someone's trying
[20:06] to reconstruct their already existing
[20:10] accessory garage and it's over the the
[20:14] allowed footprint or the allowed square
[20:16] footage for an ADU, then I think it's
[20:19] kind of dead on arrival. um it doesn't
[20:22] allow them to update that garage. Um so
[20:25] that's why I favor the living space. But
[20:27] >> could we also talk about living space
[20:29] and then yeah lot coverage instead of
[20:32] footprint?
[20:33] >> Can we go through all of them though and
[20:34] then figure out where the points of
[20:36] conflict are?
[20:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. Let's go through all that. I
[20:39] think I think that was kind of the happy
[20:41] medium we were trying to find with the
[20:42] planning commission suggestion. So, um,
[20:45] so here in number five, we we wanted to
[20:48] add this into the internal section to
[20:50] make sure the internal ADUs also have
[20:52] this regulation of 90 days. Um, and
[20:54] there's one for detached as well. I know
[20:56] that council member Rumbler sent me an
[20:58] email about this specific language. Um,
[21:02] if it maybe needed a little bit more
[21:04] detail to to determine that, that's
[21:06] something that we can talk about as
[21:08] well. Um maybe we'll just do it when we
[21:12] come up on it down here. Brent, if you
[21:14] want to bring it up. Um so yeah, so here
[21:17] is the actual detach ADU code. It's
[21:20] 314030.
[21:22] Um
[21:24] so I had these two tables in here
[21:25] because there was originally staff
[21:27] proposed just since the state is only
[21:30] requiring us to have 11,000 square feet
[21:33] lots or larger to have ADUs allowed.
[21:36] That's what we originally proposed as
[21:37] staff planning commission thought that
[21:40] any lot size could have an ADU. That's
[21:44] what they origin
[21:46] for the recommendation. And so um so
[21:50] actually this number sorry this should
[21:51] be zero. This should not be 300. This
[21:53] should be zero to 10,000 10,000 to
[21:55] 20,000 20 40 and 40,000 plus. So the
[21:57] planning commission came up with the
[21:59] idea of we should allow all lots to have
[22:01] an ADU as long as they meet all these
[22:03] requirements. So that was that was
[22:05] something that we ended up and I and I
[22:08] think that's fine as as the planner. I
[22:10] think you know the more property rights
[22:12] the better usually for most people. So
[22:15] um and what they wanted to do is um
[22:17] between 0 and 10,000 the maximum square
[22:20] footage you should have is 800. Um and
[22:23] then all all these going down. So your
[22:25] ADU can be a little bit bigger as your
[22:27] lot size is bigger. Again I think it
[22:30] should be living space. They want it to
[22:32] be footprint. I think it should be
[22:33] living space, but that's just that's
[22:35] just my opinion.
[22:36] >> The reason um you know when you describe
[22:39] living space, I can see people saying,
[22:40] "Well, I've got a huge office and then
[22:43] I've got living space and it's still
[22:45] incorporated." And you know, we've seen
[22:47] throughout the years people kind of
[22:48] circumventing that. So, that's why I
[22:50] have an issue with living space. I
[22:52] understand what you're saying,
[22:54] >> but how that's going to be interpreted
[22:56] and stretched is my concern,
[22:58] >> especially with when you consider if
[23:00] they want to put a garage on this ADU.
[23:02] Yeah,
[23:02] >> that's just going to make it that much
[23:04] bigger.
[23:04] >> Yeah. So, you could do a garage, a home
[23:06] office,
[23:08] >> and then living space,
[23:11] >> because a office wouldn't be considered
[23:13] that.
[23:14] >> So, yeah, listen to the planning
[23:15] commission, it made it sound like they
[23:16] just want to limit
[23:17] >> Yeah. the total coverage on the lot,
[23:19] >> the
[23:21] foundation.
[23:22] >> That kind of makes sense to me.
[23:24] >> Yeah.
[23:25] >> I don't want these massive second homes,
[23:27] especially on a halfacre lot.
[23:31] They still have to meet the
[23:32] >> Kaden from
[23:33] >> I don't know if we're getting Oh, go
[23:34] ahead.
[23:34] >> What? You go ahead.
[23:36] >> I don't know if we're getting a little
[23:37] sidetracked, but to Carla's point, what
[23:39] were they talking about, could uh the
[23:42] what could we like you said have like a
[23:45] both where they have to satisfy two
[23:47] criteria. So, if they meet the lot
[23:50] coverage criteria because they don't
[23:51] have a giant home or they don't have a
[23:53] sevencar garage already on their lot,
[23:56] but so that would sort of it would meet
[23:58] both. So if they haven't overbuilt p,
[24:01] you know, using that phrase loosely.
[24:03] Yeah.
[24:04] >> And they and they meet the in the living
[24:06] space criteria
[24:08] >> like then go ahead. But if you've
[24:10] already overbuilt, then you're sort of
[24:13] you can't add any more space anyways.
[24:16] >> You know what I'm saying? So to your
[24:17] point where if you divide an existing
[24:20] garage and half of it living and half of
[24:22] its car, you haven't increase the
[24:24] footprint, right? So if we if they're
[24:27] working on two different criteria, do
[24:29] you know what I'm saying? To allow for
[24:31] what you're saying, but also to prevent
[24:33] with what Carla saying. That's kind of
[24:35] >> Yeah.
[24:35] >> How two different two different criteria
[24:38] to for two different problems.
[24:40] >> Okay. That was just thinking through
[24:42] what you guys are both saying.
[24:44] >> Okay.
[24:46] >> Oh, just quick clarification what they
[24:47] were talking about. What Kayen, when
[24:48] you're saying living space, are you are
[24:51] you meaning square footage of the entire
[24:52] structure? No, just the living area. So,
[24:56] not the garage.
[24:57] >> Not including the garage. Not including
[24:58] an office. Okay. So, I was
[24:59] >> Well, actually, I don't know about the
[25:00] office. That's I I haven't heard of
[25:02] that. Is the office not usually included
[25:04] in living space?
[25:05] >> I don't know. I would think
[25:06] >> that's something I've never heard of.
[25:08] >> Okay. So, so you're
[25:09] >> that's how people
[25:10] >> So, when you're saying what you prefer
[25:11] is you prefer um looking at the living
[25:15] space, not just the foot.
[25:16] >> That's codes I've seen is the
[25:18] >> and and no one is using just total
[25:19] square footage.
[25:21] >> Well, I think it probably people are
[25:22] using both. Yeah. Um, but what I've seen
[25:25] is I mean at least where I came from,
[25:27] Wasach County, a lot of people have huge
[25:28] garages and they have a,200 square foot
[25:30] area for the ADU inside that garage.
[25:33] >> I'll save it for the end when we chat by
[25:35] them. I'm pretty sure people would care
[25:36] most. They won't care whether it's a
[25:38] garage or a
[25:39] >> uh office or they'll care about their
[25:41] views and their neighbors encroachments
[25:44] and the high density whe square footage
[25:46] total might take care of that, but I'll wait. Yeah,
[25:49] >> I do think what Carla is saying though
[25:51] is people like um would build a a garage
[25:53] and then call it an office above.
[25:55] >> So if it doesn't meet the criteria of
[25:57] living like without I forget is it a
[25:59] sink or toilet? I can't remember what
[26:01] the criteria is to make it living
[26:03] >> and they just call it office then that's
[26:05] a a way to say well so living and office
[26:08] like we we'd probably just need to
[26:10] >> um zero in on some of the language and
[26:12] we'd be fine. Could we not include
[26:14] office as part of like the definition of
[26:17] living space? Because I would assume
[26:20] >> I I I would that's me though. Yeah. So
[26:24] >> like I think the planning commission was
[26:26] saying like if we allow 1,200 foot uh
[26:29] footprints then that means someone could
[26:31] have a second story with another 1,200
[26:33] feet. Then we have a 2400 square foot
[26:34] ADU on a property. I just was thinking
[26:37] that we wanted to avoid that but
[26:39] >> and a basement right they can go down
[26:41] too
[26:41] >> technically. Yeah. So, I mean, someone
[26:44] could have a 30,000 foot ADU on their
[26:46] property if they just as long as their
[26:48] footprint is only 1,200. And so, I just
[26:50] thought that was excessive. That was me.
[26:52] >> Thank you for that suggestion.
[26:53] >> Makes sense.
[26:56] » Okay. Um, number three was just about
[27:00] definitions of owner occupancy. Uh,
[27:02] number four, so this was when we got
[27:05] into maximum lot coverage, and I I think
[27:07] it uh it's a good idea uh that we could
[27:09] look at. Um,
[27:12] one issue with it is just we don't have
[27:15] lot coverage elsewhere in the code
[27:17] except for in the TR10,000 zone and so
[27:21] we're only going to implement lot
[27:22] coverage for ADUs maybe seems a little
[27:24] bit arbitrary but um but I think it
[27:26] could also be good depending on how we
[27:28] do it. So um yeah, so they suggested
[27:31] these percentages with with the size of
[27:33] lot um so that's what we have there.
[27:37] Correct me if I'm wrong, Kaden. Already
[27:39] in our TR10,000, don't we already have a
[27:41] 50% lock coverage? So that
[27:44] >> Yeah, that's the only one that we have
[27:45] lock coverage.
[27:45] >> Okay. I was just looking at the
[27:46] percentage here, maximum says 35. I just
[27:49] >> Yeah. So that would have to be that
[27:51] would have to be addressed. Um that
[27:52] discrepancy there. Um the other issue I
[27:55] saw with this too is just again
[27:58] administratively it could be difficult
[27:59] to figure out exact percentages of how
[28:01] much lot coverage they have uh with all
[28:04] the structures on there. Usually people
[28:05] when they submit they might not show
[28:07] every single thing they have on their
[28:08] property, every structure. So
[28:10] >> what is the what is the
[28:11] >> some work for staff?
[28:12] >> What is the benefit of including this as
[28:14] opposed to just a square footage
[28:15] requirement based on the lot size that's
[28:17] going to limit or living space or
[28:19] whatever we decide?
[28:21] >> I think that would be sufficient to
[28:22] limit
[28:23] >> and and that's what we originally
[28:24] proposed as staff but planning
[28:26] commission thought this was this was
[28:28] better.
[28:29] >> Um
[28:30] >> well they saw that H holiday did it so
[28:32] that's why Allan
[28:34] >> Yeah. So,
[28:36] >> so yeah.
[28:37] >> Did Holiday also have a square footage
[28:40] restriction?
[28:41] >> Yes, that's part of how this table was
[28:43] formed.
[28:44] >> Yeah, I can tell you because I live in
[28:46] Holiday that they have a an impervious
[28:49] surface
[28:50] requirement depending on your lot size.
[28:54] >> If you try to put in a pickle ball court
[28:55] and you've already got a long driveway
[28:58] and you've got an accessory structure in
[29:00] a home, it may be difficult. So they're
[29:04] kind of going down that path as well.
[29:06] >> So Kaden, is there a way to do this
[29:08] where it's it needs to meet both or the
[29:11] lesser of the two or how are we
[29:16] >> um both?
[29:17] >> It has to meet this and the square
[29:19] footage or is it whatever is
[29:21] >> that's that's the requirement the
[29:22] planning commission recommends. Yeah.
[29:23] Has to meet both. What did they ever
[29:25] consider what um Steve has referenced
[29:28] where there's regardless of what you're
[29:30] building there's a lot coverage
[29:33] >> because then that it wouldn't we
[29:34] wouldn't have a special something just
[29:37] an ADU.
[29:38] >> So we like pull it out of the ADU
[29:40] ordinance and just say everything is
[29:41] included in that. Yeah, like I said,
[29:43] we're working into two different
[29:45] sections of the code and
[29:46] >> yeah,
[29:47] >> and and I think and Jason was there like
[29:51] I think they they were talking about
[29:53] restricting the lot coverage to the main
[29:55] structure and the ADU and then there was
[29:58] also some discussion of it's all
[30:00] permanent structures and that's what
[30:01] ended up in their in their motion. I
[30:04] don't know if they intended it to be all
[30:05] permanent structures but that's what
[30:09] John ended up saying. So if it is all
[30:12] permanent structures, we would have to
[30:14] see as staff reviewing these like pickle
[30:16] ball courts, like everything, swimming
[30:18] pool, everything they have in their
[30:19] property that counts as a permanent
[30:20] structure by definition. And then that
[30:23] that's where it can kind of get
[30:24] complicated with lot coverage
[30:26] percentages for us to figure out, okay,
[30:28] now they're bringing ADU, so now we have
[30:31] to worry about lot coverage. So, like
[30:33] you're saying, it could be beneficial to
[30:34] just maybe adopt a a separate code
[30:37] outside of the ADU that's all about law
[30:38] coverage if we really want to go that
[30:40] route.
[30:40] >> And are we really going to have allow
[30:42] ADUs with these percentages? That's the house and the ADU and
[30:47] potentially a permanent shed, nobody
[30:50] will be able to build one.
[30:51] >> I mean, a 25% lot coverage on a 20,000
[30:55] foot property. That's I don't think
[30:58] that's a reason.
[30:59] >> It gets close, I think. Yeah. I mean, I was looking at some properties. I
[31:03] think I looked at some in that range and
[31:05] the house by itself was about yeah, 19
[31:07] 18 to 20%. And so, you think you can add
[31:10] an ADU.
[31:11] >> So, it just really depends on what
[31:13] you're including in that percentage as a
[31:15] permanent structure.
[31:16] >> So, in that case, it's not all imperous
[31:18] services, right? It just says um
[31:21] permanent structures.
[31:22] >> Yeah. Because I mean one challenge with
[31:25] impervious area, we don't we don't have
[31:29] people pull permits for doing concrete
[31:31] flat work. And so they could go over we
[31:35] could approve something like in the
[31:37] TR10,000 even with what we have now that
[31:40] goes right up to the 50%
[31:43] and they come in to get a permit for a
[31:45] little shed or something and we find out
[31:46] that they poured this huge concrete pad
[31:49] out back that we had no idea about. and
[31:52] they'd be in violation.
[31:54] >> Can I ask?
[31:54] >> So, it's
[31:56] >> the the impervious surface lot from what
[31:59] I I Googled it like beyond holiday and
[32:02] it it's more in the 60% range. So, these
[32:05] are very limiting because of the
[32:06] structure reference where the impervious
[32:09] surfaces are way more generous. So,
[32:12] we're talking about two different things
[32:13] here.
[32:14] >> And they didn't they didn't intend to
[32:15] put pickupball courts, but if it's if
[32:16] it's a shed that can't be moved, then
[32:18] that would be included. But if it's a
[32:20] >> temporary shed that you could dis
[32:22] Michelle Shurmer said some cities say if
[32:24] it can be
[32:25] >> taken down in 24 hours it doesn't count.
[32:28] >> So I have one of those in my yard that I
[32:29] can laughed and said with an excavator
[32:32] almost anything can be
[32:33] >> So because these are dwelling or or
[32:36] permanent like you're saying it we're
[32:37] not even talking about flat flat
[32:39] concrete. That's a completely different
[32:41] section of their code which is
[32:43] impervious surface and it's way more
[32:45] generous. It's 60% of the lot. Can I
[32:48] just because we had that water
[32:50] presentation a few weeks ago, we're
[32:52] talking about land use through the lens
[32:53] of water like permeable versus
[32:55] impermeable. I noticed in holidays um
[32:58] they talk about like how why they
[33:01] require that it has to do with water. I
[33:03] don't know if anyone could speak to that
[33:04] or if that's a conversation for another
[33:05] day, but I'm just curious how you know
[33:08] if we have all these permeable surfaces,
[33:10] how does that affect the water? Just
[33:14] throwing that out there. I do think it's
[33:15] a topic that would take a whole
[33:17] different study session, but
[33:19] >> that's what I'm trying to say is like
[33:20] we're talking about two different
[33:22] measuring sticks, right? Impervious
[33:24] surfaces are bigger, way bigger than
[33:26] what you're showing here.
[33:28] >> Yeah,
[33:29] >> we probably should go on, huh? Right.
[33:31] And then hit the big topics limited
[33:32] time.
[33:33] >> Okay. Um, yeah. So, maybe just on this
[33:36] if we want clarification on what this
[33:39] means like from from the council, it
[33:42] doesn't have to be right now. Maybe it's
[33:43] just through an email. just what you
[33:45] think about that, what that should be.
[33:46] >> Those percentages are appropriate
[33:47] because they kind of came up with I
[33:49] think John came up with
[33:51] >> I know they're somewhat related to what
[33:53] Holiday had and so they kind of just
[33:55] rounded those numbers, but
[33:57] >> Holiday kind of does a 3%. It's a much
[33:59] more robust table, but they rounded that
[34:01] out from the holiday table. Okay. Um, so
[34:04] number five, we the state allows us to
[34:08] restrict one ADU per property. And so we
[34:11] feel like that probably is best practice
[34:13] for our city. If someone already has an
[34:14] internal ADU, they can't have another
[34:17] ADU as a detached. Um, and we'll figure
[34:20] out how we how we're going to monitor
[34:22] that. Um,
[34:24] uh, occupancy shall either be one
[34:26] individual or should comply with the
[34:27] definition of family. So this was a
[34:29] suggestion from the planning commission
[34:30] to make sure we say like who can
[34:32] actually live there and family defines
[34:34] it as you know blood relatives whatever
[34:36] family might be or for unrelated
[34:38] individuals. So we figured that would be
[34:39] good. Um number seven is the same one as
[34:42] before that shouldn't be rented for less
[34:44] than 90 days. Um did you want to talk
[34:47] about this one a little bit more?
[34:48] >> Just real quick. So the holiday example
[34:50] that that Allan found and and was using
[34:52] it had a 30 consecutive day requirement
[34:54] which is standard. You know, a lot of
[34:56] times people rent monthtomonth and
[34:58] that's 30 days at a time.
[34:59] >> So they the planning commission I can't
[35:01] remember why they chose 90, but they
[35:03] chose 90.
[35:03] >> The state allows them to do 90. That's
[35:05] why they did it. Yeah, I think. Yeah.
[35:06] >> So yeah, I guess that could potentially
[35:08] limit uh short-term rentals in some way.
[35:11] We already have a statute or an
[35:13] ordinance against that.
[35:14] >> Um I would just suggest that if we do 90
[35:17] days,
[35:19] most people want to do monthtomonth at
[35:21] least. Um well sometimes landlords or or
[35:25] tenants want to do monthtomonth. So
[35:27] maybe if we just clarify it and say an
[35:31] initial
[35:33] 90 90 days and then it could go to
[35:36] monthto month after that. to make it
[35:37] clear and Steve
[35:40] your thoughts. I can interpret this. I
[35:44] think I can reasonably interpret this
[35:45] that that your initial lease term could
[35:47] be 90 days and then every subsequent
[35:48] lease term would have to be 90 days
[35:50] under the statute instead of reverting
[35:52] to monthto monthth. So maybe you sign a
[35:53] year lease and then from there it goes
[35:55] to monthto month. I would just suggest
[35:58] clarifying that just to indicate that it
[36:00] can be monthtomonth after an initial 90
[36:02] days if we want to stick with 90 days.
[36:04] Any thoughts or is that you think that's
[36:07] clear enough?
[36:09] >> I think it's probably clear enough, but
[36:11] if we need to clarify it, we can. That's
[36:13] fine.
[36:13] >> I understand the concept.
[36:15] >> Um, it's rented or offered for rent.
[36:20] >> Yeah, I I see where you're coming from.
[36:22] So, maybe we ought to clarify.
[36:23] >> Is this easy to clarify? You might as
[36:25] well make it abundantly clear when you
[36:26] have the chance.
[36:27] >> Sure.
[36:28] >> Yeah.
[36:29] >> I like less than 90 day. I mean, I like
[36:31] it no less than 90 days because even if
[36:33] it's like monthto month afterwards, I
[36:35] don't know. And I feel like this is
[36:36] pretty generous because a lot of cities
[36:38] it's six months or more.
[36:40] >> No, that's that's fine. I just want to
[36:42] just I'm okay with 90 days.
[36:43] >> Even if we just put the word initial for
[36:46] offered for
[36:47] >> an initial term
[36:48] >> initial term of no less than 90 days.
[36:51] >> Yep. Exactly. That's what I that's what
[36:52] I recommended to them.
[36:53] >> Okay.
[36:54] Okay. That's it.
[36:55] >> Okay. Number eight. Um, so the state
[36:58] statute allows us to just to just have
[37:01] one on-site parking space provided for
[37:04] the ADU.
[37:05] Um, but we can have two. So we we
[37:10] recommend that probably two is is best
[37:12] in our car ccentric society. Um, but
[37:16] there is the catch that if we allow ADUs
[37:18] for smaller than 600,
[37:20] ADUs that have 650 square feet or less
[37:23] only are required to have one per state
[37:25] statute. So, we'll make that clear in
[37:27] the code as well. Um,
[37:30] so here's the setbacks and height
[37:32] question, which is probably everyone's
[37:33] biggest concern. So,
[37:36] we feel that it could it it probably
[37:40] will work just fine uh for the detached
[37:43] accessory dwelling units with all these
[37:45] other restrictions to also just meet the
[37:47] same setbacks and height restrictions as
[37:49] those for accessory buildings in the
[37:51] zone. Um, I know some people do a little
[37:53] bit different uh different requirements
[37:56] for ADUs specifically than that, but um
[38:00] I I feel that if an an accessory
[38:03] building can be 15t away from the rear,
[38:05] 10 feet from the side, and then if it
[38:07] wants to go higher than 20 feet tall, it
[38:09] has to have a bigger set pack. I feel
[38:11] like that makes sense. Um, and then for
[38:14] the height, yeah, it can be 20 feet
[38:17] tall. And if they want to have a taller
[38:19] ADU like 25 feet, it has to have another
[38:21] 10 feet of setback from both sides. So
[38:23] to me, that just made sense and it makes
[38:25] it easier to administer when we're
[38:26] looking at these. Um, but anyone that
[38:29] has thoughts on that?
[38:30] >> Did they say in the planning commission
[38:31] that 20 feet you cannot have a twotory
[38:34] building with a 20 foot building height?
[38:36] >> So that's why they they recommended 25
[38:38] ft.
[38:39] >> 24.
[38:40] >> Yeah. So
[38:41] >> yeah, they recommended was it 24?
[38:43] >> I think it was I thought it was 25, but
[38:46] >> one of those two. Yeah. And and I I
[38:48] think that could be good if the council
[38:51] thinks that's a better option for
[38:52] restricting the height to 25. Again, the
[38:54] reason why I don't think it's good is
[38:56] because one, our code already allows
[38:57] them to go to 30 if they have an extra
[38:58] 10 feet of setback, which I don't see an
[39:01] issue of an extra 5t tall if you're
[39:04] going 10t back from both ways. I think
[39:06] that you're getting farther and farther
[39:09] from the property.
[39:09] >> So, Kaden, I do think we need to look at
[39:11] that. I do feel like um especially what
[39:13] we've seen in um our city with people
[39:17] building not just ADUs but just
[39:18] accessory units on the property and
[39:21] going all the way up to 34 feet. Even if
[39:24] you go back 10, you know, even if you go
[39:26] back as you go increase your height, I'm
[39:29] wondering if we should seriously look at
[39:32] um just capping off any kind of
[39:34] accessory units, whether it's a dwelling
[39:36] unit or not, and just have a maximum
[39:38] height of maybe 25.
[39:40] Um, you know, I know Andrew is um
[39:43] concerned about view corridors. I think
[39:45] that would kind of help if, you know, if
[39:47] we look at that and then we would be
[39:48] consistent whether it's an ADU or an
[39:51] accessory unit. Granted, there's some
[39:53] out there that are higher, but maybe
[39:54] moving forward that's what we could do
[39:56] to protect our residents in that way.
[39:58] >> Yeah, that's a really good idea.
[40:01] >> Yeah, we're definitely open to that as
[40:03] staff. We've talked about that. So, um
[40:06] Oh, go ahead.
[40:07] >> Okay. And should I just mention I know
[40:09] some communities do this if an ADU is
[40:12] going to be if there's going to be
[40:14] living space on the second floor that
[40:17] which is going to be above any fence uh
[40:19] that they have you can't have windows on
[40:23] certain sides or you can't have windows
[40:25] within so many feet of the property line
[40:28] so that it's not somebody looking right
[40:30] down into your into your home or your
[40:33] yard if you're too close if you built
[40:35] right to the set point.
[40:36] >> Oh yeah. So, something something to
[40:38] consider, but it's not it's not required
[40:41] in the statute.
[40:43] >> And I'll I'll comment on that, too,
[40:44] because that's something we did think
[40:46] about as well, because that is in our
[40:48] code currently for certain accessory
[40:50] buildings that want to be just 2 feet
[40:51] away from the property line. They can't
[40:53] have any openings on the on the side
[40:55] closest to the property line. The reason
[40:57] why it ended up not in here is just
[40:59] because we feel like the setback is deep
[41:00] enough that I mean you'll you'll be 10
[41:03] feet away and 15 feet away from the rear
[41:05] if you're 20t tall if and which is maybe
[41:08] a two-story building. If you're 25 ft
[41:11] you're again you're an extra 10t away.
[41:13] So it just seemed like it was deep
[41:14] enough away that you're not going to be
[41:15] peeking in the neighbor's yard anyway.
[41:17] But that's a thought council can
[41:19] consider too.
[41:22] Okay. Um,
[41:26] let's see. So, number 11, we the state
[41:30] code allows us to do this and we feel it
[41:32] is good for our city that the accessory
[41:34] dwelling units be built with materials
[41:36] or design that match those of the main
[41:37] dwelling, provide consistency with the
[41:40] look and feel of our city. Um, number
[41:42] 12, they follow international
[41:43] residential and building codes. Um,
[41:46] number 13, they shall connect to the
[41:47] same meter as the main dwelling. Um and
[41:50] if there's not sufficient capacity, it's
[41:52] prohibited. That's a that's a big one
[41:54] for our systems. Um and then again,
[41:59] international res residential and
[42:01] building codes. That might be a
[42:02] repetition of 12. We'll have to look at
[42:03] that. Um
[42:05] and then we have to provide a provision
[42:07] to allow legally constructed accessory
[42:10] structures to convert to ADUs. So that's
[42:13] what 15 is trying to fulfill. Um the the
[42:18] we're proposing that the accessory
[42:20] structure shall comply with all the
[42:23] requirements in this in this section
[42:25] essentially. Um height, size, lot
[42:27] coverage, design, etc. Um and and if
[42:31] they do, then then these accessory
[42:33] buildings that are currently existing
[42:35] can have a conversion process. Um there
[42:37] was some discussion in the planning
[42:39] commission about having outside of even
[42:41] this just having an exception process
[42:43] for accessory buildings that currently
[42:45] exist um that don't meet these
[42:47] requirements. I personally feel like
[42:50] they they should meet these requirements
[42:51] if we're going to allow them to have an
[42:52] ADU. So I I thought we shouldn't have
[42:55] that in there, but just so you know.
[42:57] >> Um
[42:59] okay. And then number 16,
[43:02] uh there's going to be an accessory
[43:04] dwelling unit permit process. Actually,
[43:06] Mara and our building department and
[43:07] Jenny are managing that currently with
[43:09] any accessory apartments that we have.
[43:12] Um, but we're going to make sure that process is shored up and is clear
[43:18] and so that we can get those repeated
[43:20] numbers every year for the for the state
[43:22] with moderate income housing. Um, so and
[43:25] then that that kind of also relates to number 17. We want them to fill out
[43:29] the ADU registration rental license
[43:32] renewal uh that we'll provide every
[43:34] year. Um and they'll only need the
[43:36] rental license uh fee if they are
[43:40] actually renting. If they're just doing
[43:41] it with family, not renting, then they
[43:43] won't need to pay that fee.
[43:45] And that is the end.
[43:49] >> Thank you. If you guys have any Thank
[43:51] you, Kayen. If you guys have any input,
[43:53] please um emails.
[43:57] So we're not going to discuss further.
[44:00] >> I have
[44:01] >> Yeah, if you do it quick
[44:04] >> one question was um
[44:06] >> Holiday had a 200 foot minimum ADU DADU
[44:10] detach ADU.
[44:11] >> Yeah,
[44:11] >> the planning commission said 300 square
[44:14] foot minimum.
[44:15] >> Correct.
[44:15] >> So um I'm okay with 300 too and I don't
[44:18] know how that would be pretty small. 200
[44:20] feet, but that's that didn't make its
[44:23] way in here. But you'll you'll add that
[44:24] in
[44:25] >> I think. Yeah. And I I think that was
[44:26] just me uh not putting that in, but I
[44:28] think that is our intention.
[44:29] >> I guess I got that 300.
[44:31] >> I put it in the wrong location. Yeah,
[44:32] >> exactly. So that's another thought is
[44:34] the minimum size they recommend was 300
[44:36] feet, which I have no issues with.
[44:39] >> Okay.
[44:40] >> And then wasn't there a provision that
[44:42] if you have
[44:44] >> an attach or an a current ADU, attached
[44:47] ADU or whatever, that you can't have a
[44:50] detached.
[44:50] >> Correct. So, I have an apartment in my
[44:52] basement that was built by the previous
[44:55] owner, but I've never rented it out.
[44:57] I've My my son is and my wife are in
[45:00] there right now, but I don't charge them
[45:01] any rent. So, I don't have a permit or
[45:02] anything. It's just our living space.
[45:04] Does that preclude me from having a
[45:06] detached ADU?
[45:07] >> I've never I mean, the previous owner
[45:09] had one.
[45:10] >> They had renters and they did the
[45:11] permits, but I never have.
[45:13] >> I don't How do you How do you do that?
[45:15] >> Yeah, I mean, that that's a good
[45:17] question. And I think there it might be
[45:19] difficult maybe to manage every
[45:21] situation like that, but
[45:22] >> I could take the door off and it's not
[45:24] no longer a separate apartment.
[45:25] >> Well, yeah,
[45:26] >> I think if you do that then it wouldn't
[45:27] be and then you could have an AU. But I
[45:29] don't think you can have more than one
[45:32] >> Yeah.
[45:33] >> Oh, yeah. More than one rent, I guess.
[45:35] So I if I if I build the detached one, I
[45:37] can't rent out
[45:38] >> accessory unit.
[45:39] >> If he has like a kitchen in his
[45:41] basement, can he have one of these or is
[45:42] that disqualify it?
[45:43] >> I have three two kitchens in my
[45:45] basement.
[45:45] >> Okay. So say is he disqualified then? Is
[45:47] that is that make him So I think the way
[45:48] it's currently written, yes,
[45:50] >> you'd be disqualified. Yeah.
[45:51] >> Yeah. I mean, I I would I would rather
[45:53] say you could only use you can only use
[45:55] one or the other.
[45:56] >> You can't have both at the same time.
[45:59] >> I think with the license required for an
[46:02] ADU.
[46:04] It it I think it could go that
[46:06] direction. We're not going to license
[46:08] you for two, right? We'd license you for
[46:10] one.
[46:10] >> You could see because they only allowed
[46:12] to be licensed for one. So I wouldn't be
[46:14] not that I plan to. I don't.
[46:16] >> Yeah. I I I wouldn't be procluded if I'm
[46:18] choosing not to use my
[46:19] >> I don't
[46:20] >> accessory apartment just because it was
[46:21] built that way by a previous owner.
[46:23] >> Yeah. I don't think there's a huge issue
[46:24] with that. I mean obviously someone
[46:26] could always take advantage and rent
[46:28] both and we can't manage that. That that
[46:29] would be the only issue I think
[46:31] >> become a code compliance.
[46:33] >> Yeah. It become a co code compliance.
[46:34] >> Most of the United States runs on
[46:36] honesty. So we need people to be honest.
[46:39] >> Yeah. So
[46:41] >> um Sarah.
[46:42] >> Okay. I'll just try to go through really
[46:44] quickly the things that like maybe are a
[46:47] little bit should we do this or that?
[46:48] Um, first of all, are the setbacks the
[46:51] same as a primary structure? Is that
[46:52] what was determined
[46:53] >> as an accessory structure?
[46:54] because I know
[46:56] during planning commission they talked
[46:57] about maybe having the setbacks match
[46:59] the primary structure which
[47:02] >> I guess just in my limited experience I
[47:05] feel like maybe having it match the
[47:06] primary structure would be better in my
[47:08] opinion. Um, another thing is,
[47:13] um, I like the 20 foot tall but a max of
[47:16] 25 feet. I like having that max. Sorry
[47:19] if I misspoke. I guess it is 25 instead
[47:21] of 24.
[47:22] >> Um, and then
[47:25] uh structure size. I I do agree with
[47:28] Jeff Davis on planning commission that
[47:30] anything less than 1100 11,000 square
[47:33] feet should not be allowed to have an
[47:35] ADU. Personally, that's kind of I mean
[47:38] the state allows for that. That's where
[47:39] I say
[47:40] >> that that was a big one. So, we should
[47:41] probably discuss that one.
[47:42] >> I agree with her and Jeff and
[47:44] >> so the so the smaller lot should not
[47:47] it's not that I don't I'll wait till I
[47:49] zones.
[47:49] >> I thought they voted seven to zero to
[47:51] approve their recommendation that it
[47:53] should be on
[47:54] >> No, they did. They did. I think they
[47:55] were
[47:56] >> saying that you don't agree with just to clarify the state requires us to
[48:00] permit them in all residential zones,
[48:04] but if a lot is
[48:06] >> under 11,000 square feet, they don't
[48:08] mandate that an ADU be permitted.
[48:11] >> Oh, so
[48:13] it can be in a 10,000 square foot zone,
[48:15] but if it's not 11,000 square feet, you
[48:18] don't qualify unless you unless the city
[48:21] says you do. So you you can you have
[48:24] that discretion to make it less than 11.
[48:27] >> We can go above.
[48:28] >> Yeah.
[48:28] >> So I'm not trying to discriminate
[48:30] against zone, but just maybe lot size,
[48:32] like if it's less than 11,000 square
[48:34] feet. [laughter]
[48:35] >> Um I I know that the Utah League of
[48:38] Cities and Towns said that 12,000 square
[48:41] feet for a detached ADU was a little bit
[48:43] on the larger size. So that was just
[48:44] something that I didn't know if other
[48:45] people had considered. I do like the
[48:47] dimensions being proportional to the lot
[48:49] size. I do like thinking about living
[48:51] space versus footprint, but I also think
[48:54] that we have to take into consideration
[48:56] living space and lot coverage and I
[48:59] would love it if we could adopt a lot
[49:01] coverage for all the zones. Um, I think
[49:03] that would help with this and it would
[49:05] just help in general moving forward. Um,
[49:10] and then I as far as lot coverage, what
[49:12] should it include? It sounds like
[49:14] anything that's permanent. I'm I'm in
[49:17] favor of that. Um, I like the rental
[49:21] term of 90-day minimum
[49:24] uh parking. Agree that there should be
[49:25] four total off- streetet parking. Um,
[49:30] sorry,
[49:31] >> for the ADU,
[49:32] >> two for the ADU and yeah,
[49:35] >> and
[49:37] then I'm just trying to think really
[49:38] quick about if there's anything else.
[49:40] And so, right now, do we require a
[49:43] rental license for people with Okay, so
[49:46] we'll still do that. Okay. Um
[49:48] >> that's that's one of the ways we've
[49:50] tracked uh to meet our moderate income
[49:53] housing is through those licenses.
[49:55] >> Oh, that's great.
[49:57] >> Yeah. And then I sorry uh one last
[50:00] thing. Um I does this mean we can get
[50:02] rid of the secondary structure but
[50:03] connected with the same roof clause. Is
[50:05] that I mean is there have we revisited
[50:08] that because now
[50:10] >> I mean maybe that's a discussion for
[50:11] another day but probably we can hash out
[50:14] later but um it definitely contributes
[50:17] to this conversation so
[50:19] >> something we're considering.
[50:21] >> I just let me just look back through my
[50:22] notes really quick. Um
[50:25] uh the percentages for coverage of all
[50:28] structures. I don't know. I would love
[50:30] some more expert input on those
[50:32] percentages if you agree with those or
[50:34] if you feel like those should be
[50:35] different and
[50:37] >> sorry which ones the lot coverage ones.
[50:39] >> Yes,
[50:41] but I mean you can I don't know if you
[50:44] want to discuss now or later but
[50:47] that was just one other question.
[50:48] >> Yeah, I mean I guess my initial thought
[50:50] is just what exactly is included since
[50:52] it wasn't fully clarified by the
[50:53] planning commission. Um what what's
[50:55] included in that coverage is that's what
[50:57] we would want to really make sure we
[50:58] know. Okay. And then would you just like
[51:01] us to email all this to you as well?
[51:03] Yeah. Would that be
[51:04] >> feel free to send me everything and it
[51:05] will help me because we still have to
[51:06] get the formal recommendation from the
[51:08] planning commission before this will
[51:09] come before you.
[51:10] >> Okay.
[51:10] >> Yeah.
[51:11] >> Chrissy,
[51:12] >> mine are similar um to what Sarah said.
[51:16] I from these conversations, I'm seeing
[51:18] four offshoot
[51:20] ordinances that we probably could
[51:22] address in another way that wouldn't be
[51:25] included here, but would address
[51:27] concerns that have been brought. One is
[51:29] lot coverage, one is height, one is
[51:30] permeable surfaces, and the other one is
[51:33] the remodel ordinance that we've talked
[51:35] about, you and I, and I've shared with
[51:37] Sarah. Those are my top four. I can
[51:40] email them to you as well. Um, I did
[51:43] want to share that, um, when doing the
[51:46] Main Street guideline open houses, there
[51:48] was a lot of, um, angst over high
[51:51] density housing. And so, um, hearing
[51:54] from the National Organization for like
[51:56] the middle, the missing middle housing,
[51:58] the how this sort of fills, um, a need
[52:01] in our community without highdensity
[52:04] housing, which is adamantly opposed by,
[52:06] um, our residents. And so, I feel like,
[52:09] uh, the state came forward and like made
[52:11] this possible. And then it's up to us to
[52:13] make it liveable, right? And so, I feel
[52:16] like we've made a lot of progress in a
[52:18] short amount of time. And I do hope that
[52:21] we see more young people moving in as we
[52:23] just did our demographics. So, um I'm
[52:26] supportive of the general concept and
[52:28] thank you for all the hard work and
[52:29] putting all this together and thanks to
[52:31] the planning commission as well who
[52:32] thoroughly went over these things.
[52:35] >> Hey Chrissy, that's the end.
[52:36] >> Um I didn't get a chance to comment on
[52:39] the on the planning commission's
[52:40] recommendation that it be allowed on in
[52:42] the 10,000 foot lot zone. I guess it's
[52:46] going to be allowed in the zone, but the
[52:47] lot size. Um, I personally think that it
[52:51] should be allowed based on but it has to
[52:54] be limited based on the the use and and the foot either either footprint or
[53:01] the square footage requirements. I don't know why we should discriminate
[53:04] against a lot owner just because their
[53:06] lots a little bit smaller. And that's
[53:08] what the planning commission thought and
[53:10] that's what they cited with Holiday. um
[53:12] as long as it's reasonable and we can
[53:14] use that reasonleness based on that
[53:16] those limitations. So I was just curious
[53:18] about what your thought Chris
[53:19] >> Yeah, the same. I I feel like you said
[53:21] the conservative the conservative nature
[53:24] of our public would want us to be able
[53:25] to use the land that we own and but also
[53:30] conserve views and not encroach on
[53:32] neighbors. So that's our job is to make
[53:34] it liveable which
[53:35] >> exactly. So 15 guidelines
[53:37] >> so a 300 foot
[53:38] >> address many things
[53:39] >> right. So a 300 foot ADU on a 10,000
[53:41] foot lot may may be appropriate in the
[53:44] parameters that we set,
[53:45] >> right?
[53:46] >> Yeah. But I feel like, you know, one of
[53:47] the things that makes our community so
[53:49] great is that we don't have the
[53:51] transiency of this. And so the more you
[53:54] open it up, um
[53:58] >> I don't know how many people are going
[53:59] to want to give up their backyards to
[54:00] put in one of these, but
[54:02] >> I think I think there's people lining up
[54:04] already. Yeah.
[54:05] >> No, I
[54:06] >> very
[54:07] >> um having had I do have an ADU with
[54:09] people that are not family living in it
[54:11] and you're very selective about who
[54:13] you're going to share your space with
[54:14] and um I do feel like that uh it opens
[54:18] the door to a couple of things that
[54:21] maybe are beyond the scope of this
[54:22] conversation, but for young families
[54:24] trying to to afford a house, they need a
[54:26] second income to to reduce the cost of
[54:28] the mortgage. So, um, and you're very, very careful about who you have
[54:34] live in your same home or even in close
[54:36] proximity to you. I don't think and the
[54:38] reason we we don't allow them to rent
[54:40] the home and an ADU in the same property
[54:42] internally or externally that prevents a
[54:45] lot of the the problems that you would
[54:47] see in a high rental population.
[54:49] >> And just the last thing that I didn't
[54:51] get a chance to bring up before Andrew,
[54:52] sorry, Andrew is a resident brought up
[54:55] right before our meeting the idea of
[54:56] impact fees. Can you just address
[54:58] whether are we going to be do we need to
[55:00] put that in the ordinance that these
[55:02] DADUs
[55:04] can generate impact fees because it's
[55:06] creating another residence, more sewage,
[55:08] more water use, more road use?
[55:10] >> That's a good point.
[55:11] >> I don't think we can. My understanding
[55:13] is because it's
[55:16] >> I thought we could.
[55:17] >> Specifically in the law when the state
[55:18] forced cities to allow internal ADUs,
[55:22] they said you can't charge an impact
[55:24] fee.
[55:24] >> You said cannot.
[55:27] Lehi was
[55:28] >> and that got shut down.
[55:30] >> What about external?
[55:31] >> I'm not sure on this, but do you know?
[55:34] >> My understanding was that also could
[55:36] not.
[55:37] >> Yeah, I've gone through exhibit A pretty thoroughly and I haven't seen
[55:41] that in here, but
[55:42] >> but they're having you by the same meter
[55:45] and then if it the capacity is there
[55:47] then they cannot.
[55:49] >> But when I was speaking with the state
[55:50] legislators, they were saying no, you
[55:53] can't do that.
[55:54] >> We'll verify it.
[55:55] >> Okay. Just one other thing to throw in
[55:57] the mix here. Steve, did you have a
[55:59] comment?
[55:59] >> I just So, we had a meeting with TSSD on
[56:02] impact fees and they said we should
[56:06] >> I know they think we should
[56:07] >> we should we would love to we would love
[56:10] to increase ones
[56:13] increase on water increase on
[56:15] everything.
[56:16] >> But I legally I don't think we're
[56:18] allowed to. But yeah, students, we can
[56:20] look at that. That would be awesome. I
[56:22] wanted to just throw in yesterday at
[56:23] LPC, apparently there's a movement in
[56:26] the legislature
[56:28] um that would require cities to allow
[56:31] 6,000 square foot lots in any zone that
[56:35] >> require
[56:39] allowable.
[56:40] >> It's early, but that's
[56:43] >> I think the governor coming out saying
[56:45] everything's not working. The housing,
[56:47] you know, it's not increasing. I don't
[56:49] know if this is the next step, but
[56:51] that's what they call
[56:52] >> pack them in tighter
[56:54] >> and
[56:54] >> we all we all know our legislator's
[56:56] phone number
[56:56] >> the way I and they're suggesting talk to
[56:59] your legislators now. So
[57:03] >> well I'll go quick. I love the things
[57:04] the mayor said. See we we get on the
[57:06] side. Isn't that great? Okay. So um this
[57:08] is where I'm looking at this but just to
[57:10] clarify one quick thing. The
[57:11] conservative land owners want open
[57:13] space. So just to clarify that's why
[57:14] Wyoming these open spaces Missouri like
[57:17] Utah like that they're there for open
[57:19] space. So anyways um so we're coming at
[57:23] this we're coming at this from one of
[57:25] the main cities that doesn't allow this.
[57:27] When we go to Utah League cities one of
[57:28] the only few they're like whoa wait a
[57:30] minute we don't even allow this to going
[57:32] like diving into the deep end. So I we
[57:36] can always make this more loosey goosey
[57:38] over time and more and more open and
[57:40] sure this and that. I I I would
[57:42] encourage us to go as restrictive as
[57:44] possible so we can inch into this and
[57:46] see how a couple work take time. I mean
[57:49] there's two Andrews right now. One of me
[57:51] is like, "Oh my gosh, I can make so much
[57:53] money by putting these on properties."
[57:56] And the other and the other half is,
[57:57] "Wait, don't ruin Alpine. This
[58:00] potentially can can destroy everything
[58:03] that 50 years of people like the mayor
[58:05] have done such great work to uh preserve
[58:08] it. So this is the biggest high density
[58:10] or densifying thing that's ever come
[58:12] before us. And so I would go as strict
[58:14] as restrictive as possible just at the
[58:16] beginning and we can always loosen it
[58:18] up. Um I think we should look at a
[58:21] couple examples. We have a we have an
[58:23] expert Steve Doxy, Mr. Doxy from
[58:25] Holiday. Maybe we should go on a tour
[58:26] with him and check out how some of them
[58:27] are working. I know we have a couple in
[58:29] Alpine uh one up north. We've got one
[58:31] off of Alpine Boulevard. We might look
[58:33] at them and then we'd be like, "Okay,
[58:34] how high is that?" We can get a fill.
[58:36] How close is that? we can get a feel for
[58:38] if these numbers because I think we're taking a stab in the dark with
[58:41] these numbers. Um so I'm in favor of
[58:43] nothing below 11,000 square feet. I
[58:45] think it's too risky right now. The
[58:47] 90-day minimum. Um even if people want
[58:49] to do monthtomonth, I I don't think we
[58:51] want month-to-month renters. We want
[58:54] permanent family land owners. And when
[58:56] kids can't afford that, we teach them
[58:58] how to work hard so they can afford
[59:00] that. We This isn't a place for people's
[59:02] first This is what residents always tell
[59:04] me. This isn't a place for people's
[59:05] first home. This is a place where after
[59:07] they've worked their guts out for years
[59:08] and years and years and they finally are
[59:10] able to move here. If we change that to
[59:12] be for everyone, it very much quickly
[59:15] changes. So, so there's another method
[59:17] and that is to empower young people to
[59:19] make enough so that they can live here,
[59:21] own property. Um, anyways, so that
[59:23] that's it. I would go as big of setbacks
[59:25] as we can and and all this is to dement
[59:28] uh detriment to myself because I I
[59:30] really want these personally, but I know
[59:32] there's something better and that is
[59:34] Alpine's future. So I think go as
[59:36] restrictive as possible, as small as
[59:38] possible and limit as much as possible
[59:41] and then we see how it goes and go from
[59:43] there. Thanks.
[59:46] >> Okay. So just to wrap up, please take a
[59:48] look at those exhibits, especially
[59:50] exhibit D because that's where we're
[59:51] sitting right now. We've had a lot of
[59:53] discussion. Just email me everything
[59:54] about those 17 code numbers that you
[59:57] like, don't like, what you want to
[59:58] change, and then we can
[1:00:02] » Okay. um consideration for PI bonding.
[1:00:06] Oh no, number C. Um the plat amendment
[1:00:14] » Kaden will actually present that.
[1:00:18] >> Okay. So I know there's the council has
[1:00:20] been informed about uh about this. So
[1:00:23] the purpose of this discussion was just
[1:00:25] to consider options for the occupation
[1:00:28] or disposition of city property. Um, so
[1:00:31] the the Smith family uh has has this
[1:00:34] property right here in the box elder
[1:00:35] subdivision. Um, they're hoping to build
[1:00:39] a 8- foot tall wall according to city
[1:00:42] ordinance, 10 ft back. Um, but because
[1:00:45] of the nature of the property and our
[1:00:48] pump dedication here, uh, they feel like
[1:00:52] they need to use some of the space that
[1:00:55] is on city property to build that wall
[1:00:57] effectively. and they can correct me if
[1:00:58] I'm saying this wrong. Um, but uh, so as
[1:01:02] you can kind of see in this image here,
[1:01:04] the wall would go into the city
[1:01:06] property, probably go along this this
[1:01:08] concrete walk-in for the pump, uh, and
[1:01:11] then go back out of city property and
[1:01:13] follow their side property line.
[1:01:15] >> So, why can't it go along the property
[1:01:16] line?
[1:01:21] » Or, if you can come up and state your
[1:01:22] name.
[1:01:27] My name is Greg Smith and I'm one of the
[1:01:29] owners of this property. So, in order
[1:01:32] for a uh sound wall to be effective, it
[1:01:34] needs to be continuous. If we don't if
[1:01:37] we stop it with the property line as it
[1:01:39] is now, that leaves about a 14 1/2 ft
[1:01:42] gap, okay, where that noise can just
[1:01:45] shoot right through into our master
[1:01:48] bedroom window right there, which is in
[1:01:50] the front of the house. Um, so we we
[1:01:52] need we need the we need the uh wall to
[1:01:54] be continuous. It needs to cover that
[1:01:56] bit of ground right there.
[1:01:57] >> Can you not curve it so that it it is
[1:02:00] continuous?
[1:02:03] » Um, may I show you some pictures? Okay.
[1:02:08] >> Me?
[1:02:10] >> No. Go like this way. No, he's saying
[1:02:12] that he can't do it. But Brent, like
[1:02:14] this. Come from here and go like this.
[1:02:17] >> A continuous line.
[1:02:19] >> But not go into our property.
[1:02:21] >> Oh, like this right there.
[1:02:22] >> Just like if you go and just go. It
[1:02:24] could be curved.
[1:02:26] >> Um, it really couldn't be curved and and
[1:02:29] maintain a a a sound barrier. I mean, it
[1:02:32] would it could become a continuous, you
[1:02:34] know, fence line, but it would be so set
[1:02:38] so far back that it wouldn't have any
[1:02:39] effect on defeating the the road noise.
[1:02:43] So, it's our proposal that we we
[1:02:46] actually would like to acquire that bit
[1:02:48] of property that's not being used by the
[1:02:51] city. It looks like it's part of our
[1:02:52] front yard. It's been, you know, we've
[1:02:54] been there for 21 years. We've been
[1:02:56] mowing the lawn. We've been taking care
[1:02:57] of it. Um, there's about a thousand foot
[1:03:01] uh in that notch, you know, what comes
[1:03:03] out of our what would otherwise be our our our lot. And the city's only
[1:03:09] using a little over half of that. So,
[1:03:11] there's about 470 square feet there
[1:03:14] unused. we'd like to acquire. Um 470,
[1:03:19] you know, square feet is 0.01 acre,
[1:03:22] right? So, not a big not a big chunk of
[1:03:25] property. I realize that that's, you
[1:03:27] know, it's complicated because it is
[1:03:30] city property and disposition of city
[1:03:32] property is a big deal. Um maybe messy,
[1:03:35] but we really need it. We're getting so
[1:03:37] much noise. Um I I just give you I'll
[1:03:41] give you just a bit of an explanation on
[1:03:42] these pictures here. So, the hot pink um
[1:03:49] tab Yeah. markers, those those are the
[1:03:51] property line. There's some other
[1:03:52] markers in there that are from blue
[1:03:54] stakes. Okay. But that's that shows you
[1:03:56] how close to the house um that the city
[1:04:00] property comes. And we didn't we didn't
[1:04:01] know that. We had no reason to suspect
[1:04:03] that when we bought the house. Um, so
[1:04:06] but now and now with the increase in
[1:04:09] traffic that we've experienced, um, you
[1:04:12] know, there were I think there were only
[1:04:14] 18 Helms when we moved in Boxelder 21
[1:04:16] years ago and now Boxelder has been
[1:04:18] built out and there's a whole new
[1:04:20] subdivision independent of that. Um, you
[1:04:23] know, the traffic has gotten so bad that
[1:04:25] uh we we need a ball there and it needs
[1:04:27] to it needs to it needs to cover that
[1:04:30] space. Um, otherwise it's not going to
[1:04:32] do us any good. We have a a contractor
[1:04:34] who we work with. He's a great
[1:04:35] contractor. Um but we we don't want to go ahead and
[1:04:40] leave a gap there. It's not going to do
[1:04:42] us any good to build this without
[1:04:44] >> Shane. Was this your item or was it
[1:04:47] Kaden?
[1:04:48] >> Okay. Kayen, did you have anything else
[1:04:49] you wanted to add?
[1:04:51] >> Um no, I think that's it. Well, I guess
[1:04:53] just to clarify, so Greg, are you
[1:04:55] talking about this area right here is
[1:04:56] what you would prefer to acquire from
[1:04:59] the city?
[1:05:00] >> Yeah. Is that what you're saying?
[1:05:02] >> So, I had sent we had sent Shane an
[1:05:04] email before. So, there's there's kind
[1:05:06] of a bit that's east of that walkway and
[1:05:09] there's a little bit that's north of the
[1:05:11] pump house. We would of course leave the
[1:05:13] city, you know, the over roof overhang
[1:05:15] and everything, but uh we'd like we'd
[1:05:18] like to pick up about 470 square feet
[1:05:21] out of that thousand square feet.
[1:05:23] >> Okay. So, it would go behind the
[1:05:25] building as well.
[1:05:25] >> It would go behind as well. Yeah.
[1:05:28] >> So, yeah. So, I guess as city staff,
[1:05:30] we're just looking for for direction
[1:05:31] from the council whether there's
[1:05:32] interest in in disposing of this
[1:05:34] property or just allowing some sort of
[1:05:36] easement or encroachment of some kind.
[1:05:38] And there's a PowerPoint that I put in
[1:05:40] this uh in this packet that if that you
[1:05:44] can go through if you didn't just to
[1:05:46] kind of explain what this is all about
[1:05:48] that been talking about.
[1:05:50] >> It was really nice. Thank you.
[1:05:53] looking at the pictures. Um I know
[1:05:55] they're not on the screen, but there
[1:05:57] seems to be a retaining wall,
[1:06:00] >> right? That's the white house. Yeah.
[1:06:02] >> And so the retaining wall would remain
[1:06:04] no matter what,
[1:06:05] >> right? Yeah. We would just
[1:06:06] >> And you build the retain the your your
[1:06:09] wall above the retaining wall.
[1:06:12] >> No, no, we would just come right up to
[1:06:14] the right up to that retaining wall with
[1:06:16] our soundproof wall and then we could
[1:06:18] build around it.
[1:06:20] >> Then not on top of it.
[1:06:22] Yeah.
[1:06:23] >> And and and to follow behind um to
[1:06:26] follow behind the pump house as well.
[1:06:27] >> And is it crossing your driveway?
[1:06:29] >> What's that?
[1:06:31] >> Are you going to have a an opening for
[1:06:32] your driveway?
[1:06:34] >> Right. We would make some gates.
[1:06:36] >> Gates. Okay.
[1:06:37] >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter]
[1:06:40] [clears throat and cough]
[1:06:41] >> I have a personal experience with this.
[1:06:43] My son lives along Kamehameha Highway,
[1:06:45] which is one of the busiest highways on
[1:06:47] the north shore of Aahu. and he has a um
[1:06:51] a lava rock wall and he's maybe a little
[1:06:56] farther than you but the wall really
[1:06:58] does um limit the sound a great deal and
[1:07:01] I he lived in a different home also on
[1:07:04] Kamehameha Highway without the rock wall
[1:07:06] way like you could hear it no matter how
[1:07:08] many how far away you wanted to be in in
[1:07:11] his tiny little house which they build
[1:07:13] tiny houses in Hawaii um for new people
[1:07:19] not tourists like us, but people who
[1:07:20] want actually want to live there, don't
[1:07:21] have a lot of space to live in, but it
[1:07:23] made a huge difference. So, I can
[1:07:24] understand um I' I've lived I've seen
[1:07:27] the difference personally. My main
[1:07:29] concern though is um is
[1:07:33] the purchase of the property and I think
[1:07:34] this was in Cadence slides um purchasing
[1:07:37] versus an easement especially because I really am not comfortable selling the
[1:07:43] property because of the close proximity
[1:07:45] to the pump house. Well,
[1:07:47] >> so is the is there a reason why you
[1:07:49] wouldn't just want to be able to build
[1:07:51] on the property or and how would the
[1:07:53] city feel about that?
[1:07:56] >> Our our opinion, Will, is that we don't
[1:07:59] know in another 10 years or maybe
[1:08:00] another city council says, "Well, we we
[1:08:02] want to do something with that property.
[1:08:04] If we have it, then they can't." Now, if
[1:08:06] there's a need to expand, you know, the
[1:08:09] pump house facilities, it's right there
[1:08:11] on the edge of Lambert Park. In fact,
[1:08:12] there's like a a a 20 foot no man's land
[1:08:15] strip kind of in between us and Lambert
[1:08:17] Park there that part of the hump pump
[1:08:19] house is on. Um so there's plenty of
[1:08:22] room for the city to expand to the west
[1:08:24] if there should ever be a need to
[1:08:26] increase capacity um there or to access
[1:08:30] that pump house. So that that's why we would really prefer it. I I I if it's
[1:08:37] okay, I'll just address I I understand
[1:08:38] there's an issue with when disposing of
[1:08:41] city property that you have to have an
[1:08:43] auction. I don't think that that applies
[1:08:45] here. You can't sell a 01 acre lot in
[1:08:49] it. You know, in a neighborhood where
[1:08:51] the minimum lock site is is 1 acre. So,
[1:08:53] you know, I think we should be
[1:08:54] >> not just any lot. It's any parcel. So,
[1:08:58] this is a parcel. Mhm.
[1:08:59] >> If the council is going to consider
[1:09:01] selling it, my suggestion is to go
[1:09:03] straight down the line. Instead of
[1:09:04] having a weird square, they should just
[1:09:06] go straight down.
[1:09:07] >> I think selling is not the per preferred
[1:09:09] option.
[1:09:10] >> And if that's not it, then are you
[1:09:12] talking about a paid easement then?
[1:09:15] >> I think she's going to let me address
[1:09:17] >> what
[1:09:17] >> you
[1:09:18] >> I would like to have staff tell us what
[1:09:20] the options are because I I read the
[1:09:21] PowerPoint and there's really no
[1:09:23] recommendation. It's like these are the
[1:09:24] options. I want to know what is the
[1:09:27] public benefit of not selling it. What
[1:09:30] is the public benefit of doing an
[1:09:31] easement or what is the public benefit
[1:09:33] of doing none? Because that's the main
[1:09:35] thing is what's the public benefit. If
[1:09:37] it's if there's no public benefit to not
[1:09:38] selling it, I'm okay selling it. So I
[1:09:41] just So
[1:09:42] >> thank you very much. If you guys can sit
[1:09:44] back down, that'd be great.
[1:09:46] >> So what what Mr. Smith just said, his
[1:09:49] concern is we don't know what the future
[1:09:51] brings. That's our concern as well. We
[1:09:53] don't know what the future brings. Um,
[1:09:55] in the last 30 years, probably on one
[1:09:58] hand, I can think of the properties that
[1:10:00] the city has sold, and I wouldn't use
[1:10:02] all my fingers. There's one that was
[1:10:05] sold. It was a small piece of property,
[1:10:07] like a little piece off of a property
[1:10:08] that we owned on North Main Street. A
[1:10:11] few years later, uh, a water line had to
[1:10:14] go in and we wish we had that property.
[1:10:18] >> And we recommended against it at the
[1:10:20] time, and it's with all due respect to
[1:10:21] the residents. It's nothing about that.
[1:10:24] It's just you don't really know what's
[1:10:26] going to happen down the road.
[1:10:33] » So, when we did the blue stakes, there
[1:10:36] are no city utilities in this space.
[1:10:39] None whatsoever. Actually, our our uh
[1:10:42] gas line runs right along that line, but
[1:10:44] there are no city utilities there.
[1:10:46] >> I don't think we're talking about just
[1:10:48] >> which was the case in this other case on
[1:10:50] the AC property. there there wasn't
[1:10:52] anything on it, but it was so tight when
[1:10:54] we went to
[1:10:56] >> do some work that
[1:10:57] >> it impacted
[1:10:59] >> what
[1:10:59] >> I agree about.
[1:11:01] >> So, how would the easement alleviate
[1:11:02] that? if we did an easement, they put
[1:11:04] their
[1:11:05] >> well on it.
[1:11:06] >> I mean, Steve could comment on this, but
[1:11:08] I would think if if it's if the city is
[1:11:11] okay with an easement, but there was
[1:11:13] some kind of a clause that if the city
[1:11:15] needed the property,
[1:11:17] you know, we get it back or they have to
[1:11:19] move their wall or whatever
[1:11:21] >> their cost.
[1:11:22] >> I think that's what we would recommend.
[1:11:24] Yeah. If
[1:11:26] >> you know, we to go
[1:11:27] >> I would feel more comfortable with that
[1:11:29] than
[1:11:31] total [clears throat] disposition.
[1:11:34] my turn.
[1:11:35] >> Yes.
[1:11:35] >> Um I did email the public works some of
[1:11:39] the guys there just to understand, you
[1:11:40] know, like they work and their concern
[1:11:43] was just like for future use with the
[1:11:45] pump house if we needed to expand the
[1:11:46] pump house. So for me, I'm definitely
[1:11:49] opposed to selling the property. I would
[1:11:51] like to know um from Jason, do you have
[1:11:53] any thoughts since you're the engineer,
[1:11:56] you know, any foreseeable complications
[1:11:59] with an easement or
[1:12:05] Sorry to put you on the spot.
[1:12:06] >> It's fine. I'm just trying to think with
[1:12:08] the easement if if for me if we gave the
[1:12:12] easement we would in the future if we
[1:12:14] needed it we'd have to take it back like
[1:12:16] someone had said at their cost to take
[1:12:18] the wall down to replace it to do all
[1:12:20] that. Um
[1:12:24] my previous career I've put pump houses
[1:12:26] in. I've redesigned pump houses and I
[1:12:31] would always say no one goes into a pump
[1:12:33] house saying I wish this was smaller. So
[1:12:36] when we redesign pump houses most of the
[1:12:38] time we go bigger just because we need
[1:12:40] the space and usually when you redesign
[1:12:43] it you design it for more people for
[1:12:45] more just space in there as needed. Um,
[1:12:49] and correct me if I'm wrong. If we do
[1:12:52] choose to go in to Lambert Park, there's
[1:12:55] whole other issues there, right?
[1:12:58] >> The conservation easement allowed the
[1:13:00] city to build facilities in the park.
[1:13:02] That was something that we felt like was
[1:13:04] necessary from a public work standpoint.
[1:13:07] So, that that provision is there.
[1:13:09] >> Wait, is it facilities or I thought it
[1:13:11] was for utilities but not structures?
[1:13:16] Um,
[1:13:18] I can't remember how it's worded
[1:13:19] honestly on that.
[1:13:21] >> So, my understanding from what I
[1:13:23] remember, Steve, was that it allowed for
[1:13:25] utilities to go through and public like
[1:13:28] public utilities and that the city
[1:13:31] could, you know, work with that. But as
[1:13:34] far as structures or hardscapes,
[1:13:37] that would need a unanimous vote.
[1:13:42] >> Have to double check.
[1:13:44] >> Do you remember Steve? have to double
[1:13:46] check it.
[1:13:47] >> Okay.
[1:13:48] >> Well, he's looking for that. I mean by
[1:13:50] today's standards that pump station is
[1:13:52] very small and
[1:13:55] the system for that was built for
[1:13:57] boxelder which that was part of it has
[1:14:00] had to be expanded
[1:14:02] um since the subdivision was built
[1:14:05] because the division of drinking water
[1:14:07] standards
[1:14:09] uh changed required more storage
[1:14:12] capacity and so all those things could
[1:14:15] happen in the future and it's just hard
[1:14:17] to know what you're going to need. For
[1:14:20] sure. If we were building the pump
[1:14:21] station today, it would not be that
[1:14:23] size.
[1:14:23] >> Right. Right. Right.
[1:14:25] >> Um and then just I guess a follow-up
[1:14:26] question is like in general, how often
[1:14:29] does a resident come asking for an
[1:14:31] easement? Like is this a normal
[1:14:32] practice? Is this
[1:14:34] >> It's very rare here. I can't speak for
[1:14:37] other cities, but in our city, it's been
[1:14:39] very rare.
[1:14:40] >> Yeah.
[1:14:42] Anyway, those are my thoughts.
[1:14:45] I was curious, um, since you're talking
[1:14:46] about enlarging the pump house, was that
[1:14:48] ever in our list of projects, um, when
[1:14:51] we've been talking about future projects
[1:14:54] or is it routine or
[1:14:55] >> It's It's been expanded once. When the
[1:14:57] pump house was built, there was piping
[1:14:59] put in there to have another It's like a
[1:15:03] skid mounted pump system in there. Each
[1:15:05] skid has three pumps.
[1:15:07] >> U, we have added a second skid, which it
[1:15:09] was plumbed for. Um there's just not a
[1:15:13] lot of room in the building.
[1:15:15] >> No, my question was on with the Horox
[1:15:17] study when they laid out all our
[1:15:19] projects.
[1:15:20] >> Was that ever included?
[1:15:22] >> It was at one time, but then uh we had
[1:15:25] we needed bigger boosters because our
[1:15:27] tank was very small and then the new
[1:15:31] tank was built for Boxelder South, which
[1:15:34] also cured a problem in the old boxer
[1:15:36] subdivision. And so I believe at that
[1:15:39] time the the pump station upsize with
[1:15:43] the fireflow pumps went away. I think
[1:15:46] that's still the case in the today
[1:15:49] >> because if it was in our plan then we
[1:15:50] have a known
[1:15:52] >> reason but at this point we don't we
[1:15:55] have an it's still an unknown.
[1:15:57] >> Yeah because of potentially changing
[1:16:01] standard
[1:16:01] >> but at one point it was in the plan.
[1:16:02] Okay
[1:16:03] >> there you asked about the conservation
[1:16:05] easement. So the language is that the
[1:16:07] public purposes allow for the
[1:16:09] construction and maintenance of critical
[1:16:12] infrastructure including public
[1:16:14] utilities. So I would say this would be
[1:16:16] allowed.
[1:16:17] >> It would Okay.
[1:16:19] >> Okay. Andrew just
[1:16:21] >> very quick. Yeah. I I see the timeline.
[1:16:23] Uh would you guys potentially be open uh
[1:16:27] to and this is the council as well
[1:16:29] because it sounds like the selling of
[1:16:30] the land people are hesitant if there
[1:16:32] was an easement and it had some sort of
[1:16:34] agreement that if the city needed it you
[1:16:36] had a buffer of three to five years
[1:16:38] before uh anything could be
[1:16:42] >> would that be something that would maybe
[1:16:43] hit the middle and I I don't know if the council knows and staff the entire
[1:16:48] genesis of this is uh goes back to the
[1:16:52] dirt mode.
[1:16:53] >> Okay.
[1:16:54] >> No, everybody knows. Oh, you do know.
[1:16:57] So, we're just trying to solve sound.
[1:16:58] We're trying to solve sound. So,
[1:17:01] >> that's that's my question. Would maybe
[1:17:02] would you guys be open to an easement uh
[1:17:04] with a 3 to 5 year stipulation that if
[1:17:06] the city needs it back, we at least give
[1:17:07] them a warrant.
[1:17:08] >> Three to five years is a long lead time.
[1:17:11] I would say, you know,
[1:17:12] >> but would you be open to something like
[1:17:14] that?
[1:17:14] >> Or maybe, you know, but
[1:17:15] >> imagine where it's like a day.
[1:17:17] >> A lot of the times if we're going to do
[1:17:18] things, I don't know. Do you think
[1:17:20] that's enough time?
[1:17:22] That's
[1:17:23] >> I would say that's long like six months
[1:17:25] a year or two to a year
[1:17:28] >> to me. I would say
[1:17:29] >> well because put yourself in their shoes
[1:17:30] if they build a wall and then a day we
[1:17:33] were like guess what
[1:17:34] >> and so there might be a reasonable one
[1:17:36] to two years where you know
[1:17:38] >> I would say 6 months to a year but one
[1:17:40] to two I think is a little long but you
[1:17:41] know what that's move on we need to go
[1:17:44] on to the next item. Um
[1:17:45] >> thank you for the time.
[1:17:46] >> Yes.
[1:17:47] >> I think I
[1:17:47] >> you want to say last one last thing?
[1:17:49] Anything two or three would be whatever
[1:17:52] the staff is more comfortable with.
[1:17:54] >> Let me just
[1:17:54] >> So yeah, let's Thank you so much. We
[1:17:56] appreciate your time.
[1:17:57] >> May I say one more thing? Um I think
[1:17:59] that if anyone actually built that close
[1:18:02] to the house,
[1:18:03] >> the value of the house would plummet.
[1:18:06] And if you even if we had six months to
[1:18:08] a year to pull out of stakes and get
[1:18:11] out, um you would have a blighted house
[1:18:13] on your hands. I think it's in the
[1:18:15] city's best interest not to turn that
[1:18:17] into a blighted home.
[1:18:20] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:18:22] >> Okay.
[1:18:22] >> Could I just ask mayor
[1:18:23] >> GI projects?
[1:18:24] >> Mayor, could I just ask what the next
[1:18:26] steps are? No, it's just it's just
[1:18:27] policy like so for what what do they do
[1:18:29] next because so we can help them?
[1:18:31] >> What I would suggest and is maybe the
[1:18:34] council get caden feedback uh if you
[1:18:37] have additional thoughts after tonight
[1:18:39] and then um
[1:18:40] >> do they then push this for an agenda
[1:18:42] item in a future meeting or how does
[1:18:43] that work? would
[1:18:44] >> we would do it. It'd be on us. Okay.
[1:18:46] Yes. So, we can
[1:18:48] >> do that.
[1:18:49] >> It was Chrissy.
[1:18:52] >> Okay.
[1:18:53] >> Thank you for doing that. I think it's a
[1:18:54] good topic.
[1:18:56] >> Okay.
[1:18:56] >> Mayor, what I suggest on the PI item, we
[1:18:59] just cover it in council communications.
[1:19:02] >> It's not an action item. It's it's
[1:19:04] fairly brief. It's just discussing a
[1:19:06] couple of projects along with projects
[1:19:08] we've already discussed.
[1:19:12] » Okay.
[1:19:16] Let's see. We're trying.
[1:19:17] >> Sorry, Mr. Burrow. Sorry you had to sit
[1:19:19] through two one and a half hours. Okay,
[1:19:21] you guys, work session's closed. We'll
[1:19:23] meet back at six o'clock for our council
[1:19:25] meeting.
[1:19:27] >> We're not talking about money.
[1:19:51] Good luck.