All right, we're all set.
>> All right, welcome everybody. I
apologize for being late and for
starting late, but I guess it's under
five minutes.
>> Yeah.
>> So, the students don't get to leave.
[laughter]
>> Growing up, what was it? 15 minutes was
>> the culture pretty much,
>> I think. So, I mean, it's not a real
thing, but
anyways, welcome everybody to Planning
Commission for August 12, 2026. We'll
start with a quick roll call. We have an
amazing panel today.
>> Yeah,
>> this looks so fun to see everybody.
[laughter]
>> No, really. It's it's it's Gosh, I don't
know how when when's the last time we
had a no absence.
>> It's been a while.
>> So, it is such a pleasure to have you
all here. Um, we'll start with a thought
by Commissioner Adamson.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. I was thinking about what to what
to share today and uh thinking about it
in the context of the different things
that we were wanting to achieve today.
And one of my favorite recent books I've
read is The Devil in the White City. Not
sure if anyone's heard of that. Uh it's
essentially about the um Chicago World's
Fair and it juxtaposed against kind of
more of a true crime understanding of
what was going on in Chicago at that
time.
Um I my background is as an engineer. So
the architectural aspects of the world's
fair really caught my attention. I found
it very enthralling. Um there's a quote
in that uh from the architect in charge
of uh developing a lot of the buildings
and structures for the World's Fair. Uh
Daniel Bham, make no little plans, they
have no magic to stir men's blood. And
so I was thinking about that quote in
this context and I think it's it's a
good reminder to us that uh our job as
planning commission is not just to think
about the near-term but to think about
the long term. What are we leaving
behind for the community? What what
structure are we setting? A lot of the
code edits we're talking about today
focus a lot in on that and making
changes and creating a structure that
sets good precedent for the future. So
that's my thought.
>> That's awesome. Make no small plans.
>> Yeah. Can you say one pledge? No small
plans because it's not enough to stir
men's blood.
>> Yeah. Make no little plans. They have no
magic to stir men's blood.
>> Well done. Okay. Um we'll stand for the
pledge of allegiance. Oh, sorry. Uh
Commissioner Adamson, did you want to
offer a legislative prayer?
>> Sure, please.
» Our father in heaven, we're grateful for
this opportunity we have as a commission
to gather and to discuss the needs of
our community. We're grateful for the
efforts of staff and ask thee to bless
us now to be enlightened by thy spirit
that we might be able to make good
decisions uh in representation of the
community we serve and that we might be
able to
um provide recommendations that provide
the proper level of guidance and
structure for council in the future. We
ask for these things in the name of
Jesus Christ. Amen.
>> Amen.
>> Thank you. We'll stand for the pledge of
allegiance now.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» All right. Business items.
Let's start with number one on the
agenda.
>> Mr. Egot.
>> Actually, this one would be passed to
city attorney. Excellent. Okay.
>> All right. It's Ramy.
>> Oh, exciting.
>> Please take us out.
>> Thank you. Um, we have before you both
municipal code amendments and text
amendments to the zoning code. um
regarding our landmark commission
and we are trying to um transition the
landmark commission to a new name called
the historic preservation uh commission
and assigning the members of the
Whitaker Museum board to be the members
of the land uh the new historic
preservation commission. So this um
project was really requested by Mayor
Wilkinson. Um we've had a a hard time
keeping members um on the landmarks
commission because they meet so rarely.
They they were quite involved a few
years ago, but um they do meet for some
zoning things, some incentives in the
dual crease historic district. They may
also meet um if they need to document a
historic uh landmark or site that is
going to be demolished, they have, you
know, the right to take some photographs
and things. But um it's been hard to get
members to sit on that and to have it
functioning. So um his request was for
uh the members to to try and make the
Whitaker Museum and the Landmarks
Commission maybe the same. But this is
sort of the idea. Let's keep them two
separate public bodies, but the Whitaker
Museum Board will wear their hat when
they're meeting as the Whitaker Museum
board. And then they'll change their hat
to the Historic Preservation Commission
when they're meeting as that board. Very
similar to what the city council does
when they're sitting as the
redevelopment agency. So they sit on two
different boards, but they're the, you
know, single members. So these code text
amendments are basically to rename it to
the historic preservation commission um
in the the in uh title three of our
municipal code um and also add some
duties to the Whitaker Museum board so
that because the qualifications for the
museum board actually tied in quite well
but we wanted to make a few changes
there so that they are qualified for
both um and then make it clear that
there are separate bodies that will be
having two different sets of minutes and
that sort of thing. So um and I have met
the mayor has worked with the Whitaker
Museum board and then after these uh
code text amendments were prepared I met
with the museum board and they could ask
any questions and how legally this would
work and I think they are gratefully for
us they're on board with this and wanted
to know how much more work this would be
for them and also for the museum staff.
we do have a museum director. Um, and so
we've kind of said, look, if this if the
historic preservation commission
requires more, we could also look at,
you know, making maybe some staff from
community development or the city
recorder that could assist in that. But
again, they meet so rarely. Um, I think
this is a really good fit and hopefully
um a win-win. And so I will
just go through since the planning
commission only reviews and makes
recommendations on zoning text or
subdivision. So basically land use
ordinances, but I decide to just bring
both of these together and let you have
a combined public hearing on both. Um so
um anyway, we're just looking we're just
creating these changes to um title three
of the municipal code and then um
chapter 20 of the zoning code. If you
want to just make a motion on the zoning
code, you can. Or if you want to make a
motion on both, you're also welcome to.
But by statute, you have to review the
zoning amendments. So, um, and then once
we renamed it, I searched for landmark
commission throughout our zoning code.
And that's why your zoning text
amendment,
not because of me. It is um 20 pages
because we just 21 pages because we had
to just make those amendments to the the
title throughout. So, we fixed all those
and um yeah, we're looking forward to
taking this to the the city council.
>> Okay.
>> And it is so it is a public hearing.
>> Yes. All right. Thank you. Um any
questions for staff before I open it up?
Okay. So, I'm going to open this up for
a public hearing. And if you're here to
speak on this, we would love to invite
you to come to the podiums, state your
name, your address, and give your
comments.
All right, seeing none, I'm
[cough and clears throat] going to close
the public hearing and take it back to
the commission for any further
discussion.
» It's pretty seamless to me.
>> Yeah, seems like it.
>> Makes sense. It seemed right. You did a
great job.
>> Yes, we've been working on it for a
while, so I'm glad we
>> And if the if the um museum board is
willing to do it, I'd say yes.
>> Yes. Yeah. Right.
>> That took a few a few months.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> Okay. Um,
so would anybody like to start with a
motion? And well, I should actually say
I I have no qualms personally in saying
that we should just forward a
recommendation. I think so on all of it,
though. Our authority only sweeps in
land use. And we just let them know.
Makes a lot of sense. And if you pull it
up, I'll make a motion to accept it.
>> Yeah. Do you mind
>> go forward?
>> This is all that I have for um
recommendation.
>> Oh, it's right there. Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, I would like to recommend
approval of the proposed Centerville
Municipal Code and Centerville Zoning
Code amendments to appoint Whitaker
Museum board members to act as historic
preservation commission members,
ordinance number 2026-10 and ordinance
number 2026-11.
And if you would like some findings, you
can just reference the whereas clauses
in um those ordinances.
>> And I'd like to reference all the things
Lisa just said. [laughter]
>> As stated,
>> I will second that motion. That was
beautiful.
>> So I have a first and a second. We're
going to go ahead and do roll call
starting here.
>> I I I
>> I That is unanimous.
>> Thanks for your hard work on that.
Nice.
>> Okay. Um, moving on and somewhat more
interesting. I mean, not to say that
wasn't [laughter]
>> very interesting.
>> It's it's it's an important thing.
>> It is important. It's it's actually
really important. I mean, I was on the
landmarks commission and I think I was
around for some of the very last efforts
they made and it was
>> six years ago or something. Um, I think
one of the very last things we did was
make a commemorative cutting board for
somebody who had been on the land marks
commission for forever
>> and you didn't get well.
>> I Well, come on. No, I've been there for
like eight months or something.
>> That's nice.
>> It was great. Anyways, um, let's go on
to item number two. Who will be All
right, Miss Muese, please.
So, we are um proposing a zoning
um or not a zoning, a municipal code
amendment to the section 15, which is
the subdivision ordinance for the
current exchange of titles. But what we
are proposing is to change that to the
boundary line adjustments, boundary line
establishments. for the boundary line
adjustments. This was brought to the
state to change in October of 2025.
Um and now the city is hoping to amend
our code to meet those um to meet the
state code. So um we've talked about
this for about two meetings now. So of
course if you have any questions, please
ask. Um, if you want any more
background, I'm happy to give you some
more background, but um, staff
recommendation is to approve the
municipal code text amendments proposed
in the staff report.
>> Very succinct. Well done.
>> Thanks.
>> Yeah. Um, would anybody like to ask
questions of staff?
>> I don't have any.
All right, we are going to open this up
for the public hearing phase. Um, for
anybody here to talk about the item
number two, boundary line adjustments,
boundary establishment, and exchange of
title ordinance changes, please come to
the podium, state your name, your
address, and provide your comment.
>> I'm not sure if this is what it is, but
>> Hold on. Because you have to be to
create a record, we have to capture it
on the microphone. This is not the
accessory dwelling unit.
>> Okay, that [laughter] took care of that.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh for clarity for the audience, this is
when you know there's a a shift between
parcels. Uh to put it simply, that needs
to happen.
>> Property lines.
>> Yeah. Maybe there's a gap. Maybe there's
an over. Maybe there's a you know the
fence line has been there for 60 years
and it's not on the property line.
That's what this one is. All right. So,
um, opening up the public hearing. We've
sort of discussed our way through it.
I'm going to close the public hearing.
Having received no comments, can I take
it back to the planning commission for
further discussion?
» I think it's well written.
>> Yeah, I think I think it's
>> I think we just discussed it the last
couple meetings. So, I think
>> covers all of the material that need to
be needs to be covered. So,
>> all right. I will accept a motion.
I will make [clears throat] a motion uh
to recommend city council approval of
the proposed code text amendments to
Centerville Municipal Code section
15.09.14
boundary adjustments and boundary
establishments and section 20.030
boundary adjustment fees based on the
following reasons for actions findings
one through three.
>> Excellent. I think you said 14 instead
of 140,
>> right? but scrivener's error and we'll
go for so I've got a a motion on the
table.
>> I'll second the motion
>> and I've got a second. Um I'm going to
start down here.
>> I I
>> I
>> All right. unanimous. And finally, the
most interesting item on today's list,
>> accessory dwelling units. uh detached
and I mean attached we can also talk
briefly about but this is ordinance
changes to that and who will be heading
that one out. Mr. Egot.
>> Yeah.
>> Please proceed.
>> So from our last meeting um obviously we
talked about this a lot and in different
variations of it and questions that I
had and went through everything itemized
some here but hopefully you were able to
pick up that and either reviewing
minutes or looking at the the video to
remind yourself or learn about it. So,
um, some of the homework that I was
assigned to do as part of this was to
get information from Bountiful City. I
did provide an email to all of you.
Hopefully, that was helpful when you're
looking for their what I found was
interesting, they've had detach going
back to 2008. I thought that was pretty
fascinating just statistically
>> that they've just been doing it since
that time. Um, and obviously then they
have 8,000 square foot. Is there a
minimum lot size? Um, they do allow for
basements or other configurations.
There's not a lot of restrictions on
that, which I thought that was an
interesting finding. Y
>> and then their typical range of dads
that they do have are 800 to,200 ft in
size. So some interesting information
that way. Um I also did research uh
information from our building official
and the fire relative to occupancy
limits and and windows and all that good
stuff in a a DADU concept. and they said
that as long as the building is built to
building code and fire code as far as
window eress and access and home ingress
and egress then it it you can have
windows that are inoperable basically.
So if we want to stick with that that's
fine. They just when they would develop
that the DAD will have to meet those
regulations as part of that construction
standard. Um the other thing that that I
asked about was the occupancy. They said
that they don't really regulate
occupancy, that they just want to make
sure again that it's safely occupied and
safely utilized and meeting building
code and fire code, but beyond that,
they don't regulate occupancy. So, I I
think we probably figured that that
might be the case, but that's what they
said. One thing that was interesting
when I talked to the building official
that he did say about the windows, as I
asked him about that, he said, "Well,
you're you're at a 8ft setback and your
minimum limit for a typical home is 8
ft. So, do you really need interoperable
windows? He said, I don't have an
opinion either way, but just think about
that for what that's worth is what he
said.
>> So, I wanted to share his opinion there.
>> Uh, the other thing that he brought up
when we talked to I talked to him about
the basement and about anchoring a a DAU
that if it had some kind of mobility,
the modular nature of it to a foundation
for permanence. and he said um in other
codes more relative to a traditional
modular home or mobile home there's an
axle removal requirement and I could
find a similar code that aligns and put
that into the code if that was the will
of the planning commission to further
make the point that we want this fixed
so what I would do is where I'm talking
about having it anchored on a permanent
location with skirting I could even add
that removal of transaxle so that it's
not modular on any level that would make
it So campers won't qualify. That's kind
of the way to get to that point if
that's what we're trying to accomplish.
>> So that's a good way to do that. So I
could find language that said that
include that. So those are his
recommendations. Um I did note in my own
review today um three minor things that are are uh to be noted or or
recognized that still probably should be
I guess identified as as maybe amended
depending on whatever motion may come
today. If there is a motion in
12.58.040B2,
there's a an a citation to internal ADU
requirement where
>> Sorry, Mr. Can you read that one more?
>> What is it again?
>> So, it's it's 12.58.040.
She's right on it. B2
>> and um
>> it it says
I guess it's just B, not B2, sorry. But
it says requirements of CZC 12.60.090.
090. That should be 12.58.10.
Then it links to the detached ADU
ordinance and not the internal ADU
ordinance.
>> Small thing, but it's there.
>> Um 12.58.060
C. Um this is it might be okay. I mean
it reads okay. Um I don't know.
12.58.060
C.
I know it's tricky at the red line.
>> Yeah, it's a little bit hard. Sorry.
>> Page 104 of the packet for what it's
worth.
>> Oh, go back up. It looks like
Keep going.
Want to keep going. You're almost there.
That's 70.
>> Keep going.
>> That's I think the redlinined one
>> right there. And then I have it see Oh,
that's right. cuz in here I fixed it in
the clear one.
>> I'm looking at the black line which is
>> I don't I don't know how yours is
organized. It's not the same.
>> It's three. It's three here.
>> Okay.
>> So, it says a property may have a
detached ADU on the lot or parcel. That
word may was like kind of weird to me.
It might be better for it to say I was
thinking like permitted to have or allow
to have rather than may. may seem kind
of confusing just in the way because it
almost makes it sound like like there
may be an alternative where the detached
ADU can be in a situation where it isn't
on the same lot partial share with the
primary dwelling and I don't know if
that's what we're intending it to say
>> but I kind of read it that way at first
today when I was reading it cold and so
I was wondering if maybe it needs to be
ch it might read okay as a property may
have um because obviously right before
it in in the clause above it says shall
not be sold separately or subdivided
from the principal dwelling unit or
property. But I thought if we wanted to
clarify that word may permitted to or
allowed to could be a good change.
>> So how would you read that? How would
that read if you were using
>> a property
>> permitted to
>> is allowed or is permitted
>> can problematic like can
>> property can
>> well then you probably would still use
me. [laughter]
>> I know
>> because it seems
>> a property is permitted to have
>> and it's probably okay as it reads. I
just don't want any confusion. Like
somebody thinks, well, does that mean I
can have them on a on a separate parcel
away from a single family dwelling?
>> To me, it's not confusing.
>> How about a property may be permitted to
>> and I don't want to overconfuse it.
>> That's what I Yeah, and that's fine,
too. I was just thinking maybe like make
it a little more clear with permitted.
Maybe permitted to as well.
>> What what Mason just said was good. I
thought the property may I mean
>> could be
>> may be permitted to
>> may be per and I can do that change.
Yeah,
>> if that's if that's that makes it a
little more clear, a little more
decisive what we're trying to say.
>> It's not saying, you know, there's
alternative.
>> You just have that option if you have a
single family dwelling on the same
parcel.
>> Yeah.
>> Um and then the last one was 12.58.120.
That's way at the bottom and it's
already a comment I noted um as
something that it's the very literally
the very last paragraph of the thing.
Go up just a little bit now. Right
there. Go down. Yeah. [snorts] Yeah. And
I put should we should we site a code
here or delete and remove from of Utah
code 102303. Da da. I read that over
removing it and it still kind of read
funny to me even with that. So I thought
additionally the city may um utilize
applicable enforcement provisions
regarding violations and holding leans
against the property if we can't if we
don't want to and we're not able to keep
that citation in there. that sentence
would be sound at that point. That's
what I was thinking. Again, if you want
me to reread that. Additionally, the
city may utilize applicable enforcement
provisions regarding violations in
holding leans against the property.
» Then we're not making a ref because that
reference is to internal ADU state code.
Mhm.
>> That I looked that reference is like
this long and it basically just says the
city's allowed to go on your property
>> and and also enforce leans and and right
enforce on the property. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, and I don't know maybe that's
a legal question, Lisa, how that might
read it be proper construction that
citation I don't know that we can site
it in detail.
>> Yeah. I like your new provision. I still
think there's,
>> you know, legal issues. I'm hopefully
they'll fix that with the legislative
session. I know we worked hard on those
lean provisions. I know the Salt Lake
City attorneys were involved in that
lean provision language in the internal.
So I don't know why it was left out of
attached.
>> Okay. So I would amend it to say may
utilize applicable enforcement
provisions regarding violations and
holding against the property.
>> Okay. That that's that would be my
recommendation. And I think with that
that's everything as far as um outside
of what we talked about from the last
meeting. I went and listened to the
entirety of the last meeting and felt
like I captured all of your comments,
but clearly even as I note in my um in
the actual staff report, I added a
statement and I did this on purpose to
signal both to you as well as the public
that there's still discussion here.
further staff supports the planning
commission in making additional efforts
in refining the proposed language if
there's interest in further providing
modifying the provided draft DAU zoning
language proposal prior to taking any
formal action and providing a
recommendation to the city council. So,
I guess what I'm trying to say is if
there's any still gray areas that we
need to to discuss or further identify,
we can. Um, one other thing I wanted to
note, there was uh some commentary from uh Commissioner Patterson earlier
in the week and I tried to provide
clarity to those comments as well as pro
provide you all with information. I
talked about like we can't regulate
modular homes off of single family
dwellings. I was able to find the code.
I provided it to you. I tried to give
you definitions of family both in state
code and city code. That city code
definition of family was what I was
referencing. I couldn't necessarily find
the same uh matching code and state
code, but it has been there. But that
state code definition of single family
might be an update to that. And so our city code might be a little bit more
historically correct to a previous
iteration of that before they modified
or it may still be in there. I was
researching, I couldn't find that older
definition, but I remember in my my
career when they did that transition to
a definition of family and so that's why
I wanted to identify that state code
because it matches exactly what old
state or city code because it matches
what the old state code or at least it
may be still current. I just couldn't
find it definition of family is but then
I found that other single family
designation which makes it clear four
persons together is your minimum limit
you can establish as a city. I
appreciated you referencing that and
sending that because I read it and it
was very clear.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, we have clarity on those
points. I did update as as you see here
the table of uses showing that I put a
question mark by agricultural just
because there was a little bit of a
discussion there. But from staff's
perspective, if you look at internal
ADU, it is permitted
>> already. So to in what I'm getting at is
on an agricultural lot to in order to be
consistent probably staff would say to
do permitted also an agricultural low.
Um but clearly that is something that
can be discussed as a recommendation to
council if you feel differently. The
other option would be probably an N. I
don't know how we would do a conditional
use permit in in agricultural unless you
guys want as a commission want to talk
about it and tell us how that would
look. Um but again I guess that's a a
tertiary option if we want to go there.
Um and then see is that everything
commentary response
>> statement
>> I believe that that's everything but if there yeah and then there's still
direction from the Utah League of Cities
and towns relative to ADUs which we
covered at the last meeting. So I
believe that covers everything
additional from our last discussion and
getting all the research information and
fulfilling the homework that was
directed by the planning commission and
I guess I would defer to you if you have
questions on me or if you want to
proceed to plan the public hearing and
then go from there uh however you want
to proceed. And uh with that that's my
presentation.
>> Excellent. [clears throat] Thank you.
>> Um so we're going to bring it back to
the commission for questions and I'll
kind of lead off on that one. um
agricultural low.
>> Um what are the I'd like to just sort of
brainstorm with you, Mr. What are the impacts that an ADU would
have that would need to be mitigated
>> for a conditional use permit?
>> Yeah,
>> that's why I said I don't I right off
the bat I I don't mean to chuckle, but
>> it's true that No, it's it's it's almost
backwards. It's almost like um it would
be that it would be the addition of the
ADU that would have to then uh deal with
the agricultural uses.
>> Yeah. What kind of what kind of harmful
impacts come from the the detached ADU
on agricultural lot that would justify
conditional use permit application?
>> Yeah,
>> I think for a large agricultural lot, it
might be an underused use, you know,
like rather than subdividing later or
you know, preventing future development,
but Okay.
>> And I agree with
>> But the cup doesn't solve that.
>> No, no, that's not a cup.
>> And they're allowed by law. So
>> Exactly. Well, unless
>> Yep. Yep. Exactly. That was that was my
one question there. Um the conversations
that we had in the email, I did they
make it into an amended packet
>> for the record. I think we should do
that.
>> That's fair because it did go it did go
to the whole
>> It went to the whole commission. So I
think all of the conversations we had
since Monday
>> Yeah. should be included in
>> should be included including the one
from boundful. We've identified them
fair record here and we've summarized
their contents.
>> I didn't even think about that but yeah.
>> No, no, no worries. Um I'm just keeping
track and um so for the public that are
here to summarize what in essence it was
were questions that were coming up on
how other definitions
um how certain definitions were being
used. We just talked about it. Um we're
going to put it into the the amendment.
>> I will yeah I will include it in the
packet. it'll be reflected tomorrow in
this same packet once I go and amend
those in.
>> Right.
>> Uh of of a special importance or at
least of uh not importance special
interest to me were were bountiful's
responses.
>> Right.
>> Um and if it's okay, I would rather just
read that into the record.
>> Sure.
>> Um so that the public can comment on it.
That would personally all of the
definitions were just definitions and it
can be helpful. I thought that it might
be helpful to read that one into the
record. Are we okay with that?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Let me see if I can find it again.
» Okay. So, this is correspondence between
Mr. Egot and Mr. um Atorga.
>> Atorga Francis Francis. Uh who is
>> he would be my counterpart for Bountiful
City.
>> Okay. Um good morning, Francisco. I've
been trying to contact you by phone um
regarding your car's warranty. No,
[laughter]
>> I know. I've been trying to contact you
by phone regarding an inquiry I've been asked with by the central
planning commission. We are working on a
detached ADU dat ordinance and the
planning commission has requested some
data information from you and your PZ
department um there in Bountiful
relative to Datus. Therefore, could you
help me out with providing approximate
answers to the following questions?
Number one, how many registered detached
ADUs do you have in Bountiful City?
Number two, what is the typical housing
lot size you see for the use of data
development? Number three, do you allow
for basements of any kind in a data
establishment? Number four, what is the
typical size you see constructed for a
DAT establishment? Uh, I would greatly
appreciate it if you could answer these
questions for me by or before next
Wednesday evening, August 12th, and when
I have uh when I have planning
commission, I would like to report the
answers to these questions to the
commissioners. I also understand that
some of these numbers might be harder to
get. So, in that event, just let me know
a comment like indeterminant or
something like that. Again, thank you in
advance for any assistance you can
provide in this inquiry. Sincerely, Mr.
Egot. And then his response.
>> Mason, would you slow it just a little
bit, please?
>> Sure.
>> Thank you.
>> Sure. Yeah.
>> How much slower?
>> A little slower, attorney. Just a little
slower [laughter] so that everybody gets
it.
>> Response. Um, and that is uh August
10th. Michael and Sydney, we are happy
to help. Below our responses to your
inquiries regarding detached ADUs in
Bountiful. Number one, how many
registered detached ADUs do you have in
Bountiful City? We have 27 registered
detached ADUs dating back to 2008. There
may be additional detached ADUs that
predate our current records as Bountiful
has historically allowed ADUs in some
form for quite some time. Number two,
what is the typical housing lot size you
see for the use of data development? The
minimum lot size in Battlefield is 8,000
square feet. We have not historically
tracked the lot sizes associated with
our approved ADUs. So I cannot provide a
reliable typical lot size. I do think
this would be useful information to
track particularly when creating or
amending ADU policy. Number three, do
you allow for basements of any kind in a
DATU establishment? Yes. Assuming you
are asking specifically about detached
ADUs, we do not regulate the particular
form or configuration of the DATU in
that manner. For example, it could be it
could include a basement, be located
above or behind a garage, or take
another configuration provided it
complies with the applicable development
standards. Number four, what is the
typical size you see constructed for a
DAT establishment?
Detached ADUs are typically in the range
of 800 to 12 uh well 800 to 1,200 square
feet. The maximum permitted size for a
detached ADU in Bountiful is 1,250
square feet. I hope this information is
helpful for your planning commission
discussion. Please feel free to reach
out if you have any follow-up questions.
I am generally easier to reach by text
on myself and I'm not going to add that
even though it's probably going to go on
record. If you want to uh redact that, I
have no qualms. Um and then there's a
response where Mr. Egget sends it to us
and uh Laorray
um said thank you.
>> Thank you for acknowledging that. Well,
it's it's all part of the the the reason
I I felt it was important to read into
that is because I found it fascinating
that they only have 27.
>> Yeah.
>> And it's been around for how many
decades?
>> 2008. Yeah. Almost. Yeah.
>> Well, Farmington's been doing it for
quite some time as well, and they don't
have very many
>> when I was doing the research, which I
found fascinating.
>> Yeah. I mean, that will accelerate with
Farmington's new programming, but
>> but they've been doing this
>> programming for quite some time.
>> Yeah. And quite a few cities actually
have.
>> Okay.
Yeah, I thought that was fascinating and probably will be a point of
information we may or may not use in
today's discussion andor decision if we
get to that. Um,
questions for staff.
>> Yes.
>> All right, Lorray, jump in.
>> I want to talk a little bit more about
windows. You were talking about that. I
first of all, I didn't catch who you
were speaking with.
>> Don Hansen, who is our building
official, our contracted building.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. So, I I guess I just
need more clarification on the windows.
I just sort of wanted to open it up
again so that we could discuss it.
>> So specifically what he said his comment
just kind of in passing from his
perspective is if your setback minimum
is 8 ft from property lines even in the
rear yard that's your setback for your a
dwelling that's the minimum sideyard
setback in a dwelling. So why would you
eliminate operable windows on
the side of the building that's adjacent
to a property owner if on a home it's 8
ft? Now the counter to that is that a
home doesn't go that far in the rear
yard setback. So I mean the home, you
know, it has to be set back I think it's
20 or 30 feet as rear yard set 20 ft as
rear yard setback minimum. So that's the
biggest differential to to counter his
comment. But um the idea is
if you do it on a home a main unit, do
you really want to make them inoperable?
And you could still even keep the
translucent and just eliminate that
statement about inoperable in that
scenario.
>> Even at that,
>> I think the reason what I recall from
the last meeting is the concern of
overseeing your neighbor, right? Nobody
needs to be looking at somebody else's
bedroom or something.
>> And maybe if your window can open, sound
can emanate out of it possibly. That was
also part of the discussion, right?
>> I just thought that that was a good I
mean I liked what he said too, operable,
inoperable. And then I had mentioned in
my notes as well
>> about you know you have to have an
entrance and an exit for a bedroom,
right?
>> Yeah. And if you did if and as I as I
noted for the record and for those that
are here um if you have it as
inoperable, it still works because now
the burden will be on the property owner
that's in the DADU to make sure they
meet fire and building code for
appropriate matters of egress and
ingress into that that structure.
So you still they will be they will have
to build it to meet building code to
provide for that if the code restricts
them having that access on that on those
sides. So, is that a higher level of um
kind of overseeing the windows if we're
going according to fire and whatever
building code or less?
>> Basically, you're creating a zoning
restriction that goes above what typical
building code would otherwise allow.
>> If it were to say
>> if you were to keep it the way it's
written,
>> it goes above and beyond.
>> Correct. Standard is what I'm saying.
>> I see.
>> Yeah. Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Can I ask a question that I probably
should know? um for it to be an operable
fire compliant egress. Um, is there a
height level at which we say it's no
longer operating?
>> Here's my thought, right? Like you're in
bathrooms and we see windows in
bathrooms all the time and they're set
5t above
>> you can't use it anyway.
>> Right. Right. But is there a possibility
that rather than say, hey, inoperable,
uh, we would say something like, hey, it
has to be a minimum height off the
floor.
>> Yeah. I I mean I I would I would have to
do research and obviously depending on
what the direction of the planning
commission was to bring back to planning
commission or put whatever that one was
into a recommendation with city council.
The only thing I worry about obviously
is a little bit of a timing crisis.
>> But but I can see the the logic and what
you say. I just I don't know until I I
ask the the specialists.
>> It's a thought then maybe yeah depending
on where we go it can be forwarded with
a recommendation that
>> Yeah, I can see what you're saying that
would make sense. Yeah,
>> it would ameliorate a lot of the
concerns I personally had about opening
up a window and then just staring into
somebody else's.
>> Right. Don't want that.
>> Yeah.
>> Aren't you When we say that you're 8
feet off the property line, so that's a
total of 16
>> 16, right?
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, is are
>> 16 feet? Wait, explain that to me, Paul.
>> Because each could you get you got eight
feet off the property line on both
properties
>> from the back
>> and the sideyard?
>> I thought sideyard was five. It's 8 feet
on a a single family dwelling
>> on a single family.
>> If it's in if it's an accessory
building, then it' be typically five
feet. But we're talking about DADUs,
which now we're making.
>> Okay. So, we're still that's what
>> So, we're talking a distance potentially
>> 16 ft.
>> So, so the fair question and and I think
it's a point well taken. The reason I am
concerned is that we're injecting
additional units that weren't planned
for when other homes were designed.
>> Right.
>> That was my concern. And yeah, it could
have been designed originally in such a
way that the homes could have been
staring into each other's bathrooms. Um,
I have one of those. I my bathroom
window looks into my neighbor's backyard
family window, family room window, and I
don't like it
» though. It [clears throat] is 16 ft.
>> Yeah.
So, how do we
I mean, we need to further discuss it.
>> Yeah, I think we should discuss when we
get to that item. I think we should
discuss it and figure out what
everybody's feeling about that.
>> Okay. So, when it comes back to us, is
that what you're recommending?
>> After the after the hearing.
>> Okay.
>> The public hearing. Um, any other
questions for staff? [clears throat]
>> I had a couple questions. Um, and this
is mostly just me not understanding, but
uh there was a section, well actually
you're already on a page of my second
question. So on D right there, it reads
only one additional entrance may be
located on the wall facade that can be
viewed from the public street. So is
that saying you can have two entrances
essentially like on the front of your
>> like a detached ad you could have one
entrance facing the street and one like
on the interior lot side?
>> So this is reading that you can have two
doors facing the street, right? Is that
how I read it?
>> Am I wrong?
>> You have one additional entrance maybe
located on the wall facade that can be
viewed from the public street.
>> So it's ask that's saying it one more.
>> Right.
>> I see your point with that.
>> So if you just took additional out could
be removed.
>> So only one entrance.
>> Yeah. It should saying you can have one
entry point.
>> Yeah. That could be removed to clarify
that.
>> Good match.
>> That's a good point though for sure.
>> Okay. Yeah, super good.
>> Um, and my first question, there's a
couple times in there it mentions
something about like essentially if
you're not using the DADU anymore, then
you have to like remove your kitchen.
>> Yep. Well,
>> I just want to understand that better.
>> Kitchen sub connections with utilities.
So, that's in the internal ADU ordinance
that we require that. So if anybody
wants to disconnect, let's say they're
they have a and then internal ID, we
actually have one of these and Cindy's
actually become a little bit of a an
expert at this because we did one not
too long ago, but you have to sever some
basic service that gives it legitimacy
as an ADU to then turn it back to like a
basement that might have a kitchen in
internal. So we to use that same
language for DADU cuz what if you had
someone which I don't know if this could
happen but maybe a previous owner
convert it to a DADU and the new owner
wants to put it back to more like a
garage or a family room/g right. So what
do you do that turns it back from DADU
so they don't have to meet compliance
standards of a DADU? You you reduce some
kind of utility connection or kitchen or
something and you make them show proof
of it. So would that like say I built a
building and I just absolutely hate it.
I don't want to do it anymore. It's such
a pain.
>> I want to use this as like a guest house
for people who come and visit.
>> Does that mean I like am I not allowed
to do that?
>> Not by that code. Not not at least in
you at least have to show some severance
of that DADU allocation.
>> So it can't be it cannot qualify under
the definition of dwelling.
>> Okay.
>> Because you can't have two dwellings on
a lot.
>> Yeah. And so you have to take something
out that makes it not a dwelling.
>> So to that point, what does the verbiage
say? Because I know Jackson, we talked
about this before. What does Jackson
have? They make them,
>> but what does ours say? Because I don't
remember.
>> There's a few different things.
>> Is it just options?
>> Yeah, it gives it gives multiple options
on a list. I'd have to find it right off
the end, but it is in there. I read that
earlier today.
>> Okay.
>> See,
>> it's towards the end, I think, but I
can't remember. Excuse me.
>> Right there.
>> Uh 12.58.8.
Yeah, there it is. B.
>> Yep, there it is.
[clears throat and cough]
>> One more
features
» and you're good with that, Lisa?
>> I have not spent a significant amount of
time on this code text. This is what is
in the internal ADU ordinance.
>> So, we're just basically copying and
pasting.
>> But I do agree with the needing a
provision so that the guest house
doesn't occur. That's the whole point,
>> right? Okay.
I will say that when um a building
permit comes in and there is a kitchen
identified, what I do is that I look at
the applicant and or the application and
make sure okay if there is a second
kitchen then they need to um sign a
waiver that basically states hey there
will not be we will not be renting this
for anybody. This is a internal because
obviously internal ADU. This is a
internal um family use and there was
actually a um a like a form that was
created by Lisa a couple years ago that
they still have to sign. So what we
would do most likely is that once that
this would be passed, we would just
bring that same form back to Lisa and
she would just amend it to be a external
ADU form as well.
>> That makes sense.
>> And I think we may record those
secondary kitchen because we don't want
them to sell it and have the new owner
think that it's, you know, two dwellings
or
>> Yeah.
>> So they have to get it notorized as
well.
>> Decommissioned Yeah.
>> Do you have some?
>> I have a couple more nitpicky questions
and then I'll have a few more things.
You know, recognizing a product of me
not being here last time, a few other
thoughts that I make more sense for the
discussion piece. Um, on the definitions
portion, um, section A, I'm just curious
reading through this, at least to me, it
didn't feel clear that the definition
was specifically saying detached other
than in the name itself. I don't know,
maybe this is just me, but unit created
and located externally to me could also
read it as an attached ADU
rather than being detached. But maybe
that's just me. I I
>> externally on the same property is what
makes it detached.
>> Yeah. So maybe
>> see that consistently in other city
codes as well written that way.
>> Okay. Yeah. So that that's probably just
me.
>> That's the key term that says it.
Otherwise, I mean it is it is an analog
to internal ADU, but the key is located
externally on the same.
>> It's located externally there. Okay.
>> And the definition also requires a
single family dwelling to be existing.
>> Yes. Start with a
>> Yeah. As long as that's consistent with
other codes, I think that that makes
sense. Um, and then the other question I
had more of a procedural one is the
other applicable regulations and codes
section at the very end 125810.
Um, I just wonder if that's a section
that's better served at the beginning
because we reference a lot of the
dependencies on those applicable codes
throughout.
Um,
I just wonder if having at the very end
if it would make more sense to have that
be more of a beginning thing to
reference. Okay, everything needs to be
consistent with these codes and then
break it out further from there.
>> I don't know. I that's that's how it is
I think in in organization as far as
order. I believe it's in a similar
position in the internal ADU ordinance.
Okay. Positioned here here.
>> It's kind of like uh
>> all these permanent things and then this
other stuff that's more basic needs to
also be applicable. But I don't know
that it has to be that way. It just this
is just mirroring the internal ADU to
try to be in organized consistency as
much as possible with its structure.
>> Okay.
Yeah. No, and I I I originally noted
this as like I see it as perhaps a
little redundant because we reference
these codes throughout, but I think
redundancy as long as it's consistent
serves well in this case. It
>> it's kind of and it's a catch-all of a
lot of things are already said before.
It's just a reminder that hey, there the
these other basic expectations with
utilities and with impact fees and with
um yeah, your codes that are going to be
applied that you need to comply with.
Also, I did note in there that I need to
check with public director. I'm just
going to quickly address that. Address
the address. I did talk to the public
works director and he's good with it as
it's worded with that system. That is
the system that he consistently applies.
>> And then while we're on this section,
just one uh question perhaps correction.
Um is it construction code or is it
building code?
>> It they're synonymous. I mean they're
the building it's building construction
codes. It
>> I can answer that. We if we capitalize
construction and code, it is defined in
title 10 of our municipal code to
include all the building code, the
plumbing code, the electrical code, the
so it's a defined term in our code
>> and that's what we mean. So I see here
construction and fire codes, but
essentially
>> we just say construction codes and that
means everything.
>> Okay. Yeah, I had seen
>> defined in that title 10 as to what
which ones we've adopted.
>> Okay. I had seen elsewhere in the code
building. So then I can assume building
is under the umbrella of construction.
>> I thought we searched all those. Maybe
that was just one of our things to do.
But we would like to eliminate those you
know unless it's specifically talking
but building code doesn't you know you
still need to go are we talking about
residential code and you know
>> and even here I could scrape where it
says regarding the building construction
and fire codes. I could scrape building
Lisa and just have say regarding
construction and fire codes
>> and then just would be an easy
amendment.
>> Yeah. That would be take out that word
building right there.
>> It's only capitalized.
>> Say construction and fire codes.
>> Yeah.
>> Rather than say building construction
and fire codes,
>> right?
>> And it needs to be cap I would say.
Yeah.
>> Should I capitalize construction and
fire?
>> Construction and fire codes. Yeah.
Typically the term construction code.
>> Make them a term.
>> Okay.
>> Building code.
>> Good.
>> Yeah. that that was something we talked
about fixing so that we all know and we
could also look at saying, you know, as
defined in title 10 if it's not defined
in the zoning code. So, let's see.
Sorry, now it's trying to search for
building code, but
um definitions.
Yeah, I don't see a definition of
building code. So, let's see if we
define constru. Yeah, construction codes
is defined and it's the construction
codes adopted by the city in CMC 7.5,
which is the fire regulation and CMC
10.3, which are our construction codes.
They may also be referred to as building
code, fire code, or safety code. That's
how we solved it. So, if you use any of
those terms, you better go back to this
definition and then it tells you where
to go. Okay. Yeah.
>> So then it's already taken care of.
That's a good point.
>> I'll just amend out building and then
capitalize construction and codes.
>> Perfect.
>> Good.
» And I'd probably say construction codes
and fire codes. Okay.
>> Just so that if you're searching for
construction code, it will come up.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
I guess one other question uh as well
with regards to the uh parking
requirement that's uh under section 1258
uh 060 I
um has staff done any research on on
other comparable cities in terms of
requirement of spaces for
>> we don't have a choice this is state
>> that's state okay language okay
>> yeah even the tanum is state state
required so I Can't take that out. It
has We have to allow tandem and we have
to allow up to 650 have one then after
650 they can have two.
>> Interesting.
>> State required.
>> Perfect.
>> Yeah.
>> I think that's on my end.
» That's all.
>> Bane. What was the code section? It was
>> that 1258
>> additional entrance.
>> Oh, that one is
>> 1258.070D.
the additional entrance link.
>> Thank you.
» All right. Additional questions.
Round two from anybody.
Okay. So, um having sused that out,
let's go ahead and proceed to the public
hearing phase. I'd invite any and all of
you to come up to the microphone name,
address, and then provide your comment.
Good evening. My name is Carol Hendris.
I live at 740 North Main Street just
down the road here.
Anyway, I did listen to the entirety of
well almost the very until the very end
of your last meeting. So that was really
helpful for me. We are hopeful to do a D
Aau or you know right but I don't know
that we will even be approved. We'll
have to get a conditional use permit. We
have a very narrow deep lot. It's um
like 0.9 acre of an acre, but we have a
flag lot and we'd have to put that
detached unit like almost 400 ft back,
which for utilities for our neighbor
that we share the driveway would be
terrible. And I know we're not talking
about that today. That will be after it
all gets approved. Right.
>> Yes. So anyway, I'm just putting it out
there that, you know, in Centerville, we
don't all have the same type of law. And
so, just please kind of put in the back
of your mind that maybe everything is
not going to look the same. Um, but can
still be beautiful and still be nice and
a and a benefit to our community. Um
the I really kind of agreed and and
thought what you decided last time was
really good. Um the one thing I had
issue with or and it may not even be an
issue but um if we are supposed to do up
to a family um and at the very end we
were talking about how big the the um
unit could be and we were thinking oh
1,200 is so big but if you put a family
of four in an 850 square foot place.
That's the kind of place you go to for a
weekend or maybe a week on vacation.
It's not some place you live for a year
or two years renting.
I looked up because I'm thinking about
this stuff. I looked up the floor plans
for 800 850 square ft. Your bedrooms are
10 by 10. You have one bathroom with one
sink. You have a kitchen and a living
[snorts] room, but not really room for a
kitchen table. I would just respectfully
ask you to consider following our
neighbors. It it isn't going to be
terrible. If they have allowed it, I
think we can do it. And just because
West Valley City
says they're, you know, 850 square feet,
when have we looked West Valley City for
us? You know, that is not who we should
try to emulate. Um, and as far as the
windows open or closed, I mean, for sure
I would suggest that bathroom windows be
obscured, you know, with film or
whatever.
And the reality is we live close to each
other. You know, I kind of have a little
benefit because I got in a long time ago
and got a lot. I'm from Wisconsin. This
is still small. What I have is still
smaller than I want. But if you go by
our house, you won't even see our house
because we have planted trees. But in
front we have a lovely lawn area that
one day I hope will supplement our
retirement income for a detached unit.
Um, that is really it. I appreciate what
you do. I appreciate the time and
intelligence it takes to do what you do
because I do not have that ability. I
just know what feels good. And um I just
respectfully ask you to remember that
things are not going to be cookie cutter
for everybody and that one day when I
come before you asking for a conditional
use permit, you will consider it. And we
understand if you say no, but please
consider. Thank you. before you're done.
Usually we don't have uh dialogue
between uh members of the public, but I need to ask you a question because I'm
not quite sure I understand your
comment.
>> So, I'm going to veer out of uh the the
norm.
>> Totally understand.
>> Um
>> you're saying that the flag lot causes
an issue and that you've said that um
odd lots need to be considered as part
of our discussion. I'd like to
understand that and I'd like to even
just look at your lot later. Can you say
your address one more time?
>> 740 North Main Street.
>> All right.
>> And my neighbor who we share the
driveway with is 720. All right.
>> If you look at those two, you will see,
you know, in fact, we have our garage in
front of our house, which is totally
against the rules, right? But when we
came before asking for the permit to
build it, it was easy to see that, you
know, we had so much space in front. It
just made sense.
>> So, um,
>> thank you.
>> Is that it?
>> Thank you.
>> I appreciate that.
>> I'm conforming.
>> Next, please.
» All right. So, my name is TJ Riley. This
is my wife, Talia Riley. Um, yeah, if
you don't mind passing those out.
>> Hold on. Um, so what what are these
things?
>> This it'll it'll basically everything
I'm going to talk about tonight, you're
going to get a copy of
>> Okay. We'll need to make sure that a
copy gets into the record. So, you'll
need to make sure that there's a copy
for Miss Deise.
>> Yeah. Originally, I was going to um
Well, let me let me just kind of
introduce myself. So, uh
we have lived in Centerville City for
years. We've raised our family here. Um,
we border we we're on Chase Lane, so we
border the school. We have an acre lot
kind of like you [snorts] and uh
>> anyways um I've actually come to city
council before
>> uh talking about the ADU
ordinance because I knew
>> sorry about I'm going to ask you to
pause.
>> I wasn't able to listen.
>> I don't multitask very well. I'm so
sorry.
>> You're You're fine.
>> I'm so sorry.
>> You're good. You're good. What I was
just saying is is we live on Chase Lane.
We have an acre lot. Um kind of similar to her. Um and
anyways, I uh I actually work for a
city. I've done North Salt Lake City for
23 years now. So, I understand
a lot of the process. um being involved
that long, you kind of get to know
certain things and how they go about.
So, originally I was going to take this
to city council,
which I have before on the ADU thing,
and then I've been kind of watching
because I know that it would come before
planning commission before uh it would
go to uh city council on recommendations
of this new um ADU uh process that's
going to be taking place throughout the
state. And so I'm just going to kind of
read through this and kind of let you
know you guys will have everything that
I'm going to be talking about. So I want
to thank you for the opportunity to
provide uh input regarding the city's
proposed accessory dwelling unit, the
ADU ordinance. I understand the
community's community develop
development director has indicated the
draft ordinance will follow the
requirements of state code. I also
understand the state code provides
cities with options and how those
requirements are implemented. and I
would like to provide feedback on those
choices before the ordinance is
finalized.
>> So, are you just going to read through
this whole thing?
>> Yeah, if you don't mind if
>> I mean, normally I would uh not allow
this, but I'm we've got us we've got
some time.
>> We want to hear.
>> Yeah. And I would prefer if you could
summarize.
>> Okay.
>> But,
>> um some of it is I'm not the best at
memorizing either. So, I get it. So,
I'll kind of I'll kind of go through. I want you to have your opportunity to
provide your comment and we want to hear
it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean,
a lot of this is um to do with with our
particular um situation. We have an acre
lot similar to to her um and we've
raised our family in it. We want to
build um and I have an acre lot. So, the
land's expensive. I want to stay in
Centerville. I want the opportunity to
build on the back of my lot. And um
really that that's kind of what this is
about. I think when ADUs are talked
about, they are talked about in in the
sense of an ADU is behind the home, the front structure,
>> and that's the biggest thing for me. So,
um why don't you read I I mean number
two pretty much addresses that point.
I'd love to hear that.
>> I think I think number number two
and number four is going to be a touch.
>> Feel free to address those how you like.
>> Yeah. So, um really I don't want to I
don't want to be limited um to have an
ADU in my back. What I would like to do
because everyone is in a different
situation
is I don't think ADUs should be at the
sideyard or just in the backyard. I
would like to turn my front home into my
ADU and I want my back home or my the
back property to be my main home. I
think that um you know there's things
are getting to be more expensive over
time and I have four kids. I have two
parents that will need at some point. Um
I want him to be living closer to me so
I can take care of them and um
>> and he's an only child.
>> Yeah. So I don't really I can't kick
them down to brothers and sisters,
right? I'm not that's not my
opportunity. So, um, and I'm not going
to put them in in a in a home. So, they will be mine. And I'm that's what I
plan to. And so, I I'm really just
hoping that
uh planning commission can be
open-minded to all situations. And
whether you have a a big front lot or or
a side lot, I think that
um
I think that kind of and I'm just kind
of trying to summarize this the best I
can. Feel free you to read a part that
you'd like. Okay. Um
what else is this? Not do not limit ADUs
based solely on the rear yard placement,
requiring ADU an ADU to be located only
behind an existing home creates unequal
opportunities for property owners. Many
lots are not deep enough and accommodate
a rear yard ADU, while other properties
may have wider lots or homes that have
already been positioned uh farther from
the street. A property owner with a
shallow but wide lot or a home with a
different existing layout should not
lose the opportunity to create an ADU
simply because of where the current home
sits on the property. The primary
concern should be to ensure appropriate
setback safety compatibility with
surrounding properties not requiring
every UD every ADU to be placed in the
same location. An ADU can be
successfully located in the front side
or rear yard as long as the required
development standards are met.
>> Can I ask you what your address is? 84
West Chase.
>> Very good.
>> All right. Excellent.
>> Yeah.
>> And then um number four, it kind of
talks and I just want to hit on this and
I I respectfully uh request the city
avoid over restrict restrictive limits
on ADU size. The maximum allowed ADUs
should size should not be smaller than
what many existing homes in the city
already provide. more balanced approach
would be to consider the size of the
property when determining the
appropriate ADU size. Smaller lots had
should have appropriate size or scaled
ADUs and larger lots should have the
ability to accommodate larger ADUs.
Um, and that's just kind of, you know,
that's kind of my thoughts. Awesome. And
there's a lot more. I I
>> So I didn't I haven't given this to the
city council, but I've given uh another
document to them. I had really good um
responses. I feel like there was a ton
of support when I came in. I believe I
came in in February. Talked about ADUs
because I knew they were coming and I
just feel like it uh it's the
appropriate time to bring this stuff up
now. there's no sense um you know draft
drafting things and then having to
revisit and draft something over and
over again. So I feel it's just
important this is the time to talk about
it so they can be addressed and we catch
things early on in the situation. So,
what I'm probably going to ask staff to
do later in this meeting is um we're
probably going to pull up your lot and
talk about it because here's what
happens and and and Miss Hendris,
you should also know this and I'd invite
you to have an opportunity. We're going
to be talking about your lot. If you
want to tell us anything about it now,
that'd be fine. But once we close the
public hearing, your commentary is not
going to be accepted anymore.
>> You just have to watch us bumble our way
through it. Is there anything you'd like
to tell us about the lot when we
consider it later perhaps in the
meeting?
>> Um, well, I think there's been talk
about um, you know, maybe a flag lot
would be better. I don't really want a
flag lot. Um, doesn't make sense. I
would like to uh, upsize my utilities
that I have that are already in and so I
don't have to cut into the road. I don't
have big impact fees. Um,
I would rather do what I can with um,
utilities that are that are already
there.
Um, and then I have a side I have a side
little it's a it's a gravel road that I access to the very back of my lot.
>> Um, so I I think those are probably the
>> the things that I would want you to
know.
>> Thank you. It borders the school and
then the other property has what two
acres where she has sheep and then
>> Okay.
>> Thank you so much you guys. Wonderful
comments. We appreciate that.
>> Thank you.
>> Miss Hendricks, if you wanted to come
back, we're probably going to talk about
your lot, too. If there's anything you'd
like to tell us for our consideration,
and remember, we're not approving your
guys' lots. I know you know this. I know
you know this. We're just using them as
potential exemplers as we consider
everything. All right. You pull this up.
>> Yeah. 740. Go down. Just
>> right there.
» Yeah. 740 and then 720
where the 720 is.
>> Oh, right. On. Can
>> I have you in either or?
>> Yeah.
>> I just want to be
>> Thank you.
>> How cool. Okay. So, yes, we have our
dear neighbors. We love them and we're
so grateful to have great neighbors cuz
we there's no way to really fence this
off from each other. Okay, so our
driveway comes right in here. Um, our
home, this is the garage and then this
is our home and there's a parking pad
over here.
So why? And you know, it seems like, oh,
we've got quite a bit of space back
there, but like I said, we would have to
take utilities up through our um
driveway all the way through in front of
our neighbor's home into this back,
which is almost 400 ft. It goes 400 ft.
It would have to be there where the
garden is. And that would be we don't
really want to irritate our neighbor. We
don't want to make his their lives
worse. And
you can maybe see that. Anyway, here
from the sidewalk to our garage is over
70 ft. Like 78 ft, 75 ft, something like
that.
Can you figure that out? Oh, 87 feet
from the sidewalk. We were being
generous. And then from the driveway
over to our property line is like 90 ft,
80 ft. I don't know what you
» with
>> 74
>> 74T. So that is plenty of space. We
could we could pull back 30 feet from
the road. 30 feet from the road. Use the
shared driveway. Um so that they would
be going in this way
>> to park
>> and we could have a nice little
entrance. um as you consider the um
unconventional
D- Aud whatever it is anyway as you
consider that um I think for Centerville
we want to think about how it looks
you know we've all seen things that have
been built that have been like how did
this ever happen it's such an eyesore I
bet you all know who I'm talking about
and it's like how did that happen? But I
don't know if you guys can
who does that but when we put forth our
um plans, you know, we should be able to
say is does this fit the
>> community? Okay.
>> Thank you, sir.
>> Anyway, thank you.
>> All right. Um great public hearing. um
when we close down the public hearing
that then at that point you guys are
observers and no longer have commentary
from the audience. Um I just want to be
clear. Anything else you guys want to
say before I close?
Okay. So I'm going to close the public
hearing and bring it back to the
commission. Um fascinating.
>> Yeah.
>> I had I mean this is a good example of
where it's just um you have just sort of
an inherent
uh it's not inherent. Is it implicit or
inherent bias?
Can't remember. I always get those
confused. Implicit bias. Inherent bias
that you don't even think about adus in
the front yard.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> Fascinating.
>> Well, we did speak of them last time.
>> I didn't even like
>> but not in a configuration.
>> Not in like I didn't even think of
something like this because and and this
is a question I have for staff. That
would be considered Miss Hendrick's
front yard. Correct.
and and that's an accessory building and
it's basically
>> if it's being used as an accessory
building there would have to be probably
some kind of legal non-conformance
established for it its existence
>> is that per state code or what is that
>> it's even city code because technically
it's not even complying as it currently
stands
>> you're talking about the garage
>> well my understanding is not using the
garage as a conversion I had understood
her to say that she
>> well I'm just saying even with a
conversion which they're they're
entitled to state code.
>> If they could prove the legal
non-conformity, then they could actually
convert that existing structure to a
DADU.
>> Got it.
>> Because state code requires us to allow
for those kind of situations.
>> My question though is if you build a DA
in the back, who's to say that my myself
as the primary residence, I don't move
to the back unit,
>> right?
>> And then put tenants in the front.
>> Dakota actually lets you you do that.
>> Which one is smaller? Accessory tends to
be something that
>> okay so the back counts the DU has to be
smaller than the main primary
>> well it doesn't it's whatever you
regulate whatever you decide as as a
city right city as a planning commission
and city council right but uh currently
one of the issues um and and I have
talked to the writings on the phone as
well and talked about this is the
definition of accessory building as it
currently is established is rear yard
structures
>> they can't be placed in the sideyard or
the front yard in current code. So you'd
almost have to create a explicit carve
out of DAD accessory structure that's
unique from accessory structure and then
define it differently if you wanted to
allow them to be used in the sideyard or
the front yard
>> and then that opens up a huge can of
words. It just become the question
becomes yeah what what would be the
perspective of that where is that
applied how would that be utilized do we
now have to create new regulations so I
mean any at that if we go there that's
what that discussion looks like is what
does the regulation for that look like
then because now you're not you're not
attaching it to that definition of
accessory structure creating a brand new
carve out um one of the other
alternatives and I'm going to kind of
clarify a statement that was made about coming from from me. I had a
conversation with the city manager about
this and we have some timing deadline
and his commentary was with the timing
deadline that we need to get a code to
the council and in place by October 1st
and if we get too caught up in creating
all these external special circumstances
or new regulations that slows that down
to where we probably will not hit our
compliance timeline. And so the comment
in here about the community development
[clears throat] director indicate draft
ordinance will follow the requirements
of state code. That's from the city
manager trying to protect the city's
interest in getting an ordinance in
place by October 1st
>> for the state.
>> Yeah. For the state. His comment was
then we could still go back and look at
the regulations and further tweak the ordinance thereafter if there's some
substance to what we heard tonight. Mhm.
>> We have that opportunity, but we need to
get something in place at least by
October 1st that we can then re-evaluate
thereafter. Um, even to the point where,
as evidenced by the Riley's, there's
some discussion with the city manager
and even talking to legal about do we
even dare talk about flag lots or infill
lots? Is that something we want to even
think about as the housing nature of the
city evolves and we have property that's
kind of, as you can see, internally
landlock and hard to develop. When did
we like say when did we ban flag lots? I
know that we did allow them
>> and then we didn't allow them.
>> Then we did then we didn't.
>> Yeah. Do we know when the last
>> Lisa probably is the one with the
institutional memory that
>> 2000?
>> Um it would be in the
legislative history I think.
>> Can you define
>> I don't spot Lisa. I just don't
obviously know
>> Amanda
>> right off the bat. So maybe we'd have to
do some research.
>> I don't know. I'd have to I can look
while you chat, but it's been a while.
>> So, so I mean those are some of the
layered implications of the commentary
that you you received during the public
hearing.
>> Laorray had a question if you don't
mind. Oh, yeah. Define a flag lot.
>> Flag lot would be going to have you have
a stem, right? This like
>> it's a flag lot.
>> That's there's one right there. You have
a stem that's legally existing and
typically has to be wide enough to
accommodate some kind of fire vehicle or
emergency vehicle if it needs to get
back there. And then you have it still
be wide enough and big enough to be
developed for a housing structure.
Right. That's a flag lot.
>> Thank you.
>> And and some in other states I've worked
in the stem can be as narrow as 13 ft. I
think that's the the minimum size that
allows emergency vehicles to still get
back there.
>> We see a lot of these on Main Street.
>> Yeah. And that's that's what's
interesting, right? when you think about
the history of what we're talking about
and I don't want to step in this cuz
this is definitely a different
discussion but
>> but there's been right allowance but you
were saying though allowance not
allowance
>> maybe we get this through so we hit the
deadline and then we can go back and
discuss
>> that was just a conversation that the city manager suggested could be a
way to look at it or again you go back
in and modify it after October 1st even
if you got something to approve October
1st we meet the state deadline
>> we can still haveations
and further now modify and refine it to
get it right again for situations like
this if that's the the desire of
>> plan commission and council to have
those conversations.
>> Thank you.
>> I mean I wish the time frame wasn't as
tight as it is and I know otheries have
been asking for these kind of
conversations since February. So
>> yeah,
» Mason, I think one and I I think the the code from the state
envisions
subdivisions in the typical they really
don't look at older communities that
have different types of lots and and
configurations. I mean,
I'll take my subdivision. You know, this
works really well in my subdivision,
>> but it does not work well on Chase Lane
where there are a lot bigger lots and on
Main Street, uh,
which which those lots have been there
forever. So,
>> um,
>> and they're definitely big enough to
accommodate. They are,
>> you know, they've got the space for
sure. But I think the code that the what
the Utah code is envisioning more
I don't want to say a cookie cutter type
subdivision in some ways in in the way
it's been written and in some ways what
the way we've addressed it
but it's good to hear that there are all
there there there are other issues out
there that we haven't even thought
about.
>> Yeah.
I just see as a real estate broker, I've
seen home prices get higher and higher
and like literally starter homes are
gone sadly.
>> Yeah.
>> And people are having to resorting to
renting indefinitely. And it's I I'm a
firm believer on the American dream and
I started at 21 with my first property
and it literally changed my entire life
just having that opportunity. It wasn't
a big place. was like 800 square feet,
you know, but from that spot, I was able
to build equity and just go from there.
So,
>> which is good. But you also realize that
these can't be sold, right?
>> Oh, 100%. Yeah. We're not doing what
Farmington. Yeah. I'm just saying just
getting a start, you know?
» What do we want to do?
>> Yeah. Great questions.
>> Great questions all around. I I think we
should explore a little bit more um in
case people have sort of differences of
opinion about any particular things.
From what I'm hearing, um we've got at
least two of those uh to discuss and
we're in the midst of talking about um
what do we do about odd lots and as a
correlary, do we do we do that now or do
we do it later? Um the other one is
windows. Um, we've sort of circled
around that and I've I've heard
different opinions. So, let's start with
that. What What Anybody have a really
strong opinion about windows that would
be facing the closest
uh boundary from the ADU?
Would we leave it to like the discretion
of the person that's taking occupancy as
far as window treatments or things of
that nature or is that
>> No, we're talking about like whether the
windows it couldn't be the discretion of
the renter. It couldn't be them and have
>> are we do who would like Let me just do
it this way. No, no, no. You're great.
Uh who would who does not like the
restriction that uh we had been
discussing which is um that it be
frosted of some sort or inoperable?
>> Well, we'll do an operable next.
>> Yeah, that's what I was going to say.
>> Does anybody not like the translucent
requirement?
>> I think it's fine.
>> I think that's good.
>> I mean, yeah, I have that was in all my
platforms.
>> Okay, so translucent is not really a a
point of code. Yeah.
>> Operability.
Where are we at? Um, I think people
should have windows that should open.
That doesn't mean all of them, but you
need fresh air. You You need that
circulation.
>> Well, and if it's an egress for a fire
egress, then that definitely would have
a safety that that's another that's fire
code, right?
>> That's that's my bigger concern with
inoperability is is the egress side of
it. But in addition, yeah, I I guess I
don't see the purpose in having them be
inoperable, particularly if we have the
correct spacing. Mhm. It sounds like 8
feet is the minimum spacing.
>> I think that last time, did you watch
our meeting?
>> Uh, I didn't. I just read the minutes.
>> Okay. So, I think it was part of the
discussion was if you get renters back
there, you don't know. Like, for
example, I mean, I have six kids. If I
were to get some of some of my kids back
there, I don't want to hear what's
coming out of their window, right? Like,
I don't want to hear that music. The
neighbors don't want to hear it. And you
can't control that. I mean, the city has
limits on, you know, 10 p.m. or
whatever, but other than that, you can't
do anything about it. So, it was just
kind of about that and noise and
different things. Am I
>> Yeah, my primary
>> I don't know if I can't remember if I
was the primary uh engine on this, but
>> I was trying to address the um
discomfort that I feel could occur when
you're putting in additional housing so
close to potentially somebody else's
housing and then just staring at each
other. And that if we don't,
>> right,
>> if that's not a big deal, then it's not
a big deal. But I I find personally some
discomfort in that regard
>> and the inoperability was my attempt to
address that. However, there may be
other ways to skin this cat. And it
could also be that operability
um this isn't as big a deal as I may
feel. So because I'm hearing a fair
amount of you that are pretty much it's
okay and that's fine, right?
>> Well, I think it's good, but I think it
also needs protection, too, right? like
we bought our home and we have a fence
and we have our neighbors, but we're
closer than I'd like,
>> you know, in the back lot, but it is
what it is. And then if they were to add
something, that's a whole new level of
noise, sound, whatever.
>> Right.
>> So, I I don't know how to um come to a
middle ground
with this.
>> Well, the height that I had suggested
earlier might be, but that's going to
include some reddraft, and we we're on a
uh time clock.
I would say that um one way to fix it is
allow operable windows at a minimum uh
at least with a minimum height. Um but I
also wouldn't want to take us out of the
um
allowances that fire code would require
for a fire exit,
>> right?
>> Because bathroom windows, those little
bathroom windows ain't going to qualify,
>> right? And they're also mostly not
operable.
>> I was thinking something more along the
lines of uh you know like four or five
feet up potentially, but I don't I don't
know if that's going to qualify.
for
fire egress.
I don't know.
>> I mean, can we require some sort of like
screening that can only be seen like you
can't see through the screening
>> the translucent glass?
would be fine.
It's just
>> No, I'm talking the screening. So, you
can open the window, but then you have a
screen that can't be seen through
either.
>> Users want more noise.
>> A ridiculous suggestion. I don't
>> That's a No, then that's a fair fair
point. It funny enough, I actually more
I'm I'm discomforted by starting to
micromanage in that regard.
>> Yeah, I agreed completely.
>> But
>> I'd like a simple rule, but at the same
time, it may not be
>> ruable at this juncture.
Mike or Lisa, do you guys have any
thoughts or input, you know, regarding
legalities and city codes?
>> Just your honest thoughts really.
>> Well, I do agree with the building
official. You know, if you're putting
similar setbacks to
primary dwellings, why are we regulating
that? I think air flow and light is
important to the quality of life. I
think a lot of these structures can have
lights, you know, like a little higher,
those little lights that you just put
up. People aren't actually looking out
of them. So, I think it's problematic to
regulate windows, but that's my
>> personal opinion, not a legal opinion, I
should say. I don't know why I said
that, but
>> that that strikes a chord with me
actually. And and now I'm going to, like
any good attorney, argue the other side
um against myself. [laughter]
Um,
if Bountiful only has 27 that were
injected over the last two decades, are
we really all that afraid that we're
going to get a flood of these? Probably
not.
>> Well, however, there wasn't so much of a
need 20 years ago, right? There's more
of a need now,
>> but it's also more difficult.
>> It's It's still so prohibitive.
>> You still have to figure though the cost
of building one of these. They're not
cheap. I looked into it. It's like
$120,000 for 850 ft. That's a lot. 850
square feet, you're maybe gonna get
$1,100.
>> Yeah.
>> It's gonna take you a minute to pay that
off.
>> What was your comment?
>> No, I was gonna say, and if you look at
the even the state ordinance, I mean, it
it's it's pretty prohibitive.
I mean, this is pretty tight on how you
can build it and what you can build, uh,
and how many people are really going to
jump on that to do it. I, you know, may
surprise us. I I don't know, but I I'm
in some ways I'm not too concerned.
As far as attached dwelling units, how
many do you know how many we have in the
city?
>> We have 24. I think we have 24
>> 24
>> attached.
>> Yeah.
>> Dwelling units, which is basement.
Basically basement.
>> Pretty much all of them are basement.
24 that you know of
>> that we were already they did [laughter]
they did what they're supposed to and
already
>> um can you remind me Mr. in the code.
Did we draft it uh to include a
provision that the windows be
inoperable?
>> Yeah, it's right there in front of you.
>> Yeah. Oh, sorry. I've got my
>> It's fine. It's fine. But but we could
if we were to amend it, we could say
shall be translucent or shall be
installed skylights. It would be a
simple amendment.
>> Yeah.
>> I just I really have a hard time
internally
>> Yeah.
>> telling someone they can't have operable
windows
for a living quarter. And I understand
all [clears throat] of our reasons and
we talked about it till we're like blew
in the face last night.
>> Yeah.
>> I just feel that's like super
restrictive.
>> Let's move on. And I think we've we've
circled this one enough if that's okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Um
» what? Oh, sorry.
>> Are there any other topics that we would
like to talk through before we open it
up for a motion?
>> I do want to hit still. Whoops. I try to
move and I can't. I do still want to
talk about occupancy limit. I I need to
know are we just going to keep it as two
adults and any number of children? Are
we going to do per city definition of
family? I mean I that could be easy. Are
we going to do per state code whatever
that I reference? What what what should
I put in that cell?
>> So I wrote notes of single family
designation to talk about that. Can we
>> can you pull that up or can you tell us
exactly what that is? how that is
worded.
>> It was in that email podcast.
>> This one from a legal standpoint, it is
a lot easier if you just stick with our
definition of family.
>> That's why related and unrelated. Yes, I
think it gets very tricky when you start
trying to define
>> number of people,
>> but I do get, you know, it's a smaller
home, but many homes use
to do that.
>> And so, do we match? I'm trying to
remember now. Do we match state
>> the state again?
>> Is that what you sent me
>> there? Well, C does, right? C matches
what I sent you,
>> but there has been and I don't know if
it's still in force the same definition.
I I I think we can still rely on our
city code cuz this this was required of
all cities to match this definition. I
don't know, it was like six or eight
years ago, maybe even 10 years ago.
>> So that that definition is very
evergreen from city to city for a
definition of family.
But for whatever reason, I couldn't find
it in state code where I did the
research. But I found that one I
provided, which again matches term C.
>> Well, I'm comfortable with that and I
like what the city already has.
>> I don't think that we should try and
micromanage that more.
>> Okay. So, I just put per definition of
family in 12.12.040.
>> Okay.
>> My opinion is yes. I
>> consensus.
>> Yeah.
>> We've already defined it.
>> I think that works well.
>> Makes Lisa happy.
>> Yeah. said it did.
>> That's all we want.
>> That's all we ever want.
>> Okay. And then I have a few things that
I can probably refine with you, Lisa.
Just um some terminology things relative
to again those those continual
inclusions. I guess I could just modify
them where it's referencing state code
10-
20-303 or 10-20- 10-21-303.
Just take those out, but then try to
word smith it in so it still works. Is
that okay with you? Mhm.
>> Is that okay with the council or the
planning commission if I did that?
>> We'll see. [laughter]
>> I think we do need I need to do some
research on um Yeah. Are you talking
about the lean provision?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> That is exactly what I'm talking about.
>> Okay.
>> And then my final one is right there
where it's at. Um existing building and
detach ADU conversion. And I left it in
pink because I believe that was the will
of the the planning commission to excise
all that stuff except for that brief
statement just saying, "Hey, if if we
need to verify an existing building as a
non-conforming structure, we have that opportunity after or if it was
permitted prior to October 1st, 2026."
>> Yes,
>> that's what I remember the discussion
being.
>> That's right.
>> Then taking out guest house and all that
craziness after. Right.
>> That is correct. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> That's all I have then as clarification.
I need administratively.
>> While while we're on this page though,
um should it be 1258090?
>> Yes, that's a typo in there. Okay.
>> Yes.
>> Stupid little things.
>> That's why you're an engineer.
» Okay, perfect. That gives me what I
need.
» I feel like I I just want to speak up a
little bit. um about the configuration
of lots. After just talking with
residents who've asked me, giving me
phone calls and sent emails,
I want to just put this out here that I
think conditional use permits, I don't
know whether or not they um would be the
proper tool to regulate. I don't know
what health, safety, and welfare
standards we could regulate with
conditional use permits. Um, but Miss
Hendris and I have talked and one of the
reasons why she brought up conditional
use permits is because I said the
possibility of um like where the ADU
would be placed. That should be
something that
um she could bring up. So, I wanted to
clarify for Miss Hendrickx as well as
the planning commission that
um during our discussion if it came out
that I said that it would be permitted
as a conditional use permit. Okay. Okay.
Just wanted to make sure and put that on
the record. With that being said though,
my feelings as a planner still go with I
think that
it would be a great tool for the
planning commission as well as residents
and the planning staff to have if we
could look in the future at tying a
conditional use permit to the placement
of um ADUs in rear or inside yards and
or front yards just based on how old the
lots are in Centerville. I think that um
Paul, you hit on it really well that the
state is generalizing for subdivision
lots. There are a lot of lots here in
Centerville that are not part of a
subdivision.
Um so I I just wanted to throw that out
there. Whether or not that sticks,
that's okay. But I the reason why we are
allowing for a detach accessory dwelling
units is to allow for residents and home
own homeowners to have um that
additional income and I think that we
are cutting a big a big portion of the
population out for that but
>> okay thanks for that input. Yeah.
>> Um, as I understand it, and Lisa, this
is a question for you, conditional use
would not be an allowed tool for that
because it'd be more of a variance than
a conditional use. Is that is that fair
to say?
>> Yes.
>> Because what you're doing is you're
conditionally using the conditional use
code
>> to uh violate the code
>> is what it would essentially be doing.
And in that way, you'd need a variance.
>> But I don't like variances either.
>> I hear what you're saying. Okay. No,
that makes sense. So, the reason I
mentioned that and Lisa, I'm curious if
you have a difference of opinion on
that.
>> No. Well, I think that conditional use
permits are problematic and they're I
prefer other tools either regulate
specifically or
>> not at all.
>> Yeah. Or a variance or allow for flag
lots. You know, there's a lot of other
tools that address
>> those situations.
>> That's exactly why I asked that. So, um,
pulling it back to the commission with
all of that said, I'll lay out sort of
just my position and then let's just go
from there. Um, I love the idea of uh
expanding our definitions and
regulations to allow for oddballs like
we've seen today.
>> And at least in in both of those, I
could definitely see the utility in
allowing an ADU in the positions as
proposed. Um
I do share um Mr. Egget's reservations
about creating a subcategory of an
accessory building given that accessory
building is already defined to exist
only in the rear yard. However, I wonder
if we couldn't create a carveout in the
DAT ordinance that something something
along the lines of notwithstanding
definitions to the contrary, daddos may
be allowed in front and side yards,
something like that. So, we don't create
a new category. We just simply say that
even though the definition
>> has limited it to this, we are expanding
that to say that notwithstanding
definitionally
datos may be allowed in front and
sideyards
>> and then you'd have to create a list of
regulations that regulate that.
>> True. But you I would just say that
you're going to regulate it sort of in
the same way except for I mean never
mind I'm I'm talk you're you're stream
seeing my stream of consciousness.
You're right. There's a problem in front
yards
>> with all of the setbacks and everything
else
>> because some front yards may not
accommodate it.
>> Correct. For sure.
>> And not only that, but the law of
unintended consequences,
>> which then you have to create like lot
certain lot distinctions, which maybe
both their lots would meet that lot
distinction, but this is what I talked
about earlier. You have to figure out
what that is.
>> Yeah.
>> So, there's certain criteria that match
to then allow for those allowances.
>> Sid, will you pull up our variance
ordinance?
>> Please. Thank you.
My concern is that if this were to come
forward on a variance stat uh standard,
I think that it would be rejected both
of these potential
>> ADUs that we've talked about. Now,
obviously, we're making no adjudication
or anything on these particular homes.
I'm using this as an example only.
>> Why would it be rejected?
>> Cuz it doesn't fit.
>> Well, so my understanding of our
standards of variance, where's our
standards
of review, aren't there? I mean they
could yeah they could put it elsewhere.
>> Yeah. So the literal enforcement of the
provision would cause an unreasonable
hardship that is not necessary to kill
out the general purpose. There are
special circumstances attached to the
property that generally not I could see
that passing. Granting a variance is
essential to the enjoyment of
substantial property right enjoyed by
others.
>> Maybe the variance will not
substantially substantially affect the
general plan. Fine. The spirit of the
title reserve. So, here's here's the
analysis as I see it. If you're putting
something in the front yard and because
it's too expensive to put it in the
backyard, you're not going to pass this
standard. It's not the little
enforcement would cause an unreasonable
hardship. Cost in the case laws, and I'm
not giving legal opinions. I'm just
saying it from my position.
>> Well, yeah. Look at clause two. It says
what you just said.
>> Cost is cost is not a sufficient
hardship.
>> Clause two says that. Mhm.
>> So, um if you have alternatives, then
you're supposed to take those
alternatives before you get a variance.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> And think of it this way. If it can't
fit in your backyard, but it can fit in
your front yard, then the ordinance has
written has already written you out. So,
you can't invoke I think
uh essential to the enjoyment that is
possessed by other property. Just
because other properties get ADUs in
their backyard doesn't mean you get one
in your front yard.
>> At least strictly according to that.
>> Yeah. That's why I don't know if
variance is the right tool.
>> It is not.
>> Yeah.
>> The variance is not in Jackson. I'm
going to go back to that. No, it would
completely defeat the purpose of, you
know, state law mandating that we allow
DADUs and it would Yeah, I I think the
city would regulate more strictly in
>> So, Lisa,
is there do you think and shoot from the
hip, right? We're just shooting from the
hip. Is there a tool that we could use
potentially to address these oddball
situations?
>> Yes, but we don't have time right now.
staff can certain Oh, well the tool on
one of them
>> well yeah I don't know I don't know
>> without commenting specifically on these
two
>> I mean I think Centerville has a lot of
very long lots and the tool that's
needed for those is infill flag lot
>> and staff has you know supported I will
say supported flag lots I would love to
look at um because we have a lot of
underutilized properties and that would
be a reasonable way to do it and you can
and and a flag lot is not a tool
mandated by state law. So we can say we
want it this big, we want it this far
from the you know I mean we can still do
that with dads but you're also not
restricting the size. It's not an
accessory. Um, you know, so
>> and you can actually build a single
family home essentially if it meets all
the requirements,
>> right? And so if they want I mean this
would help with the Riley because if
they want a bigger home, it
>> doesn't have to be a,200 foot home.
>> A flag lot would allow that.
>> So you basically have two homes or two
properties,
>> right? And you know, and I think that
the flag lot may be more persuasive now
that with one acre lot, you can have two
dwellings.
>> Mhm. So you're not prohibiting anything
by allowing a flag lot creating
>> and then you do although you have two
larger buildings you know
>> I would love to but again it's the
>> any of these are you know building in
the back and how you're impacting your
neighbors but
>> property develops and you could have
someone 8 feet away from you depending
on if somebody can get a road in you
know so having that expectation of
privacy in your backyard is not
necessarily realistic. I know it's not a
popular
>> Yeah.
>> But it's realist, but
>> good points.
Okay. So, um going back to sort of my
list, um the occupancy I'm hearing were
generally uh mostly aligned at least on
uh the definition of family being
incorporated from city code.
um [snorts]
the uh MITs that we talked about
earlier, the capitalization of
construction, the um [clears throat]
1258070,
the phrasing for additional entrance
>> removing that.
>> I think that was it. No.
>> And then my comments my three comments.
>> Sure. Sure. I meant like that we had
>> Okay. I just want to make my three
comments at the beginning. I request
that those be included.
>> And then there was also the may be on
the two-3. Is that what you're
>> refering? That's one of them. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> The other one is where applicable
enforcement provisions and the other is
changing the citation a minor
>> the the
point4 instead of
>> Yeah. 12.58.040
two or three.
[clears throat] Okay.
I'm gonna have to Has anybody been
assembling these? Because mine spread
[laughter] out all over my notes.
>> Oh, we want to see your attorney.
>> Oh, this is start.
>> I have my own scribbles over here.
» 58.040B2
has a wrong a wrong reference.
>> What? And also in regards to the tiny
homes, we were going to add your extra.
>> Yeah. And if you want me to add language
regarding removal of an axle.
>> Yes. Yeah.
>> And it has to be permanently attached.
>> And there is language that I can easily
get from pretty much any city.
>> Yes.
>> We just don't have it currently.
>> So,
>> all right. We're doing it live.
>> Um I think so.
>> We're going to start. This is I'm going
to make a motion
>> and my motion is going to be constructed
together
and I'm going to make a motion
eventually that I will move for, but I'm
not making it now. We're just building
it.
>> [laughter]
>> Um,
and it's going to be something along the
lines here where it says detached
dwelling units amending blah blah blah.
But in addition to what is in the staff
report, we're going to say number one.
And Sid, I may need you to pull up
>> these as we go. Let's start with
12.58.070.
» 12.587 [snorts]
» 070.
>> Yep.
And
um where's the entrance?
>> Article C. Oh, the entrance is D.
>> But there's only D.
>> So subd.
So I'm going to propose that subd
>> one entrance
>> modifies its language such that
>> just say it deletes the
>> removes the word additional.
>> Right. That's what we agreed on.
>> That it removes the word additional.
Number
two,
that the occupancy definition in which
where's that section, guys?
>> Right. It's that table. She was on it.
>> Oh, go back.
>> Table 12.58.
What was it?
>> 120701-1.
occupancy
be defined
to incorporate
>> the uh city's definition well I'll just
say the definition
>> count in 12.12.040
>> 12.12.040 040
>> as currently written
>> uh family
>> right
>> okay number three
um the scriveners error on 12.58.190
should be 090
>> correct
>> and what did we did we make any other
changes in inside that substantively
» that one had to
Nothing I have noted.
>> Okay.
>> And um 12.58.110
sub C
>> down
>> or sub one maybe.
>> Yeah,
>> it is sub one.
>> Construction fire code. Is that it?
>> Yeah. [snorts]
that the um language be revised to say a
detached ADU shall be subject to all
related regulations regarding the
capital construction code
as adopted by the city and state
>> codes.
>> Oh, codes. Thank you. The capital C
construction capital C codes striking
the language.
>> Do do we need to have fire code too or
just construction code is fine? It
covers it.
>> It covers it. Okay.
>> Yep. As long as you capitalize the
construction.
>> Okay.
>> Do we should we also be adjusting the title of that then? Construction and
fire codes to just say construction
codes.
>> Oh, the title of one. Yeah.
>> Well,
yes and no. I mean, it seems like we've
se we
>> And you can say both if you want.
Construction codes and fire codes both
>> because we're talking about dwellings
and that's fine. The problem I think
could be run up against is some creative
lawyer is going to say, "Yeah, but they
took out fire codes deliberately and
that meant something."
>> See that, too?
>> Yeah.
>> Um, so we'll just say construction codes
and fire codes.
Um,
but it's going to be capital C's. Are we
going to capital F and C, the fire code?
>> Yeah. And I only say that because I
think the fire code
we
I'd have to see if we reference in title
10, but we do adopt it in a different
section. I think our public health and
safety,
let's see, fire regulations.
Yeah, in title seven we adopt. Okay.
Inter Yeah, the international fire code
as more particularly adopted. Oh, in
title 10. Okay, so we're good. So, it is
included in construction codes.
>> We'll catch it eventually.
>> Okay. So, construction codes and fire
codes is what that's going to read.
Striking building construction and fire
codes. Um,
we did the occupancy limit. We did
>> I'm sorry. I I know. I don't know what
I'm missing. Someone jump.
>> You're missing windows. We're missing
that two to three. Maybe we're missing
the tiny house verbage.
>> Okay, let's go through those slowly.
Where where's the window section?
>> 12.58.070C.
Removing the term fixed inoperable.
So we'll say shall be translucent
is what the recommendation was.
But you're the one constructing the
motion. So for sure I don't want to put
words in your mouth.
>> Be translucent
>> and just drop everything else.
>> Yep.
>> No skylights. We're just taking shall be
fixed nonop.
>> Yeah, I was just saying just drop
>> by everything.
>> Sorry. fixed, nonoperable, and will be
stricken.
>> Okay. Okay. And then and then you leave
it in translucent or shelby. Okay. Good.
>> Uh what was the next one? Thank you.
>> Um you're welcome. We had that the tiny
homes for extra verbiage. And we also
had the two-3.
>> We were changing just
>> which section
>> I'm trying to get to the the
establishment. Hang on.
>> Um
>> definition of title. It's basically that
they have to be on a fixed foundation.
>> Yeah,
>> that is
>> I think it's in 1258.
>> Found it.
>> Okay.
>> A
>> there it is.
>> Which one is it?
>> Oh, you got it.
>> Yeah. So, it was an A, but he's going to
be adding
>> I would add a new Yeah, I would add a
new guess it' be probably new B and
change the numbering. that would talk
about removal of an axle for any
modular.
>> Okay. I'd like to workshop the language
though. Um rather
>> it doesn't have it all.
>> Isn't that correct?
>> I don't have one, but I can try to find
one right now.
>> Well then, okay. So, give give me broad
parameters to do in the ordinance. Or
would you like
>> how about this?
>> Um with a direction to staff to add a
subsection in 070 to address tiny homes
removing axles um and which will then be
considered by the city council.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I would say and I wouldn't
even say tiny homes. I would say modular
homes such as tiny or other similar
modular homes
>> so that we're not just singling out
>> Yeah. and and the language the the
building official gave me said he said
add language the axles are removed when
the structure is fixed in place for any
DAU that is wheeled into location
>> are the words permanently affixed to the
ground something that we should be using
>> it's already there in a so we could we
could use similar language if we wanted
to to count on it but it will already be
established in a
>> well then what do we need
>> that the removal of the axles from solar
fuel in a tiny home Right? You have to
anchor it into the ground, but he's
saying you can then take it a step
further and put language in that says
removal of the axle. So, it inhibits its
ability to be even more modular.
>> All right? So, then it's a permanent
structure and not coming. So, it create
a clause new B that would say that.
>> I don't know why we need a new clause.
Why not just one more sentence in a I
could do it that way too. something
along the lines of if the
>> detached ADU
has
uh it's capable of being mobile that any
such
>> w into location was the term
>> mobility
>> but whatever you could say that
>> w into location but that would mean
something different to me than it would
to you
>> if the use supports mobility
>> and there like I said there are codes I
had one in my last city I just have to
pull it Okay. Right.
>> So then here's what I'm going to put in
my motion is that rather than a new
section be added that a clause be that a
sentence be added to clause A.
>> Okay.
>> That would uh prohibit or no would
require the removal of any axles or
similar
>> mobility capabilities.
>> Okay.
>> Sure.
>> That's fair.
>> They get a fixed.
>> Yeah.
They have to be a fixed.
>> Yeah. I can certainly find someone's
code that reads well and says that
>> it
>> because it just says well any structure
fixed and anchored.
» Can you change that one to unfixed?
>> Yeah, because anchored I mean you could
anchor it like you anchor, couldn't you?
Like you anchor a boat with just a post
coming out, right? I I feel like that's
a little flawed.
>> The word the word fixed
>> any structure fixed and anchored. I'm
just
If we're not adding more like he was
talking about, I feel like there's room
for error there or cause for question.
>> I mean, with the building code, it
that's what it's called when you you
anchor something into a foundation, you
anchor the structure into the
foundation. That's the term.
>> No, is is the word fixed a defined term
in the building code?
>> That I no I I mean that if you want to
use a fixed if you want to use I don't
know what else, but
>> a fixed in real estate has to be screwed
in. Yeah,
>> that's how we do it.
>> You could say a fixed. You could say or
you could just use anchored and take out
or or fixed and anchored.
>> Shall be a permanent structure anchored
to a foundation. That is building
terminology. You do anchor structures to
concrete slabs and foundation.
>> That is the right term
>> is thinking. Do you have comments on
that, Lisa?
>> Well, just if you if it's only fixed,
sorry, where's the language? If it's a
permanent structure and anchored,
you might be taking out this whole
category of, you know, [snorts] that
they're bringing because they are going
to bring things on. And so anyway, that
was my concern is that you are
eliminating these manufactured in a way
that may [clears throat] not be allowed.
So
>> we can't do that.
>> I I'm okay with the language as it is,
especially with the addition that you
have to take any axles off.
>> Okay.
Let's go with that. So we'll leave
that at is. So, so it's
>> adding a sentence commanding the removal
of or requiring the removal
>> of any axles or similar mobility
capabilities.
>> Okay. Yeah.
» All right.
Vice Chair Patterson, what are we
missing?
>> We are missing the last one. Um, it was
the two-3. We were going to add may be
instead of just,
>> but that was my bad that I did not
write.
>> May be permitted to
>> may be per Where was that?
>> It's 12.58.060.
» See,
>> go up
>> and then it was two down here.
>> There were two numbers. He re have a
detached ADU on
>> Yeah, that's when I said that it was a
little little weird.
>> Are you sure it was this propert?
» Okay,
>> you're right.
>> May be permitted to have a detached ad.
That may be
>> maybe
>> I'm not sure what that is trying to get
at
>> because isn't that by definition a
detached ADU? A property may have a
detached ADU on the lot or partial that
is shared with the primary dwelling.
>> You give them a right to have it. You
say may or may be permitted.
>> Oh, I see. We're just saying oh you can
have Okay. You can have
>> we scroll up scroll up too.
>> It's trying to create more clarity. So
it's not saying in other conditions have
two on a lot [laughter]
>> like it just seems
>> how it's words a little confusing. So
clarify it may be permitted to have then
you you categorically allowed it.
>> Would would an appropriate edit there
just be to remove the first sentence of
that since the in my mind the the
clearer message for C is
>> yeah it is the second sentence is the
>> is the second sentence.
>> We've already established the first
sentence elsewhere.
Very true.
>> So, just go with no single family.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> That's what I mean. If you need it in
there, I
>> It doesn't It doesn't matter to me as
long as it's clear that a single family
dwelling, a primary dwelling
a affords a detached ADU to be on it if
they can meet the other allowances. I'm
not sure if it says that elsewhere in
the code. But I like the definition that
or stated affirmatively that if you have
a single family residence, you're
eligible to also construct an ADU
provided
>> you can only have one either internal or
detached.
>> Yeah, I think that's what it's trying to
say.
>> But I'm not sure if if that first
sentence needs to be rewarded.
That was the point I was saying when it
may be permitted to. It's like
>> there's not another category. It's just
you have a right that permits you to do
this if you meet the criteria.
>> I think that an example of this would be
we're experiencing this with a
agriculture property who wants to have a
um who wants to put like an accessory
structure on their farm with a barn.
They already have a barn, but there's no
single family house. And then they want
to put another detached structure with a
rental unit in there.
Um, so with this being put in that that
might say, hey, no, this there has to be
a single family
by definition. But yeah, I would rather
just say it affirmatively, as I said, a
lot parcel with an existing single
family dwelling is eligible to, you
know, for a detached ADU.
>> And then the second
>> prov Yeah. Provided you can only have
one.
>> Yeah.
>> Either detached or
>> Yeah. because you do have to if I would
make it one sentence because you don't
want to we can work on that just direct
staff will make it better.
>> Okay, that's what we're gonna do
[laughter]
>> this because [clears throat] I do think
but I think in the definition we say it
has to have that but I want to make that
clear as well. You have to have
>> because the key point is the second
sentence that's why
>> right you can only have either internal
or or detached. I guess my the question
I would have is we've we've defined the eligibility in 125804
OB. Do we need to also define it in the
first sentence here?
>> That's a great point. That's a good
point.
>> Sometimes because staff likes to just
point to this. I think that's what
they're saying is we just want that if
you don't have a home already on there,
you can't have a
>> DADU.
>> And then we don't have to argue with
them. So I I can see that.
>> Yeah. Okay,
>> they have to enforce it. So, but I I
think we can re make it state it that
clearly
combining it with the second part though
that you can only have one or the other.
Got it.
>> And then there's a small scrier's error
on 12.58.040B2 040 B2 where it's
referencing wrong code with the internal
ADU and it should be referencing
its own code further down which is
12.58.100
in place of that.
>> So instead of 090
>> yeah or yeah it even says 12.60. So the
60 and the 090 are error. It should be
5800.
>> Very good. And then the last one was at
the very bottom way down in
enforcability.
Um I I recommended taking out the
citation and just having it say may
utilize applicable enforcement
provisions regarding violations and
holding leans against the property. And
the city attorney seemed okay with that.
>> Okay. Slowly. Sorry.
We're taking out
the red highlight completely.
>> No, just the where it says we're adding
the word applicable in place of thus. So
may utilize applicable and then we're
removing of Utah code section 10-20303
internal accessory dwelling units and
then keeping regarding violations.
And I do think what your comment was
referring I think it's 1021303
where the lean provisions are.
>> Yeah.
>> But we're removing
>> but we don't Yeah. We don't want to
refer to the
>> Yeah. We're removing it.
>> I mean we may but
» until state code gets updated which it
probably will and then we'll have to
reinsert it in. [laughter]
Okay.
All right. So, I've got the mechanics.
My um motion is probably also going to
carry a recommendation that the city
direct staff to uh evaluate and build
out
um
suggest solutions.
No, I'm not going to do it part of the
motion. Never mind.
I'm gonna
» Can we do it with a separate? I know
what you're thinking about.
>> Yeah, you know where I'm going is that I want a tool to address the oddballs.
>> Yeah.
>> Oftent times after a motion you have in
the past given direction to staff as a
comment.
>> Yeah, that's that's what I'm probably
going to do. The problem is we didn't
notice this up as um potentially
uh developing code for flags.
>> That's why I was scared about talking
about it too much.
>> Yeah.
>> And that's probably why we should come
back and do it separately. And
>> yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
>> All right. Friends,
>> can I ask you a question before you go
forward?
>> Please. So in your motion or all of your
notes that all the things we've gone
through, you're not suggesting um
conditional use permits.
>> No.
>> Okay.
>> Oh, that clarity on agricultural law.
Are we keeping it permitted
>> in essence? Oh, we need to discuss that.
>> That one. Yeah.
>> Yeah. In essence, my motion is going to
say, I'm so sorry. Um, thank you for
your comments, but I'm so sorry. You
don't qualify potentially um because
we're not going to allow front yard ADUs
under this code
>> at this time. Yeah, at this time.
>> That's what I'm going to be making a
motion for.
>> Did you hear Mike?
>> Yeah.
>> About the said agricultural. It doesn't
qualify. I mean it consistently it's P
and internal but again I don't want to
tell the plantings and how it
>> we talked about that last time like if
somebody just has all the eggs right and
you've got a home over here and they can
have 10 acres 100 doesn't matter and
then they just want to put something
>> that's where you have size restrictions
by code of how big it can be then they
can only make it so big
>> so then if they have a big parcel they
can't have a mini McMansion or pool
house in the back that's rented out
because you're regulating it by size and
construction
>> that's why we had that conversation
Well, it seems fair because if I if I
had a lot of that, I don't build
something, right? I don't want to
restrict people completely out, but I
also don't want neighborhoods dotted
with things in the front or sidey yards,
>> which I think too,
unfortunately for for the the resident
that commented, but I think by keeping
the the unit size to where you have it
or somewhere like that,
>> then it it kind of addresses what Lisa
was talking about and that those large
units still have subdivision and
development potential and they still get
the ADU out of it. It creates this kind
of a a pushpull compromise that benefits
everybody interested, I think. [snorts]
>> Okay.
>> So, sorry, just for my clarification,
are you recommending
>> DAD uses a permitted use in AL?
>> That's my That's probably going to be my
motion.
>> Yeah.
All right. I need to go.
Hold up a second though. If it's
agricultural low,
Do they have any buildings on them at
all?
>> They have to still have a home primary
dwelling.
>> That's what my question was. Okay.
>> Yeah, they have has to have a single
family. Agricultural will
even look at it.
>> Okay, perfect.
>> Cuz yeah, when I was thinking
agriculture, I was thinking for some
reason.
>> Well, then it would be a primary
structure at that point
>> and they are building the primary
structure. Yeah. In all fairness to what
you're saying.
>> I guess it would be, right? Okay. Thank
you.
>> Okay. I hereby make a motion.
>> All right. to recommend that the city
council
uh well to forward a positive
recommendation to the city council that
they approve the proposed zoning context
amendments to the Centerville municipal
code by adding new chapter 12.58
detached accessory dwelling unit uh per
DADU standards and hold up standards and
amending section 12.36.020 020 table of
uses for residential uses based on the
following reasons for action. No, no.
Hell's bells.
[laughter]
[snorts]
>> Strike that.
>> Let's take it from the top. I hereby
make a motion to recommend that the city
council approve the proposed zoning code
text amendments to the Centerville
Municipal Code by adding new chapter
12.58 detached accessory dwelling units
dat standards and amending section
12.36020 table of uses for residential
uses as indicated in the staff report.
However, with the following additional
modifications
12.58.070 070 subd remove the word
additional
12.58070
subc remove the phrase fixed inoperable
and
12.58070A
um that
staff be delegated
the authority to draft an additional
sentence to add to this subsection A
that has the effect of requiring the
removal of any axles or similar mobility
capabilities for the affixed DATU.
No, for the fixed and anchored DATU
that
12.58070-1
the word occupancy occupancy be defined
uh to be family as defined in 122 0440
that
12.58190
is a scrier's error and should be
changed to 090
12.58110
sub 1. Eliminate the phrase building
construction and fire codes and replace
it with capital C construction capital C
codes and capital F fire capital C codes
that 12.58060
sub C.
Did I already say that one?
>> No. No.
>> Okay. Ah, yes.
that staff work on rewarding these two
sentences into one sentence to clarify
the intent that a single family
residents may qualify to have one ADU
but no more than one ADU.
>> Is that fair?
>> Yes.
>> Uh avoiding the word may [laughter]
or at least the singular use of may
without qualifiers.
Um I think uh city attorney Romney had a
really good articulation.
>> Let's let's direct staff to perhaps
consider that and then forward it that
way to the city council that 12.58040
subb sub 2 be modified that the code
reference therein instead of 126090
or 12.60.090
be modified to 12.58100.
that 12.58
uh 120
I can't read my handwriting ah be
modified as we have discussed which as I
understood it was to um
yeah
say something along the lines of uh
words to the effect additionally the
city may utilize applicable is an
addition strike the and then going back
to the original text enforcement
provisions and then strike of Utah code
102303
um internal dwelling units my handwriting and then
resume with um
» regarding it's either regarding or
thank you let's just get there yeah it's
regarding
[clears throat]
okay so for clarity We're striking the
replacing it with applicable. We're
striking of Utah code 102303 internal
accessory dwelling units and then
resuming with regarding violations.
Then
the table of uses 12.36.020
instead of P question mark for RL zones
that the table of uses just be P
permitted for dwelling single family
with detached accessory dwelling.
>> AL zones.
>> I'm sorry.
>> AL zones.
>> Yeah, the AL zone. What did I say? You
said RL.
>> Oh,
>> definitely not RL
>> because it's RDP.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, did you
>> for the reasons?
>> Wait, did I miss it? Did you address
Windows?
>> Yes.
>> Oh.
>> Uhhuh.
>> Yeah.
>> Did he got that code?
>> Uh, for clarity 1258070
subc remove fixed inoperable and Okay.
for the reasons as indicated in the
staff report.
» Trying to think about any other reasons
>> findings on.
>> Um
yeah, we'll [clears throat] go with the
findings as indicated in the staff
report. That's my motion.
>> Man, I second that hard.
>> Okay, so I've got a motion [laughter]
and a hard second. Hard second.
>> Hard second.
>> Uh discussion on the motion.
>> Can you repeat that? NO. [laughter]
» That's awesome.
>> Love it.
>> Yeah. Perfect.
>> I love it.
>> Great.
>> Okay. Um jokes aside, no discussions is
what I'm seeing.
>> I think we're
>> Okay. Commissioner Mandal.
>> I
>> Okay, that passes unanimous.
>> Awesome. staff. Holy cow, what great
work.
>> Yeah, that's awesome.
>> You put in a lot of work hours.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to all
three of you.
>> Um, I am going to say this that I would
like us to work on modifying the code I
just moved to authorize to forward with
a positive recommendation that we
address these situations where it seems
like to meet the spirit and intent of
daddos would be to allow a dad in these
situations in a front yard. That would
make a lot of sense to me. At least that
would be the underlying policy behind
why we would want a DATU code to address
these situations. But I want to do it in
a way that makes a lot of sense.
>> Yeah.
>> And I don't know what that looks like
yet,
>> but it makes sense for everybody
>> with that direction. Are you open to
other alternative land use discussions?
>> Totally. I would love to consider five
lots.
>> Yeah. or like maybe not use dat
we consider all land use options to
maximize real estate.
>> Yeah. Yes. I like that.
>> Now that will obviously be subject to
your time, your bandwidth and directions
from city council and we'll see what
happens. I'm sorry to saddle you with
more assignments, but I I I do feel
quite strongly that that is something we
should address in a near in a near
future.
>> And it seems like residents are wanting
that
>> as does the state.
>> Yeah. They want to
>> Right. Right.
>> Start being able to utilize their own
land.
>> Right.
>> Okay. Um that passes unanimously. We
need to actually get done with today's
meeting. So, um community development
director's report. Your brief report,
sir.
>> Really brief. I just wanted to note that
um recently had interaction with the old
Carl Jr. ownership team. They said that
they should be pulling that permit
hopefully within Well, they didn't say
hopefully. I'm saying it because they've
done this before, but they've indicated
within the month they should be pulling
the building permit to finally get going
on the building.
>> Yeah.
>> Finally.
>> For uh Carl's Jr.
>> Carl Jr. It's going to be
>> Oh, into Johnny. Sorry, not Johnny
Rockets. I apologize.
>> Uh Jack in the Box.
>> Jack in the Box. Thank you.
>> Yeah. And the other thing to note is the
corner of 1250 West and and Parish. If
you've been down there and see, there's
a lot of new material showing up on the
site. They're definitely getting ready
to start to excavate and and start doing
work on that site.
>> Good.
>> That pre pre or the pre-construction's
already been completed. So, we're just
waiting on I think the mayor when he
come comes back, if he's already come
back, he has a letter in or a agreement
in there for storm water that we need to
sign off and approve for UD do and
that's the last thing that the site plan
needed to be in compliance to move
forward. So, that should probably be
getting pretty Yeah. pretty active very
soon. appropriate. They're bringing fuel
in.
>> Any updates on the Maverick?
>> Um, we have there's a new owner. Oh, the
new owner of Maverick. He actually own
he bought it outright from Maverick
Corporation. He has some ideas. He's
talked to both Sydney and I, but Main
Street has some challenges with with
what Main Street requires. Um, he is
going to, that being said, work on some
interior cleanup or renovation to maybe
pursue a leie for it. Um, and uh, I
guess we'll see from there. Um, in an
ideal world, there would be some
discussions about Main Street
regulations, but I don't want to get
into that right now.
>> Nope.
>> So,
>> thank you.
>> So, the bottom line is the good news
with that without again creating any
kind of political discussion is um, we
have an owner. He's a responsible owner.
He's motivated to make the property
work. He's just going to be restricted
to what Main Street allows him to do.
That's the best way to say it.
>> Thank you.
>> And that's all I have.
>> Thank you. All right. Moving forward to
the minutes from the prior meeting. Uh I
assume you all had an opportunity to
review. Anybody have any modifications
to propose?
>> I did not. I mean, I read them, but I
have no modifications.
>> Let me be clear.
» So, motion to approve them. Yes.
>> Uh, I'll take a motion.
>> I make a motion to approve the minutes
from,
uh, July 22nd, 2026.
>> I'll second. Have
>> a motion and a second. All in favor say
I.
>> I. I.
>> All opposed.
>> All right. I'll take a motion to
adjurnn.
>> I make a motion to adjurnn. [laughter]
>> Look at you jumping on that, man.
>> I have a second from Commissioner
Mendall. Uh, any uh, all in favor say I.
>> Okay,
>> we're done.