[0:09] All right, we're all set.

[0:11] >> All right, welcome everybody. I

[0:13] apologize for being late and for

[0:14] starting late, but I guess it's under

[0:16] five minutes.

[0:17] >> Yeah.

[0:18] >> So, the students don't get to leave.

[0:20] [laughter]

[0:22] >> Growing up, what was it? 15 minutes was

[0:24] >> the culture pretty much,

[0:26] >> I think. So, I mean, it's not a real

[0:27] thing, but

[0:29] anyways, welcome everybody to Planning

[0:31] Commission for August 12, 2026. We'll

[0:33] start with a quick roll call. We have an

[0:36] amazing panel today.

[0:38] >> Yeah,

[0:39] >> this looks so fun to see everybody.

[0:41] [laughter]

[0:42] >> No, really. It's it's it's Gosh, I don't

[0:44] know how when when's the last time we

[0:46] had a no absence.

[0:48] >> It's been a while.

[0:49] >> So, it is such a pleasure to have you

[0:51] all here. Um, we'll start with a thought

[0:54] by Commissioner Adamson.

[0:56] >> Okay.

[0:57] >> Yeah. I was thinking about what to what

[0:59] to share today and uh thinking about it

[1:01] in the context of the different things

[1:03] that we were wanting to achieve today.

[1:06] And one of my favorite recent books I've

[1:08] read is The Devil in the White City. Not

[1:10] sure if anyone's heard of that. Uh it's

[1:12] essentially about the um Chicago World's

[1:15] Fair and it juxtaposed against kind of

[1:17] more of a true crime understanding of

[1:19] what was going on in Chicago at that

[1:21] time.

[1:22] Um I my background is as an engineer. So

[1:25] the architectural aspects of the world's

[1:27] fair really caught my attention. I found

[1:29] it very enthralling. Um there's a quote

[1:32] in that uh from the architect in charge

[1:35] of uh developing a lot of the buildings

[1:37] and structures for the World's Fair. Uh

[1:39] Daniel Bham, make no little plans, they

[1:42] have no magic to stir men's blood. And

[1:44] so I was thinking about that quote in

[1:47] this context and I think it's it's a

[1:48] good reminder to us that uh our job as

[1:52] planning commission is not just to think

[1:53] about the near-term but to think about

[1:55] the long term. What are we leaving

[1:56] behind for the community? What what

[1:58] structure are we setting? A lot of the

[2:00] code edits we're talking about today

[2:02] focus a lot in on that and making

[2:04] changes and creating a structure that

[2:06] sets good precedent for the future. So

[2:09] that's my thought.

[2:11] >> That's awesome. Make no small plans.

[2:13] >> Yeah. Can you say one pledge? No small

[2:15] plans because it's not enough to stir

[2:16] men's blood.

[2:17] >> Yeah. Make no little plans. They have no

[2:18] magic to stir men's blood.

[2:20] >> Well done. Okay. Um we'll stand for the

[2:22] pledge of allegiance. Oh, sorry. Uh

[2:25] Commissioner Adamson, did you want to

[2:26] offer a legislative prayer?

[2:27] >> Sure, please.

[2:31] » Our father in heaven, we're grateful for

[2:32] this opportunity we have as a commission

[2:34] to gather and to discuss the needs of

[2:36] our community. We're grateful for the

[2:38] efforts of staff and ask thee to bless

[2:40] us now to be enlightened by thy spirit

[2:42] that we might be able to make good

[2:44] decisions uh in representation of the

[2:46] community we serve and that we might be

[2:47] able to

[2:49] um provide recommendations that provide

[2:52] the proper level of guidance and

[2:54] structure for council in the future. We

[2:55] ask for these things in the name of

[2:56] Jesus Christ. Amen.

[2:58] >> Amen.

[2:58] >> Thank you. We'll stand for the pledge of

[2:59] allegiance now.

[3:03] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[3:06] United States of America and to the

[3:09] republic for which it stands. One nation

[3:12] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[3:15] justice for all.

[3:19] » All right. Business items.

[3:23] Let's start with number one on the

[3:25] agenda.

[3:26] >> Mr. Egot.

[3:27] >> Actually, this one would be passed to

[3:30] city attorney. Excellent. Okay.

[3:32] >> All right. It's Ramy.

[3:33] >> Oh, exciting.

[3:35] >> Please take us out.

[3:36] >> Thank you. Um, we have before you both

[3:40] municipal code amendments and text

[3:42] amendments to the zoning code. um

[3:45] regarding our landmark commission

[3:49] and we are trying to um transition the

[3:53] landmark commission to a new name called

[3:55] the historic preservation uh commission

[3:58] and assigning the members of the

[4:00] Whitaker Museum board to be the members

[4:02] of the land uh the new historic

[4:05] preservation commission. So this um

[4:07] project was really requested by Mayor

[4:11] Wilkinson. Um we've had a a hard time

[4:14] keeping members um on the landmarks

[4:16] commission because they meet so rarely.

[4:18] They they were quite involved a few

[4:20] years ago, but um they do meet for some

[4:23] zoning things, some incentives in the

[4:25] dual crease historic district. They may

[4:28] also meet um if they need to document a

[4:31] historic uh landmark or site that is

[4:34] going to be demolished, they have, you

[4:36] know, the right to take some photographs

[4:38] and things. But um it's been hard to get

[4:42] members to sit on that and to have it

[4:44] functioning. So um his request was for

[4:48] uh the members to to try and make the

[4:50] Whitaker Museum and the Landmarks

[4:52] Commission maybe the same. But this is

[4:54] sort of the idea. Let's keep them two

[4:56] separate public bodies, but the Whitaker

[4:59] Museum Board will wear their hat when

[5:01] they're meeting as the Whitaker Museum

[5:02] board. And then they'll change their hat

[5:04] to the Historic Preservation Commission

[5:07] when they're meeting as that board. Very

[5:09] similar to what the city council does

[5:11] when they're sitting as the

[5:12] redevelopment agency. So they sit on two

[5:15] different boards, but they're the, you

[5:16] know, single members. So these code text

[5:19] amendments are basically to rename it to

[5:23] the historic preservation commission um

[5:26] in the the in uh title three of our

[5:30] municipal code um and also add some

[5:34] duties to the Whitaker Museum board so

[5:37] that because the qualifications for the

[5:40] museum board actually tied in quite well

[5:43] but we wanted to make a few changes

[5:44] there so that they are qualified for

[5:47] both um and then make it clear that

[5:49] there are separate bodies that will be

[5:51] having two different sets of minutes and

[5:53] that sort of thing. So um and I have met

[5:56] the mayor has worked with the Whitaker

[5:58] Museum board and then after these uh

[6:01] code text amendments were prepared I met

[6:03] with the museum board and they could ask

[6:06] any questions and how legally this would

[6:08] work and I think they are gratefully for

[6:12] us they're on board with this and wanted

[6:14] to know how much more work this would be

[6:16] for them and also for the museum staff.

[6:19] we do have a museum director. Um, and so

[6:22] we've kind of said, look, if this if the

[6:25] historic preservation commission

[6:27] requires more, we could also look at,

[6:29] you know, making maybe some staff from

[6:32] community development or the city

[6:33] recorder that could assist in that. But

[6:36] again, they meet so rarely. Um, I think

[6:39] this is a really good fit and hopefully

[6:42] um a win-win. And so I will

[6:47] just go through since the planning

[6:50] commission only reviews and makes

[6:52] recommendations on zoning text or

[6:54] subdivision. So basically land use

[6:56] ordinances, but I decide to just bring

[6:59] both of these together and let you have

[7:01] a combined public hearing on both. Um so

[7:05] um anyway, we're just looking we're just

[7:08] creating these changes to um title three

[7:13] of the municipal code and then um

[7:16] chapter 20 of the zoning code. If you

[7:19] want to just make a motion on the zoning

[7:21] code, you can. Or if you want to make a

[7:23] motion on both, you're also welcome to.

[7:25] But by statute, you have to review the

[7:27] zoning amendments. So, um, and then once

[7:31] we renamed it, I searched for landmark

[7:36] commission throughout our zoning code.

[7:38] And that's why your zoning text

[7:40] amendment,

[7:42] not because of me. It is um 20 pages

[7:46] because we just 21 pages because we had

[7:48] to just make those amendments to the the

[7:52] title throughout. So, we fixed all those

[7:55] and um yeah, we're looking forward to

[7:58] taking this to the the city council.

[8:00] >> Okay.

[8:02] >> And it is so it is a public hearing.

[8:05] >> Yes. All right. Thank you. Um any

[8:07] questions for staff before I open it up?

[8:11] Okay. So, I'm going to open this up for

[8:14] a public hearing. And if you're here to

[8:16] speak on this, we would love to invite

[8:17] you to come to the podiums, state your

[8:19] name, your address, and give your

[8:21] comments.

[8:26] All right, seeing none, I'm

[8:28] [cough and clears throat] going to close

[8:29] the public hearing and take it back to

[8:31] the commission for any further

[8:33] discussion.

[8:36] » It's pretty seamless to me.

[8:38] >> Yeah, seems like it.

[8:40] >> Makes sense. It seemed right. You did a

[8:43] great job.

[8:44] >> Yes, we've been working on it for a

[8:45] while, so I'm glad we

[8:46] >> And if the if the um museum board is

[8:49] willing to do it, I'd say yes.

[8:51] >> Yes. Yeah. Right.

[8:52] >> That took a few a few months.

[8:54] >> Yeah. Right.

[8:57] >> Okay. Um,

[9:00] so would anybody like to start with a

[9:02] motion? And well, I should actually say

[9:04] I I have no qualms personally in saying

[9:08] that we should just forward a

[9:09] recommendation. I think so on all of it,

[9:12] though. Our authority only sweeps in

[9:14] land use. And we just let them know.

[9:17] Makes a lot of sense. And if you pull it

[9:19] up, I'll make a motion to accept it.

[9:21] >> Yeah. Do you mind

[9:22] >> go forward?

[9:22] >> This is all that I have for um

[9:26] recommendation.

[9:27] >> Oh, it's right there. Okay. Yeah.

[9:29] >> Okay. So, I would like to recommend

[9:31] approval of the proposed Centerville

[9:33] Municipal Code and Centerville Zoning

[9:35] Code amendments to appoint Whitaker

[9:37] Museum board members to act as historic

[9:39] preservation commission members,

[9:41] ordinance number 2026-10 and ordinance

[9:44] number 2026-11.

[9:48] And if you would like some findings, you

[9:50] can just reference the whereas clauses

[9:52] in um those ordinances.

[9:55] >> And I'd like to reference all the things

[9:56] Lisa just said. [laughter]

[9:59] >> As stated,

[10:01] >> I will second that motion. That was

[10:03] beautiful.

[10:05] >> So I have a first and a second. We're

[10:08] going to go ahead and do roll call

[10:09] starting here.

[10:10] >> I I I

[10:12] >> I That is unanimous.

[10:15] >> Thanks for your hard work on that.

[10:18] Nice.

[10:19] >> Okay. Um, moving on and somewhat more

[10:23] interesting. I mean, not to say that

[10:24] wasn't [laughter]

[10:26] >> very interesting.

[10:27] >> It's it's it's an important thing.

[10:29] >> It is important. It's it's actually

[10:31] really important. I mean, I was on the

[10:32] landmarks commission and I think I was

[10:34] around for some of the very last efforts

[10:36] they made and it was

[10:38] >> six years ago or something. Um, I think

[10:41] one of the very last things we did was

[10:43] make a commemorative cutting board for

[10:44] somebody who had been on the land marks

[10:46] commission for forever

[10:47] >> and you didn't get well.

[10:48] >> I Well, come on. No, I've been there for

[10:51] like eight months or something.

[10:54] >> That's nice.

[10:54] >> It was great. Anyways, um, let's go on

[10:57] to item number two. Who will be All

[11:00] right, Miss Muese, please.

[11:03] So, we are um proposing a zoning

[11:09] um or not a zoning, a municipal code

[11:11] amendment to the section 15, which is

[11:15] the subdivision ordinance for the

[11:17] current exchange of titles. But what we

[11:19] are proposing is to change that to the

[11:22] boundary line adjustments, boundary line

[11:24] establishments. for the boundary line

[11:27] adjustments. This was brought to the

[11:31] state to change in October of 2025.

[11:36] Um and now the city is hoping to amend

[11:40] our code to meet those um to meet the

[11:43] state code. So um we've talked about

[11:47] this for about two meetings now. So of

[11:49] course if you have any questions, please

[11:51] ask. Um, if you want any more

[11:53] background, I'm happy to give you some

[11:55] more background, but um, staff

[11:58] recommendation is to approve the

[12:01] municipal code text amendments proposed

[12:04] in the staff report.

[12:07] >> Very succinct. Well done.

[12:08] >> Thanks.

[12:09] >> Yeah. Um, would anybody like to ask

[12:12] questions of staff?

[12:14] >> I don't have any.

[12:20] All right, we are going to open this up

[12:22] for the public hearing phase. Um, for

[12:25] anybody here to talk about the item

[12:27] number two, boundary line adjustments,

[12:29] boundary establishment, and exchange of

[12:30] title ordinance changes, please come to

[12:33] the podium, state your name, your

[12:35] address, and provide your comment.

[12:38] >> I'm not sure if this is what it is, but

[12:41] >> Hold on. Because you have to be to

[12:43] create a record, we have to capture it

[12:44] on the microphone. This is not the

[12:47] accessory dwelling unit.

[12:50] >> Okay, that [laughter] took care of that.

[12:52] >> Yeah.

[12:54] >> Uh for clarity for the audience, this is

[12:56] when you know there's a a shift between

[12:59] parcels. Uh to put it simply, that needs

[13:01] to happen.

[13:02] >> Property lines.

[13:03] >> Yeah. Maybe there's a gap. Maybe there's

[13:05] an over. Maybe there's a you know the

[13:07] fence line has been there for 60 years

[13:09] and it's not on the property line.

[13:11] That's what this one is. All right. So,

[13:14] um, opening up the public hearing. We've

[13:16] sort of discussed our way through it.

[13:19] I'm going to close the public hearing.

[13:21] Having received no comments, can I take

[13:23] it back to the planning commission for

[13:24] further discussion?

[13:29] » I think it's well written.

[13:30] >> Yeah, I think I think it's

[13:31] >> I think we just discussed it the last

[13:33] couple meetings. So, I think

[13:34] >> covers all of the material that need to

[13:36] be needs to be covered. So,

[13:38] >> all right. I will accept a motion.

[13:41] I will make [clears throat] a motion uh

[13:44] to recommend city council approval of

[13:46] the proposed code text amendments to

[13:47] Centerville Municipal Code section

[13:49] 15.09.14

[13:51] boundary adjustments and boundary

[13:53] establishments and section 20.030

[13:56] boundary adjustment fees based on the

[13:58] following reasons for actions findings

[14:01] one through three.

[14:02] >> Excellent. I think you said 14 instead

[14:04] of 140,

[14:06] >> right? but scrivener's error and we'll

[14:08] go for so I've got a a motion on the

[14:11] table.

[14:12] >> I'll second the motion

[14:13] >> and I've got a second. Um I'm going to

[14:15] start down here.

[14:17] >> I I

[14:18] >> I

[14:21] >> All right. unanimous. And finally, the

[14:24] most interesting item on today's list,

[14:26] >> accessory dwelling units. uh detached

[14:30] and I mean attached we can also talk

[14:33] briefly about but this is ordinance

[14:35] changes to that and who will be heading

[14:38] that one out. Mr. Egot.

[14:40] >> Yeah.

[14:40] >> Please proceed.

[14:42] >> So from our last meeting um obviously we

[14:44] talked about this a lot and in different

[14:47] variations of it and questions that I

[14:49] had and went through everything itemized

[14:50] some here but hopefully you were able to

[14:52] pick up that and either reviewing

[14:54] minutes or looking at the the video to

[14:56] remind yourself or learn about it. So,

[14:58] um, some of the homework that I was

[15:00] assigned to do as part of this was to

[15:02] get information from Bountiful City. I

[15:03] did provide an email to all of you.

[15:05] Hopefully, that was helpful when you're

[15:06] looking for their what I found was

[15:09] interesting, they've had detach going

[15:11] back to 2008. I thought that was pretty

[15:12] fascinating just statistically

[15:14] >> that they've just been doing it since

[15:16] that time. Um, and obviously then they

[15:18] have 8,000 square foot. Is there a

[15:20] minimum lot size? Um, they do allow for

[15:22] basements or other configurations.

[15:24] There's not a lot of restrictions on

[15:25] that, which I thought that was an

[15:26] interesting finding. Y

[15:27] >> and then their typical range of dads

[15:29] that they do have are 800 to,200 ft in

[15:32] size. So some interesting information

[15:34] that way. Um I also did research uh

[15:38] information from our building official

[15:40] and the fire relative to occupancy

[15:42] limits and and windows and all that good

[15:44] stuff in a a DADU concept. and they said

[15:48] that as long as the building is built to

[15:50] building code and fire code as far as

[15:52] window eress and access and home ingress

[15:54] and egress then it it you can have

[15:57] windows that are inoperable basically.

[15:59] So if we want to stick with that that's

[16:01] fine. They just when they would develop

[16:02] that the DAD will have to meet those

[16:04] regulations as part of that construction

[16:06] standard. Um the other thing that that I

[16:09] asked about was the occupancy. They said

[16:11] that they don't really regulate

[16:13] occupancy, that they just want to make

[16:14] sure again that it's safely occupied and

[16:17] safely utilized and meeting building

[16:18] code and fire code, but beyond that,

[16:20] they don't regulate occupancy. So, I I

[16:23] think we probably figured that that

[16:24] might be the case, but that's what they

[16:26] said. One thing that was interesting

[16:27] when I talked to the building official

[16:29] that he did say about the windows, as I

[16:30] asked him about that, he said, "Well,

[16:33] you're you're at a 8ft setback and your

[16:37] minimum limit for a typical home is 8

[16:39] ft. So, do you really need interoperable

[16:42] windows? He said, I don't have an

[16:43] opinion either way, but just think about

[16:45] that for what that's worth is what he

[16:47] said.

[16:47] >> So, I wanted to share his opinion there.

[16:50] >> Uh, the other thing that he brought up

[16:51] when we talked to I talked to him about

[16:53] the basement and about anchoring a a DAU

[16:58] that if it had some kind of mobility,

[17:00] the modular nature of it to a foundation

[17:03] for permanence. and he said um in other

[17:06] codes more relative to a traditional

[17:09] modular home or mobile home there's an

[17:11] axle removal requirement and I could

[17:14] find a similar code that aligns and put

[17:17] that into the code if that was the will

[17:19] of the planning commission to further

[17:21] make the point that we want this fixed

[17:23] so what I would do is where I'm talking

[17:24] about having it anchored on a permanent

[17:26] location with skirting I could even add

[17:28] that removal of transaxle so that it's

[17:30] not modular on any level that would make

[17:33] it So campers won't qualify. That's kind

[17:36] of the way to get to that point if

[17:38] that's what we're trying to accomplish.

[17:39] >> So that's a good way to do that. So I

[17:41] could find language that said that

[17:42] include that. So those are his

[17:44] recommendations. Um I did note in my own

[17:48] review today um three minor things that are are uh to be noted or or

[17:54] recognized that still probably should be

[17:58] I guess identified as as maybe amended

[18:00] depending on whatever motion may come

[18:01] today. If there is a motion in

[18:03] 12.58.040B2,

[18:07] there's a an a citation to internal ADU

[18:11] requirement where

[18:12] >> Sorry, Mr. Can you read that one more?

[18:13] >> What is it again?

[18:14] >> So, it's it's 12.58.040.

[18:17] She's right on it. B2

[18:20] >> and um

[18:21] >> it it says

[18:23] I guess it's just B, not B2, sorry. But

[18:26] it says requirements of CZC 12.60.090.

[18:30] 090. That should be 12.58.10.

[18:35] Then it links to the detached ADU

[18:37] ordinance and not the internal ADU

[18:38] ordinance.

[18:40] >> Small thing, but it's there.

[18:42] >> Um 12.58.060

[18:45] C. Um this is it might be okay. I mean

[18:50] it reads okay. Um I don't know.

[18:53] 12.58.060

[18:55] C.

[18:59] I know it's tricky at the red line.

[19:01] >> Yeah, it's a little bit hard. Sorry.

[19:04] >> Page 104 of the packet for what it's

[19:06] worth.

[19:08] >> Oh, go back up. It looks like

[19:11] Keep going.

[19:15] Want to keep going. You're almost there.

[19:16] That's 70.

[19:18] >> Keep going.

[19:20] >> That's I think the redlinined one

[19:22] >> right there. And then I have it see Oh,

[19:26] that's right. cuz in here I fixed it in

[19:28] the clear one.

[19:29] >> I'm looking at the black line which is

[19:32] >> I don't I don't know how yours is

[19:33] organized. It's not the same.

[19:34] >> It's three. It's three here.

[19:36] >> Okay.

[19:36] >> So, it says a property may have a

[19:39] detached ADU on the lot or parcel. That

[19:41] word may was like kind of weird to me.

[19:44] It might be better for it to say I was

[19:45] thinking like permitted to have or allow

[19:48] to have rather than may. may seem kind

[19:52] of confusing just in the way because it

[19:54] almost makes it sound like like there

[19:56] may be an alternative where the detached

[19:58] ADU can be in a situation where it isn't

[20:00] on the same lot partial share with the

[20:01] primary dwelling and I don't know if

[20:03] that's what we're intending it to say

[20:05] >> but I kind of read it that way at first

[20:07] today when I was reading it cold and so

[20:10] I was wondering if maybe it needs to be

[20:11] ch it might read okay as a property may

[20:14] have um because obviously right before

[20:16] it in in the clause above it says shall

[20:18] not be sold separately or subdivided

[20:20] from the principal dwelling unit or

[20:21] property. But I thought if we wanted to

[20:24] clarify that word may permitted to or

[20:27] allowed to could be a good change.

[20:30] >> So how would you read that? How would

[20:31] that read if you were using

[20:33] >> a property

[20:34] >> permitted to

[20:35] >> is allowed or is permitted

[20:37] >> can problematic like can

[20:40] >> property can

[20:41] >> well then you probably would still use

[20:42] me. [laughter]

[20:43] >> I know

[20:43] >> because it seems

[20:44] >> a property is permitted to have

[20:46] >> and it's probably okay as it reads. I

[20:48] just don't want any confusion. Like

[20:49] somebody thinks, well, does that mean I

[20:51] can have them on a on a separate parcel

[20:53] away from a single family dwelling?

[20:55] >> To me, it's not confusing.

[20:56] >> How about a property may be permitted to

[20:58] >> and I don't want to overconfuse it.

[21:00] >> That's what I Yeah, and that's fine,

[21:01] too. I was just thinking maybe like make

[21:03] it a little more clear with permitted.

[21:05] Maybe permitted to as well.

[21:06] >> What what Mason just said was good. I

[21:08] thought the property may I mean

[21:10] >> could be

[21:11] >> may be permitted to

[21:13] >> may be per and I can do that change.

[21:16] Yeah,

[21:16] >> if that's if that's that makes it a

[21:18] little more clear, a little more

[21:20] decisive what we're trying to say.

[21:22] >> It's not saying, you know, there's

[21:24] alternative.

[21:26] >> You just have that option if you have a

[21:27] single family dwelling on the same

[21:29] parcel.

[21:29] >> Yeah.

[21:30] >> Um and then the last one was 12.58.120.

[21:36] That's way at the bottom and it's

[21:38] already a comment I noted um as

[21:40] something that it's the very literally

[21:42] the very last paragraph of the thing.

[21:46] Go up just a little bit now. Right

[21:47] there. Go down. Yeah. [snorts] Yeah. And

[21:50] I put should we should we site a code

[21:52] here or delete and remove from of Utah

[21:54] code 102303. Da da. I read that over

[21:57] removing it and it still kind of read

[22:00] funny to me even with that. So I thought

[22:02] additionally the city may um utilize

[22:06] applicable enforcement provisions

[22:07] regarding violations and holding leans

[22:09] against the property if we can't if we

[22:12] don't want to and we're not able to keep

[22:13] that citation in there. that sentence

[22:15] would be sound at that point. That's

[22:17] what I was thinking. Again, if you want

[22:19] me to reread that. Additionally, the

[22:21] city may utilize applicable enforcement

[22:23] provisions regarding violations in

[22:25] holding leans against the property.

[22:29] » Then we're not making a ref because that

[22:30] reference is to internal ADU state code.

[22:33] Mhm.

[22:34] >> That I looked that reference is like

[22:37] this long and it basically just says the

[22:38] city's allowed to go on your property

[22:40] >> and and also enforce leans and and right

[22:43] enforce on the property. Yeah.

[22:46] >> Yeah. So, and I don't know maybe that's

[22:47] a legal question, Lisa, how that might

[22:50] read it be proper construction that

[22:52] citation I don't know that we can site

[22:53] it in detail.

[22:54] >> Yeah. I like your new provision. I still

[22:56] think there's,

[22:57] >> you know, legal issues. I'm hopefully

[23:00] they'll fix that with the legislative

[23:01] session. I know we worked hard on those

[23:04] lean provisions. I know the Salt Lake

[23:06] City attorneys were involved in that

[23:07] lean provision language in the internal.

[23:10] So I don't know why it was left out of

[23:12] attached.

[23:13] >> Okay. So I would amend it to say may

[23:15] utilize applicable enforcement

[23:16] provisions regarding violations and

[23:18] holding against the property.

[23:21] >> Okay. That that's that would be my

[23:23] recommendation. And I think with that

[23:25] that's everything as far as um outside

[23:29] of what we talked about from the last

[23:30] meeting. I went and listened to the

[23:32] entirety of the last meeting and felt

[23:34] like I captured all of your comments,

[23:35] but clearly even as I note in my um in

[23:40] the actual staff report, I added a

[23:44] statement and I did this on purpose to

[23:46] signal both to you as well as the public

[23:48] that there's still discussion here.

[23:50] further staff supports the planning

[23:51] commission in making additional efforts

[23:53] in refining the proposed language if

[23:55] there's interest in further providing

[23:57] modifying the provided draft DAU zoning

[23:59] language proposal prior to taking any

[24:01] formal action and providing a

[24:02] recommendation to the city council. So,

[24:04] I guess what I'm trying to say is if

[24:05] there's any still gray areas that we

[24:08] need to to discuss or further identify,

[24:10] we can. Um, one other thing I wanted to

[24:13] note, there was uh some commentary from uh Commissioner Patterson earlier

[24:17] in the week and I tried to provide

[24:20] clarity to those comments as well as pro

[24:22] provide you all with information. I

[24:23] talked about like we can't regulate

[24:25] modular homes off of single family

[24:27] dwellings. I was able to find the code.

[24:28] I provided it to you. I tried to give

[24:30] you definitions of family both in state

[24:32] code and city code. That city code

[24:34] definition of family was what I was

[24:35] referencing. I couldn't necessarily find

[24:37] the same uh matching code and state

[24:39] code, but it has been there. But that

[24:42] state code definition of single family

[24:44] might be an update to that. And so our city code might be a little bit more

[24:48] historically correct to a previous

[24:50] iteration of that before they modified

[24:52] or it may still be in there. I was

[24:54] researching, I couldn't find that older

[24:55] definition, but I remember in my my

[24:58] career when they did that transition to

[24:59] a definition of family and so that's why

[25:01] I wanted to identify that state code

[25:03] because it matches exactly what old

[25:04] state or city code because it matches

[25:06] what the old state code or at least it

[25:08] may be still current. I just couldn't

[25:09] find it definition of family is but then

[25:12] I found that other single family

[25:13] designation which makes it clear four

[25:16] persons together is your minimum limit

[25:18] you can establish as a city. I

[25:20] appreciated you referencing that and

[25:22] sending that because I read it and it

[25:24] was very clear.

[25:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we have clarity on those

[25:27] points. I did update as as you see here

[25:30] the table of uses showing that I put a

[25:32] question mark by agricultural just

[25:34] because there was a little bit of a

[25:35] discussion there. But from staff's

[25:37] perspective, if you look at internal

[25:38] ADU, it is permitted

[25:41] >> already. So to in what I'm getting at is

[25:44] on an agricultural lot to in order to be

[25:46] consistent probably staff would say to

[25:48] do permitted also an agricultural low.

[25:51] Um but clearly that is something that

[25:52] can be discussed as a recommendation to

[25:54] council if you feel differently. The

[25:56] other option would be probably an N. I

[25:59] don't know how we would do a conditional

[26:00] use permit in in agricultural unless you

[26:02] guys want as a commission want to talk

[26:04] about it and tell us how that would

[26:05] look. Um but again I guess that's a a

[26:08] tertiary option if we want to go there.

[26:11] Um and then see is that everything

[26:15] commentary response

[26:16] >> statement

[26:17] >> I believe that that's everything but if there yeah and then there's still

[26:21] direction from the Utah League of Cities

[26:23] and towns relative to ADUs which we

[26:25] covered at the last meeting. So I

[26:28] believe that covers everything

[26:30] additional from our last discussion and

[26:33] getting all the research information and

[26:34] fulfilling the homework that was

[26:36] directed by the planning commission and

[26:38] I guess I would defer to you if you have

[26:40] questions on me or if you want to

[26:41] proceed to plan the public hearing and

[26:43] then go from there uh however you want

[26:45] to proceed. And uh with that that's my

[26:47] presentation.

[26:48] >> Excellent. [clears throat] Thank you.

[26:49] >> Um so we're going to bring it back to

[26:51] the commission for questions and I'll

[26:53] kind of lead off on that one. um

[26:55] agricultural low.

[26:58] >> Um what are the I'd like to just sort of

[27:01] brainstorm with you, Mr. What are the impacts that an ADU would

[27:06] have that would need to be mitigated

[27:09] >> for a conditional use permit?

[27:10] >> Yeah,

[27:11] >> that's why I said I don't I right off

[27:13] the bat I I don't mean to chuckle, but

[27:15] >> it's true that No, it's it's it's almost

[27:17] backwards. It's almost like um it would

[27:20] be that it would be the addition of the

[27:21] ADU that would have to then uh deal with

[27:25] the agricultural uses.

[27:27] >> Yeah. What kind of what kind of harmful

[27:28] impacts come from the the detached ADU

[27:31] on agricultural lot that would justify

[27:33] conditional use permit application?

[27:35] >> Yeah,

[27:36] >> I think for a large agricultural lot, it

[27:39] might be an underused use, you know,

[27:42] like rather than subdividing later or

[27:44] you know, preventing future development,

[27:46] but Okay.

[27:48] >> And I agree with

[27:48] >> But the cup doesn't solve that.

[27:50] >> No, no, that's not a cup.

[27:52] >> And they're allowed by law. So

[27:53] >> Exactly. Well, unless

[27:55] >> Yep. Yep. Exactly. That was that was my

[27:58] one question there. Um the conversations

[28:01] that we had in the email, I did they

[28:03] make it into an amended packet

[28:05] >> for the record. I think we should do

[28:07] that.

[28:08] >> That's fair because it did go it did go

[28:10] to the whole

[28:10] >> It went to the whole commission. So I

[28:12] think all of the conversations we had

[28:13] since Monday

[28:14] >> Yeah. should be included in

[28:16] >> should be included including the one

[28:17] from boundful. We've identified them

[28:20] fair record here and we've summarized

[28:22] their contents.

[28:23] >> I didn't even think about that but yeah.

[28:24] >> No, no, no worries. Um I'm just keeping

[28:26] track and um so for the public that are

[28:30] here to summarize what in essence it was

[28:32] were questions that were coming up on

[28:34] how other definitions

[28:36] um how certain definitions were being

[28:38] used. We just talked about it. Um we're

[28:40] going to put it into the the amendment.

[28:42] >> I will yeah I will include it in the

[28:43] packet. it'll be reflected tomorrow in

[28:45] this same packet once I go and amend

[28:48] those in.

[28:48] >> Right.

[28:49] >> Uh of of a special importance or at

[28:53] least of uh not importance special

[28:55] interest to me were were bountiful's

[28:57] responses.

[28:58] >> Right.

[28:59] >> Um and if it's okay, I would rather just

[29:02] read that into the record.

[29:04] >> Sure.

[29:04] >> Um so that the public can comment on it.

[29:06] That would personally all of the

[29:09] definitions were just definitions and it

[29:12] can be helpful. I thought that it might

[29:14] be helpful to read that one into the

[29:17] record. Are we okay with that?

[29:19] >> Yeah.

[29:20] >> Okay. Let me see if I can find it again.

[29:27] » Okay. So, this is correspondence between

[29:29] Mr. Egot and Mr. um Atorga.

[29:32] >> Atorga Francis Francis. Uh who is

[29:36] >> he would be my counterpart for Bountiful

[29:38] City.

[29:38] >> Okay. Um good morning, Francisco. I've

[29:41] been trying to contact you by phone um

[29:44] regarding your car's warranty. No,

[29:47] [laughter]

[29:48] >> I know. I've been trying to contact you

[29:50] by phone regarding an inquiry I've been asked with by the central

[29:53] planning commission. We are working on a

[29:54] detached ADU dat ordinance and the

[29:56] planning commission has requested some

[29:58] data information from you and your PZ

[29:59] department um there in Bountiful

[30:02] relative to Datus. Therefore, could you

[30:03] help me out with providing approximate

[30:05] answers to the following questions?

[30:06] Number one, how many registered detached

[30:08] ADUs do you have in Bountiful City?

[30:10] Number two, what is the typical housing

[30:11] lot size you see for the use of data

[30:14] development? Number three, do you allow

[30:15] for basements of any kind in a data

[30:17] establishment? Number four, what is the

[30:19] typical size you see constructed for a

[30:21] DAT establishment? Uh, I would greatly

[30:23] appreciate it if you could answer these

[30:24] questions for me by or before next

[30:26] Wednesday evening, August 12th, and when

[30:27] I have uh when I have planning

[30:29] commission, I would like to report the

[30:30] answers to these questions to the

[30:32] commissioners. I also understand that

[30:33] some of these numbers might be harder to

[30:34] get. So, in that event, just let me know

[30:36] a comment like indeterminant or

[30:38] something like that. Again, thank you in

[30:39] advance for any assistance you can

[30:40] provide in this inquiry. Sincerely, Mr.

[30:43] Egot. And then his response.

[30:44] >> Mason, would you slow it just a little

[30:46] bit, please?

[30:47] >> Sure.

[30:47] >> Thank you.

[30:48] >> Sure. Yeah.

[30:49] >> How much slower?

[30:51] >> A little slower, attorney. Just a little

[30:53] slower [laughter] so that everybody gets

[30:55] it.

[30:55] >> Response. Um, and that is uh August

[30:58] 10th. Michael and Sydney, we are happy

[31:00] to help. Below our responses to your

[31:02] inquiries regarding detached ADUs in

[31:04] Bountiful. Number one, how many

[31:06] registered detached ADUs do you have in

[31:08] Bountiful City? We have 27 registered

[31:11] detached ADUs dating back to 2008. There

[31:14] may be additional detached ADUs that

[31:16] predate our current records as Bountiful

[31:18] has historically allowed ADUs in some

[31:21] form for quite some time. Number two,

[31:23] what is the typical housing lot size you

[31:26] see for the use of data development? The

[31:28] minimum lot size in Battlefield is 8,000

[31:30] square feet. We have not historically

[31:33] tracked the lot sizes associated with

[31:34] our approved ADUs. So I cannot provide a

[31:38] reliable typical lot size. I do think

[31:40] this would be useful information to

[31:42] track particularly when creating or

[31:45] amending ADU policy. Number three, do

[31:48] you allow for basements of any kind in a

[31:49] DATU establishment? Yes. Assuming you

[31:52] are asking specifically about detached

[31:54] ADUs, we do not regulate the particular

[31:56] form or configuration of the DATU in

[31:59] that manner. For example, it could be it

[32:01] could include a basement, be located

[32:03] above or behind a garage, or take

[32:06] another configuration provided it

[32:07] complies with the applicable development

[32:09] standards. Number four, what is the

[32:11] typical size you see constructed for a

[32:13] DAT establishment?

[32:15] Detached ADUs are typically in the range

[32:17] of 800 to 12 uh well 800 to 1,200 square

[32:22] feet. The maximum permitted size for a

[32:24] detached ADU in Bountiful is 1,250

[32:27] square feet. I hope this information is

[32:29] helpful for your planning commission

[32:31] discussion. Please feel free to reach

[32:33] out if you have any follow-up questions.

[32:35] I am generally easier to reach by text

[32:37] on myself and I'm not going to add that

[32:38] even though it's probably going to go on

[32:40] record. If you want to uh redact that, I

[32:42] have no qualms. Um and then there's a

[32:45] response where Mr. Egget sends it to us

[32:47] and uh Laorray

[32:50] um said thank you.

[32:52] >> Thank you for acknowledging that. Well,

[32:54] it's it's all part of the the the reason

[32:56] I I felt it was important to read into

[32:58] that is because I found it fascinating

[33:00] that they only have 27.

[33:01] >> Yeah.

[33:02] >> And it's been around for how many

[33:03] decades?

[33:04] >> 2008. Yeah. Almost. Yeah.

[33:07] >> Well, Farmington's been doing it for

[33:09] quite some time as well, and they don't

[33:10] have very many

[33:11] >> when I was doing the research, which I

[33:13] found fascinating.

[33:14] >> Yeah. I mean, that will accelerate with

[33:16] Farmington's new programming, but

[33:17] >> but they've been doing this

[33:19] >> programming for quite some time.

[33:20] >> Yeah. And quite a few cities actually

[33:22] have.

[33:22] >> Okay.

[33:23] Yeah, I thought that was fascinating and probably will be a point of

[33:26] information we may or may not use in

[33:28] today's discussion andor decision if we

[33:30] get to that. Um,

[33:33] questions for staff.

[33:34] >> Yes.

[33:35] >> All right, Lorray, jump in.

[33:36] >> I want to talk a little bit more about

[33:38] windows. You were talking about that. I

[33:40] first of all, I didn't catch who you

[33:42] were speaking with.

[33:43] >> Don Hansen, who is our building

[33:44] official, our contracted building.

[33:45] >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, I I guess I just

[33:48] need more clarification on the windows.

[33:51] I just sort of wanted to open it up

[33:53] again so that we could discuss it.

[33:55] >> So specifically what he said his comment

[33:59] just kind of in passing from his

[34:00] perspective is if your setback minimum

[34:02] is 8 ft from property lines even in the

[34:05] rear yard that's your setback for your a

[34:07] dwelling that's the minimum sideyard

[34:09] setback in a dwelling. So why would you

[34:13] eliminate operable windows on

[34:17] the side of the building that's adjacent

[34:18] to a property owner if on a home it's 8

[34:21] ft? Now the counter to that is that a

[34:23] home doesn't go that far in the rear

[34:25] yard setback. So I mean the home, you

[34:28] know, it has to be set back I think it's

[34:31] 20 or 30 feet as rear yard set 20 ft as

[34:33] rear yard setback minimum. So that's the

[34:35] biggest differential to to counter his

[34:37] comment. But um the idea is

[34:42] if you do it on a home a main unit, do

[34:45] you really want to make them inoperable?

[34:47] And you could still even keep the

[34:49] translucent and just eliminate that

[34:50] statement about inoperable in that

[34:52] scenario.

[34:53] >> Even at that,

[34:54] >> I think the reason what I recall from

[34:56] the last meeting is the concern of

[34:59] overseeing your neighbor, right? Nobody

[35:01] needs to be looking at somebody else's

[35:02] bedroom or something.

[35:03] >> And maybe if your window can open, sound

[35:05] can emanate out of it possibly. That was

[35:07] also part of the discussion, right?

[35:11] >> I just thought that that was a good I

[35:13] mean I liked what he said too, operable,

[35:15] inoperable. And then I had mentioned in

[35:17] my notes as well

[35:19] >> about you know you have to have an

[35:20] entrance and an exit for a bedroom,

[35:22] right?

[35:22] >> Yeah. And if you did if and as I as I

[35:25] noted for the record and for those that

[35:26] are here um if you have it as

[35:29] inoperable, it still works because now

[35:32] the burden will be on the property owner

[35:33] that's in the DADU to make sure they

[35:35] meet fire and building code for

[35:37] appropriate matters of egress and

[35:38] ingress into that that structure.

[35:41] So you still they will be they will have

[35:44] to build it to meet building code to

[35:46] provide for that if the code restricts

[35:48] them having that access on that on those

[35:49] sides. So, is that a higher level of um

[35:54] kind of overseeing the windows if we're

[35:56] going according to fire and whatever

[35:58] building code or less?

[35:59] >> Basically, you're creating a zoning

[36:00] restriction that goes above what typical

[36:02] building code would otherwise allow.

[36:04] >> If it were to say

[36:06] >> if you were to keep it the way it's

[36:07] written,

[36:08] >> it goes above and beyond.

[36:09] >> Correct. Standard is what I'm saying.

[36:11] >> I see.

[36:12] >> Yeah. Correct.

[36:14] >> Okay.

[36:15] >> Can I ask a question that I probably

[36:17] should know? um for it to be an operable

[36:21] fire compliant egress. Um, is there a

[36:25] height level at which we say it's no

[36:27] longer operating?

[36:29] >> Here's my thought, right? Like you're in

[36:31] bathrooms and we see windows in

[36:32] bathrooms all the time and they're set

[36:34] 5t above

[36:36] >> you can't use it anyway.

[36:38] >> Right. Right. But is there a possibility

[36:40] that rather than say, hey, inoperable,

[36:43] uh, we would say something like, hey, it

[36:45] has to be a minimum height off the

[36:46] floor.

[36:47] >> Yeah. I I mean I I would I would have to

[36:49] do research and obviously depending on

[36:52] what the direction of the planning

[36:53] commission was to bring back to planning

[36:55] commission or put whatever that one was

[36:57] into a recommendation with city council.

[36:59] The only thing I worry about obviously

[37:01] is a little bit of a timing crisis.

[37:03] >> But but I can see the the logic and what

[37:05] you say. I just I don't know until I I

[37:08] ask the the specialists.

[37:10] >> It's a thought then maybe yeah depending

[37:11] on where we go it can be forwarded with

[37:13] a recommendation that

[37:14] >> Yeah, I can see what you're saying that

[37:16] would make sense. Yeah,

[37:18] >> it would ameliorate a lot of the

[37:19] concerns I personally had about opening

[37:21] up a window and then just staring into

[37:23] somebody else's.

[37:24] >> Right. Don't want that.

[37:27] >> Yeah.

[37:27] >> Aren't you When we say that you're 8

[37:29] feet off the property line, so that's a

[37:31] total of 16

[37:32] >> 16, right?

[37:33] >> Yeah.

[37:34] >> I mean, is are

[37:35] >> 16 feet? Wait, explain that to me, Paul.

[37:37] >> Because each could you get you got eight

[37:40] feet off the property line on both

[37:42] properties

[37:42] >> from the back

[37:43] >> and the sideyard?

[37:44] >> I thought sideyard was five. It's 8 feet

[37:46] on a a single family dwelling

[37:48] >> on a single family.

[37:49] >> If it's in if it's an accessory

[37:50] building, then it' be typically five

[37:52] feet. But we're talking about DADUs,

[37:53] which now we're making.

[37:55] >> Okay. So, we're still that's what

[37:56] >> So, we're talking a distance potentially

[37:59] >> 16 ft.

[38:01] >> So, so the fair question and and I think

[38:04] it's a point well taken. The reason I am

[38:06] concerned is that we're injecting

[38:08] additional units that weren't planned

[38:10] for when other homes were designed.

[38:12] >> Right.

[38:13] >> That was my concern. And yeah, it could

[38:17] have been designed originally in such a

[38:18] way that the homes could have been

[38:20] staring into each other's bathrooms. Um,

[38:22] I have one of those. I my bathroom

[38:25] window looks into my neighbor's backyard

[38:27] family window, family room window, and I

[38:31] don't like it

[38:34] » though. It [clears throat] is 16 ft.

[38:36] >> Yeah.

[38:39] So, how do we

[38:42] I mean, we need to further discuss it.

[38:44] >> Yeah, I think we should discuss when we

[38:46] get to that item. I think we should

[38:47] discuss it and figure out what

[38:49] everybody's feeling about that.

[38:50] >> Okay. So, when it comes back to us, is

[38:52] that what you're recommending?

[38:53] >> After the after the hearing.

[38:55] >> Okay.

[38:55] >> The public hearing. Um, any other

[38:58] questions for staff? [clears throat]

[39:00] >> I had a couple questions. Um, and this

[39:02] is mostly just me not understanding, but

[39:05] uh there was a section, well actually

[39:07] you're already on a page of my second

[39:09] question. So on D right there, it reads

[39:12] only one additional entrance may be

[39:14] located on the wall facade that can be

[39:15] viewed from the public street. So is

[39:17] that saying you can have two entrances

[39:19] essentially like on the front of your

[39:20] >> like a detached ad you could have one

[39:22] entrance facing the street and one like

[39:24] on the interior lot side?

[39:26] >> So this is reading that you can have two

[39:28] doors facing the street, right? Is that

[39:31] how I read it?

[39:32] >> Am I wrong?

[39:34] >> You have one additional entrance maybe

[39:38] located on the wall facade that can be

[39:39] viewed from the public street.

[39:41] >> So it's ask that's saying it one more.

[39:44] >> Right.

[39:44] >> I see your point with that.

[39:46] >> So if you just took additional out could

[39:48] be removed.

[39:49] >> So only one entrance.

[39:50] >> Yeah. It should saying you can have one

[39:52] entry point.

[39:52] >> Yeah. That could be removed to clarify

[39:54] that.

[39:55] >> Good match.

[39:57] >> That's a good point though for sure.

[39:59] >> Okay. Yeah, super good.

[40:01] >> Um, and my first question, there's a

[40:04] couple times in there it mentions

[40:05] something about like essentially if

[40:07] you're not using the DADU anymore, then

[40:10] you have to like remove your kitchen.

[40:12] >> Yep. Well,

[40:13] >> I just want to understand that better.

[40:15] >> Kitchen sub connections with utilities.

[40:17] So, that's in the internal ADU ordinance

[40:19] that we require that. So if anybody

[40:21] wants to disconnect, let's say they're

[40:22] they have a and then internal ID, we

[40:24] actually have one of these and Cindy's

[40:26] actually become a little bit of a an

[40:28] expert at this because we did one not

[40:29] too long ago, but you have to sever some

[40:31] basic service that gives it legitimacy

[40:34] as an ADU to then turn it back to like a

[40:38] basement that might have a kitchen in

[40:40] internal. So we to use that same

[40:42] language for DADU cuz what if you had

[40:44] someone which I don't know if this could

[40:45] happen but maybe a previous owner

[40:47] convert it to a DADU and the new owner

[40:49] wants to put it back to more like a

[40:51] garage or a family room/g right. So what

[40:55] do you do that turns it back from DADU

[40:58] so they don't have to meet compliance

[40:59] standards of a DADU? You you reduce some

[41:02] kind of utility connection or kitchen or

[41:04] something and you make them show proof

[41:05] of it. So would that like say I built a

[41:09] building and I just absolutely hate it.

[41:11] I don't want to do it anymore. It's such

[41:13] a pain.

[41:14] >> I want to use this as like a guest house

[41:16] for people who come and visit.

[41:18] >> Does that mean I like am I not allowed

[41:20] to do that?

[41:22] >> Not by that code. Not not at least in

[41:24] you at least have to show some severance

[41:27] of that DADU allocation.

[41:29] >> So it can't be it cannot qualify under

[41:31] the definition of dwelling.

[41:33] >> Okay.

[41:33] >> Because you can't have two dwellings on

[41:35] a lot.

[41:35] >> Yeah. And so you have to take something

[41:37] out that makes it not a dwelling.

[41:39] >> So to that point, what does the verbiage

[41:41] say? Because I know Jackson, we talked

[41:43] about this before. What does Jackson

[41:45] have? They make them,

[41:47] >> but what does ours say? Because I don't

[41:49] remember.

[41:50] >> There's a few different things.

[41:51] >> Is it just options?

[41:53] >> Yeah, it gives it gives multiple options

[41:54] on a list. I'd have to find it right off

[41:56] the end, but it is in there. I read that

[41:58] earlier today.

[41:59] >> Okay.

[42:01] >> See,

[42:02] >> it's towards the end, I think, but I

[42:04] can't remember. Excuse me.

[42:07] >> Right there.

[42:08] >> Uh 12.58.8.

[42:10] Yeah, there it is. B.

[42:12] >> Yep, there it is.

[42:13] [clears throat and cough]

[42:14] >> One more

[42:19] features

[42:23] » and you're good with that, Lisa?

[42:27] >> I have not spent a significant amount of

[42:29] time on this code text. This is what is

[42:33] in the internal ADU ordinance.

[42:35] >> So, we're just basically copying and

[42:38] pasting.

[42:39] >> But I do agree with the needing a

[42:42] provision so that the guest house

[42:44] doesn't occur. That's the whole point,

[42:46] >> right? Okay.

[42:52] I will say that when um a building

[42:54] permit comes in and there is a kitchen

[42:58] identified, what I do is that I look at

[43:01] the applicant and or the application and

[43:04] make sure okay if there is a second

[43:06] kitchen then they need to um sign a

[43:09] waiver that basically states hey there

[43:13] will not be we will not be renting this

[43:15] for anybody. This is a internal because

[43:19] obviously internal ADU. This is a

[43:21] internal um family use and there was

[43:24] actually a um a like a form that was

[43:30] created by Lisa a couple years ago that

[43:33] they still have to sign. So what we

[43:35] would do most likely is that once that

[43:38] this would be passed, we would just

[43:40] bring that same form back to Lisa and

[43:42] she would just amend it to be a external

[43:46] ADU form as well.

[43:48] >> That makes sense.

[43:49] >> And I think we may record those

[43:50] secondary kitchen because we don't want

[43:53] them to sell it and have the new owner

[43:55] think that it's, you know, two dwellings

[43:57] or

[43:57] >> Yeah.

[43:58] >> So they have to get it notorized as

[44:00] well.

[44:03] >> Decommissioned Yeah.

[44:05] >> Do you have some?

[44:06] >> I have a couple more nitpicky questions

[44:08] and then I'll have a few more things.

[44:10] You know, recognizing a product of me

[44:12] not being here last time, a few other

[44:14] thoughts that I make more sense for the

[44:16] discussion piece. Um, on the definitions

[44:20] portion, um, section A, I'm just curious

[44:24] reading through this, at least to me, it

[44:27] didn't feel clear that the definition

[44:30] was specifically saying detached other

[44:32] than in the name itself. I don't know,

[44:34] maybe this is just me, but unit created

[44:36] and located externally to me could also

[44:38] read it as an attached ADU

[44:42] rather than being detached. But maybe

[44:43] that's just me. I I

[44:45] >> externally on the same property is what

[44:47] makes it detached.

[44:48] >> Yeah. So maybe

[44:49] >> see that consistently in other city

[44:50] codes as well written that way.

[44:52] >> Okay. Yeah. So that that's probably just

[44:53] me.

[44:53] >> That's the key term that says it.

[44:55] Otherwise, I mean it is it is an analog

[44:58] to internal ADU, but the key is located

[45:00] externally on the same.

[45:01] >> It's located externally there. Okay.

[45:03] >> And the definition also requires a

[45:05] single family dwelling to be existing.

[45:08] >> Yes. Start with a

[45:10] >> Yeah. As long as that's consistent with

[45:12] other codes, I think that that makes

[45:13] sense. Um, and then the other question I

[45:17] had more of a procedural one is the

[45:19] other applicable regulations and codes

[45:20] section at the very end 125810.

[45:24] Um, I just wonder if that's a section

[45:27] that's better served at the beginning

[45:29] because we reference a lot of the

[45:31] dependencies on those applicable codes

[45:34] throughout.

[45:36] Um,

[45:38] I just wonder if having at the very end

[45:41] if it would make more sense to have that

[45:43] be more of a beginning thing to

[45:44] reference. Okay, everything needs to be

[45:46] consistent with these codes and then

[45:47] break it out further from there.

[45:51] >> I don't know. I that's that's how it is

[45:54] I think in in organization as far as

[45:56] order. I believe it's in a similar

[45:58] position in the internal ADU ordinance.

[46:00] Okay. Positioned here here.

[46:02] >> It's kind of like uh

[46:04] >> all these permanent things and then this

[46:07] other stuff that's more basic needs to

[46:10] also be applicable. But I don't know

[46:12] that it has to be that way. It just this

[46:15] is just mirroring the internal ADU to

[46:17] try to be in organized consistency as

[46:19] much as possible with its structure.

[46:21] >> Okay.

[46:22] Yeah. No, and I I I originally noted

[46:24] this as like I see it as perhaps a

[46:26] little redundant because we reference

[46:27] these codes throughout, but I think

[46:29] redundancy as long as it's consistent

[46:32] serves well in this case. It

[46:33] >> it's kind of and it's a catch-all of a

[46:35] lot of things are already said before.

[46:36] It's just a reminder that hey, there the

[46:38] these other basic expectations with

[46:41] utilities and with impact fees and with

[46:44] um yeah, your codes that are going to be

[46:46] applied that you need to comply with.

[46:48] Also, I did note in there that I need to

[46:50] check with public director. I'm just

[46:51] going to quickly address that. Address

[46:53] the address. I did talk to the public

[46:55] works director and he's good with it as

[46:56] it's worded with that system. That is

[46:58] the system that he consistently applies.

[47:02] >> And then while we're on this section,

[47:03] just one uh question perhaps correction.

[47:07] Um is it construction code or is it

[47:10] building code?

[47:12] >> It they're synonymous. I mean they're

[47:14] the building it's building construction

[47:16] codes. It

[47:18] >> I can answer that. We if we capitalize

[47:21] construction and code, it is defined in

[47:23] title 10 of our municipal code to

[47:26] include all the building code, the

[47:28] plumbing code, the electrical code, the

[47:30] so it's a defined term in our code

[47:34] >> and that's what we mean. So I see here

[47:36] construction and fire codes, but

[47:38] essentially

[47:39] >> we just say construction codes and that

[47:40] means everything.

[47:41] >> Okay. Yeah, I had seen

[47:43] >> defined in that title 10 as to what

[47:45] which ones we've adopted.

[47:46] >> Okay. I had seen elsewhere in the code

[47:48] building. So then I can assume building

[47:50] is under the umbrella of construction.

[47:52] >> I thought we searched all those. Maybe

[47:54] that was just one of our things to do.

[47:56] But we would like to eliminate those you

[47:59] know unless it's specifically talking

[48:01] but building code doesn't you know you

[48:03] still need to go are we talking about

[48:05] residential code and you know

[48:06] >> and even here I could scrape where it

[48:08] says regarding the building construction

[48:09] and fire codes. I could scrape building

[48:11] Lisa and just have say regarding

[48:13] construction and fire codes

[48:15] >> and then just would be an easy

[48:16] amendment.

[48:17] >> Yeah. That would be take out that word

[48:20] building right there.

[48:21] >> It's only capitalized.

[48:22] >> Say construction and fire codes.

[48:24] >> Yeah.

[48:24] >> Rather than say building construction

[48:25] and fire codes,

[48:26] >> right?

[48:26] >> And it needs to be cap I would say.

[48:29] Yeah.

[48:29] >> Should I capitalize construction and

[48:31] fire?

[48:32] >> Construction and fire codes. Yeah.

[48:34] Typically the term construction code.

[48:37] >> Make them a term.

[48:39] >> Okay.

[48:40] >> Building code.

[48:40] >> Good.

[48:41] >> Yeah. that that was something we talked

[48:43] about fixing so that we all know and we

[48:45] could also look at saying, you know, as

[48:47] defined in title 10 if it's not defined

[48:50] in the zoning code. So, let's see.

[48:53] Sorry, now it's trying to search for

[48:55] building code, but

[48:57] um definitions.

[49:08] Yeah, I don't see a definition of

[49:10] building code. So, let's see if we

[49:12] define constru. Yeah, construction codes

[49:15] is defined and it's the construction

[49:18] codes adopted by the city in CMC 7.5,

[49:21] which is the fire regulation and CMC

[49:23] 10.3, which are our construction codes.

[49:26] They may also be referred to as building

[49:29] code, fire code, or safety code. That's

[49:31] how we solved it. So, if you use any of

[49:34] those terms, you better go back to this

[49:35] definition and then it tells you where

[49:37] to go. Okay. Yeah.

[49:40] >> So then it's already taken care of.

[49:41] That's a good point.

[49:42] >> I'll just amend out building and then

[49:45] capitalize construction and codes.

[49:47] >> Perfect.

[49:48] >> Good.

[49:55] » And I'd probably say construction codes

[49:56] and fire codes. Okay.

[49:58] >> Just so that if you're searching for

[50:00] construction code, it will come up.

[50:01] >> Okay.

[50:02] >> Yeah.

[50:03] I guess one other question uh as well

[50:06] with regards to the uh parking

[50:08] requirement that's uh under section 1258

[50:12] uh 060 I

[50:16] um has staff done any research on on

[50:19] other comparable cities in terms of

[50:22] requirement of spaces for

[50:23] >> we don't have a choice this is state

[50:25] >> that's state okay language okay

[50:28] >> yeah even the tanum is state state

[50:30] required so I Can't take that out. It

[50:33] has We have to allow tandem and we have

[50:35] to allow up to 650 have one then after

[50:38] 650 they can have two.

[50:40] >> Interesting.

[50:40] >> State required.

[50:41] >> Perfect.

[50:42] >> Yeah.

[50:43] >> I think that's on my end.

[50:49] » That's all.

[50:50] >> Bane. What was the code section? It was

[50:52] >> that 1258

[50:54] >> additional entrance.

[50:56] >> Oh, that one is

[50:58] >> 1258.070D.

[51:01] the additional entrance link.

[51:02] >> Thank you.

[51:06] » All right. Additional questions.

[51:09] Round two from anybody.

[51:15] Okay. So, um having sused that out,

[51:19] let's go ahead and proceed to the public

[51:20] hearing phase. I'd invite any and all of

[51:23] you to come up to the microphone name,

[51:25] address, and then provide your comment.

[51:33] Good evening. My name is Carol Hendris.

[51:36] I live at 740 North Main Street just

[51:40] down the road here.

[51:42] Anyway, I did listen to the entirety of

[51:45] well almost the very until the very end

[51:48] of your last meeting. So that was really

[51:52] helpful for me. We are hopeful to do a D

[51:56] Aau or you know right but I don't know

[52:00] that we will even be approved. We'll

[52:02] have to get a conditional use permit. We

[52:05] have a very narrow deep lot. It's um

[52:09] like 0.9 acre of an acre, but we have a

[52:14] flag lot and we'd have to put that

[52:18] detached unit like almost 400 ft back,

[52:22] which for utilities for our neighbor

[52:25] that we share the driveway would be

[52:27] terrible. And I know we're not talking

[52:29] about that today. That will be after it

[52:32] all gets approved. Right.

[52:34] >> Yes. So anyway, I'm just putting it out

[52:36] there that, you know, in Centerville, we

[52:39] don't all have the same type of law. And

[52:43] so, just please kind of put in the back

[52:46] of your mind that maybe everything is

[52:48] not going to look the same. Um, but can

[52:52] still be beautiful and still be nice and

[52:55] a and a benefit to our community. Um

[53:00] the I really kind of agreed and and

[53:04] thought what you decided last time was

[53:07] really good. Um the one thing I had

[53:11] issue with or and it may not even be an

[53:14] issue but um if we are supposed to do up

[53:18] to a family um and at the very end we

[53:23] were talking about how big the the um

[53:26] unit could be and we were thinking oh

[53:30] 1,200 is so big but if you put a family

[53:34] of four in an 850 square foot place.

[53:38] That's the kind of place you go to for a

[53:40] weekend or maybe a week on vacation.

[53:43] It's not some place you live for a year

[53:46] or two years renting.

[53:49] I looked up because I'm thinking about

[53:52] this stuff. I looked up the floor plans

[53:56] for 800 850 square ft. Your bedrooms are

[54:01] 10 by 10. You have one bathroom with one

[54:05] sink. You have a kitchen and a living

[54:08] [snorts] room, but not really room for a

[54:10] kitchen table. I would just respectfully

[54:14] ask you to consider following our

[54:17] neighbors. It it isn't going to be

[54:19] terrible. If they have allowed it, I

[54:22] think we can do it. And just because

[54:24] West Valley City

[54:26] says they're, you know, 850 square feet,

[54:31] when have we looked West Valley City for

[54:35] us? You know, that is not who we should

[54:38] try to emulate. Um, and as far as the

[54:43] windows open or closed, I mean, for sure

[54:47] I would suggest that bathroom windows be

[54:50] obscured, you know, with film or

[54:53] whatever.

[54:54] And the reality is we live close to each

[54:58] other. You know, I kind of have a little

[55:01] benefit because I got in a long time ago

[55:04] and got a lot. I'm from Wisconsin. This

[55:08] is still small. What I have is still

[55:10] smaller than I want. But if you go by

[55:13] our house, you won't even see our house

[55:15] because we have planted trees. But in

[55:19] front we have a lovely lawn area that

[55:21] one day I hope will supplement our

[55:24] retirement income for a detached unit.

[55:27] Um, that is really it. I appreciate what

[55:32] you do. I appreciate the time and

[55:36] intelligence it takes to do what you do

[55:39] because I do not have that ability. I

[55:42] just know what feels good. And um I just

[55:47] respectfully ask you to remember that

[55:50] things are not going to be cookie cutter

[55:52] for everybody and that one day when I

[55:56] come before you asking for a conditional

[55:58] use permit, you will consider it. And we

[56:03] understand if you say no, but please

[56:05] consider. Thank you. before you're done.

[56:07] Usually we don't have uh dialogue

[56:09] between uh members of the public, but I need to ask you a question because I'm

[56:14] not quite sure I understand your

[56:16] comment.

[56:17] >> So, I'm going to veer out of uh the the

[56:19] norm.

[56:20] >> Totally understand.

[56:21] >> Um

[56:22] >> you're saying that the flag lot causes

[56:24] an issue and that you've said that um

[56:27] odd lots need to be considered as part

[56:30] of our discussion. I'd like to

[56:31] understand that and I'd like to even

[56:33] just look at your lot later. Can you say

[56:35] your address one more time?

[56:37] >> 740 North Main Street.

[56:39] >> All right.

[56:40] >> And my neighbor who we share the

[56:42] driveway with is 720. All right.

[56:45] >> If you look at those two, you will see,

[56:48] you know, in fact, we have our garage in

[56:50] front of our house, which is totally

[56:52] against the rules, right? But when we

[56:55] came before asking for the permit to

[56:58] build it, it was easy to see that, you

[57:03] know, we had so much space in front. It

[57:05] just made sense.

[57:07] >> So, um,

[57:09] >> thank you.

[57:09] >> Is that it?

[57:10] >> Thank you.

[57:11] >> I appreciate that.

[57:12] >> I'm conforming.

[57:13] >> Next, please.

[57:20] » All right. So, my name is TJ Riley. This

[57:23] is my wife, Talia Riley. Um, yeah, if

[57:26] you don't mind passing those out.

[57:28] >> Hold on. Um, so what what are these

[57:31] things?

[57:31] >> This it'll it'll basically everything

[57:33] I'm going to talk about tonight, you're

[57:34] going to get a copy of

[57:35] >> Okay. We'll need to make sure that a

[57:37] copy gets into the record. So, you'll

[57:38] need to make sure that there's a copy

[57:40] for Miss Deise.

[57:41] >> Yeah. Originally, I was going to um

[57:44] Well, let me let me just kind of

[57:45] introduce myself. So, uh

[57:49] we have lived in Centerville City for

[57:51] years. We've raised our family here. Um,

[57:54] we border we we're on Chase Lane, so we

[57:57] border the school. We have an acre lot

[58:00] kind of like you [snorts] and uh

[58:04] >> anyways um I've actually come to city

[58:07] council before

[58:09] >> uh talking about the ADU

[58:12] ordinance because I knew

[58:13] >> sorry about I'm going to ask you to

[58:15] pause.

[58:15] >> I wasn't able to listen.

[58:18] >> I don't multitask very well. I'm so

[58:20] sorry.

[58:21] >> You're You're fine.

[58:22] >> I'm so sorry.

[58:23] >> You're good. You're good. What I was

[58:24] just saying is is we live on Chase Lane.

[58:26] We have an acre lot. Um kind of similar to her. Um and

[58:34] anyways, I uh I actually work for a

[58:38] city. I've done North Salt Lake City for

[58:41] 23 years now. So, I understand

[58:44] a lot of the process. um being involved

[58:47] that long, you kind of get to know

[58:48] certain things and how they go about.

[58:51] So, originally I was going to take this

[58:53] to city council,

[58:55] which I have before on the ADU thing,

[58:57] and then I've been kind of watching

[58:58] because I know that it would come before

[59:01] planning commission before uh it would

[59:03] go to uh city council on recommendations

[59:05] of this new um ADU uh process that's

[59:09] going to be taking place throughout the

[59:11] state. And so I'm just going to kind of

[59:14] read through this and kind of let you

[59:17] know you guys will have everything that

[59:19] I'm going to be talking about. So I want

[59:20] to thank you for the opportunity to

[59:22] provide uh input regarding the city's

[59:24] proposed accessory dwelling unit, the

[59:26] ADU ordinance. I understand the

[59:28] community's community develop

[59:30] development director has indicated the

[59:32] draft ordinance will follow the

[59:33] requirements of state code. I also

[59:35] understand the state code provides

[59:37] cities with options and how those

[59:39] requirements are implemented. and I

[59:41] would like to provide feedback on those

[59:43] choices before the ordinance is

[59:44] finalized.

[59:45] >> So, are you just going to read through

[59:46] this whole thing?

[59:47] >> Yeah, if you don't mind if

[59:48] >> I mean, normally I would uh not allow

[59:51] this, but I'm we've got us we've got

[59:54] some time.

[59:55] >> We want to hear.

[59:56] >> Yeah. And I would prefer if you could

[59:58] summarize.

[59:59] >> Okay.

[1:00:00] >> But,

[1:00:00] >> um some of it is I'm not the best at

[1:00:04] memorizing either. So, I get it. So,

[1:00:06] I'll kind of I'll kind of go through. I want you to have your opportunity to

[1:00:09] provide your comment and we want to hear

[1:00:10] it.

[1:00:11] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean,

[1:00:14] a lot of this is um to do with with our

[1:00:19] particular um situation. We have an acre

[1:00:22] lot similar to to her um and we've

[1:00:27] raised our family in it. We want to

[1:00:29] build um and I have an acre lot. So, the

[1:00:34] land's expensive. I want to stay in

[1:00:36] Centerville. I want the opportunity to

[1:00:39] build on the back of my lot. And um

[1:00:42] really that that's kind of what this is

[1:00:45] about. I think when ADUs are talked

[1:00:47] about, they are talked about in in the

[1:00:51] sense of an ADU is behind the home, the front structure,

[1:00:55] >> and that's the biggest thing for me. So,

[1:00:58] um why don't you read I I mean number

[1:01:01] two pretty much addresses that point.

[1:01:03] I'd love to hear that.

[1:01:05] >> I think I think number number two

[1:01:08] and number four is going to be a touch.

[1:01:13] >> Feel free to address those how you like.

[1:01:14] >> Yeah. So, um really I don't want to I

[1:01:17] don't want to be limited um to have an

[1:01:20] ADU in my back. What I would like to do

[1:01:24] because everyone is in a different

[1:01:25] situation

[1:01:27] is I don't think ADUs should be at the

[1:01:30] sideyard or just in the backyard. I

[1:01:32] would like to turn my front home into my

[1:01:34] ADU and I want my back home or my the

[1:01:38] back property to be my main home. I

[1:01:42] think that um you know there's things

[1:01:46] are getting to be more expensive over

[1:01:48] time and I have four kids. I have two

[1:01:50] parents that will need at some point. Um

[1:01:54] I want him to be living closer to me so

[1:01:56] I can take care of them and um

[1:01:59] >> and he's an only child.

[1:02:00] >> Yeah. So I don't really I can't kick

[1:02:02] them down to brothers and sisters,

[1:02:05] right? I'm not that's not my

[1:02:06] opportunity. So, um, and I'm not going

[1:02:08] to put them in in a in a home. So, they will be mine. And I'm that's what I

[1:02:14] plan to. And so, I I'm really just

[1:02:16] hoping that

[1:02:18] uh planning commission can be

[1:02:20] open-minded to all situations. And

[1:02:22] whether you have a a big front lot or or

[1:02:27] a side lot, I think that

[1:02:30] um

[1:02:33] I think that kind of and I'm just kind

[1:02:36] of trying to summarize this the best I

[1:02:37] can. Feel free you to read a part that

[1:02:39] you'd like. Okay. Um

[1:02:42] what else is this? Not do not limit ADUs

[1:02:46] based solely on the rear yard placement,

[1:02:48] requiring ADU an ADU to be located only

[1:02:51] behind an existing home creates unequal

[1:02:54] opportunities for property owners. Many

[1:02:56] lots are not deep enough and accommodate

[1:02:58] a rear yard ADU, while other properties

[1:03:01] may have wider lots or homes that have

[1:03:02] already been positioned uh farther from

[1:03:05] the street. A property owner with a

[1:03:07] shallow but wide lot or a home with a

[1:03:09] different existing layout should not

[1:03:11] lose the opportunity to create an ADU

[1:03:13] simply because of where the current home

[1:03:15] sits on the property. The primary

[1:03:17] concern should be to ensure appropriate

[1:03:19] setback safety compatibility with

[1:03:22] surrounding properties not requiring

[1:03:23] every UD every ADU to be placed in the

[1:03:26] same location. An ADU can be

[1:03:28] successfully located in the front side

[1:03:29] or rear yard as long as the required

[1:03:31] development standards are met.

[1:03:33] >> Can I ask you what your address is? 84

[1:03:36] West Chase.

[1:03:38] >> Very good.

[1:03:40] >> All right. Excellent.

[1:03:42] >> Yeah.

[1:03:42] >> And then um number four, it kind of

[1:03:44] talks and I just want to hit on this and

[1:03:46] I I respectfully uh request the city

[1:03:49] avoid over restrict restrictive limits

[1:03:52] on ADU size. The maximum allowed ADUs

[1:03:55] should size should not be smaller than

[1:03:57] what many existing homes in the city

[1:03:59] already provide. more balanced approach

[1:04:01] would be to consider the size of the

[1:04:03] property when determining the

[1:04:04] appropriate ADU size. Smaller lots had

[1:04:07] should have appropriate size or scaled

[1:04:09] ADUs and larger lots should have the

[1:04:12] ability to accommodate larger ADUs.

[1:04:15] Um, and that's just kind of, you know,

[1:04:18] that's kind of my thoughts. Awesome. And

[1:04:20] there's a lot more. I I

[1:04:22] >> So I didn't I haven't given this to the

[1:04:25] city council, but I've given uh another

[1:04:29] document to them. I had really good um

[1:04:32] responses. I feel like there was a ton

[1:04:34] of support when I came in. I believe I

[1:04:36] came in in February. Talked about ADUs

[1:04:39] because I knew they were coming and I

[1:04:41] just feel like it uh it's the

[1:04:43] appropriate time to bring this stuff up

[1:04:44] now. there's no sense um you know draft

[1:04:49] drafting things and then having to

[1:04:51] revisit and draft something over and

[1:04:53] over again. So I feel it's just

[1:04:55] important this is the time to talk about

[1:04:57] it so they can be addressed and we catch

[1:04:59] things early on in the situation. So,

[1:05:03] what I'm probably going to ask staff to

[1:05:04] do later in this meeting is um we're

[1:05:07] probably going to pull up your lot and

[1:05:09] talk about it because here's what

[1:05:11] happens and and and Miss Hendris,

[1:05:14] you should also know this and I'd invite

[1:05:16] you to have an opportunity. We're going

[1:05:17] to be talking about your lot. If you

[1:05:18] want to tell us anything about it now,

[1:05:20] that'd be fine. But once we close the

[1:05:22] public hearing, your commentary is not

[1:05:24] going to be accepted anymore.

[1:05:26] >> You just have to watch us bumble our way

[1:05:27] through it. Is there anything you'd like

[1:05:29] to tell us about the lot when we

[1:05:30] consider it later perhaps in the

[1:05:32] meeting?

[1:05:34] >> Um, well, I think there's been talk

[1:05:36] about um, you know, maybe a flag lot

[1:05:39] would be better. I don't really want a

[1:05:41] flag lot. Um, doesn't make sense. I

[1:05:44] would like to uh, upsize my utilities

[1:05:48] that I have that are already in and so I

[1:05:50] don't have to cut into the road. I don't

[1:05:52] have big impact fees. Um,

[1:05:56] I would rather do what I can with um,

[1:06:00] utilities that are that are already

[1:06:02] there.

[1:06:03] Um, and then I have a side I have a side

[1:06:07] little it's a it's a gravel road that I access to the very back of my lot.

[1:06:13] >> Um, so I I think those are probably the

[1:06:18] >> the things that I would want you to

[1:06:19] know.

[1:06:19] >> Thank you. It borders the school and

[1:06:21] then the other property has what two

[1:06:23] acres where she has sheep and then

[1:06:25] >> Okay.

[1:06:26] >> Thank you so much you guys. Wonderful

[1:06:28] comments. We appreciate that.

[1:06:29] >> Thank you.

[1:06:29] >> Miss Hendricks, if you wanted to come

[1:06:31] back, we're probably going to talk about

[1:06:32] your lot, too. If there's anything you'd

[1:06:34] like to tell us for our consideration,

[1:06:36] and remember, we're not approving your

[1:06:37] guys' lots. I know you know this. I know

[1:06:40] you know this. We're just using them as

[1:06:41] potential exemplers as we consider

[1:06:43] everything. All right. You pull this up.

[1:06:48] >> Yeah. 740. Go down. Just

[1:06:51] >> right there.

[1:06:55] » Yeah. 740 and then 720

[1:06:58] where the 720 is.

[1:07:01] >> Oh, right. On. Can

[1:07:02] >> I have you in either or?

[1:07:05] >> Yeah.

[1:07:06] >> I just want to be

[1:07:08] >> Thank you.

[1:07:11] >> How cool. Okay. So, yes, we have our

[1:07:16] dear neighbors. We love them and we're

[1:07:19] so grateful to have great neighbors cuz

[1:07:22] we there's no way to really fence this

[1:07:25] off from each other. Okay, so our

[1:07:27] driveway comes right in here. Um, our

[1:07:31] home, this is the garage and then this

[1:07:36] is our home and there's a parking pad

[1:07:38] over here.

[1:07:40] So why? And you know, it seems like, oh,

[1:07:44] we've got quite a bit of space back

[1:07:47] there, but like I said, we would have to

[1:07:50] take utilities up through our um

[1:07:55] driveway all the way through in front of

[1:07:58] our neighbor's home into this back,

[1:08:01] which is almost 400 ft. It goes 400 ft.

[1:08:05] It would have to be there where the

[1:08:07] garden is. And that would be we don't

[1:08:12] really want to irritate our neighbor. We

[1:08:15] don't want to make his their lives

[1:08:17] worse. And

[1:08:20] you can maybe see that. Anyway, here

[1:08:24] from the sidewalk to our garage is over

[1:08:28] 70 ft. Like 78 ft, 75 ft, something like

[1:08:32] that.

[1:08:34] Can you figure that out? Oh, 87 feet

[1:08:37] from the sidewalk. We were being

[1:08:39] generous. And then from the driveway

[1:08:44] over to our property line is like 90 ft,

[1:08:50] 80 ft. I don't know what you

[1:08:55] » with

[1:08:56] >> 74

[1:08:57] >> 74T. So that is plenty of space. We

[1:09:02] could we could pull back 30 feet from

[1:09:05] the road. 30 feet from the road. Use the

[1:09:09] shared driveway. Um so that they would

[1:09:12] be going in this way

[1:09:14] >> to park

[1:09:16] >> and we could have a nice little

[1:09:17] entrance. um as you consider the um

[1:09:24] unconventional

[1:09:27] D- Aud whatever it is anyway as you

[1:09:30] consider that um I think for Centerville

[1:09:34] we want to think about how it looks

[1:09:38] you know we've all seen things that have

[1:09:41] been built that have been like how did

[1:09:44] this ever happen it's such an eyesore I

[1:09:48] bet you all know who I'm talking about

[1:09:50] and it's like how did that happen? But I

[1:09:53] don't know if you guys can

[1:09:56] who does that but when we put forth our

[1:10:01] um plans, you know, we should be able to

[1:10:05] say is does this fit the

[1:10:09] >> community? Okay.

[1:10:10] >> Thank you, sir.

[1:10:11] >> Anyway, thank you.

[1:10:13] >> All right. Um great public hearing. um

[1:10:16] when we close down the public hearing

[1:10:18] that then at that point you guys are

[1:10:19] observers and no longer have commentary

[1:10:22] from the audience. Um I just want to be

[1:10:24] clear. Anything else you guys want to

[1:10:26] say before I close?

[1:10:28] Okay. So I'm going to close the public

[1:10:30] hearing and bring it back to the

[1:10:31] commission. Um fascinating.

[1:10:34] >> Yeah.

[1:10:34] >> I had I mean this is a good example of

[1:10:37] where it's just um you have just sort of

[1:10:40] an inherent

[1:10:42] uh it's not inherent. Is it implicit or

[1:10:44] inherent bias?

[1:10:46] Can't remember. I always get those

[1:10:47] confused. Implicit bias. Inherent bias

[1:10:50] that you don't even think about adus in

[1:10:53] the front yard.

[1:10:54] >> Yeah. Right.

[1:10:55] >> Fascinating.

[1:10:56] >> Well, we did speak of them last time.

[1:10:59] >> I didn't even like

[1:11:00] >> but not in a configuration.

[1:11:01] >> Not in like I didn't even think of

[1:11:03] something like this because and and this

[1:11:06] is a question I have for staff. That

[1:11:07] would be considered Miss Hendrick's

[1:11:09] front yard. Correct.

[1:11:11] and and that's an accessory building and

[1:11:13] it's basically

[1:11:15] >> if it's being used as an accessory

[1:11:17] building there would have to be probably

[1:11:19] some kind of legal non-conformance

[1:11:22] established for it its existence

[1:11:24] >> is that per state code or what is that

[1:11:26] >> it's even city code because technically

[1:11:28] it's not even complying as it currently

[1:11:30] stands

[1:11:30] >> you're talking about the garage

[1:11:33] >> well my understanding is not using the

[1:11:35] garage as a conversion I had understood

[1:11:36] her to say that she

[1:11:38] >> well I'm just saying even with a

[1:11:39] conversion which they're they're

[1:11:41] entitled to state code.

[1:11:43] >> If they could prove the legal

[1:11:44] non-conformity, then they could actually

[1:11:46] convert that existing structure to a

[1:11:47] DADU.

[1:11:48] >> Got it.

[1:11:49] >> Because state code requires us to allow

[1:11:50] for those kind of situations.

[1:11:52] >> My question though is if you build a DA

[1:11:54] in the back, who's to say that my myself

[1:11:57] as the primary residence, I don't move

[1:11:59] to the back unit,

[1:12:00] >> right?

[1:12:01] >> And then put tenants in the front.

[1:12:02] >> Dakota actually lets you you do that.

[1:12:04] >> Which one is smaller? Accessory tends to

[1:12:06] be something that

[1:12:07] >> okay so the back counts the DU has to be

[1:12:10] smaller than the main primary

[1:12:11] >> well it doesn't it's whatever you

[1:12:13] regulate whatever you decide as as a

[1:12:15] city right city as a planning commission

[1:12:17] and city council right but uh currently

[1:12:21] one of the issues um and and I have

[1:12:23] talked to the writings on the phone as

[1:12:24] well and talked about this is the

[1:12:26] definition of accessory building as it

[1:12:28] currently is established is rear yard

[1:12:31] structures

[1:12:33] >> they can't be placed in the sideyard or

[1:12:34] the front yard in current code. So you'd

[1:12:37] almost have to create a explicit carve

[1:12:39] out of DAD accessory structure that's

[1:12:42] unique from accessory structure and then

[1:12:44] define it differently if you wanted to

[1:12:47] allow them to be used in the sideyard or

[1:12:49] the front yard

[1:12:50] >> and then that opens up a huge can of

[1:12:51] words. It just become the question

[1:12:53] becomes yeah what what would be the

[1:12:56] perspective of that where is that

[1:12:58] applied how would that be utilized do we

[1:13:00] now have to create new regulations so I

[1:13:02] mean any at that if we go there that's

[1:13:04] what that discussion looks like is what

[1:13:07] does the regulation for that look like

[1:13:08] then because now you're not you're not

[1:13:10] attaching it to that definition of

[1:13:12] accessory structure creating a brand new

[1:13:15] carve out um one of the other

[1:13:17] alternatives and I'm going to kind of

[1:13:20] clarify a statement that was made about coming from from me. I had a

[1:13:24] conversation with the city manager about

[1:13:26] this and we have some timing deadline

[1:13:29] and his commentary was with the timing

[1:13:31] deadline that we need to get a code to

[1:13:35] the council and in place by October 1st

[1:13:37] and if we get too caught up in creating

[1:13:41] all these external special circumstances

[1:13:43] or new regulations that slows that down

[1:13:44] to where we probably will not hit our

[1:13:46] compliance timeline. And so the comment

[1:13:48] in here about the community development

[1:13:50] [clears throat] director indicate draft

[1:13:51] ordinance will follow the requirements

[1:13:52] of state code. That's from the city

[1:13:54] manager trying to protect the city's

[1:13:56] interest in getting an ordinance in

[1:13:58] place by October 1st

[1:13:59] >> for the state.

[1:14:00] >> Yeah. For the state. His comment was

[1:14:01] then we could still go back and look at

[1:14:04] the regulations and further tweak the ordinance thereafter if there's some

[1:14:09] substance to what we heard tonight. Mhm.

[1:14:12] >> We have that opportunity, but we need to

[1:14:14] get something in place at least by

[1:14:16] October 1st that we can then re-evaluate

[1:14:17] thereafter. Um, even to the point where,

[1:14:20] as evidenced by the Riley's, there's

[1:14:22] some discussion with the city manager

[1:14:25] and even talking to legal about do we

[1:14:28] even dare talk about flag lots or infill

[1:14:30] lots? Is that something we want to even

[1:14:31] think about as the housing nature of the

[1:14:33] city evolves and we have property that's

[1:14:36] kind of, as you can see, internally

[1:14:39] landlock and hard to develop. When did

[1:14:41] we like say when did we ban flag lots? I

[1:14:44] know that we did allow them

[1:14:46] >> and then we didn't allow them.

[1:14:47] >> Then we did then we didn't.

[1:14:49] >> Yeah. Do we know when the last

[1:14:50] >> Lisa probably is the one with the

[1:14:51] institutional memory that

[1:14:54] >> 2000?

[1:14:56] >> Um it would be in the

[1:14:59] legislative history I think.

[1:15:01] >> Can you define

[1:15:02] >> I don't spot Lisa. I just don't

[1:15:04] obviously know

[1:15:05] >> Amanda

[1:15:06] >> right off the bat. So maybe we'd have to

[1:15:07] do some research.

[1:15:08] >> I don't know. I'd have to I can look

[1:15:10] while you chat, but it's been a while.

[1:15:12] >> So, so I mean those are some of the

[1:15:14] layered implications of the commentary

[1:15:16] that you you received during the public

[1:15:18] hearing.

[1:15:18] >> Laorray had a question if you don't

[1:15:19] mind. Oh, yeah. Define a flag lot.

[1:15:21] >> Flag lot would be going to have you have

[1:15:23] a stem, right? This like

[1:15:26] >> it's a flag lot.

[1:15:27] >> That's there's one right there. You have

[1:15:28] a stem that's legally existing and

[1:15:31] typically has to be wide enough to

[1:15:32] accommodate some kind of fire vehicle or

[1:15:35] emergency vehicle if it needs to get

[1:15:37] back there. And then you have it still

[1:15:39] be wide enough and big enough to be

[1:15:40] developed for a housing structure.

[1:15:42] Right. That's a flag lot.

[1:15:44] >> Thank you.

[1:15:44] >> And and some in other states I've worked

[1:15:47] in the stem can be as narrow as 13 ft. I

[1:15:49] think that's the the minimum size that

[1:15:51] allows emergency vehicles to still get

[1:15:53] back there.

[1:15:53] >> We see a lot of these on Main Street.

[1:15:55] >> Yeah. And that's that's what's

[1:15:57] interesting, right? when you think about

[1:15:58] the history of what we're talking about

[1:16:00] and I don't want to step in this cuz

[1:16:01] this is definitely a different

[1:16:02] discussion but

[1:16:04] >> but there's been right allowance but you

[1:16:06] were saying though allowance not

[1:16:08] allowance

[1:16:08] >> maybe we get this through so we hit the

[1:16:11] deadline and then we can go back and

[1:16:12] discuss

[1:16:13] >> that was just a conversation that the city manager suggested could be a

[1:16:16] way to look at it or again you go back

[1:16:19] in and modify it after October 1st even

[1:16:21] if you got something to approve October

[1:16:22] 1st we meet the state deadline

[1:16:24] >> we can still haveations

[1:16:27] and further now modify and refine it to

[1:16:29] get it right again for situations like

[1:16:32] this if that's the the desire of

[1:16:35] >> plan commission and council to have

[1:16:36] those conversations.

[1:16:38] >> Thank you.

[1:16:39] >> I mean I wish the time frame wasn't as

[1:16:40] tight as it is and I know otheries have

[1:16:42] been asking for these kind of

[1:16:44] conversations since February. So

[1:16:47] >> yeah,

[1:16:50] » Mason, I think one and I I think the the code from the state

[1:16:58] envisions

[1:17:00] subdivisions in the typical they really

[1:17:04] don't look at older communities that

[1:17:06] have different types of lots and and

[1:17:10] configurations. I mean,

[1:17:13] I'll take my subdivision. You know, this

[1:17:15] works really well in my subdivision,

[1:17:18] >> but it does not work well on Chase Lane

[1:17:22] where there are a lot bigger lots and on

[1:17:24] Main Street, uh,

[1:17:28] which which those lots have been there

[1:17:30] forever. So,

[1:17:31] >> um,

[1:17:33] >> and they're definitely big enough to

[1:17:34] accommodate. They are,

[1:17:36] >> you know, they've got the space for

[1:17:37] sure. But I think the code that the what

[1:17:40] the Utah code is envisioning more

[1:17:46] I don't want to say a cookie cutter type

[1:17:47] subdivision in some ways in in the way

[1:17:50] it's been written and in some ways what

[1:17:52] the way we've addressed it

[1:17:55] but it's good to hear that there are all

[1:17:58] there there there are other issues out

[1:18:00] there that we haven't even thought

[1:18:02] about.

[1:18:03] >> Yeah.

[1:18:05] I just see as a real estate broker, I've

[1:18:06] seen home prices get higher and higher

[1:18:09] and like literally starter homes are

[1:18:11] gone sadly.

[1:18:12] >> Yeah.

[1:18:13] >> And people are having to resorting to

[1:18:15] renting indefinitely. And it's I I'm a

[1:18:18] firm believer on the American dream and

[1:18:21] I started at 21 with my first property

[1:18:23] and it literally changed my entire life

[1:18:25] just having that opportunity. It wasn't

[1:18:27] a big place. was like 800 square feet,

[1:18:30] you know, but from that spot, I was able

[1:18:33] to build equity and just go from there.

[1:18:36] So,

[1:18:36] >> which is good. But you also realize that

[1:18:38] these can't be sold, right?

[1:18:40] >> Oh, 100%. Yeah. We're not doing what

[1:18:41] Farmington. Yeah. I'm just saying just

[1:18:43] getting a start, you know?

[1:18:51] » What do we want to do?

[1:18:52] >> Yeah. Great questions.

[1:18:54] >> Great questions all around. I I think we

[1:18:56] should explore a little bit more um in

[1:18:58] case people have sort of differences of

[1:19:00] opinion about any particular things.

[1:19:02] From what I'm hearing, um we've got at

[1:19:05] least two of those uh to discuss and

[1:19:07] we're in the midst of talking about um

[1:19:10] what do we do about odd lots and as a

[1:19:14] correlary, do we do we do that now or do

[1:19:17] we do it later? Um the other one is

[1:19:19] windows. Um, we've sort of circled

[1:19:22] around that and I've I've heard

[1:19:23] different opinions. So, let's start with

[1:19:26] that. What What Anybody have a really

[1:19:28] strong opinion about windows that would

[1:19:31] be facing the closest

[1:19:35] uh boundary from the ADU?

[1:19:40] Would we leave it to like the discretion

[1:19:41] of the person that's taking occupancy as

[1:19:45] far as window treatments or things of

[1:19:46] that nature or is that

[1:19:49] >> No, we're talking about like whether the

[1:19:51] windows it couldn't be the discretion of

[1:19:53] the renter. It couldn't be them and have

[1:19:55] >> are we do who would like Let me just do

[1:19:59] it this way. No, no, no. You're great.

[1:20:01] Uh who would who does not like the

[1:20:03] restriction that uh we had been

[1:20:05] discussing which is um that it be

[1:20:07] frosted of some sort or inoperable?

[1:20:09] >> Well, we'll do an operable next.

[1:20:11] >> Yeah, that's what I was going to say.

[1:20:12] >> Does anybody not like the translucent

[1:20:14] requirement?

[1:20:16] >> I think it's fine.

[1:20:17] >> I think that's good.

[1:20:19] >> I mean, yeah, I have that was in all my

[1:20:20] platforms.

[1:20:21] >> Okay, so translucent is not really a a

[1:20:24] point of code. Yeah.

[1:20:26] >> Operability.

[1:20:27] Where are we at? Um, I think people

[1:20:30] should have windows that should open.

[1:20:32] That doesn't mean all of them, but you

[1:20:34] need fresh air. You You need that

[1:20:36] circulation.

[1:20:37] >> Well, and if it's an egress for a fire

[1:20:40] egress, then that definitely would have

[1:20:42] a safety that that's another that's fire

[1:20:44] code, right?

[1:20:44] >> That's that's my bigger concern with

[1:20:46] inoperability is is the egress side of

[1:20:48] it. But in addition, yeah, I I guess I

[1:20:51] don't see the purpose in having them be

[1:20:53] inoperable, particularly if we have the

[1:20:55] correct spacing. Mhm. It sounds like 8

[1:20:58] feet is the minimum spacing.

[1:21:00] >> I think that last time, did you watch

[1:21:01] our meeting?

[1:21:02] >> Uh, I didn't. I just read the minutes.

[1:21:04] >> Okay. So, I think it was part of the

[1:21:06] discussion was if you get renters back

[1:21:08] there, you don't know. Like, for

[1:21:09] example, I mean, I have six kids. If I

[1:21:11] were to get some of some of my kids back

[1:21:14] there, I don't want to hear what's

[1:21:16] coming out of their window, right? Like,

[1:21:18] I don't want to hear that music. The

[1:21:19] neighbors don't want to hear it. And you

[1:21:21] can't control that. I mean, the city has

[1:21:23] limits on, you know, 10 p.m. or

[1:21:25] whatever, but other than that, you can't

[1:21:28] do anything about it. So, it was just

[1:21:29] kind of about that and noise and

[1:21:30] different things. Am I

[1:21:33] >> Yeah, my primary

[1:21:35] >> I don't know if I can't remember if I

[1:21:37] was the primary uh engine on this, but

[1:21:41] >> I was trying to address the um

[1:21:44] discomfort that I feel could occur when

[1:21:49] you're putting in additional housing so

[1:21:51] close to potentially somebody else's

[1:21:54] housing and then just staring at each

[1:21:56] other. And that if we don't,

[1:21:58] >> right,

[1:21:59] >> if that's not a big deal, then it's not

[1:22:00] a big deal. But I I find personally some

[1:22:02] discomfort in that regard

[1:22:04] >> and the inoperability was my attempt to

[1:22:06] address that. However, there may be

[1:22:07] other ways to skin this cat. And it

[1:22:09] could also be that operability

[1:22:11] um this isn't as big a deal as I may

[1:22:14] feel. So because I'm hearing a fair

[1:22:18] amount of you that are pretty much it's

[1:22:21] okay and that's fine, right?

[1:22:24] >> Well, I think it's good, but I think it

[1:22:25] also needs protection, too, right? like

[1:22:27] we bought our home and we have a fence

[1:22:29] and we have our neighbors, but we're

[1:22:30] closer than I'd like,

[1:22:32] >> you know, in the back lot, but it is

[1:22:33] what it is. And then if they were to add

[1:22:35] something, that's a whole new level of

[1:22:38] noise, sound, whatever.

[1:22:41] >> Right.

[1:22:42] >> So, I I don't know how to um come to a

[1:22:46] middle ground

[1:22:48] with this.

[1:22:49] >> Well, the height that I had suggested

[1:22:51] earlier might be, but that's going to

[1:22:52] include some reddraft, and we we're on a

[1:22:56] uh time clock.

[1:22:58] I would say that um one way to fix it is

[1:23:01] allow operable windows at a minimum uh

[1:23:05] at least with a minimum height. Um but I

[1:23:09] also wouldn't want to take us out of the

[1:23:13] um

[1:23:14] allowances that fire code would require

[1:23:17] for a fire exit,

[1:23:19] >> right?

[1:23:20] >> Because bathroom windows, those little

[1:23:22] bathroom windows ain't going to qualify,

[1:23:25] >> right? And they're also mostly not

[1:23:26] operable.

[1:23:28] >> I was thinking something more along the

[1:23:29] lines of uh you know like four or five

[1:23:32] feet up potentially, but I don't I don't

[1:23:35] know if that's going to qualify.

[1:23:39] for

[1:23:40] fire egress.

[1:23:42] I don't know.

[1:23:43] >> I mean, can we require some sort of like

[1:23:46] screening that can only be seen like you

[1:23:48] can't see through the screening

[1:23:50] >> the translucent glass?

[1:23:51] would be fine.

[1:23:52] It's just

[1:23:53] >> No, I'm talking the screening. So, you

[1:23:55] can open the window, but then you have a

[1:23:56] screen that can't be seen through

[1:23:57] either.

[1:23:59] >> Users want more noise.

[1:24:00] >> A ridiculous suggestion. I don't

[1:24:02] >> That's a No, then that's a fair fair

[1:24:04] point. It funny enough, I actually more

[1:24:08] I'm I'm discomforted by starting to

[1:24:10] micromanage in that regard.

[1:24:11] >> Yeah, I agreed completely.

[1:24:13] >> But

[1:24:16] >> I'd like a simple rule, but at the same

[1:24:19] time, it may not be

[1:24:21] >> ruable at this juncture.

[1:24:24] Mike or Lisa, do you guys have any

[1:24:27] thoughts or input, you know, regarding

[1:24:29] legalities and city codes?

[1:24:32] >> Just your honest thoughts really.

[1:24:36] >> Well, I do agree with the building

[1:24:37] official. You know, if you're putting

[1:24:39] similar setbacks to

[1:24:42] primary dwellings, why are we regulating

[1:24:45] that? I think air flow and light is

[1:24:48] important to the quality of life. I

[1:24:51] think a lot of these structures can have

[1:24:53] lights, you know, like a little higher,

[1:24:56] those little lights that you just put

[1:24:57] up. People aren't actually looking out

[1:24:59] of them. So, I think it's problematic to

[1:25:01] regulate windows, but that's my

[1:25:05] >> personal opinion, not a legal opinion, I

[1:25:07] should say. I don't know why I said

[1:25:09] that, but

[1:25:09] >> that that strikes a chord with me

[1:25:11] actually. And and now I'm going to, like

[1:25:13] any good attorney, argue the other side

[1:25:15] um against myself. [laughter]

[1:25:17] Um,

[1:25:20] if Bountiful only has 27 that were

[1:25:22] injected over the last two decades, are

[1:25:25] we really all that afraid that we're

[1:25:26] going to get a flood of these? Probably

[1:25:28] not.

[1:25:28] >> Well, however, there wasn't so much of a

[1:25:30] need 20 years ago, right? There's more

[1:25:33] of a need now,

[1:25:34] >> but it's also more difficult.

[1:25:35] >> It's It's still so prohibitive.

[1:25:38] >> You still have to figure though the cost

[1:25:39] of building one of these. They're not

[1:25:40] cheap. I looked into it. It's like

[1:25:42] $120,000 for 850 ft. That's a lot. 850

[1:25:46] square feet, you're maybe gonna get

[1:25:48] $1,100.

[1:25:49] >> Yeah.

[1:25:49] >> It's gonna take you a minute to pay that

[1:25:51] off.

[1:25:52] >> What was your comment?

[1:25:53] >> No, I was gonna say, and if you look at

[1:25:56] the even the state ordinance, I mean, it

[1:25:59] it's it's pretty prohibitive.

[1:26:02] I mean, this is pretty tight on how you

[1:26:04] can build it and what you can build, uh,

[1:26:07] and how many people are really going to

[1:26:09] jump on that to do it. I, you know, may

[1:26:13] surprise us. I I don't know, but I I'm

[1:26:18] in some ways I'm not too concerned.

[1:26:21] As far as attached dwelling units, how

[1:26:25] many do you know how many we have in the

[1:26:26] city?

[1:26:28] >> We have 24. I think we have 24

[1:26:32] >> 24

[1:26:33] >> attached.

[1:26:34] >> Yeah.

[1:26:34] >> Dwelling units, which is basement.

[1:26:36] Basically basement.

[1:26:38] >> Pretty much all of them are basement.

[1:26:41] 24 that you know of

[1:26:42] >> that we were already they did [laughter]

[1:26:44] they did what they're supposed to and

[1:26:45] already

[1:26:48] >> um can you remind me Mr. in the code.

[1:26:50] Did we draft it uh to include a

[1:26:53] provision that the windows be

[1:26:54] inoperable?

[1:26:55] >> Yeah, it's right there in front of you.

[1:26:56] >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. I've got my

[1:26:58] >> It's fine. It's fine. But but we could

[1:27:00] if we were to amend it, we could say

[1:27:02] shall be translucent or shall be

[1:27:03] installed skylights. It would be a

[1:27:05] simple amendment.

[1:27:06] >> Yeah.

[1:27:08] >> I just I really have a hard time

[1:27:10] internally

[1:27:11] >> Yeah.

[1:27:12] >> telling someone they can't have operable

[1:27:14] windows

[1:27:16] for a living quarter. And I understand

[1:27:18] all [clears throat] of our reasons and

[1:27:19] we talked about it till we're like blew

[1:27:21] in the face last night.

[1:27:23] >> Yeah.

[1:27:24] >> I just feel that's like super

[1:27:25] restrictive.

[1:27:26] >> Let's move on. And I think we've we've

[1:27:28] circled this one enough if that's okay.

[1:27:30] >> Yeah.

[1:27:30] >> Um

[1:27:33] » what? Oh, sorry.

[1:27:35] >> Are there any other topics that we would

[1:27:37] like to talk through before we open it

[1:27:39] up for a motion?

[1:27:41] >> I do want to hit still. Whoops. I try to

[1:27:43] move and I can't. I do still want to

[1:27:46] talk about occupancy limit. I I need to

[1:27:49] know are we just going to keep it as two

[1:27:51] adults and any number of children? Are

[1:27:53] we going to do per city definition of

[1:27:56] family? I mean I that could be easy. Are

[1:27:59] we going to do per state code whatever

[1:28:01] that I reference? What what what should

[1:28:03] I put in that cell?

[1:28:05] >> So I wrote notes of single family

[1:28:08] designation to talk about that. Can we

[1:28:11] >> can you pull that up or can you tell us

[1:28:13] exactly what that is? how that is

[1:28:15] worded.

[1:28:16] >> It was in that email podcast.

[1:28:18] >> This one from a legal standpoint, it is

[1:28:20] a lot easier if you just stick with our

[1:28:22] definition of family.

[1:28:23] >> That's why related and unrelated. Yes, I

[1:28:26] think it gets very tricky when you start

[1:28:28] trying to define

[1:28:30] >> number of people,

[1:28:32] >> but I do get, you know, it's a smaller

[1:28:34] home, but many homes use

[1:28:37] to do that.

[1:28:39] >> And so, do we match? I'm trying to

[1:28:42] remember now. Do we match state

[1:28:44] >> the state again?

[1:28:46] >> Is that what you sent me

[1:28:47] >> there? Well, C does, right? C matches

[1:28:49] what I sent you,

[1:28:51] >> but there has been and I don't know if

[1:28:52] it's still in force the same definition.

[1:28:55] I I I think we can still rely on our

[1:28:57] city code cuz this this was required of

[1:29:00] all cities to match this definition. I

[1:29:02] don't know, it was like six or eight

[1:29:04] years ago, maybe even 10 years ago.

[1:29:06] >> So that that definition is very

[1:29:09] evergreen from city to city for a

[1:29:10] definition of family.

[1:29:12] But for whatever reason, I couldn't find

[1:29:14] it in state code where I did the

[1:29:15] research. But I found that one I

[1:29:16] provided, which again matches term C.

[1:29:18] >> Well, I'm comfortable with that and I

[1:29:20] like what the city already has.

[1:29:22] >> I don't think that we should try and

[1:29:24] micromanage that more.

[1:29:25] >> Okay. So, I just put per definition of

[1:29:27] family in 12.12.040.

[1:29:30] >> Okay.

[1:29:30] >> My opinion is yes. I

[1:29:33] >> consensus.

[1:29:34] >> Yeah.

[1:29:35] >> We've already defined it.

[1:29:36] >> I think that works well.

[1:29:39] >> Makes Lisa happy.

[1:29:40] >> Yeah. said it did.

[1:29:42] >> That's all we want.

[1:29:43] >> That's all we ever want.

[1:29:45] >> Okay. And then I have a few things that

[1:29:47] I can probably refine with you, Lisa.

[1:29:49] Just um some terminology things relative

[1:29:52] to again those those continual

[1:29:53] inclusions. I guess I could just modify

[1:29:55] them where it's referencing state code

[1:29:57] 10-

[1:29:59] 20-303 or 10-20- 10-21-303.

[1:30:04] Just take those out, but then try to

[1:30:05] word smith it in so it still works. Is

[1:30:07] that okay with you? Mhm.

[1:30:08] >> Is that okay with the council or the

[1:30:10] planning commission if I did that?

[1:30:11] >> We'll see. [laughter]

[1:30:14] >> I think we do need I need to do some

[1:30:16] research on um Yeah. Are you talking

[1:30:18] about the lean provision?

[1:30:19] >> Yeah.

[1:30:20] >> Okay.

[1:30:20] >> That is exactly what I'm talking about.

[1:30:22] >> Okay.

[1:30:23] >> And then my final one is right there

[1:30:26] where it's at. Um existing building and

[1:30:28] detach ADU conversion. And I left it in

[1:30:30] pink because I believe that was the will

[1:30:32] of the the planning commission to excise

[1:30:35] all that stuff except for that brief

[1:30:37] statement just saying, "Hey, if if we

[1:30:39] need to verify an existing building as a

[1:30:42] non-conforming structure, we have that opportunity after or if it was

[1:30:47] permitted prior to October 1st, 2026."

[1:30:49] >> Yes,

[1:30:50] >> that's what I remember the discussion

[1:30:51] being.

[1:30:51] >> That's right.

[1:30:51] >> Then taking out guest house and all that

[1:30:53] craziness after. Right.

[1:30:54] >> That is correct. Yeah.

[1:30:55] >> Okay.

[1:30:56] >> That's all I have then as clarification.

[1:30:58] I need administratively.

[1:30:59] >> While while we're on this page though,

[1:31:01] um should it be 1258090?

[1:31:04] >> Yes, that's a typo in there. Okay.

[1:31:07] >> Yes.

[1:31:09] >> Stupid little things.

[1:31:11] >> That's why you're an engineer.

[1:31:17] » Okay, perfect. That gives me what I

[1:31:20] need.

[1:31:23] » I feel like I I just want to speak up a

[1:31:26] little bit. um about the configuration

[1:31:30] of lots. After just talking with

[1:31:35] residents who've asked me, giving me

[1:31:37] phone calls and sent emails,

[1:31:40] I want to just put this out here that I

[1:31:44] think conditional use permits, I don't

[1:31:47] know whether or not they um would be the

[1:31:50] proper tool to regulate. I don't know

[1:31:54] what health, safety, and welfare

[1:31:55] standards we could regulate with

[1:31:57] conditional use permits. Um, but Miss

[1:32:02] Hendris and I have talked and one of the

[1:32:06] reasons why she brought up conditional

[1:32:08] use permits is because I said the

[1:32:12] possibility of um like where the ADU

[1:32:18] would be placed. That should be

[1:32:21] something that

[1:32:23] um she could bring up. So, I wanted to

[1:32:28] clarify for Miss Hendrickx as well as

[1:32:30] the planning commission that

[1:32:33] um during our discussion if it came out

[1:32:37] that I said that it would be permitted

[1:32:39] as a conditional use permit. Okay. Okay.

[1:32:42] Just wanted to make sure and put that on

[1:32:43] the record. With that being said though,

[1:32:46] my feelings as a planner still go with I

[1:32:52] think that

[1:32:54] it would be a great tool for the

[1:32:58] planning commission as well as residents

[1:33:00] and the planning staff to have if we

[1:33:02] could look in the future at tying a

[1:33:06] conditional use permit to the placement

[1:33:08] of um ADUs in rear or inside yards and

[1:33:14] or front yards just based on how old the

[1:33:18] lots are in Centerville. I think that um

[1:33:22] Paul, you hit on it really well that the

[1:33:25] state is generalizing for subdivision

[1:33:28] lots. There are a lot of lots here in

[1:33:31] Centerville that are not part of a

[1:33:33] subdivision.

[1:33:35] Um so I I just wanted to throw that out

[1:33:38] there. Whether or not that sticks,

[1:33:41] that's okay. But I the reason why we are

[1:33:45] allowing for a detach accessory dwelling

[1:33:48] units is to allow for residents and home

[1:33:52] own homeowners to have um that

[1:33:54] additional income and I think that we

[1:33:57] are cutting a big a big portion of the

[1:33:59] population out for that but

[1:34:02] >> okay thanks for that input. Yeah.

[1:34:03] >> Um, as I understand it, and Lisa, this

[1:34:06] is a question for you, conditional use

[1:34:07] would not be an allowed tool for that

[1:34:10] because it'd be more of a variance than

[1:34:12] a conditional use. Is that is that fair

[1:34:14] to say?

[1:34:14] >> Yes.

[1:34:15] >> Because what you're doing is you're

[1:34:16] conditionally using the conditional use

[1:34:19] code

[1:34:19] >> to uh violate the code

[1:34:22] >> is what it would essentially be doing.

[1:34:24] And in that way, you'd need a variance.

[1:34:26] >> But I don't like variances either.

[1:34:28] >> I hear what you're saying. Okay. No,

[1:34:29] that makes sense. So, the reason I

[1:34:33] mentioned that and Lisa, I'm curious if

[1:34:35] you have a difference of opinion on

[1:34:36] that.

[1:34:37] >> No. Well, I think that conditional use

[1:34:39] permits are problematic and they're I

[1:34:41] prefer other tools either regulate

[1:34:44] specifically or

[1:34:45] >> not at all.

[1:34:46] >> Yeah. Or a variance or allow for flag

[1:34:49] lots. You know, there's a lot of other

[1:34:52] tools that address

[1:34:54] >> those situations.

[1:34:55] >> That's exactly why I asked that. So, um,

[1:34:57] pulling it back to the commission with

[1:34:59] all of that said, I'll lay out sort of

[1:35:02] just my position and then let's just go

[1:35:05] from there. Um, I love the idea of uh

[1:35:09] expanding our definitions and

[1:35:11] regulations to allow for oddballs like

[1:35:14] we've seen today.

[1:35:15] >> And at least in in both of those, I

[1:35:17] could definitely see the utility in

[1:35:20] allowing an ADU in the positions as

[1:35:22] proposed. Um

[1:35:25] I do share um Mr. Egget's reservations

[1:35:29] about creating a subcategory of an

[1:35:32] accessory building given that accessory

[1:35:35] building is already defined to exist

[1:35:37] only in the rear yard. However, I wonder

[1:35:42] if we couldn't create a carveout in the

[1:35:45] DAT ordinance that something something

[1:35:48] along the lines of notwithstanding

[1:35:50] definitions to the contrary, daddos may

[1:35:53] be allowed in front and side yards,

[1:35:57] something like that. So, we don't create

[1:35:59] a new category. We just simply say that

[1:36:01] even though the definition

[1:36:03] >> has limited it to this, we are expanding

[1:36:07] that to say that notwithstanding

[1:36:11] definitionally

[1:36:13] datos may be allowed in front and

[1:36:15] sideyards

[1:36:16] >> and then you'd have to create a list of

[1:36:17] regulations that regulate that.

[1:36:19] >> True. But you I would just say that

[1:36:21] you're going to regulate it sort of in

[1:36:22] the same way except for I mean never

[1:36:25] mind I'm I'm talk you're you're stream

[1:36:28] seeing my stream of consciousness.

[1:36:29] You're right. There's a problem in front

[1:36:30] yards

[1:36:32] >> with all of the setbacks and everything

[1:36:33] else

[1:36:33] >> because some front yards may not

[1:36:35] accommodate it.

[1:36:36] >> Correct. For sure.

[1:36:39] >> And not only that, but the law of

[1:36:41] unintended consequences,

[1:36:42] >> which then you have to create like lot

[1:36:44] certain lot distinctions, which maybe

[1:36:46] both their lots would meet that lot

[1:36:48] distinction, but this is what I talked

[1:36:49] about earlier. You have to figure out

[1:36:50] what that is.

[1:36:51] >> Yeah.

[1:36:51] >> So, there's certain criteria that match

[1:36:53] to then allow for those allowances.

[1:36:56] >> Sid, will you pull up our variance

[1:36:57] ordinance?

[1:36:58] >> Please. Thank you.

[1:37:01] My concern is that if this were to come

[1:37:03] forward on a variance stat uh standard,

[1:37:06] I think that it would be rejected both

[1:37:08] of these potential

[1:37:10] >> ADUs that we've talked about. Now,

[1:37:11] obviously, we're making no adjudication

[1:37:13] or anything on these particular homes.

[1:37:15] I'm using this as an example only.

[1:37:17] >> Why would it be rejected?

[1:37:18] >> Cuz it doesn't fit.

[1:37:19] >> Well, so my understanding of our

[1:37:22] standards of variance, where's our

[1:37:23] standards

[1:37:25] of review, aren't there? I mean they

[1:37:27] could yeah they could put it elsewhere.

[1:37:31] >> Yeah. So the literal enforcement of the

[1:37:33] provision would cause an unreasonable

[1:37:35] hardship that is not necessary to kill

[1:37:37] out the general purpose. There are

[1:37:39] special circumstances attached to the

[1:37:40] property that generally not I could see

[1:37:42] that passing. Granting a variance is

[1:37:44] essential to the enjoyment of

[1:37:45] substantial property right enjoyed by

[1:37:47] others.

[1:37:48] >> Maybe the variance will not

[1:37:50] substantially substantially affect the

[1:37:52] general plan. Fine. The spirit of the

[1:37:53] title reserve. So, here's here's the

[1:37:56] analysis as I see it. If you're putting

[1:37:58] something in the front yard and because

[1:38:01] it's too expensive to put it in the

[1:38:02] backyard, you're not going to pass this

[1:38:04] standard. It's not the little

[1:38:06] enforcement would cause an unreasonable

[1:38:08] hardship. Cost in the case laws, and I'm

[1:38:12] not giving legal opinions. I'm just

[1:38:14] saying it from my position.

[1:38:15] >> Well, yeah. Look at clause two. It says

[1:38:17] what you just said.

[1:38:18] >> Cost is cost is not a sufficient

[1:38:20] hardship.

[1:38:21] >> Clause two says that. Mhm.

[1:38:23] >> So, um if you have alternatives, then

[1:38:26] you're supposed to take those

[1:38:27] alternatives before you get a variance.

[1:38:29] >> Yeah.

[1:38:31] >> Right.

[1:38:32] >> And think of it this way. If it can't

[1:38:35] fit in your backyard, but it can fit in

[1:38:37] your front yard, then the ordinance has

[1:38:39] written has already written you out. So,

[1:38:41] you can't invoke I think

[1:38:44] uh essential to the enjoyment that is

[1:38:47] possessed by other property. Just

[1:38:49] because other properties get ADUs in

[1:38:50] their backyard doesn't mean you get one

[1:38:51] in your front yard.

[1:38:54] >> At least strictly according to that.

[1:38:57] >> Yeah. That's why I don't know if

[1:38:58] variance is the right tool.

[1:39:00] >> It is not.

[1:39:01] >> Yeah.

[1:39:01] >> The variance is not in Jackson. I'm

[1:39:03] going to go back to that. No, it would

[1:39:05] completely defeat the purpose of, you

[1:39:07] know, state law mandating that we allow

[1:39:10] DADUs and it would Yeah, I I think the

[1:39:12] city would regulate more strictly in

[1:39:16] >> So, Lisa,

[1:39:18] is there do you think and shoot from the

[1:39:20] hip, right? We're just shooting from the

[1:39:22] hip. Is there a tool that we could use

[1:39:25] potentially to address these oddball

[1:39:27] situations?

[1:39:28] >> Yes, but we don't have time right now.

[1:39:30] staff can certain Oh, well the tool on

[1:39:33] one of them

[1:39:34] >> well yeah I don't know I don't know

[1:39:37] >> without commenting specifically on these

[1:39:39] two

[1:39:40] >> I mean I think Centerville has a lot of

[1:39:42] very long lots and the tool that's

[1:39:45] needed for those is infill flag lot

[1:39:48] >> and staff has you know supported I will

[1:39:51] say supported flag lots I would love to

[1:39:54] look at um because we have a lot of

[1:39:56] underutilized properties and that would

[1:39:58] be a reasonable way to do it and you can

[1:40:01] and and a flag lot is not a tool

[1:40:04] mandated by state law. So we can say we

[1:40:07] want it this big, we want it this far

[1:40:08] from the you know I mean we can still do

[1:40:10] that with dads but you're also not

[1:40:12] restricting the size. It's not an

[1:40:14] accessory. Um, you know, so

[1:40:17] >> and you can actually build a single

[1:40:19] family home essentially if it meets all

[1:40:20] the requirements,

[1:40:21] >> right? And so if they want I mean this

[1:40:23] would help with the Riley because if

[1:40:25] they want a bigger home, it

[1:40:26] >> doesn't have to be a,200 foot home.

[1:40:27] >> A flag lot would allow that.

[1:40:29] >> So you basically have two homes or two

[1:40:31] properties,

[1:40:32] >> right? And you know, and I think that

[1:40:34] the flag lot may be more persuasive now

[1:40:36] that with one acre lot, you can have two

[1:40:39] dwellings.

[1:40:40] >> Mhm. So you're not prohibiting anything

[1:40:42] by allowing a flag lot creating

[1:40:45] >> and then you do although you have two

[1:40:48] larger buildings you know

[1:40:49] >> I would love to but again it's the

[1:40:54] >> any of these are you know building in

[1:40:55] the back and how you're impacting your

[1:40:57] neighbors but

[1:40:58] >> property develops and you could have

[1:41:01] someone 8 feet away from you depending

[1:41:04] on if somebody can get a road in you

[1:41:06] know so having that expectation of

[1:41:08] privacy in your backyard is not

[1:41:09] necessarily realistic. I know it's not a

[1:41:12] popular

[1:41:13] >> Yeah.

[1:41:14] >> But it's realist, but

[1:41:17] >> good points.

[1:41:19] Okay. So, um going back to sort of my

[1:41:22] list, um the occupancy I'm hearing were

[1:41:26] generally uh mostly aligned at least on

[1:41:30] uh the definition of family being

[1:41:31] incorporated from city code.

[1:41:35] um [snorts]

[1:41:37] the uh MITs that we talked about

[1:41:39] earlier, the capitalization of

[1:41:42] construction, the um [clears throat]

[1:41:45] 1258070,

[1:41:47] the phrasing for additional entrance

[1:41:51] >> removing that.

[1:41:52] >> I think that was it. No.

[1:41:53] >> And then my comments my three comments.

[1:41:56] >> Sure. Sure. I meant like that we had

[1:41:58] >> Okay. I just want to make my three

[1:41:59] comments at the beginning. I request

[1:42:01] that those be included.

[1:42:03] >> And then there was also the may be on

[1:42:05] the two-3. Is that what you're

[1:42:07] >> refering? That's one of them. Yeah.

[1:42:09] >> Okay.

[1:42:10] >> The other one is where applicable

[1:42:11] enforcement provisions and the other is

[1:42:13] changing the citation a minor

[1:42:16] >> the the

[1:42:19] point4 instead of

[1:42:20] >> Yeah. 12.58.040

[1:42:24] two or three.

[1:42:27] [clears throat] Okay.

[1:42:29] I'm gonna have to Has anybody been

[1:42:31] assembling these? Because mine spread

[1:42:33] [laughter] out all over my notes.

[1:42:34] >> Oh, we want to see your attorney.

[1:42:36] >> Oh, this is start.

[1:42:37] >> I have my own scribbles over here.

[1:42:42] » 58.040B2

[1:42:45] has a wrong a wrong reference.

[1:42:48] >> What? And also in regards to the tiny

[1:42:51] homes, we were going to add your extra.

[1:42:53] >> Yeah. And if you want me to add language

[1:42:55] regarding removal of an axle.

[1:42:57] >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:42:58] >> And it has to be permanently attached.

[1:43:00] >> And there is language that I can easily

[1:43:02] get from pretty much any city.

[1:43:04] >> Yes.

[1:43:04] >> We just don't have it currently.

[1:43:06] >> So,

[1:43:08] >> all right. We're doing it live.

[1:43:10] >> Um I think so.

[1:43:11] >> We're going to start. This is I'm going

[1:43:13] to make a motion

[1:43:15] >> and my motion is going to be constructed

[1:43:17] together

[1:43:19] and I'm going to make a motion

[1:43:22] eventually that I will move for, but I'm

[1:43:24] not making it now. We're just building

[1:43:26] it.

[1:43:26] >> [laughter]

[1:43:27] >> Um,

[1:43:29] and it's going to be something along the

[1:43:30] lines here where it says detached

[1:43:32] dwelling units amending blah blah blah.

[1:43:35] But in addition to what is in the staff

[1:43:37] report, we're going to say number one.

[1:43:43] And Sid, I may need you to pull up

[1:43:45] >> these as we go. Let's start with

[1:43:47] 12.58.070.

[1:43:50] » 12.587 [snorts]

[1:43:54] » 070.

[1:43:55] >> Yep.

[1:43:56] And

[1:43:58] um where's the entrance?

[1:44:00] >> Article C. Oh, the entrance is D.

[1:44:03] >> But there's only D.

[1:44:04] >> So subd.

[1:44:06] So I'm going to propose that subd

[1:44:08] >> one entrance

[1:44:09] >> modifies its language such that

[1:44:14] >> just say it deletes the

[1:44:15] >> removes the word additional.

[1:44:17] >> Right. That's what we agreed on.

[1:44:18] >> That it removes the word additional.

[1:44:22] Number

[1:44:27] two,

[1:44:28] that the occupancy definition in which

[1:44:32] where's that section, guys?

[1:44:33] >> Right. It's that table. She was on it.

[1:44:35] >> Oh, go back.

[1:44:37] >> Table 12.58.

[1:44:39] What was it?

[1:44:40] >> 120701-1.

[1:44:44] occupancy

[1:44:46] be defined

[1:44:48] to incorporate

[1:44:51] >> the uh city's definition well I'll just

[1:44:54] say the definition

[1:44:55] >> count in 12.12.040

[1:44:58] >> 12.12.040 040

[1:45:00] >> as currently written

[1:45:03] >> uh family

[1:45:04] >> right

[1:45:06] >> okay number three

[1:45:10] um the scriveners error on 12.58.190

[1:45:14] should be 090

[1:45:17] >> correct

[1:45:18] >> and what did we did we make any other

[1:45:20] changes in inside that substantively

[1:45:27] » that one had to

[1:45:29] Nothing I have noted.

[1:45:30] >> Okay.

[1:45:32] >> And um 12.58.110

[1:45:39] sub C

[1:45:42] >> down

[1:45:42] >> or sub one maybe.

[1:45:44] >> Yeah,

[1:45:45] >> it is sub one.

[1:45:46] >> Construction fire code. Is that it?

[1:45:49] >> Yeah. [snorts]

[1:45:52] that the um language be revised to say a

[1:45:57] detached ADU shall be subject to all

[1:45:59] related regulations regarding the

[1:46:02] capital construction code

[1:46:06] as adopted by the city and state

[1:46:08] >> codes.

[1:46:09] >> Oh, codes. Thank you. The capital C

[1:46:11] construction capital C codes striking

[1:46:14] the language.

[1:46:16] >> Do do we need to have fire code too or

[1:46:18] just construction code is fine? It

[1:46:21] covers it.

[1:46:22] >> It covers it. Okay.

[1:46:23] >> Yep. As long as you capitalize the

[1:46:24] construction.

[1:46:25] >> Okay.

[1:46:25] >> Do we should we also be adjusting the title of that then? Construction and

[1:46:29] fire codes to just say construction

[1:46:31] codes.

[1:46:32] >> Oh, the title of one. Yeah.

[1:46:35] >> Well,

[1:46:36] yes and no. I mean, it seems like we've

[1:46:38] se we

[1:46:40] >> And you can say both if you want.

[1:46:41] Construction codes and fire codes both

[1:46:43] >> because we're talking about dwellings

[1:46:45] and that's fine. The problem I think

[1:46:47] could be run up against is some creative

[1:46:49] lawyer is going to say, "Yeah, but they

[1:46:50] took out fire codes deliberately and

[1:46:52] that meant something."

[1:46:54] >> See that, too?

[1:46:55] >> Yeah.

[1:46:57] >> Um, so we'll just say construction codes

[1:47:00] and fire codes.

[1:47:02] Um,

[1:47:04] but it's going to be capital C's. Are we

[1:47:06] going to capital F and C, the fire code?

[1:47:10] >> Yeah. And I only say that because I

[1:47:12] think the fire code

[1:47:14] we

[1:47:15] I'd have to see if we reference in title

[1:47:18] 10, but we do adopt it in a different

[1:47:22] section. I think our public health and

[1:47:24] safety,

[1:47:26] let's see, fire regulations.

[1:47:30] Yeah, in title seven we adopt. Okay.

[1:47:34] Inter Yeah, the international fire code

[1:47:36] as more particularly adopted. Oh, in

[1:47:37] title 10. Okay, so we're good. So, it is

[1:47:40] included in construction codes.

[1:47:41] >> We'll catch it eventually.

[1:47:43] >> Okay. So, construction codes and fire

[1:47:45] codes is what that's going to read.

[1:47:47] Striking building construction and fire

[1:47:48] codes. Um,

[1:47:53] we did the occupancy limit. We did

[1:47:57] >> I'm sorry. I I know. I don't know what

[1:47:59] I'm missing. Someone jump.

[1:48:00] >> You're missing windows. We're missing

[1:48:02] that two to three. Maybe we're missing

[1:48:04] the tiny house verbage.

[1:48:05] >> Okay, let's go through those slowly.

[1:48:07] Where where's the window section?

[1:48:09] >> 12.58.070C.

[1:48:13] Removing the term fixed inoperable.

[1:48:17] So we'll say shall be translucent

[1:48:21] is what the recommendation was.

[1:48:25] But you're the one constructing the

[1:48:26] motion. So for sure I don't want to put

[1:48:28] words in your mouth.

[1:48:30] >> Be translucent

[1:48:32] >> and just drop everything else.

[1:48:34] >> Yep.

[1:48:34] >> No skylights. We're just taking shall be

[1:48:36] fixed nonop.

[1:48:37] >> Yeah, I was just saying just drop

[1:48:39] >> by everything.

[1:48:41] >> Sorry. fixed, nonoperable, and will be

[1:48:43] stricken.

[1:48:44] >> Okay. Okay. And then and then you leave

[1:48:47] it in translucent or shelby. Okay. Good.

[1:48:50] >> Uh what was the next one? Thank you.

[1:48:52] >> Um you're welcome. We had that the tiny

[1:48:55] homes for extra verbiage. And we also

[1:48:57] had the two-3.

[1:48:59] >> We were changing just

[1:49:02] >> which section

[1:49:04] >> I'm trying to get to the the

[1:49:06] establishment. Hang on.

[1:49:07] >> Um

[1:49:09] >> definition of title. It's basically that

[1:49:11] they have to be on a fixed foundation.

[1:49:14] >> Yeah,

[1:49:15] >> that is

[1:49:17] >> I think it's in 1258.

[1:49:19] >> Found it.

[1:49:20] >> Okay.

[1:49:21] >> A

[1:49:22] >> there it is.

[1:49:24] >> Which one is it?

[1:49:25] >> Oh, you got it.

[1:49:28] >> Yeah. So, it was an A, but he's going to

[1:49:30] be adding

[1:49:31] >> I would add a new Yeah, I would add a

[1:49:33] new guess it' be probably new B and

[1:49:35] change the numbering. that would talk

[1:49:37] about removal of an axle for any

[1:49:41] modular.

[1:49:43] >> Okay. I'd like to workshop the language

[1:49:45] though. Um rather

[1:49:47] >> it doesn't have it all.

[1:49:49] >> Isn't that correct?

[1:49:50] >> I don't have one, but I can try to find

[1:49:51] one right now.

[1:49:52] >> Well then, okay. So, give give me broad

[1:49:56] parameters to do in the ordinance. Or

[1:50:00] would you like

[1:50:01] >> how about this?

[1:50:02] >> Um with a direction to staff to add a

[1:50:05] subsection in 070 to address tiny homes

[1:50:08] removing axles um and which will then be

[1:50:11] considered by the city council.

[1:50:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. I would say and I wouldn't

[1:50:16] even say tiny homes. I would say modular

[1:50:18] homes such as tiny or other similar

[1:50:20] modular homes

[1:50:21] >> so that we're not just singling out

[1:50:23] >> Yeah. and and the language the the

[1:50:25] building official gave me said he said

[1:50:27] add language the axles are removed when

[1:50:29] the structure is fixed in place for any

[1:50:31] DAU that is wheeled into location

[1:50:34] >> are the words permanently affixed to the

[1:50:36] ground something that we should be using

[1:50:37] >> it's already there in a so we could we

[1:50:39] could use similar language if we wanted

[1:50:41] to to count on it but it will already be

[1:50:43] established in a

[1:50:46] >> well then what do we need

[1:50:48] >> that the removal of the axles from solar

[1:50:52] fuel in a tiny home Right? You have to

[1:50:53] anchor it into the ground, but he's

[1:50:55] saying you can then take it a step

[1:50:56] further and put language in that says

[1:50:58] removal of the axle. So, it inhibits its

[1:51:01] ability to be even more modular.

[1:51:03] >> All right? So, then it's a permanent

[1:51:05] structure and not coming. So, it create

[1:51:07] a clause new B that would say that.

[1:51:10] >> I don't know why we need a new clause.

[1:51:12] Why not just one more sentence in a I

[1:51:13] could do it that way too. something

[1:51:14] along the lines of if the

[1:51:18] >> detached ADU

[1:51:21] has

[1:51:23] uh it's capable of being mobile that any

[1:51:25] such

[1:51:26] >> w into location was the term

[1:51:28] >> mobility

[1:51:29] >> but whatever you could say that

[1:51:32] >> w into location but that would mean

[1:51:34] something different to me than it would

[1:51:35] to you

[1:51:36] >> if the use supports mobility

[1:51:39] >> and there like I said there are codes I

[1:51:41] had one in my last city I just have to

[1:51:43] pull it Okay. Right.

[1:51:45] >> So then here's what I'm going to put in

[1:51:46] my motion is that rather than a new

[1:51:48] section be added that a clause be that a

[1:51:51] sentence be added to clause A.

[1:51:53] >> Okay.

[1:51:53] >> That would uh prohibit or no would

[1:51:58] require the removal of any axles or

[1:52:02] similar

[1:52:03] >> mobility capabilities.

[1:52:06] >> Okay.

[1:52:06] >> Sure.

[1:52:07] >> That's fair.

[1:52:08] >> They get a fixed.

[1:52:09] >> Yeah.

[1:52:09] They have to be a fixed.

[1:52:11] >> Yeah. I can certainly find someone's

[1:52:14] code that reads well and says that

[1:52:15] >> it

[1:52:17] >> because it just says well any structure

[1:52:19] fixed and anchored.

[1:52:24] » Can you change that one to unfixed?

[1:52:25] >> Yeah, because anchored I mean you could

[1:52:28] anchor it like you anchor, couldn't you?

[1:52:30] Like you anchor a boat with just a post

[1:52:32] coming out, right? I I feel like that's

[1:52:35] a little flawed.

[1:52:36] >> The word the word fixed

[1:52:38] >> any structure fixed and anchored. I'm

[1:52:40] just

[1:52:42] If we're not adding more like he was

[1:52:44] talking about, I feel like there's room

[1:52:46] for error there or cause for question.

[1:52:49] >> I mean, with the building code, it

[1:52:50] that's what it's called when you you

[1:52:53] anchor something into a foundation, you

[1:52:55] anchor the structure into the

[1:52:56] foundation. That's the term.

[1:52:57] >> No, is is the word fixed a defined term

[1:53:00] in the building code?

[1:53:02] >> That I no I I mean that if you want to

[1:53:05] use a fixed if you want to use I don't

[1:53:07] know what else, but

[1:53:08] >> a fixed in real estate has to be screwed

[1:53:10] in. Yeah,

[1:53:10] >> that's how we do it.

[1:53:12] >> You could say a fixed. You could say or

[1:53:14] you could just use anchored and take out

[1:53:15] or or fixed and anchored.

[1:53:18] >> Shall be a permanent structure anchored

[1:53:19] to a foundation. That is building

[1:53:21] terminology. You do anchor structures to

[1:53:24] concrete slabs and foundation.

[1:53:27] >> That is the right term

[1:53:28] >> is thinking. Do you have comments on

[1:53:30] that, Lisa?

[1:53:31] >> Well, just if you if it's only fixed,

[1:53:35] sorry, where's the language? If it's a

[1:53:37] permanent structure and anchored,

[1:53:41] you might be taking out this whole

[1:53:43] category of, you know, [snorts] that

[1:53:46] they're bringing because they are going

[1:53:47] to bring things on. And so anyway, that

[1:53:49] was my concern is that you are

[1:53:51] eliminating these manufactured in a way

[1:53:54] that may [clears throat] not be allowed.

[1:53:55] So

[1:53:55] >> we can't do that.

[1:53:57] >> I I'm okay with the language as it is,

[1:53:59] especially with the addition that you

[1:54:00] have to take any axles off.

[1:54:02] >> Okay.

[1:54:03] Let's go with that. So we'll leave

[1:54:05] that at is. So, so it's

[1:54:06] >> adding a sentence commanding the removal

[1:54:09] of or requiring the removal

[1:54:12] >> of any axles or similar mobility

[1:54:14] capabilities.

[1:54:15] >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:54:19] » All right.

[1:54:21] Vice Chair Patterson, what are we

[1:54:22] missing?

[1:54:23] >> We are missing the last one. Um, it was

[1:54:25] the two-3. We were going to add may be

[1:54:28] instead of just,

[1:54:30] >> but that was my bad that I did not

[1:54:31] write.

[1:54:32] >> May be permitted to

[1:54:33] >> may be per Where was that?

[1:54:36] >> It's 12.58.060.

[1:54:39] » See,

[1:54:41] >> go up

[1:54:42] >> and then it was two down here.

[1:54:43] >> There were two numbers. He re have a

[1:54:45] detached ADU on

[1:54:47] >> Yeah, that's when I said that it was a

[1:54:48] little little weird.

[1:54:49] >> Are you sure it was this propert?

[1:54:56] » Okay,

[1:54:56] >> you're right.

[1:54:57] >> May be permitted to have a detached ad.

[1:54:59] That may be

[1:55:00] >> maybe

[1:55:01] >> I'm not sure what that is trying to get

[1:55:03] at

[1:55:04] >> because isn't that by definition a

[1:55:07] detached ADU? A property may have a

[1:55:11] detached ADU on the lot or partial that

[1:55:14] is shared with the primary dwelling.

[1:55:16] >> You give them a right to have it. You

[1:55:18] say may or may be permitted.

[1:55:20] >> Oh, I see. We're just saying oh you can

[1:55:21] have Okay. You can have

[1:55:22] >> we scroll up scroll up too.

[1:55:24] >> It's trying to create more clarity. So

[1:55:25] it's not saying in other conditions have

[1:55:28] two on a lot [laughter]

[1:55:31] >> like it just seems

[1:55:33] >> how it's words a little confusing. So

[1:55:34] clarify it may be permitted to have then

[1:55:36] you you categorically allowed it.

[1:55:40] >> Would would an appropriate edit there

[1:55:42] just be to remove the first sentence of

[1:55:44] that since the in my mind the the

[1:55:46] clearer message for C is

[1:55:47] >> yeah it is the second sentence is the

[1:55:49] >> is the second sentence.

[1:55:51] >> We've already established the first

[1:55:53] sentence elsewhere.

[1:55:55] Very true.

[1:55:57] >> So, just go with no single family.

[1:56:00] >> Oh, yeah.

[1:56:01] >> That's what I mean. If you need it in

[1:56:02] there, I

[1:56:04] >> It doesn't It doesn't matter to me as

[1:56:06] long as it's clear that a single family

[1:56:09] dwelling, a primary dwelling

[1:56:12] a affords a detached ADU to be on it if

[1:56:14] they can meet the other allowances. I'm

[1:56:16] not sure if it says that elsewhere in

[1:56:17] the code. But I like the definition that

[1:56:19] or stated affirmatively that if you have

[1:56:22] a single family residence, you're

[1:56:24] eligible to also construct an ADU

[1:56:26] provided

[1:56:28] >> you can only have one either internal or

[1:56:30] detached.

[1:56:30] >> Yeah, I think that's what it's trying to

[1:56:32] say.

[1:56:33] >> But I'm not sure if if that first

[1:56:35] sentence needs to be rewarded.

[1:56:37] That was the point I was saying when it

[1:56:39] may be permitted to. It's like

[1:56:41] >> there's not another category. It's just

[1:56:44] you have a right that permits you to do

[1:56:46] this if you meet the criteria.

[1:56:47] >> I think that an example of this would be

[1:56:50] we're experiencing this with a

[1:56:53] agriculture property who wants to have a

[1:56:57] um who wants to put like an accessory

[1:57:00] structure on their farm with a barn.

[1:57:03] They already have a barn, but there's no

[1:57:05] single family house. And then they want

[1:57:07] to put another detached structure with a

[1:57:11] rental unit in there.

[1:57:13] Um, so with this being put in that that

[1:57:16] might say, hey, no, this there has to be

[1:57:19] a single family

[1:57:21] by definition. But yeah, I would rather

[1:57:24] just say it affirmatively, as I said, a

[1:57:26] lot parcel with an existing single

[1:57:27] family dwelling is eligible to, you

[1:57:30] know, for a detached ADU.

[1:57:34] >> And then the second

[1:57:35] >> prov Yeah. Provided you can only have

[1:57:37] one.

[1:57:38] >> Yeah.

[1:57:38] >> Either detached or

[1:57:40] >> Yeah. because you do have to if I would

[1:57:42] make it one sentence because you don't

[1:57:43] want to we can work on that just direct

[1:57:45] staff will make it better.

[1:57:46] >> Okay, that's what we're gonna do

[1:57:48] [laughter]

[1:57:50] >> this because [clears throat] I do think

[1:57:51] but I think in the definition we say it

[1:57:54] has to have that but I want to make that

[1:57:56] clear as well. You have to have

[1:57:58] >> because the key point is the second

[1:57:59] sentence that's why

[1:58:00] >> right you can only have either internal

[1:58:02] or or detached. I guess my the question

[1:58:05] I would have is we've we've defined the eligibility in 125804

[1:58:11] OB. Do we need to also define it in the

[1:58:14] first sentence here?

[1:58:15] >> That's a great point. That's a good

[1:58:17] point.

[1:58:20] >> Sometimes because staff likes to just

[1:58:22] point to this. I think that's what

[1:58:23] they're saying is we just want that if

[1:58:25] you don't have a home already on there,

[1:58:26] you can't have a

[1:58:27] >> DADU.

[1:58:29] >> And then we don't have to argue with

[1:58:30] them. So I I can see that.

[1:58:32] >> Yeah. Okay,

[1:58:33] >> they have to enforce it. So, but I I

[1:58:36] think we can re make it state it that

[1:58:39] clearly

[1:58:41] combining it with the second part though

[1:58:42] that you can only have one or the other.

[1:58:46] Got it.

[1:58:47] >> And then there's a small scrier's error

[1:58:49] on 12.58.040B2 040 B2 where it's

[1:58:55] referencing wrong code with the internal

[1:58:58] ADU and it should be referencing

[1:59:00] its own code further down which is

[1:59:03] 12.58.100

[1:59:07] in place of that.

[1:59:08] >> So instead of 090

[1:59:09] >> yeah or yeah it even says 12.60. So the

[1:59:13] 60 and the 090 are error. It should be

[1:59:15] 5800.

[1:59:17] >> Very good. And then the last one was at

[1:59:19] the very bottom way down in

[1:59:22] enforcability.

[1:59:23] Um I I recommended taking out the

[1:59:27] citation and just having it say may

[1:59:30] utilize applicable enforcement

[1:59:33] provisions regarding violations and

[1:59:35] holding leans against the property. And

[1:59:37] the city attorney seemed okay with that.

[1:59:39] >> Okay. Slowly. Sorry.

[1:59:42] We're taking out

[1:59:44] the red highlight completely.

[1:59:47] >> No, just the where it says we're adding

[1:59:51] the word applicable in place of thus. So

[1:59:54] may utilize applicable and then we're

[1:59:57] removing of Utah code section 10-20303

[2:00:01] internal accessory dwelling units and

[2:00:03] then keeping regarding violations.

[2:00:07] And I do think what your comment was

[2:00:09] referring I think it's 1021303

[2:00:12] where the lean provisions are.

[2:00:13] >> Yeah.

[2:00:14] >> But we're removing

[2:00:15] >> but we don't Yeah. We don't want to

[2:00:16] refer to the

[2:00:18] >> Yeah. We're removing it.

[2:00:19] >> I mean we may but

[2:00:25] » until state code gets updated which it

[2:00:26] probably will and then we'll have to

[2:00:27] reinsert it in. [laughter]

[2:01:00] Okay.

[2:01:04] All right. So, I've got the mechanics.

[2:01:07] My um motion is probably also going to

[2:01:10] carry a recommendation that the city

[2:01:12] direct staff to uh evaluate and build

[2:01:17] out

[2:01:19] um

[2:01:22] suggest solutions.

[2:01:25] No, I'm not going to do it part of the

[2:01:26] motion. Never mind.

[2:01:29] I'm gonna

[2:01:34] » Can we do it with a separate? I know

[2:01:36] what you're thinking about.

[2:01:37] >> Yeah, you know where I'm going is that I want a tool to address the oddballs.

[2:01:42] >> Yeah.

[2:01:42] >> Oftent times after a motion you have in

[2:01:45] the past given direction to staff as a

[2:01:47] comment.

[2:01:48] >> Yeah, that's that's what I'm probably

[2:01:50] going to do. The problem is we didn't

[2:01:51] notice this up as um potentially

[2:01:55] uh developing code for flags.

[2:01:58] >> That's why I was scared about talking

[2:02:00] about it too much.

[2:02:00] >> Yeah.

[2:02:01] >> And that's probably why we should come

[2:02:03] back and do it separately. And

[2:02:05] >> yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

[2:02:07] >> All right. Friends,

[2:02:08] >> can I ask you a question before you go

[2:02:10] forward?

[2:02:10] >> Please. So in your motion or all of your

[2:02:13] notes that all the things we've gone

[2:02:15] through, you're not suggesting um

[2:02:18] conditional use permits.

[2:02:20] >> No.

[2:02:20] >> Okay.

[2:02:22] >> Oh, that clarity on agricultural law.

[2:02:24] Are we keeping it permitted

[2:02:25] >> in essence? Oh, we need to discuss that.

[2:02:28] >> That one. Yeah.

[2:02:29] >> Yeah. In essence, my motion is going to

[2:02:31] say, I'm so sorry. Um, thank you for

[2:02:33] your comments, but I'm so sorry. You

[2:02:34] don't qualify potentially um because

[2:02:38] we're not going to allow front yard ADUs

[2:02:40] under this code

[2:02:41] >> at this time. Yeah, at this time.

[2:02:44] >> That's what I'm going to be making a

[2:02:46] motion for.

[2:02:46] >> Did you hear Mike?

[2:02:47] >> Yeah.

[2:02:48] >> About the said agricultural. It doesn't

[2:02:51] qualify. I mean it consistently it's P

[2:02:54] and internal but again I don't want to

[2:02:56] tell the plantings and how it

[2:02:57] >> we talked about that last time like if

[2:02:59] somebody just has all the eggs right and

[2:03:01] you've got a home over here and they can

[2:03:02] have 10 acres 100 doesn't matter and

[2:03:04] then they just want to put something

[2:03:06] >> that's where you have size restrictions

[2:03:07] by code of how big it can be then they

[2:03:10] can only make it so big

[2:03:11] >> so then if they have a big parcel they

[2:03:13] can't have a mini McMansion or pool

[2:03:16] house in the back that's rented out

[2:03:17] because you're regulating it by size and

[2:03:19] construction

[2:03:20] >> that's why we had that conversation

[2:03:21] Well, it seems fair because if I if I

[2:03:23] had a lot of that, I don't build

[2:03:25] something, right? I don't want to

[2:03:26] restrict people completely out, but I

[2:03:28] also don't want neighborhoods dotted

[2:03:30] with things in the front or sidey yards,

[2:03:32] >> which I think too,

[2:03:34] unfortunately for for the the resident

[2:03:36] that commented, but I think by keeping

[2:03:39] the the unit size to where you have it

[2:03:41] or somewhere like that,

[2:03:43] >> then it it kind of addresses what Lisa

[2:03:46] was talking about and that those large

[2:03:47] units still have subdivision and

[2:03:48] development potential and they still get

[2:03:50] the ADU out of it. It creates this kind

[2:03:52] of a a pushpull compromise that benefits

[2:03:54] everybody interested, I think. [snorts]

[2:03:56] >> Okay.

[2:03:57] >> So, sorry, just for my clarification,

[2:03:58] are you recommending

[2:04:00] >> DAD uses a permitted use in AL?

[2:04:03] >> That's my That's probably going to be my

[2:04:05] motion.

[2:04:05] >> Yeah.

[2:04:07] All right. I need to go.

[2:04:15] Hold up a second though. If it's

[2:04:18] agricultural low,

[2:04:21] Do they have any buildings on them at

[2:04:23] all?

[2:04:23] >> They have to still have a home primary

[2:04:25] dwelling.

[2:04:26] >> That's what my question was. Okay.

[2:04:27] >> Yeah, they have has to have a single

[2:04:28] family. Agricultural will

[2:04:32] even look at it.

[2:04:33] >> Okay, perfect.

[2:04:34] >> Cuz yeah, when I was thinking

[2:04:35] agriculture, I was thinking for some

[2:04:36] reason.

[2:04:37] >> Well, then it would be a primary

[2:04:38] structure at that point

[2:04:39] >> and they are building the primary

[2:04:40] structure. Yeah. In all fairness to what

[2:04:42] you're saying.

[2:04:42] >> I guess it would be, right? Okay. Thank

[2:04:45] you.

[2:04:45] >> Okay. I hereby make a motion.

[2:04:48] >> All right. to recommend that the city

[2:04:49] council

[2:04:51] uh well to forward a positive

[2:04:53] recommendation to the city council that

[2:04:55] they approve the proposed zoning context

[2:04:58] amendments to the Centerville municipal

[2:04:59] code by adding new chapter 12.58

[2:05:02] detached accessory dwelling unit uh per

[2:05:05] DADU standards and hold up standards and

[2:05:11] amending section 12.36.020 020 table of

[2:05:15] uses for residential uses based on the

[2:05:18] following reasons for action. No, no.

[2:05:21] Hell's bells.

[2:05:24] [laughter]

[2:05:26] [snorts]

[2:05:26] >> Strike that.

[2:05:27] >> Let's take it from the top. I hereby

[2:05:29] make a motion to recommend that the city

[2:05:31] council approve the proposed zoning code

[2:05:35] text amendments to the Centerville

[2:05:36] Municipal Code by adding new chapter

[2:05:37] 12.58 detached accessory dwelling units

[2:05:39] dat standards and amending section

[2:05:42] 12.36020 table of uses for residential

[2:05:45] uses as indicated in the staff report.

[2:05:51] However, with the following additional

[2:05:53] modifications

[2:05:54] 12.58.070 070 subd remove the word

[2:05:58] additional

[2:06:09] 12.58070

[2:06:11] subc remove the phrase fixed inoperable

[2:06:14] and

[2:06:16] 12.58070A

[2:06:20] um that

[2:06:24] staff be delegated

[2:06:26] the authority to draft an additional

[2:06:29] sentence to add to this subsection A

[2:06:32] that has the effect of requiring the

[2:06:34] removal of any axles or similar mobility

[2:06:37] capabilities for the affixed DATU.

[2:06:41] No, for the fixed and anchored DATU

[2:06:46] that

[2:06:49] 12.58070-1

[2:06:52] the word occupancy occupancy be defined

[2:06:57] uh to be family as defined in 122 0440

[2:07:04] that

[2:07:06] 12.58190

[2:07:08] is a scrier's error and should be

[2:07:10] changed to 090

[2:07:12] 12.58110

[2:07:14] sub 1. Eliminate the phrase building

[2:07:17] construction and fire codes and replace

[2:07:20] it with capital C construction capital C

[2:07:22] codes and capital F fire capital C codes

[2:07:28] that 12.58060

[2:07:30] sub C.

[2:07:34] Did I already say that one?

[2:07:36] >> No. No.

[2:07:37] >> Okay. Ah, yes.

[2:07:40] that staff work on rewarding these two

[2:07:44] sentences into one sentence to clarify

[2:07:48] the intent that a single family

[2:07:50] residents may qualify to have one ADU

[2:07:53] but no more than one ADU.

[2:07:56] >> Is that fair?

[2:07:58] >> Yes.

[2:07:58] >> Uh avoiding the word may [laughter]

[2:08:02] or at least the singular use of may

[2:08:05] without qualifiers.

[2:08:07] Um I think uh city attorney Romney had a

[2:08:10] really good articulation.

[2:08:12] >> Let's let's direct staff to perhaps

[2:08:14] consider that and then forward it that

[2:08:16] way to the city council that 12.58040

[2:08:20] subb sub 2 be modified that the code

[2:08:23] reference therein instead of 126090

[2:08:27] or 12.60.090

[2:08:30] be modified to 12.58100.

[2:08:34] that 12.58

[2:08:36] uh 120

[2:08:39] I can't read my handwriting ah be

[2:08:42] modified as we have discussed which as I

[2:08:45] understood it was to um

[2:08:50] yeah

[2:08:52] say something along the lines of uh

[2:08:55] words to the effect additionally the

[2:08:56] city may utilize applicable is an

[2:09:00] addition strike the and then going back

[2:09:04] to the original text enforcement

[2:09:05] provisions and then strike of Utah code

[2:09:08] 102303

[2:09:10] um internal dwelling units my handwriting and then

[2:09:17] resume with um

[2:09:22] » regarding it's either regarding or

[2:09:27] thank you let's just get there yeah it's

[2:09:30] regarding

[2:09:31] [clears throat]

[2:09:32] okay so for clarity We're striking the

[2:09:35] replacing it with applicable. We're

[2:09:36] striking of Utah code 102303 internal

[2:09:40] accessory dwelling units and then

[2:09:41] resuming with regarding violations.

[2:09:44] Then

[2:09:46] the table of uses 12.36.020

[2:09:49] instead of P question mark for RL zones

[2:09:52] that the table of uses just be P

[2:09:54] permitted for dwelling single family

[2:09:56] with detached accessory dwelling.

[2:09:58] >> AL zones.

[2:09:59] >> I'm sorry.

[2:10:00] >> AL zones.

[2:10:00] >> Yeah, the AL zone. What did I say? You

[2:10:03] said RL.

[2:10:04] >> Oh,

[2:10:05] >> definitely not RL

[2:10:07] >> because it's RDP.

[2:10:08] >> Yeah.

[2:10:10] >> Uh, did you

[2:10:11] >> for the reasons?

[2:10:12] >> Wait, did I miss it? Did you address

[2:10:14] Windows?

[2:10:16] >> Yes.

[2:10:16] >> Oh.

[2:10:16] >> Uhhuh.

[2:10:16] >> Yeah.

[2:10:17] >> Did he got that code?

[2:10:18] >> Uh, for clarity 1258070

[2:10:20] subc remove fixed inoperable and Okay.

[2:10:24] for the reasons as indicated in the

[2:10:27] staff report.

[2:10:35] » Trying to think about any other reasons

[2:10:38] >> findings on.

[2:10:41] >> Um

[2:10:42] yeah, we'll [clears throat] go with the

[2:10:43] findings as indicated in the staff

[2:10:44] report. That's my motion.

[2:10:47] >> Man, I second that hard.

[2:10:48] >> Okay, so I've got a motion [laughter]

[2:10:51] and a hard second. Hard second.

[2:10:53] >> Hard second.

[2:10:55] >> Uh discussion on the motion.

[2:10:59] >> Can you repeat that? NO. [laughter]

[2:11:04] » That's awesome.

[2:11:05] >> Love it.

[2:11:06] >> Yeah. Perfect.

[2:11:07] >> I love it.

[2:11:09] >> Great.

[2:11:09] >> Okay. Um jokes aside, no discussions is

[2:11:12] what I'm seeing.

[2:11:13] >> I think we're

[2:11:14] >> Okay. Commissioner Mandal.

[2:11:16] >> I

[2:11:19] >> Okay, that passes unanimous.

[2:11:21] >> Awesome. staff. Holy cow, what great

[2:11:24] work.

[2:11:25] >> Yeah, that's awesome.

[2:11:25] >> You put in a lot of work hours.

[2:11:27] >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to all

[2:11:29] three of you.

[2:11:29] >> Um, I am going to say this that I would

[2:11:32] like us to work on modifying the code I

[2:11:35] just moved to authorize to forward with

[2:11:38] a positive recommendation that we

[2:11:39] address these situations where it seems

[2:11:42] like to meet the spirit and intent of

[2:11:44] daddos would be to allow a dad in these

[2:11:47] situations in a front yard. That would

[2:11:49] make a lot of sense to me. At least that

[2:11:52] would be the underlying policy behind

[2:11:54] why we would want a DATU code to address

[2:11:58] these situations. But I want to do it in

[2:12:01] a way that makes a lot of sense.

[2:12:03] >> Yeah.

[2:12:03] >> And I don't know what that looks like

[2:12:05] yet,

[2:12:05] >> but it makes sense for everybody

[2:12:07] >> with that direction. Are you open to

[2:12:09] other alternative land use discussions?

[2:12:11] >> Totally. I would love to consider five

[2:12:14] lots.

[2:12:15] >> Yeah. or like maybe not use dat

[2:12:19] we consider all land use options to

[2:12:21] maximize real estate.

[2:12:23] >> Yeah. Yes. I like that.

[2:12:24] >> Now that will obviously be subject to

[2:12:27] your time, your bandwidth and directions

[2:12:29] from city council and we'll see what

[2:12:32] happens. I'm sorry to saddle you with

[2:12:33] more assignments, but I I I do feel

[2:12:36] quite strongly that that is something we

[2:12:38] should address in a near in a near

[2:12:40] future.

[2:12:40] >> And it seems like residents are wanting

[2:12:42] that

[2:12:43] >> as does the state.

[2:12:44] >> Yeah. They want to

[2:12:45] >> Right. Right.

[2:12:47] >> Start being able to utilize their own

[2:12:48] land.

[2:12:49] >> Right.

[2:12:50] >> Okay. Um that passes unanimously. We

[2:12:52] need to actually get done with today's

[2:12:54] meeting. So, um community development

[2:12:57] director's report. Your brief report,

[2:12:59] sir.

[2:12:59] >> Really brief. I just wanted to note that

[2:13:02] um recently had interaction with the old

[2:13:06] Carl Jr. ownership team. They said that

[2:13:09] they should be pulling that permit

[2:13:11] hopefully within Well, they didn't say

[2:13:12] hopefully. I'm saying it because they've

[2:13:14] done this before, but they've indicated

[2:13:16] within the month they should be pulling

[2:13:17] the building permit to finally get going

[2:13:19] on the building.

[2:13:19] >> Yeah.

[2:13:21] >> Finally.

[2:13:22] >> For uh Carl's Jr.

[2:13:24] >> Carl Jr. It's going to be

[2:13:26] >> Oh, into Johnny. Sorry, not Johnny

[2:13:27] Rockets. I apologize.

[2:13:28] >> Uh Jack in the Box.

[2:13:29] >> Jack in the Box. Thank you.

[2:13:30] >> Yeah. And the other thing to note is the

[2:13:32] corner of 1250 West and and Parish. If

[2:13:35] you've been down there and see, there's

[2:13:36] a lot of new material showing up on the

[2:13:38] site. They're definitely getting ready

[2:13:40] to start to excavate and and start doing

[2:13:42] work on that site.

[2:13:43] >> Good.

[2:13:44] >> That pre pre or the pre-construction's

[2:13:46] already been completed. So, we're just

[2:13:48] waiting on I think the mayor when he

[2:13:50] come comes back, if he's already come

[2:13:51] back, he has a letter in or a agreement

[2:13:54] in there for storm water that we need to

[2:13:56] sign off and approve for UD do and

[2:13:58] that's the last thing that the site plan

[2:14:00] needed to be in compliance to move

[2:14:01] forward. So, that should probably be

[2:14:04] getting pretty Yeah. pretty active very

[2:14:07] soon. appropriate. They're bringing fuel

[2:14:09] in.

[2:14:10] >> Any updates on the Maverick?

[2:14:12] >> Um, we have there's a new owner. Oh, the

[2:14:15] new owner of Maverick. He actually own

[2:14:17] he bought it outright from Maverick

[2:14:18] Corporation. He has some ideas. He's

[2:14:21] talked to both Sydney and I, but Main

[2:14:23] Street has some challenges with with

[2:14:24] what Main Street requires. Um, he is

[2:14:27] going to, that being said, work on some

[2:14:29] interior cleanup or renovation to maybe

[2:14:32] pursue a leie for it. Um, and uh, I

[2:14:37] guess we'll see from there. Um, in an

[2:14:40] ideal world, there would be some

[2:14:42] discussions about Main Street

[2:14:43] regulations, but I don't want to get

[2:14:44] into that right now.

[2:14:46] >> Nope.

[2:14:46] >> So,

[2:14:48] >> thank you.

[2:14:48] >> So, the bottom line is the good news

[2:14:50] with that without again creating any

[2:14:53] kind of political discussion is um, we

[2:14:57] have an owner. He's a responsible owner.

[2:14:59] He's motivated to make the property

[2:15:01] work. He's just going to be restricted

[2:15:03] to what Main Street allows him to do.

[2:15:05] That's the best way to say it.

[2:15:06] >> Thank you.

[2:15:07] >> And that's all I have.

[2:15:08] >> Thank you. All right. Moving forward to

[2:15:10] the minutes from the prior meeting. Uh I

[2:15:12] assume you all had an opportunity to

[2:15:14] review. Anybody have any modifications

[2:15:16] to propose?

[2:15:17] >> I did not. I mean, I read them, but I

[2:15:20] have no modifications.

[2:15:22] >> Let me be clear.

[2:15:28] » So, motion to approve them. Yes.

[2:15:30] >> Uh, I'll take a motion.

[2:15:31] >> I make a motion to approve the minutes

[2:15:33] from,

[2:15:35] uh, July 22nd, 2026.

[2:15:38] >> I'll second. Have

[2:15:39] >> a motion and a second. All in favor say

[2:15:41] I.

[2:15:41] >> I. I.

[2:15:42] >> All opposed.

[2:15:43] >> All right. I'll take a motion to

[2:15:44] adjurnn.

[2:15:45] >> I make a motion to adjurnn. [laughter]

[2:15:46] >> Look at you jumping on that, man.

[2:15:48] >> I have a second from Commissioner

[2:15:50] Mendall. Uh, any uh, all in favor say I.

[2:15:55] >> Okay,

[2:15:56] >> we're done.

Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript