[0:03] I'm always glad when I don't have to say the pledge because I have like a panic

[0:06] attack like you're in seventh grade and you like second grade and you forget the

[0:09] pledge and you're like

[0:13] » you look really really uneducated. >> We good? Okay, we'll go ahead and it's 7

[0:19] it's 7:01 so we'll go ahead and start. Uh we'd like to welcome everybody out to

[0:25] the Fruit Heights Planning Commission meeting today uh September 8th, 2026.

[0:30] Uh we will start uh with a pledge of allegiance uh from Shelley.

[0:39] » I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:45] republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:52] justice for all.

[0:56] [clears throat] >> And we'll move forward with a roll call

[0:59] from Haley.

[1:06] » Um, Commissioner Callum Bagley, >> Commissioner Shelley Bodley,

[1:10] » present. >> Commissioner Scott Justinson,

[1:12] » present. >> Commissioner Heidi Murdoch,

[1:14] » present. Chair Justin Wright >> here.

[1:17] » Council member Mark Coachell >> here.

[1:20] » Thank you. >> Okay, [clears throat] we'll uh open up

[1:24] the floor to public comments. Uh just a reminder to please keep um please keep

[1:33] uh comments to three minutes if possible. But if anybody would like to

[1:38] address the planning commission, you're welcome to stand uh at the podium and um

[1:45] and address the planning commission.

[1:56] And I actually just want to say I'm actually

[2:00] excited because what we're talking about tonight

[2:05] has come about joint effort from

[2:11] commission and I think it's really great that we're

[2:16] finally starting to find a way to work together.

[2:41] Any other any [clears throat] other comments?

[2:46] Checking the make sure it's working.

[2:51] » Those don't >> those are always

[2:57] [snorts] >> members of commission. Um council my

[3:02] name is Don Hutchkins and I live over the Creek View subdivision.

[3:05] Uh I prepared a statement here really quick. [clears throat] As a resident I

[3:09] believe that allowing DADUs provides a vital low impact solution to our

[3:13] regional housing challenges. Uh these offer a form of gentle density

[3:18] that allows families to stay together, [snorts] help seniors age in place, and

[3:24] provide flexible housing options without uh changing the overall aesthetic of our

[3:29] single family neighborhoods. To ensure these units blends blend

[3:33] seamlessly into our community and do not create an unfair financial burden on

[3:38] current residents, I would strongly encourage the commission to focus on

[3:42] clear objective development and fiscal criteria during tonight's review.

[3:49] Specifically requesting that the ordinance include the following

[3:52] frameworks. Number one, impact uh infrastructure

[3:57] impact development fees. The ordinance should mandate appropriate and

[4:01] proportionate impact development fees with every DADU application.

[4:06] While these units utilize existing uh utility laterals, the incremental demand

[4:11] they place on our city's overarching water, sewer, roads, and emergency

[4:16] services must be considered. uh implementing a scaled impact fee

[4:21] ensures that new development directly contributes to its fair share uh towards

[4:26] maintaining and upgrading our municipal infrastructure.

[4:29] Second point uh proportional scale establishing reasonable size caps such

[4:35] as a maximum of 8 to 8 800 to,200 square feet and height limits to ensure that

[4:41] they remain visually subordinate to the uh primary uh structure the primary home

[4:48] on the property. Uh lastly, uh privacy mitigations and

[4:52] design harmony. Uh implementing through uh thoughtful side and rear setbacks

[4:57] along strict requirements for complimentary architectural styles and

[5:02] materials so that detached structures match the high standards of the primary

[5:07] residence. So basically, we don't want to be seeing a shoe box built in

[5:10] somebody's backyard that looks hideous. Um by establishing these protective

[5:15] proactive boundaries and fiscal protections, Fruit High City and its

[5:20] community can successfully comply with the state mandates, support its

[5:24] residents, uh changing lifestyle needs, preserve both the neighborhood and charm

[5:29] of the and financial health of our city, and of course providing more affordable

[5:34] housing, which we desperately need in our communities. Uh thank you for your

[5:38] dedication to our [snorts] community and for considering my feedback. Thank you.

[5:42] » Thank you, Don.

[5:53] [snorts]

[5:56] My name is Sam Padet. I live at 1027 uh South Oxford Circle. And I I just

[6:04] want some clarification. I'm I'm trying to understand some things in that. But

[6:09] at the planning meeting on 8:25, while discussing the R3 zoning, both the

[6:15] city planner, Mr. Oiler, and Commissioner Scott Justinson,

[6:19] made comments that they needed direction or better understanding from the city

[6:23] council as to how many units per acre the city is comfortable with, the city

[6:29] council and the citizens. They suggested 8 to 10 or as high as 25 per acre.

[6:36] Then uh last week at the city council meeting, David Hell inquired about uh

[6:41] what was going on with the uh ongoing resoning efforts of the two lots that

[6:47] were brought before and uh Mayor Groberg explained at that time that the city

[6:54] council is waiting for recommendations from the planning commission.

[6:59] uh Councilman Mark Kotrol was at the planning meeting and also at the uh city

[7:04] council meeting and didn't say well the the c the planning commission is looking

[7:12] for direction or or anyway I just I'm just trying to figure out the flow of

[7:18] information how information flows from you to the city council and back to you

[7:24] and that and then also how it includes us as citizens.

[7:29] so that we're informed and the input that we could have. Um my personal

[7:33] feelings are that uh the R3 the zoning the high density needs to match

[7:40] neighboring areas. It shouldn't be so out of the ordinary. Uh we have two lots

[7:47] that are less than one acre. One is just barely less. The other is 8/10en of an

[7:51] acre and they're just trying to pack in way too much there. And what that does

[7:56] is it sets a precedent throughout the city. Um, anybody could go in any any

[8:04] neighborhood and just say, "Hey, here's the way it is." So, we as citizens and

[8:09] as you representing the citizens should have that in mind as to what the what

[8:16] it's doing to the surrounding neighbors and not saying we don't care about them.

[8:20] This person suggested this. And then also I think that the direction needs to

[8:25] come from the citizens their input and not the developers.

[8:31] Um I I feel like yeah the developers can make a request but

[8:38] our first and foremost impact is upon the city and yeah these are on the south

[8:43] end but there's plenty of properties throughout the city that this could

[8:47] could impact everybody. And uh um I just I just counsel you. I just I

[8:53] just want you to be wise. I want you to take to heart what we say. We're we're

[8:58] not here, you know, I'm I'm missing two other meetings tonight to be here to

[9:03] voice my concern. And it's uh and it it is a concern and I think I speak for

[9:10] yeah there's not as many here tonight as we've had in the past but but I know

[9:14] from talking to a lot of people it's a huge concern and that right now is a

[9:18] good time to develop trust amongst the m the neighbors and I I do thank you for

[9:23] your your willingness to serve and that I just ask you to serve right and do

[9:28] what's right. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[9:30] » Thank you Sam. [clears throat] Any

[9:36] any other comments tonight?

[9:44] Okay. Do we need a motion to close or we we got Okay. Okay. Uh we will go ahead

[9:52] and move on to um the planning commission of business

[9:56] this evening then section 3.1 which is a discussion on detached accessory

[10:02] dwelling unit uh units ordinance title 10-11-25.

[10:12] [clears throat] >> Um before I start my comments I just

[10:16] want to address the gentleman's comments about the R3. This is good information

[10:20] for everybody. So, both of the developers in these projects have gone

[10:26] back to the drawing board and are working through whatever changes that

[10:32] they want to uh make to their projects and then they'll bring those back and

[10:37] when we get those and um we'll bring that to the planning commission to have

[10:43] further discussion about that. So, right now it's in their ball court. they're

[10:48] going back and they're looking at what could we do differently, what could we

[10:52] change, what how could we make this more palatable to the city, things of that

[10:57] nature. So, that that that's kind of where that's at. That could be weeks,

[11:01] that could be months from now. We we don't know. Um we don't know when it'll

[11:06] when it'll be back, but that's >> just to clarify. My understanding, which

[11:10] could be totally wrong, was that the city council tabled it, so it goes back

[11:15] to them first and that they wanted to put in a development agreement with the

[11:19] developer. Like they were going back to the drawing table, coming back to the

[11:22] city council saying, "What if it looks like this and make some type of

[11:26] development agreement so they felt more comfortable with the reszone before it

[11:30] ever came back to us?" Is that correct or incorrect?

[11:32] » That that's ultimately the process. These these things we're talking about

[11:36] are administrative in nature and so they're really decisions of the planning

[11:40] commission. So we want to get the planning commission's recommendation to

[11:44] the council >> back before

[11:47] these are the things that would be good to go into a development agreement.

[11:51] » Yeah. Yeah. The planning commission is the one that tabled it.

[11:54] » No, the city council tabled it. We approved it. They tabled it. So my

[11:58] understanding was it was just going right back to them before we ever saw it

[12:01] again. Well, it all went back just what Jeff's saying. All the developers are

[12:05] coming back with another plan to present and it'll come back to the planning

[12:08] commission >> first

[12:10] » before it goes back to untabd and approved res.

[12:14] » Yeah. >> I didn't

[12:18] just clarify. >> Okay. Um let's talk about um let's talk

[12:24] about the detached accessory dwelling units. Let

[12:29] me just kind of tell you how we got to where we're at tonight. So, the decision

[12:34] was made last week to make a run at trying to put this ordinance together

[12:39] before the end of this month, which is a heavy lift, but we're going to make a

[12:43] run at it. So, um what you see before you is is still, you know, pretty rough

[12:51] draft stuff, although I I'm pretty comfortable with where it's at. Um, this

[12:56] is how this has unfolded up to this point. The city attorney um put together

[13:03] a framework to kind of work from. Darren made a bunch of comments to it and I

[13:08] think that's what he sent out to the planning commission. I've worked on this

[13:12] over the weekend and um cleaned up a lot of the language, taken things out that

[13:18] didn't need to be in there, suggested other things to be put in. So, what you

[13:22] have in front of you is the latest version of the draft, and I know you

[13:27] haven't reviewed that yet. Um, and and so tonight,

[13:33] » Jeff being the one that's in our packet, >> the one that's on printed

[13:38] » right in front of you, printed >> just is like fresh,

[13:41] » which we were sent it as well. We were just

[13:44] » Yeah, you may have been sent that. I didn't know

[13:46] » it just wasn't redlined. So I was like yeah

[13:49] » trying to just >> That is a culmination of the attorneys.

[13:54] » Oh, can they make it bigger, Haley? >> Oh, is that okay?

[14:01] » I I think this is the one we have in front of us that we also have.

[14:05] » So this is an a culmination of the attorney's stuff, Darren's stuff, my

[14:10] stuff. Um, now if any of you commented on Darren's initial draft, I haven't

[14:17] seen any of that yet. So, we can talk about that tonight. Whatever your issues

[14:22] or concerns are. Um, I [clears throat] it's also worth mentioning that um I

[14:27] received a a copy from uh or a draft copy from Jennif Jennifer Barkd Doll. Um

[14:38] uh and I have incorporated most of that into this draft. So I I and and we can

[14:46] talk about the specifics of that, but um there was a lot of good information in

[14:51] there and and I would say most of that is is in this draft. So um

[14:59] so we can go through this thing line by line. We can talk about specifics about

[15:04] what you want to talk about. Um, we can jump around. Um, I'm I'm okay to do go

[15:12] whatever direction you want to go. >> One comment the general made that I had

[15:16] thought of is I didn't see anything there in there or maybe I just messed

[15:21] over it is about impact fees or >> it's in there.

[15:25] » What part did it change from the last time I saw it? There wasn't like a

[15:29] number of percentage attached, was there?

[15:31] » I don't think it's >> I'm gonna I'm gonna ask Darren to talk

[15:33] to that directly. >> It wasn't in there. There's nothing

[15:36] there's nothing in here that would require an impact fee presently. So, if

[15:42] that's something the city wants to consider,

[15:45] » um, >> we would need to put that in there. I I

[15:48] think Darren's got some opinions about how impact fees would work in this case.

[15:53] » Yeah. >> Yes.

[15:56] » Like there's billing of it, but I like on a new construction or someone's

[16:00] converting because you still have to send an inspector out there. Correct. I

[16:05] mean, how right like there's still a fee to the city that needs to be collected

[16:11] if if it's taking city time, but there wasn't like a number I saw or

[16:15] » so yeah that you'd have to have a building permit and go through the

[16:18] process send in a site plan >> and that's just percentage of square

[16:21] footage >> and then then it goes by a percentage on

[16:24] that and it also goes through you know how many in here because it requires a

[16:28] building permit. So >> yeah, it'll just fall under building

[16:30] permit. The other part of that, it has to meet all the international fire

[16:34] codes. Um, so it's got to be so close to a fire hydrant, there has to be a

[16:38] certain width to be able to get to the unit. Um, just some different things

[16:42] that fall into that >> that are

[16:45] » kind of included in this, but it's there spots.

[16:47] » Okay. It doesn't have to be because it because they have to have a building

[16:50] permit, it has to meet all of that. >> Yes. Okay.

[16:53] » So, Darren, would an impact fee be charged on

[16:56] » What about an existing conversion >> for this? right now. Uh I didn't have an

[17:01] impact fee in there. I've kind of looked at that a little bit. Um and haven't

[17:06] found where it's connecting into the same connection um is what we've

[17:11] required it. It would hook into the same house connection and hook into that. Um

[17:15] » but are there still inspectors that going to go up right like

[17:18] » Yeah, that would be part of the city building inspections is they're going to

[17:21] have to go look and make sure it's connected to

[17:23] » if it's already built and they're converting [clears throat] a garage.

[17:26] Where does that fall? And do we need something for that?

[17:28] » Yeah. on. Yeah, if they're doing that conversion, you're still going to have

[17:31] the same thing, but it's going to be connecting into the same utility that

[17:35] the house is currently connected to. >> So, it makes it a little more

[17:38] challenging to say it's a new connection or it's a

[17:42] » in increased impact. Um, >> part of that is is I've done a little

[17:47] bit of research and there's a section in here that's talking about um just the

[17:52] utilities. Um, different different cities and stuff like that will charge

[17:56] for each unit. Um we do the same thing with um apartments. Uh if there's 20

[18:03] units, we charge 20 base rates for those units. Um we would end up be doing the

[18:10] same proposal in this draft as there's the

[18:15] main unit, the house, and the second unit is the detached dwelling. Um so

[18:20] we'd be charging for that detached dwelling as a base rate for the

[18:25] utilities because of once again like he said, you do have increased traffic. You

[18:29] have do have um a lot more going into the the maintenance of both the sewer,

[18:35] the roads, the the water. Um and so part of that would be helping collect those

[18:40] fees to cover those costs. >> But on a building, sorry, maybe on the

[18:45] garage conversion, someone still has has to get a building permit, pay whatever

[18:50] fees you're associated with that. So, those are all kind of

[18:53] » So, yeah, if if I I just pulled up the building fee schedule for the city. Um,

[18:58] so the building fee schedule does include a parks and trail impact fee of

[19:02] uh $1,115. And then there's sewer district

[19:06] guarantee fee, application fee, storm water management fee.

[19:09] » Well, well, some of those impact fees won't wouldn't be going to these um

[19:14] » just >> but they would follow it would follow

[19:16] the same fee schedule as any other. Yeah, it follows the same fee schedule

[19:19] as far as inspections, square footage, >> uh those square footage,

[19:24] » but as far as impact fees, it wouldn't necessarily cover have those in there.

[19:29] » Um I did talk with Central Davis Sewer District. Um once again about this same

[19:35] issue because they could connect they charge an impact fee for all theirs. Um

[19:39] they said if it's an independently connected that they would require an

[19:43] impact fee, but if it's tying into the same as the home, it's they wouldn't

[19:49] because it's not tying into their main trunk line. So there's a there is a

[19:55] little bit of confusion. >> Has to be determined if they have

[19:57] sufficient >> Yeah. Well, yeah. And that's that's

[20:00] another thing. Yeah. That you're you're always looking at.

[20:02] » Yeah. >> And all of that's in here.

[20:06] » Yes. Yeah. Yeah. No, I know all that's in there. I just specific numbers, but

[20:10] as long as that's all covered in building permits, it's covered.

[20:13] » Yeah, it's great. >> I Does anyone have any concerns if we

[20:18] just go line by line? I think that might be the fastest way to do it.

[20:21] » Sorry, I hijacked a line by line. >> Okay.

[20:27] » Um, so let let me just read this and then we'll we'll kind of stop after each

[20:33] section. Um, the purpose of this chapter is to establish standards for detached

[20:38] accessory dwelling units consistent with the applicable Utah law and provide

[20:42] reasonable opportunities for additional residential housing while protecting

[20:46] public health and safety, existing neighborhoods, property rights, public

[20:51] utilities, and municipal infrastructure. So under the definitions, we've got um

[20:57] accessory dwelling unit or ADU means a residential dwelling unit that is

[21:02] accessory to a single family dwelling and provides complete independent living

[21:07] facilities for one or more persons including permanent provisions for

[21:11] living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.

[21:15] Um those that is defining what's already in code. Uh detached accessory dwelling

[21:22] unit means accessory dwelling unit located in a building or structure that

[21:26] is physically detached from the single family dwelling located on the same lot

[21:30] or parcel. Owner means a person holding legal or equitable title to a lot or

[21:36] parcel upon which the single family dwelling or DADU are located. Primary

[21:41] dwelling or single family dwelling means the detached single family dwelling

[21:46] located on the same lot or parcel as the DADU. Lot or parcel means a legally

[21:52] established lot or parcel of real property and fire code means currently

[21:56] adopted international fire code. Um terms not specifically defined in this

[22:02] chapter shall have the meanings established elsewhere in this title or

[22:05] under applicable state law. So those are just the definitions. Pretty

[22:10] straightforward. Um any any questions there? Okay. Um so uh part C is D A use

[22:21] as a permitted use. Um a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be

[22:26] permitted on a lot or parcel when the lot or parcel contains at least 11,000

[22:32] square feet. So zoning is irrelevant. If you have 11,000 square feet, you can

[22:38] have one of these on your lot. If you don't, you can't. That that's what that

[22:42] says. Pretty straightforward. Just to clarify that because I know there were

[22:45] some emails back and forth on that. That is the requirement per the state is

[22:50] 11,000 >> feet. It um we have to include it um at

[22:56] least on >> we couldn't we couldn't smaller. We

[23:00] could go smaller, but you have to have it at least on 11,000 or bigger.

[23:05] » Yeah. We couldn't set it at 12,000. No, >> we could go nine.

[23:08] » Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.

[23:10] We propose to do it just what the state law is, 11,000. Just make that the the

[23:16] that that's the most offendable. Um

[23:21] the lot or parcel contains a legally established single family dwelling. So

[23:26] you can't build the DADU first. You have to already have a primary dwelling on

[23:31] the property or build them at the same time. Um uh a single family dwelling is

[23:37] permit is a permitted use uh within the applicable zoning district. Um that

[23:42] would be any zoning district. Um the DADU satisfies the requirements of

[23:48] this chapter and all other applicable provisions of federal, state, and local

[23:52] law. And the owner obtains all required administrative approvals, building

[23:56] permits, and other permits required by the city.

[24:04] A D ADU meeting the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed

[24:07] administratively as a permitted use and shall not require a conditional use

[24:12] permit when located within uh a primary residential zone. So that means it's

[24:19] they're they're approved by staff. It doesn't come to the planning commission,

[24:22] doesn't come to the city council. Um okay, any questions about that section?

[24:32] Okay. Um, general development standards. So, a DADU shall comply with the

[24:37] following standards. No more than one accessory dwelling unit, whether

[24:41] attached, internal, or detached, shall be permitted on a lot or partial. So,

[24:45] you can have either or, but not both. You can have an internal or an external,

[24:50] but not both of them. >> Um,

[24:52] » can I can we just Sure. just briefly um just for um Darren sent a forwarded an

[24:59] email that Darren had received from um uh a member of the the public um that

[25:06] asked the question why um why can't we have a uh internal and an external on

[25:15] the property? What would be the negative downside to that? And so just because we

[25:19] had gotten that question, I think it would be respectful to have that

[25:22] conversation. There's a section in here that we implied occupancy on here. So,

[25:28] » yeah, we do. Uh, are you saying that it has to be occupied?

[25:32] » Yeah. But I guess the question >> No, I'm just saying there there's

[25:36] there's another section in here that one of the updated ones as well.

[25:41] » Okay. I have not se read through this yet this version that we just got today.

[25:45] I I think the best way to answer that is that um

[25:51] try and lessen the impact on the neighborhood, the existing zoning. Um

[25:57] you've got you you would have a lot of parking issues with that. There there

[26:02] there could be other things. Utilities are [clears throat] going to be a

[26:06] concern. Um the vast majority of cities have it this

[26:11] way. This is pretty much standard language across the board. They don't

[26:16] allow there. There's probably a few exceptions to that, but this is pretty

[26:22] much how everybody else is doing it. Um, and there's uh cities that have a lot

[26:28] more experience in this than we do. Um, I would say generally that's those are

[26:33] the main things. Jeff had one question on that on D. What

[26:38] is the city standard right now? If somebody wanted to build a detached

[26:42] garage, how close to the prop one can they get?

[26:46] » How close? >> Not not an EAD. If it's a if somebody

[26:52] were building a shed or detached garage, how close? Because it typically we could

[26:56] go closer than >> they can get within three feet for a

[27:00] detached building. >> So

[27:01] » if it's a shed or whatever this we're proposing. So, how's that going to work

[27:05] if they're converting and it's 3 ft away in the laws?

[27:09] » I'm questioning whether we need to keep the 10 ft if we allow other buildings

[27:12] that are closer than 10 ft. >> Yeah, that was my question as that was

[27:17] one of the comments or questions I had as well

[27:19] » because even an 11,000 foot lot is not a big lot. And um and I'll bring this up

[27:24] to in another section here. If somebody were to put an EADU out back and they

[27:29] don't have a lot of space as it is in order to bring 10 feet away from the

[27:33] fence and you've got 10 feet between them and a fence or a property line that

[27:37] basically is is not really usable. So why can't we kind of follow the standard

[27:42] as if they were doing a separate detached garage or something and it's

[27:46] not that or it's a combination and we'll get into that on height requirement in a

[27:51] minute. I have a suggestion on that. Um, so I'm I'm questioning the 10 foot.

[27:57] » Okay. Um, let's >> You want to talk about answer that one

[28:01] just for a minute? >> You want to talk about that in a minute

[28:03] when we get there? [clears throat] >> So, I I I've really looked at the the

[28:09] setbacks on this. I've listened to the city council. I've listened to residents

[28:12] about setbacks for um dwellings being so close to the fence um on bigger

[28:18] projects. Uh, I talked with the fire department and just trying to get the

[28:23] fire marshall's recommendation um of how far to stay away from it. Um,

[28:30] he says, you know, you start getting within the

[28:35] 6T 7T range, if one of those units catch on fire,

[28:41] it will most likely jump to the other unit. Um, so a little bit better spacing

[28:45] is a lot better. I also looked at um some of the others as far as um being

[28:52] able to get around it for fire protection. Once again, if you're so

[28:56] tight to a fence, you cannot get around it for medical or farming or or fire um

[29:01] and where somebody's living in that unit.

[29:03] » Um depending on where they put the door, depending on where they have those

[29:08] things, it creates a lot of unanswered that we don't know um because we don't

[29:13] have them. But looking at a bigger picture of fire safety, medical safety,

[29:20] um it's already uh you know, talking about the internal ones now and making

[29:25] sure the access is there to be able to get around to the back of the yard

[29:29] because where some of these houses are only 8 ft off and you have a car parked

[29:32] there, you you can't squeeze through there. Um so there there's a lot of

[29:38] things to that and I think as you get closer also the impact on your neighbor.

[29:44] Um, and that's another thing that's been talked about is the impact on the

[29:48] neighbor where somebody's living now in the backyard that when they purchased

[29:53] their home, nobody was living in the backyard and now you're going to put a

[29:56] home that's within 3 ft of the fence. So, I think there's a lot that that's

[30:01] been looked at at that to making sure that once again a part homeowner has the

[30:07] right on his property to do something, but also the neighbor that purchased

[30:13] their property still has rights of what they purchased their property for, too.

[30:17] So, that's my my look at it. Um, it's varied in a lot of the different

[30:23] ordinances I looked at. Um, I' I've I've honestly I've really looked

[30:28] at it. I've seen it from eight feet to 15 feet and and so it's just kind of

[30:35] well here's a number. I I think it's a number we can start with.

[30:39] » Okay. >> But I do think you need to be farther

[30:42] than a three-foot from your neighbor's yard.

[30:44] » Well, and let me give you a little bit of my uh um thought on that is you get

[30:49] all the the developments are put in PRUDs. Uh for instance, over to Orchard

[30:53] Ridge um the development there that have basically retirement homes. they have a

[30:58] five and five which they're that close or they have um the two or three story

[31:04] town homes they they have zero lot lines so the fire danger is the capacity to

[31:09] jump from one building to the next but we're those are being put everywhere so

[31:12] I'm just wondering if we're trying to as what I'm hearing the citizens are saying

[31:17] this is a great possible solution partially to uh affordable housing if we

[31:22] make so many restrictions based on what we're used to we're not going to get

[31:26] there so I'm Just wanting to open that up, say is it does it need to be 10? Can

[31:30] it be closer? >> Could we also argue that if you want to

[31:34] be five feet, you know, at the property, five feet off the property line, they

[31:37] could rate their sophets and increase the fire rating on that side where

[31:40] they're adjacent to the property. >> And Shelley, that was going to be my

[31:45] other comment is that there's a difference between

[31:50] » um a nonhabitable shed or garage and a habitable space. um

[31:56] it throws you into a whole new category in the building code and the IBC codes

[32:01] about what you can and can't do. There's fire rated walls and all those things

[32:06] have got to come into consideration and I'm pretty sure that the it it's you're

[32:12] not going to get past anything. It's a minimum of five feet.

[32:16] » Um I don't think we're going to get below that. But um I I mean this is all

[32:22] things that you know we can consider and talk about. Um we just proposed 10 feet

[32:27] as a as a >> as a baseline.

[32:29] » As a baseline. >> I don't have an issue with 10 feet. I

[32:32] mean I I don't you your lot either works or not. It's like the chicken thing. You

[32:37] bought a house and your lot either works for chickens and I mean it just is what

[32:40] it is and it's not I don't think it's I mean where how what do we change the

[32:46] pool ordinance to? Seven, eight, >> five.

[32:51] » That's still really like that's still probably less than I was comfortable

[32:55] with. Like that's close to a neighbor. So a home where they could be renting it

[33:00] and there's children and like these are in fully established neighborhoods.

[33:04] We're not talking mixeduse, commercial, any of that. Like this isn't your next

[33:09] door neighbor. It either works or it doesn't. And it like it is what it is.

[33:13] That's kind of where I'm at. Like if you have a big lot and it works great. And

[33:17] if it doesn't and you don't meet all these requirements and it doesn't work

[33:22] and you it doesn't work. So that's my thought. I I would say 10 is what I'm

[33:28] comfortable with. >> Well well on this it also says that the

[33:31] maximum square footage that they're proposing is 1,200 square feet on one

[33:34] level. I doubt very many of these EADUs are going to be that big.

[33:38] » Yeah. No. >> So, there's just not room

[33:42] » or it has to be >> or a need

[33:44] » um for that big. If you're going to have several kids in multiple bedrooms, you

[33:48] know, you're probably going to be looking for a single family house. These

[33:51] are in between or help somebody out uh type of structures. So, I think we need

[33:57] to keep that in mind as well. >> I I I I think I tend to agree with Scott

[34:02] on size and and how close the lot lines. I mean, if you can have a uh if you can

[34:07] have a shed, right? Why can't you have a >> because a shed doesn't humans,

[34:12] » which is agreeable. And the three feet I think is too close, but I think there's

[34:16] somewhere in between. >> But, you know, you could have

[34:18] theoretically you could have an I don't know, you could have a indoor basketball

[34:23] court right now currently that has humans in it during the day. It's

[34:27] closer. You know, you could have a >> sleeping over. I mean, it's just a

[34:30] different having a a kitchen and a bathroom and people living there is

[34:35] nothing close to anything we've ever had in the city before. I mean, I don't it's

[34:39] just not to me it's it's not the same. And I wouldn't want to

[34:44] have a firefighter not be able to get somewhere or to a window to break it out

[34:48] to get a child out because we chose to put it close to make someone it work for

[34:53] like it works or it doesn't. That's kind of where I'm at with this is it's a

[34:56] state requirement. It's great. I think it's a great way income housing. I think

[35:01] it's great option. If it works, but like if it works, it works. And if it

[35:05] doesn't, it doesn't. And I think we as a city should make some strict codes

[35:10] because there's humans living it here. It's not my car or my boat, which is

[35:14] fine if it burns to the ground. That's where I'm at.

[35:17] » I I'll just note for um R16 and R18, it's currently 8 feet to the property

[35:24] line. So, just keeping that in mind. >> Yeah. So, I I think we 10 ft is a good

[35:30] baseline, but I think we can tighten that a little bit. It'll the safety

[35:33] factor won't go away. The other question I had Jeff, excuse me, [clears throat]

[35:37] and I had sent an email to Darren on this on no higher than 18 ft and I was

[35:41] looking at the different cities on there and uh the feedback had been it for

[35:47] people to do a detached garage to do an EAD above the garage and the concern was

[35:52] the height and looking to neighbors and that kind of thing. But we can also

[35:56] limit the type of construction. If you put a garage, a 10- foot garage with a

[36:00] either an eight or 10 12 pitch roof and then just do what fits above there. It's

[36:05] like a studio, which would seem to take care of the issue and it wouldn't it

[36:11] would give people with on the smaller side 11,000 square feet on their lot and

[36:15] their home is more substantial. It would still give them room to accomplish

[36:19] something. So I, you know, I think the intent of the ordinance that we're

[36:23] trying to come up with is to help people and not to increase more restrictions,

[36:26] is to come up with a plan that is as workable for people that don't have the

[36:33] great big estates. >> So are you saying that you would like to

[36:38] see that? >> I I would like to see that be a little a

[36:41] little bit taller. If you figure out if you've got a 10-ft garage and you've got

[36:45] either an eight or nine foot door, so your your garage is going to be 10 feet

[36:48] and if you have a 10 12 pitch roof on that and it's a 24 foot wide, you know,

[36:52] if you put another 10 or 12 feet, so maybe 20 feet becomes the maximum and

[36:57] you can still fit an ADU and just have a steeper roof and it has dormers or a

[37:01] shed roof out of it and not a full twotory, which would be aesthetically

[37:06] pleasing to look at and it wouldn't be create this tall structure that the

[37:08] neighbors are looking at in the back. I I think along those lines, what I'm

[37:13] questioning is um our accessory dwelling unit or our accessory building code

[37:19] allows for 35 ft. Um why why are we saying somebody could put a 35 foot

[37:24] garage, but they couldn't put a 35 foot detached ADU?

[37:29] » Well, I can tell you again, this is the baseline. This is what it says in here

[37:34] is that single story, no no twotory. I think that's essentially in an effort to

[37:42] again um be cognizant of neighbor impact on neighbors. Um singlestory

[37:49] uh 16 16 foot uh uh roof line and um what was the other point I was going to

[37:57] make? >> Not 18.

[37:59] » Um >> right here.

[38:05] » Oh, I know what it was. um that these units

[38:11] do not in any way you cannot have a unit that's taller than the primary dwelling.

[38:16] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[38:16] » Um they they they need to be they need to be accessory to the primary

[38:21] structure. Yeah. >> If if the if the primary structure's got

[38:24] a 10ft roof on it, these things ought to have a 10ft roof on them.

[38:28] » They should not be bigger than >> I agree.

[38:30] » And and and and it says that in here. So, I think that one's pretty darn

[38:35] important is that they need to be in the background, not in the forefront.

[38:40] » Yeah, >> I agree.

[38:43] » So, >> I mean, 16 that seems sure. I don't know

[38:47] if anyone will notice if it's 18 or 20 as long as it's shorter than the

[38:50] existing home. And in the back, I don't know if it's a huge

[38:53] » deal. I just wonder the roof. >> I mean, if you got a flat roof on, you

[38:56] can put a twotory building in 20 feet if it's got a flat roof on it. I believe it

[39:00] also said >> single story.

[39:03] » I believe it also said and I I don't remember the exact terminology but that

[39:06] it had to be in similar um design as >> I have a pretty steep pitch roof. So my

[39:12] detached garage matched my home which is a a deeper but it's it could still be

[39:19] single story, right? I don't know. So, um, what would you like us to do to

[39:28] research that piece of it? >> I'm of the opinion that

[39:33] if somebody wants to do a detached garage and accomplish an EADU at the

[39:38] same time, we should consider that. I mean, that's allowed by law,

[39:44] » but I I mean, this would >> this would be

[39:49] » the way this is written, their detached garage would have to be

[39:54] » 16 feet or less at the at the peak of the roof.

[39:57] » Yeah. So, the height would not work, you know, in a,

[40:03] for lack of a better term, an attic space of a garage is 16 or 18 feet. Mine

[40:07] says 18. What does yours say? >> Mine says 16.

[40:10] » 16. >> 16. It did say 18 until this

[40:13] » the one switch from 18 gave me today. This one

[40:15] » the one that's up here. What does it say? Because I think we're looking at

[40:19] » the new one. The new one that we proposed is 16.

[40:22] » 16. >> Okay. Mine says 18.

[40:24] » Yeah. >> So Darren was 16 or 18 wouldn't be tall.

[40:28] » Darren's was 18. >> But if it had a 10 12 pitch roof, let's

[40:31] say the building was 10 feet. The building is only 10 feet. But then the

[40:35] roof >> Yeah, it might be it might not work.

[40:40] I mean 35 is too tall, >> but if you're going to accommodate that,

[40:44] » I mean, you're essentially saying we're going to accommodate twostory buildings.

[40:49] » Well, if we go the way we're doing, somebody could theoretically do the

[40:53] garage and do the ADU over in this corner. To me, to me, that's a bigger

[40:59] impact on the neighborhood than one building and accomplishing both.

[41:03] » Now, you're saying, say that again. They could do

[41:05] » if if somebody wanted to do a detached garage in their backyard with access to

[41:09] it, they could theoretically do also a detached EADU back there as well. So you

[41:15] now have two out buildings that are separate from the main dwelling.

[41:18] » I see what you're saying. >> So we accomplish the same, you know, two

[41:22] goals with one building if we consider a combination.

[41:26] » Yeah. If they had enough room to do it. >> I mean, it could only take 50% of their

[41:30] rear yard. So they'd have to have a yard >> because I've seen many of these and

[41:34] they're very attractive to kind of accomplish what people are looking for.

[41:38] » I mean, are you thinking like the barnaminium things? Is that what's in

[41:41] your head? >> Oh, just think of a regular garage with

[41:44] a steep pitch roof. It has dormers or it has windows in the gable

[41:47] » and then living spaces above the garage. Is that what you're Yeah. Like

[41:50] barnominiums. That's like a >> You can Yeah, you can call it what you

[41:54] would like. >> They call them barniums.

[41:57] » Yeah. But just just an apartment above a garage.

[41:59] » Yeah. Yeah, just it's more like a studio above a garage.

[42:04] » I I I mean, personally, I I don't have an issue with that either.

[42:09] » I think you'd have to like have a whole different section for that and someone

[42:11] would have to be on like a much much much larger lot.

[42:15] » I I I disagree, but um >> I mean, can I can I just theoretically

[42:20] Right. So, if somebody had an internal if somebody wanted to um I I know we're

[42:24] talking about twotory units. If somebody wanted to um add on to their current

[42:29] home, let's say they they have an existing two-story home, they wanted to

[42:33] add on a two-story addition to it and turn it into a twotory ADU.

[42:41] » They could do that. >> There would be nothing restricting that

[42:43] they could do. >> So my question is what's what's the

[42:45] difference? What's the difference of six feet or 10 feet, right? Like

[42:50] » like if it's physically attached to the structure, right? they because I I think

[42:54] the I think it could look I think it could present very well in the

[42:58] neighborhood and there is a a note here that it has to um fit with the existing

[43:05] structure. So what what's the concern if it's

[43:09] physically attached or not? >> All all I can tell you Justin is that in

[43:15] talking to other cities there is a difference

[43:21] between having the impact of the ADU in your own

[43:27] home and putting it in your backyard, which is largely seen as a bigger impact

[43:32] to your neighbors than it is to you. That that that's I think that's the best

[43:37] way to describe it in my conversations with others that are dealing with these

[43:42] same things is is there there's most cities see a difference there. Yeah,

[43:48] » there's a difference between having that inside your house, that impact is yours,

[43:53] and putting it in your backyard, which is now impacting your neighbors.

[43:57] » And that's fair. Yeah. >> And Jeff, don't you think though that

[44:00] because this is a relatively newly discussed subject in our state to even

[44:05] be doing these that that we don't have a track history really with anybody,

[44:10] » not a large one. >> Everybody's kind of shooting from the

[44:13] hip and coming up with their the rules and ordinances for their particular

[44:17] city. So I think it would behoove us to keep an open mind and say if we do it

[44:23] different from them that's okay >> but have the discussion so we get it

[44:27] right right now. >> I think we do. I think we do. And again

[44:30] I just was skimming through the new version we just got. But I it said

[44:34] something in here about um uh glass you know would need to be obscured um

[44:40] towards the side and rear property lines. And so I I do appreciate that we

[44:45] are mi trying to mitigate it looks like some of that um impact on on the

[44:50] neighbors as well. >> And we may want to consider this as well

[44:54] is like a swimming pool ordinance. I've had several pools in my lifetime and it

[44:59] depends on the city that there has to be a requirement x amount of feet from your

[45:03] neighbor's occupied dwelling. So, if you're going to put a pool within two

[45:08] feet of your fence line, but your neighbor's house is 10 feet off of

[45:11] there, you can't do that. You have to have a minimum distance away from

[45:17] » the structure. So, there may be something like that we may want to look

[45:20] at. >> Okay. So, I've made a note about talking

[45:24] about taller structures and setbacks. >> Um,

[45:29] » we're just like discussing tonight for meeting, correct?

[45:33] » Right. Can I also I think that going back to that the comment you were

[45:36] talking about where why can't we have an internal and detach a datadu right would

[45:41] when you have both of those things it becomes a multif family lot

[45:44] » which is a totally different thing >> zone

[45:47] » exactly so I think in my mind that's to clarify that's what it is it becomes a

[45:50] multif family unit more so than just a residential unit with a dad or an ADU on

[45:55] it >> I agree

[45:58] » okay let me let me keep going um um an ADU shall not be located within in a

[46:03] public utility easement or other recorded easement and unless the terms

[46:08] of the easement expressly permit the structure and use and all persons having

[46:12] rights under the easement have provided any consent required by law. Um that

[46:17] that's important. You don't want to be building these permanent structures on

[46:21] easements. And I think that further says why an incre a setback is important

[46:28] because most of these utility easements are 10t wide. So they run down the

[46:32] property lines. >> Yes.

[46:34] » A lot of them. >> Yeah. I mean, front and rear. Front and

[46:38] rear primarily. Sometimes they're on the side, sometimes they're not. But um that

[46:44] I I think that's important to have in there that don't build these on there.

[46:49] There's we allow people to build sheds on easements

[46:54] um all the time, but you're running the risk as a property owner that um you may

[47:00] have to move that. There's a big difference when you're

[47:04] spending a lot more money to do something permanent. You can't just move

[47:08] it. So, don't put it there in the first place.

[47:11] Can I is there is there any reason we couldn't say something to the effect of

[47:16] that the setback would have to follow for the DADU would have to follow the

[47:22] setback in the current zone for that lot.

[47:25] » I thought of that same thing Justin. That's not a bad idea is that you have

[47:30] to meet the same setback as the zone in which you're located.

[47:33] » Yeah. >> Because our the smallest setback we have

[47:36] is 8T. >> Yeah. So it would be 8t in some cases.

[47:39] It would be 10 ft. in other cases per pretty much between eight and 10 feet.

[47:44] » That That's not a That's not a bad I thought of that same thing. That's not a

[47:47] That's not a bad idea. >> Um

[47:51] um I propose taking 2C out because it's redundant. It already says that in the

[47:57] section below. >> Um about the 10-ft setback. Um

[48:04] uh number three, the dad shall not be larger in gross floor area than the

[48:07] single family dwelling located on the same lot or parcel. So it needs to be

[48:11] accessory to and smaller than I don't think that's going to be a problem in

[48:16] this city. Um but it would be in some places.

[48:20] » Um so here they would have to comply with

[48:24] the following. Uh we've already talked about the building height. We can do

[48:28] more work on that. um singlestory with a maximum of 1,200 square feet and a

[48:34] minimum of 400 square feet. Um I don't know if there needs to be a minimum. Um

[48:40] I just know a lot of other ordinances have maximum and minimums. Um this is

[48:46] pretty much in the realm of what a lot of other cities are doing. Um

[48:52] » what can you fit in 400 square feet? >> Isn't there something I don't know

[48:56] honestly? Honestly, 400 square feet in New York

[48:59] City would come at a premium. So for a studio, you can do it for less than 400.

[49:04] That's why I'm saying some of these studios

[49:07] » which is going to be probably in a greater need than we think. So

[49:12] » did um and I again I haven't gone through

[49:14] » 400 feet basically 20 by 20. >> It's a a small twocar garage.

[49:19] » Yeah. >> Um one of the earlier versions we saw

[49:23] specifically called out that it had to have a separate bedroom. Does this

[49:27] updated one have that? >> Okay.

[49:30] » Yeah, we'll get to that in just a minute.

[49:31] » Okay. >> The studio couldn't fit that. It would

[49:34] be like a >> That's my question. We'll get to

[49:37] bedroom. Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's get to that in just a

[49:39] second. Um >> um maximum lot coverage, you know, to

[49:44] meet our existing ordinances. Uh no more than 50% of the rear yard.

[49:50] » Do we do we need to put that in there specifically or is it just covered in a

[49:54] different ordinance? Well, I think it's a good idea to put that in here um just

[49:59] to make we we're referencing another ordinance, but it's critical to this

[50:04] discussion. So, I think it's okay to have that redundant.

[50:07] » It's better to have in there if someone's reading it to see if they need

[50:10] code to understand what that is, right? Instead of like reference, I don't know.

[50:15] » Just something else we have to update, you know, are we going to remember?

[50:19] » So, we've already talked about we've already talked about setbacks. um um

[50:25] separation between the primary structure and the D-ADU must be at least 10 ft

[50:29] including the eve. So that's from the house to the the DADU. Um that may be

[50:36] another one that we want to talk about. I I I I don't know. I mean, this is just

[50:40] a starting point um for that. Um but again, you're going to run into issues

[50:46] with fire code, which is what Darren is describing. That's probably a minimum

[50:51] distance. >> But if what if you built all the way up

[50:54] to the property line and if your uh if your eaves encroached into that 10 foot,

[50:58] they just would have to be rated like in other cities

[51:01] » probably. >> So that you would gain a little bit

[51:03] because an eve can be 18 in two feet. So you would gain that space, but you'd

[51:08] have to rate the pen, you know, any opening in that. Yeah,

[51:11] » I'd say too for our accessory building um they're all six feet from the rear of

[51:15] the building and then with eaves um it's like 3 to 5t.

[51:21] So um the next one is all windows on the

[51:25] DADU wall facing side or rear property line shall be uh fixed and obscured with

[51:31] frosted glass or shall be uh clustery windows with a seal height of at least 6

[51:37] feet above the finished floor. Darren and I discussing this this afternoon

[51:43] thought that that last part of that sentence or shall be clustery windows

[51:47] with a seal height of six at least six feet above the finished floor. That's

[51:52] probably not going to meet fire code. >> Um you can't have a window that's six

[51:56] feet off the ground and expect people to climb out of it. So

[52:00] » I I like the I I like the the obscure glass idea. I think it's a good idea,

[52:05] but the six feet, >> but it meets egress standards.

[52:09] » Yeah, it has to meet ingress and egress and um so so that piece of it probably

[52:15] doesn't work, but I I think the the uh obscured glass piece is probably a good

[52:21] idea. >> Why fixed? Why Why do they have to be

[52:24] fixed? >> I don't think they can be fixed for fire

[52:28] if it's a bedroom. >> Well, I mean, if it's a bedroom, but if

[52:30] it's an open if it's the open space, can't they be operable? so that you can

[52:34] get >> Yeah,

[52:35] » you can have ventilation coming through. >> That is another good point. I I mean,

[52:40] what's the point of the window if it you can't open it?

[52:43] » Yeah. >> Um I It's probably sound attenuation. I

[52:47] mean, that's my best guess is it's >> it it is sound attenuation, but um

[52:52] » so just take the fixed out. >> It's not it's not usable for ingress

[52:58] egress if it's fixed, >> but it could be in a common space unless

[53:01] you throw a chair through it. You know, you want to bring you want to bring

[53:03] light through it, just light into the space.

[53:05] » Not every window has to be movable, but some certain like at least one in every

[53:12] room does in a sleeping area in a sleeping area.

[53:15] » So, I can't imagine there's going to be multiple too many multiple rooms,

[53:20] multiple windows. >> No, that is another piece that we need

[53:24] to just >> Yeah.

[53:25] » Yeah. What if instead of scratching it, we still allow the celestial windows not

[53:30] be frosted if they're above six, but anything below six is frosted.

[53:36] » And and the other thing that I was thinking of is that

[53:39] » doesn't have to >> um you're probably going to have a six

[53:43] foot fan. So >> yeah,

[53:45] » anything that's below six feet, you're not going to see anything going on at

[53:49] the neighbor's house anyway. >> I I think the frosted window thing is

[53:53] kind of come out of left field. you go down to St. George, all the um cassitas

[53:58] that are built, which are everywhere, don't have frosted glass. They have the

[54:02] block walls, but I think you hit the point. They're going to have a fence.

[54:04] You're not going to be able to see out there anyway because you're standing on

[54:07] ground level. >> I mean, the window thing, I don't know

[54:10] if >> I think it's it's it's really just a

[54:12] second story. >> Yeah. If you

[54:14] » you're going to be able to see second level's correct, but for

[54:18] » But we're not doing a second level, are we?

[54:20] » Oh, you're saying second level of a home looking down. Well, even even a garage,

[54:25] you would possibly have windows up there for people to be able to get out because

[54:29] you got to have more than one. >> So, if it's

[54:33] » they're up 20 ft, they definitely can look into the neighbor's yard. That's

[54:37] » one of the concerns. >> So, so that's something that we can kind

[54:41] of continue to massage a little bit. >> Yeah.

[54:44] » Um, okay. under design uh to the extent permitted by Utah code

[54:52] um and currently adopted international fire code, a DADU shall be designed in a

[54:57] manner consistent with the design of the single family dwelling located on the

[55:01] same water parcel. And then to uh uh well that's the part that says this

[55:08] needs to look like your house as much as possible. Um, and then the second part I

[55:13] think is what you were waiting on, Justin, is that the DADU shall provide

[55:18] kitchen, at least one bedroom and a bathroom with a toilet, sink, tub,

[55:23] shower that are separate from those provided within the primary dwelling

[55:27] unit. Um, the international building code will be used to define what

[55:31] constitutes various rooms in the DADU. >> Yeah. So, my my question on that was

[55:36] what about a studio? You know, why are we why would we

[55:42] require a bedroom. Would we not be okay with a studio?

[55:49] » I think that's a good question. >> I think we should have a provision to

[55:52] allow for studio apartments. >> Yeah.

[55:55] » And I think >> 400 square feet, it's that's its option.

[55:58] » Exactly. >> I I think if you just scratch at least

[56:00] one bedroom, the rest of it is great. >> Okay, let's let let us work on that. Um

[56:10] um

[56:14] then it just says if the requirement of this section conflicts with Utah code,

[56:17] the requirements of state law shall control. Um let's move on to parking.

[56:23] Um a D Aedu containing less than 650 uh square feet of gross floor area. Um

[56:32] will have one on-site parking space required for the DADU. and that if it's

[56:37] above 650 square feet, it would be two on at least two on-site parking spaces

[56:44] are required uh for the D-ADU. Um the required uh D-ADU parking spaces

[56:50] shall be provided on the same lot or parcel as the DADU and shall be in

[56:56] addition to required parking for the primary dwelling. Um on street parking

[57:00] shall be prohibited for occupants of the D-ADU. Other parking impacts such as

[57:05] winter parking conditions, street safety, and neighborhood congestion

[57:09] shall be considered. Um, any questions about that?

[57:15] » The only question I have is the for on street parking shall be prohibited for

[57:19] occupants. I think we I I I guess just clarification. Are we saying that um

[57:26] like long-term parking or we just saying that they can never occupants can

[57:31] » longterm parking? Okay. Yeah, >> this doesn't say you can't have friends

[57:34] over at your house. It's it's essentially saying that

[57:39] » you have to have two parking. >> If you need on street parking to make

[57:42] this work, it you're in the wrong you're trying to do the wrong thing. You've got

[57:47] to have off- streetet parking. >> Can I

[57:50] » because code is they can't park on the street over the winter anyway.

[57:52] » Yeah. So I guess my question would be on that four is that do we need to put that

[57:56] in there because we say in one that you have to so uh anything less than 650

[58:02] square feet requires one parking space two is anything greater than 650

[58:06] requires two parking spaces and then four is on street parking shall we is it

[58:12] redundant I guess that number four do we need that in there or can we remove

[58:15] that? Well, I one thing I I thought about that when that came up and the

[58:19] question's been asked. What if there's, you know, two adults and a teenager and

[58:24] they all have a car? If you turn around and say, "Oh, one of

[58:30] the cars has got to park on the street because there's not enough room because

[58:33] we only have two parking spots." That's that's the issue where you start coming

[58:37] into issues. And so, you need to look more than just, okay, yeah, they're only

[58:42] going to have two cars. They may not. They may have three. They may have four

[58:46] cars. >> So, how are you gonna enforce that?

[58:48] » I I think it's this this is more of an enforcement thing than I it this is

[58:54] something that helps the city say because we we all know that um the

[58:59] neighbors are going to complain about people parking on the street day in and

[59:03] day out. So, this is more of an enforcement thing. You go out there and

[59:06] say you can't park on the street around, you know, 24/7. Um, you've got to get

[59:12] these cars off the street and parked on your property, but I mean Darren makes a

[59:18] great point. I mean, only rec requiring two parking stalls, I mean, you you

[59:25] could have more cars than that there. Um, it's going to be a balancing act. It

[59:31] it's almost like a case-byase basis. >> How many how many cars does the primary

[59:36] dwelling have? I was just going to say the primer. If you've got a five-

[59:39] bedroomedroom house and you're putting in a DAU out back and you've got

[59:44] » six people living in that house and they all have a car and they're using up any

[59:48] and all parking space, which is probably over and above what a normal uh house

[59:52] would use, what where do you drive a line, can the DAD use like um guest

[59:57] parking or RV parking of the primary or what do we count as parking for the

[1:00:03] DADU? because at any time that the primary

[1:00:09] residence could potentially have all these people with cars. So, are we gonna

[1:00:14] have to take when they apply for a permit, which they will need to have

[1:00:17] whether it's an interior or exterior unit, they'll have to get a permit to

[1:00:20] have it be there. So, then we have to probably have one of the questions is

[1:00:25] well, how many people are living in the primary so we can figure out parking?

[1:00:31] Yeah, it it may be a bit of a moving piece.

[1:00:34] » Um it we we know we know where we we know where we've run into parking

[1:00:41] problems around the city. >> So part of the approval pro process

[1:00:46] right now for the internal dwelling units that we have in the city is that

[1:00:51] part of their application um they have a site plan that comes in. They show all

[1:00:56] the parking um for both the home and the additional parking that would be for

[1:01:02] those living in the in the unit. Um and once again, if it's two cars, they show

[1:01:07] there's two cars, here's the home parking, but it is part of that is that

[1:01:12] there's no on street parking for for that. So, it it is a challenge. Um and

[1:01:19] and it is phone calls that we do take that we have to go talk to the

[1:01:23] individuals or go look and see what's happening. Um but I I will tell you we

[1:01:27] also get that with the regular house. >> Yeah.

[1:01:30] » Um where they got eight cars and they can only fit four of them in the

[1:01:34] driveway. Um and then it's the question, well where do we put the rest of our

[1:01:38] cars? >> I I guess that's my point and I don't

[1:01:41] have any issue with it being in there. Just to me it seems like to your point

[1:01:46] Darren if somebody has a single residence right now has eight cars and

[1:01:50] they have four on the street what do we what do you do about it now? Is there

[1:01:53] anything you can do about it? >> Um yeah during during certain times yeah

[1:01:58] we can >> during winter but let's say right now

[1:02:00] right when it's there's no snow out there and weather's good there's nothing

[1:02:04] » we have a thing about parking. >> We we do have an ordinance about parking

[1:02:07] and um if it's there left there for so long or or those kind of things.

[1:02:12] » Yeah. Um, which I I will tell you, I I've taken multiple notices for

[1:02:16] individuals that have had their cars parked out um on the street or in a

[1:02:21] culde-sac where cars can't get in to deliver the mail and they've been there

[1:02:25] for a month and the neighbors are just like, "Can't they park somewhere else?"

[1:02:29] And I I do I I'll get a call um I'll go look. I'll take notices and just remind

[1:02:34] them, here's the parking ordinance, here's the requirements. And I will tell

[1:02:39] you probably 95% of the time they're just like, "Oh yeah, we didn't even

[1:02:43] realize we were blocking our neighbors." Um and and they move them all and put

[1:02:46] them in the driveway. Um so it's just a it's it's an enforcement thing, but if

[1:02:52] you have nothing there, then you're not going to be able to go back and

[1:02:56] » but wouldn't it fall under enforcement of regular like everything else?

[1:02:59] » What's that? >> Wouldn't it fall under and this isn't a

[1:03:02] hill I'm going to die on, right? But it just seems it seems redundant to me.

[1:03:06] Yes, essentially Justin. Yes, >> it is. It is. But once again, um you you

[1:03:12] still want to try to make it as clear in the ordinance, here's the rules, and I'm

[1:03:16] not having to go five places to find the rules. Okay.

[1:03:19] » Um it it's here. I can go through and see it and follow through it.

[1:03:24] » If you say upfront, you cannot park these people on the street, that sends

[1:03:30] that message that that's just you just can't do it. Yeah,

[1:03:34] » you've got to have provide street. >> I guess my question, yeah,

[1:03:38] » if Darren, you came to my if somebody came to my house and said, "No,

[1:03:41] » my your ADU people cannot park on the street," I'd say, "Show me why." Right.

[1:03:45] And this this isn't legally bind like you can't tell me they can.

[1:03:48] » No. Um, >> so

[1:03:50] » how well is that enforced? I don't know. It's a problem in every city.

[1:03:54] » Yeah. But I 100% agree. I think if if any I think if people are filling up the

[1:03:58] street, that's going to be a big problem. And so I 100% agree. We need

[1:04:01] sufficient parking for these units. So >> I I missed number five which which says

[1:04:07] if an existing detached garage is converted to a DADU, any parking spaces

[1:04:12] required for the primary dwelling that were previously provided within the

[1:04:15] detached garage shall be replaced on site. Um replacement parking is separate

[1:04:20] from parking required for the D-ADU itself. So that further describes what

[1:04:25] we're just talking about right now is that you've got to have adequate off-

[1:04:30] streetet parking for whatever you're doing.

[1:04:33] Yep. Um let's move on to owner occupancy. Um the owner of the lot or

[1:04:39] parcel containing the DADU shall occupy as the owner's primary residence either

[1:04:45] the single family dwelling or the DADU. one or the other um has to be um

[1:04:52] occupied by the owner of the property. Okay, that's another one that I had a

[1:04:57] question on here. Um, which happens frequently. If you have an older couple

[1:05:02] that leaves for an extended period of time,

[1:05:06] um, they rent out their place. And if they have an ADU in or a DADU out, that

[1:05:14] could conceivably have two non-owner occupied people in the house. So that

[1:05:20] would make it to where if they let's say they have a second house and they go

[1:05:23] there six months and they do a six-month lease or they go on an LDS mission or

[1:05:27] whatever planetarian something that takes them away.

[1:05:32] Um are we saying if you've got two you can only rent out one or the other? Um,

[1:05:37] that's how that's how I understand that. >> There's a piece in their ordinance that

[1:05:41] I screenshotted that I thought I'd bring up, but I don't I don't know how it

[1:05:46] » I do see exceptions to that that that there's considerations. Um, we can build

[1:05:51] something into that. Number two on this says that the owner shall not

[1:05:55] simultaneously rent both the single family dwelling and the DADU um while

[1:06:00] residing at another location. That's probably pretty valid, but maybe there

[1:06:08] needs to be a a um a consideration for some short period of time that somebody

[1:06:16] may be on sbatical or whatever. >> Well, and I thought of another scenario

[1:06:21] to where if there are parents of means and their kids need places, the parents

[1:06:26] may buy that house and let a family member live in it. So, you're not going

[1:06:32] to have uh the owner of record living in that property.

[1:06:38] » I don't I don't know if it was in here, but it did state at some point on one of

[1:06:42] the versions that um you could allow family to stay in either, I think, and

[1:06:47] not have to occupy. >> I could come up with something pretty

[1:06:50] easily that maybe further describe that, but um

[1:06:54] » Farmington there it says that they call it temporary absentee ownership.

[1:06:59] Ownership may be allowed due to circumstances such as military

[1:07:03] assignment, employment commitments, family obligations, quas public service.

[1:07:07] Um the maximum period of time for a temporary shall not exceed 12 months. So

[1:07:13] like they have to come to the city and make them wear like I'm going on a

[1:07:15] mission, my house will be empty or I got you know called away from military but

[1:07:19] the maximum time is 12 months. I don't have a issue with that. I don't know how

[1:07:23] you would enforce it, but they I didn't hate that piece because that can happen

[1:07:29] » except it would be more than 12 months for most of

[1:07:32] » Yeah. >> Well,

[1:07:34] » I think it's better to have somebody in it though than to have it sitting

[1:07:36] vacant. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:07:38] » Even for the neighborhood. >> Yeah. Well, I think a time restraint for

[1:07:41] temporary >> Yeah, I like that.

[1:07:43] » Absentee isn't is a good idea. >> Tell me

[1:07:45] » I didn't hate that. I thought it was like a good

[1:07:47] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll work on that. Tell me what

[1:07:50] you think about um if these individuals are away, should

[1:07:56] they be allowed to rent both dwellings? Because this says you couldn't do that.

[1:08:03] You can't move away and rent both out. And I'm going to air on the side of

[1:08:08] property rights. If I own something, I should have the right

[1:08:14] to rent that out if I'm away, you know, for a short period of time temporarily.

[1:08:18] Okay. So I mean do we say and I'm this is I'm not saying this is it but is it

[1:08:24] you know two temporary being two years within a certain period of time two

[1:08:28] years within five years or two years within x number of years

[1:08:33] » and that's that's what a lot of HOAs have. They have time restraints like

[1:08:36] that. >> So I think that's something that we

[1:08:38] should build into our ordinance. >> Now let me just say this that this is a

[1:08:45] problem in the city right now. We have we have

[1:08:50] multiple complaints of homes that are renting to upstairs and downstairs in

[1:08:55] homes right now, which is illegal. >> And that is clearly stated in our

[1:09:01] internal accessory dwelling unit ordinance that you cannot rent to at the

[1:09:06] same time. So, this should probably be in

[1:09:11] » aligned >> alignment with what that already says or

[1:09:14] we should change all that, too. But um we're having problems now with this very

[1:09:20] issue of people renting multiple they have basically multiple apartments

[1:09:26] in the same house. >> Agreed.

[1:09:28] » And my I mean my thing with the temporary is like you I'm fine if they

[1:09:31] still can only rent one but like a family member could live there. Someone

[1:09:34] can take care of it or >> I think

[1:09:37] » double dipping on rent is >> Yeah.

[1:09:40] » I mean you can make up a lot of reasons. So I think it would have to be like they

[1:09:44] come in and you that they've been >> all the way on a mission and you're like

[1:09:48] my kid's going to live there >> and if family's living there rent free

[1:09:52] that's not rent that's not a rental unit.

[1:09:54] » Yeah. That's >> but they can take care of it. Yeah.

[1:09:56] » Yeah. >> But double rent I don't I mean I just

[1:09:59] think you're >> So is that the differentiation we would

[1:10:02] make then is if they're paying a rent they can live there indefinitely and

[1:10:08] occupy that premises. >> Yeah. This says that

[1:10:10] » indefinitely if they're not rent. >> Yeah. that this doesn't apply to people

[1:10:15] that are so le let's say you use the DADU as a guest house or you've got

[1:10:21] family staying there for a few weeks or something. Yeah, it doesn't if you're

[1:10:24] not charging them rent that does you're not this doesn't apply to you.

[1:10:27] » And I wonder if that's going to encourage people to take it under the

[1:10:30] table. >> Well, I don't know. Maybe.

[1:10:35] » I mean, yeah. How how do you enforce it? Right. You can't

[1:10:38] » I [laughter] mean all this stuff, how do you enforce I know people that already

[1:10:40] have in the city and it's not legal. So >> yeah,

[1:10:44] » they have for a decade >> to be discussed, right?

[1:10:47] » Yeah. So >> it's always going to be hard to

[1:10:51] » Yeah. >> Um, moving on. Uh, prior to issuance of

[1:10:55] a final approval of or a certificate of occupancy for a DADU, the city will

[1:11:00] require the owner to execute an affidavit or other reasonable

[1:11:03] certification establishing compliance with this section. um just establishing

[1:11:08] that that they're the owner of record of the property and that they live there.

[1:11:13] Um um shared ownership prohibited. Um the

[1:11:18] parcel whereby a primary dwelling and an ADU are located must be owned by the

[1:11:23] same legal owner. Um three, uh the city may require reasonable periodic

[1:11:28] certification of continued compliance with owner occupancy requirement uh to

[1:11:33] the extent permitted by law. Um, moving on to rental restrictions.

[1:11:40] Um, a DADU may not be rented, leased, or offered, or otherwise occupied for

[1:11:46] compensation for a period of less than 90 consecutive days. So, no short-term

[1:11:51] rentals. Um, a DADU may be used as a short-term or nightly Oh, a D a Dadu may

[1:12:00] not be used as a short-term or nightly rental in violation of this section. Um

[1:12:05] the primary dwelling and the DADU shall s share the same address. Um mobile

[1:12:11] homes, recreational vehicles, camp trailers, and shipping containers shall

[1:12:16] not be used as as a DADU. Um a DADU is not allowed on any lot that

[1:12:22] contains multifamily dwellings. So um we've kind of already talked about that.

[1:12:29] Any concerns with any of that? Jeff, just to on the shared same address, one

[1:12:34] unit would have A and one unit would have B.

[1:12:38] » Yeah. >> Um but it is the same address that that

[1:12:41] helps the fire department and that also or emergency services, law enforcement,

[1:12:45] plus also um providing a mailbox. >> And that's only for a DADU, right? Not

[1:12:50] » No, the internal is the same way. >> Internal.

[1:12:52] » Yeah, we do the same thing on internal. Um they use the same address. One's an A

[1:12:56] address and one's a B address. The only qu and I I don't know the

[1:13:01] answer to this, but um one requiring a no less than 90 consecutive days. I I

[1:13:05] agree with that. Um my only comment is it seems like that would um force a

[1:13:11] lease agreement rather than like a month-to-month rental situation, which

[1:13:17] if we can do it, I think that's fine. I just don't know if we can force that.

[1:13:22] » You can do that. Actually, I have a property that they require that theirs

[1:13:26] is a minimum of 30 days, but you have to produce a lease agreement for a year and

[1:13:32] show that whoever's there using it as their primary.

[1:13:36] Again, this is in this is parallel to our existing ADU

[1:13:41] ordinance, which um it it it's saying the same thing. Um um

[1:13:47] » you can use your entire home as a short-term rental,

[1:13:53] but you can't use an accessory dwelling unit as a short-term rental.

[1:13:58] That's the way we're currently operating.

[1:14:02] » No, Jeff. I don't think we allow any short-term rentals in the city. I think

[1:14:06] there's an ordinance that says there's no short-term rentals in

[1:14:09] » I might be mistaken about that. >> You're thinking,

[1:14:12] » scratch that. [laughter] I'm say that's news to me.

[1:14:15] » You're like, I'm moving out. >> But but but people are allowed to rent

[1:14:19] out their home. >> Yes,

[1:14:21] » they can rent out their home, but it long term. Not short. So we don't allow

[1:14:25] any short term. >> Any short term?

[1:14:27] » All right. Okay. I stand corrected. >> Okay.

[1:14:32] » Um Okay. Building health and fire codes.

[1:14:37] Every DADU shall comply with all the applicable uh building codes, fire

[1:14:42] codes, health codes, electrical codes, plumbing codes, mechanical codes, and

[1:14:46] other applicable construction or life safety requirements. Um

[1:14:52] um the DADU may may um or no DADU may be

[1:14:59] occupied until all inspections have been completed and the city has issued a

[1:15:03] certificate of occupancy or other required authorization for residential

[1:15:07] occupancy. If an existing structure being converted to a DD DADU cannot meet

[1:15:13] all the above stated building codes, the permit shall not be issued. um that's

[1:15:19] going to be a problem for in in some situations. It's sometimes pretty

[1:15:24] difficult to convert an existing building and bring it up to all of the

[1:15:28] codes, but it just has to be that way. >> Um there there can't be exceptions to

[1:15:34] that or you'll you'll have buildings burnt to the ground.

[1:15:38] » Yep. Um

[1:15:41] um utilities and infrastructure. The primary dwelling in the ADU uh shall

[1:15:49] uh connect that needs to say DADU shall connect to the same water, gas,

[1:15:56] sewer, etc. utility line. So essentially, it's just saying you can't

[1:16:02] have separate utilities. They have to be tied to the same utility structure. um

[1:16:08] all the same utility has to share utilities. Um further um municipal

[1:16:14] building shall be directed to the property owner and the owner shall

[1:16:18] solely be liable for municipal bills issued. Um the owner will be build for

[1:16:24] each separate dwelling on the property on the same bill. Monthly bill will

[1:16:29] include the following water, sewer, garbage, storm, drain, um

[1:16:34] transportation, utility fee. [clears throat]

[1:16:36] Um a D AU shall have adequate access to all utility services required by

[1:16:42] applicable law and ordinance, city ordinance. Um, the city may deny an

[1:16:48] application for a DD DADU if it will not have adequate access to required utility

[1:16:55] services that or service that constitutes a project improvement,

[1:16:59] including sanitary sewer, culinary water, electrical service, or storm

[1:17:03] water facilities. So, if it's unrealistic to get those to the the

[1:17:09] property, that may stop it as well. Um um

[1:17:15] but they've got to have those things. >> Okay. On that, that doesn't make sense

[1:17:19] to me. If number up on number one, one service at the DADU and the primary has

[1:17:25] the same utility lines, yet um it's saying that each one wants to be

[1:17:32] built separately. How's that going to be accomplished?

[1:17:36] » Build separately. >> Well, will there be meters metered

[1:17:39] separately? because that's not how I read number one.

[1:17:42] » They'd be on the same meter. >> There's no

[1:17:45] » So, how are they how they going to figure a proportion of billing to the

[1:17:49] the primary? >> I don't know. Darren and I was talking

[1:17:51] about that today, too. Your thoughts? >> Let's let's just talk water. Um, so if

[1:17:57] the if they have a one water meter, there's two different units. Um they

[1:18:03] each are build a base rate which every resident in through heights gets on

[1:18:08] their homes or their property. Um the water usage um if there becomes overage

[1:18:14] that's splits. So and their gallon their thousand gallons could be a little bit

[1:18:20] different um on how they do that. Um, so yes, they would get a two base rates,

[1:18:25] they would get two sewer connections, they'd get um two transportation utility

[1:18:31] fees, uh, >> all those different

[1:18:35] » gas if there's not I mean there's a >> Well, so gas and electric power are not

[1:18:43] ran by the city. Yeah. Um, and and I'm not sure if they would just say, "Nope,

[1:18:48] they can have one and then we'll just build it all at one cost." Uh, as you

[1:18:53] know, power, the more power you use, it's a higher rate. Um, they're there's

[1:18:57] not they're not going to give you any division in that. They're just going to

[1:19:01] Yep. You're using more power, more power, we're charging you for it. Um the

[1:19:06] reason the reason is for that if we're not charging impact fees for these new

[1:19:10] buildings. Um it is still a pretty big impact on the city infrastructure. Um

[1:19:18] not only you know coming in and making sure things are connected, making sure

[1:19:22] things are done. I have more traffic driving on the roads um in these

[1:19:26] subdivisions. there's there's more storm water because now you have a lot more

[1:19:31] surface that's um not taking water into the ground. So there's a there's a lot

[1:19:36] of things that go along with an external dwelling union unit that may not go

[1:19:41] along with an internal one. >> Yeah. Um, and so in order to cover those

[1:19:46] things >> that is where it's not a new connection

[1:19:50] onto the the main line or that um that was the way honestly I tell you that's

[1:19:56] the way I could find that it would be the best um fit for the city recovering

[1:20:03] its cost that it's going to start receiving for all this stuff.

[1:20:07] » So you're not saying ADUs, you're just saying DADUs will

[1:20:11] » just Yep. Just the Yep. >> Okay. I guess my question too on this

[1:20:15] would be if they're using the same gas and electric service, which they would

[1:20:19] be, you know, when those gas lines are put in, they're put in based on the size

[1:20:26] of the primary, not taking into consideration adding a DADU down the

[1:20:32] line. Uh, electrically, whether you have a 200 amp meter, 400 amp service, 100

[1:20:37] amp service, depending. A lot of the older homes only have 100 amp service.

[1:20:41] So, um I guess there would be an inspection

[1:20:45] process to when they're doing whether an ADU or DADU to make sure that they have

[1:20:50] adequate service to accommodate that extra building.

[1:20:55] » Yeah, that that would be part of the building permit that they that they can

[1:20:58] meet the requirements of another building with power. Um and it may be

[1:21:03] they have to come back in and put a bigger breaker in the whole whole place.

[1:21:07] They may have to run from a whole transformer and come down and say,

[1:21:11] "We're only serving you this much. Now, you're gonna have to go to the

[1:21:13] transformer and bring this much to the property so we can serve the other

[1:21:17] building." Um, the city doesn't control those utilities. Um but as they went

[1:21:24] through the building permit process and stuff like that, um that would probably

[1:21:28] be one thing that is going to be looked at is watch your, you know, power coming

[1:21:33] into the building, >> watch your gas meter because I I will

[1:21:36] tell you some of these older homes >> have a very small gas line coming in and

[1:21:42] they may have to pull the whole gas meter out and replace it with a bigger

[1:21:46] gas meter. Now, is that an impact on fruit heights? No. But it is an impact

[1:21:51] on those utilities that like I said I don't know what those utilities are

[1:21:57] going to charge. I can only say this is what Fruit Heights needs to do to cover

[1:22:02] its costs. >> Is this what other cities have opted to

[1:22:05] do is to charge double on a DADU on here. So, so some cities have uh if

[1:22:13] it's an individual connection, they have come up with a a the double um if they

[1:22:20] connect themselves um so they have their independent, they

[1:22:26] pay all the impact fees. So, they're paying all the impact fees and they're

[1:22:28] still getting build for that unit. >> I I need to make sure I understand what

[1:22:35] you're saying. Are you suggesting that power and gas could be separately

[1:22:41] metered or no? >> Well, depending on um the the meter at

[1:22:46] the home, they may have to run another power line if they're

[1:22:50] » if they're don't have a big enough service coming in to

[1:22:54] » a whole new line. >> Yeah. So, they may have to run a whole

[1:22:56] another line to that to cover that >> be on the same meter still.

[1:23:00] » Not necessarily. that that's once again that's up to the g that's up to the

[1:23:04] power and gas out of this equation and just say you just say utilities

[1:23:09] » power and gas company says >> yeah well I think they they need to

[1:23:13] » well any electrician is going to be able to tell them do do you have sufficient

[1:23:18] service to supply a DADU and if they don't they're going to have to upgrade

[1:23:24] their service >> and upgrade it

[1:23:26] » so that would be part of the inspection and permitting process with the

[1:23:29] subcontractors the electricians know gas I they should have the same um

[1:23:36] way to figure that you know if you're building a new home [clears throat]

[1:23:40] » they're going to figure the gas company per how many uh appliances

[1:23:46] » everything that's going to be using that do you have an adequate line or do you

[1:23:49] not >> right

[1:23:50] » but I'm saying in the ordinance should we not say that you have to connect to

[1:23:54] the same power and gas >> I I wouldn't I don't know

[1:23:59] » should we leave that that those two piece those two utilities.

[1:24:02] » The city doesn't control that. >> Well, they control on the services that

[1:24:07] they're saying, I think was what Darren is saying, but they don't control the

[1:24:10] power. >> Under three, you don't have power gas.

[1:24:13] Further down on five, it says electrical service.

[1:24:16] » I'm questioning, you're not going to like this, whether we are double

[1:24:21] charging one residence for having a detached building versus adding on.

[1:24:28] » Yeah. I feel like we're kind of punishing a little bit.

[1:24:32] » Yeah.

[1:24:35] » Well, I mean, so I'm just put it out. I I'll throw one other one out on that

[1:24:41] one. Our current ordinance um for like apartments.

[1:24:45] » If there's 20 units, >> we charge

[1:24:50] 20 base rates for those units. Um they're all in one meter. Um, and so

[1:24:57] they get they get charged for each one of those units. Uh, I have apartments

[1:25:01] where there's just two and they have one meter. They're charged two base rates,

[1:25:07] one for each unit. Um, because it's a it's a totally different setup.

[1:25:11] » I think this city has to recoup the the I mean, it's just an impact on the whole

[1:25:16] city. So I don't have an issue >> that I this is might open a can of worms

[1:25:21] but >> Don

[1:25:28] said we should be looking at

[1:25:33] a base. For example, if you have a 3000 foot home and [snorts] you're building

[1:25:39] an 800 square foot,

[1:25:43] you should be fractionalizing it and say, "Okay, based on the base of the

[1:25:48] home, [snorts]

[1:25:50] it should not be one unit. It should be a fraction.

[1:25:54] » You're not going to have many people living."

[1:26:02] He brings up a good point that we may want to make a square footage

[1:26:08] benchmark for that because when you say 800 square foot back in the day 800

[1:26:12] square foot was a normal house and could have separate service but if you've got

[1:26:16] a four to five to 600 square foot we may want to consider you know doing at this

[1:26:22] point the square footage over and above that then we can charge that fee. I

[1:26:28] don't know. I I go back to Yeah, I think Scott your point is interesting that

[1:26:32] like again it comes down back to why why are we treating a detach different than

[1:26:36] a internal >> Well, I think I think um what Darren's

[1:26:42] saying is like we have to we have to count like they still live in our city

[1:26:46] and they still drive on the streets and we still have to clean the snow and we

[1:26:49] still so we they have got to recoup some money because they're still living here,

[1:26:53] right? Even if it's a smaller home, it's still [snorts] three or four people that

[1:26:56] impact the city. And the city's got to make up for that. And they make up for a

[1:27:02] whopping $125 bill. I >> I think some of that too is an internal

[1:27:07] unit has already I will tell you they probably planned um maybe they had six

[1:27:14] kids. Um, now they're down to just an older couple and they rent the basement

[1:27:19] and they they rent it to two people or three people, small family trying to get

[1:27:24] there. We're not exceeding what that main house was was built for. Um, now

[1:27:29] you put a detached unit out in the back. Um, you still have six people possibly

[1:27:35] and then you you're throwing another unit tightened into that. There there is

[1:27:39] an impact to that. And is it a a calculation of size? Is it a calculation

[1:27:46] in number of people? Um, >> but what if we charge impact fees up

[1:27:49] front to cover that just so that it's consistent?

[1:27:55] » I just think that it's hard like everyone's homes in the city are

[1:27:57] different sizes and I get built the same as

[1:28:00] » anyone like >> I mean that

[1:28:04] that could be bad for some people. >> Yeah.

[1:28:15] makes sense in the city.

[1:28:24] » So I think we're

[1:28:29] » I love it.

[1:28:33] » Yeah. And really the impact should not cover.

[1:28:57] » Well, maybe maybe I I I don't think we have an answer. Uh can I make a

[1:29:01] suggestion that we just ask We'll work on that

[1:29:04] » staff to work on it and come with some a few different options.

[1:29:07] » Thank you. [snorts] >> Um, number six says that the city may

[1:29:12] deny an application for a D-ADU if the utility service that constitutes a

[1:29:17] system improvement and to which the DADU is required to connect lacks sufficient

[1:29:23] capacity to support the addition of the DADU. That just furthers what kind of

[1:29:28] what Darren was talking about. If the primary dwelling is served by a septic

[1:29:32] tank, the DADU is prohibited. We do have a few septic tanks around the city. Not

[1:29:38] many, but there's a few. Um um number seven, the determination of

[1:29:44] adequate utility access or system capacity shall be made by the city

[1:29:49] engineer, public works director, uh applicable utility provider, or other

[1:29:55] city officials designated by the city. Um,

[1:30:05] the applicant shall be responsible for constructing or providing any lawful

[1:30:09] project improvements necessary to serve the DADU. Um, nothing in this chapter

[1:30:14] requires the city to construct, enlarge, or fund a system improvement solely to

[1:30:19] provide capacity for a proposed DADU. Um so this next section is talking about

[1:30:27] conversion of existing uh structures. Um the owner of a legally constructed

[1:30:33] accessory structure may apply to convert the accessory structure into a DADU.

[1:30:38] Conversion of an existing accessory structure shall be reviewed

[1:30:43] administratively. An accessory structure proposed for

[1:30:47] conversion shall comply with applicable dwelling setback requirements. accessory

[1:30:52] structure setback requirements, building codes, health codes, fire codes and

[1:30:56] other requirements authorized by law. >> Can I say at the time of construction

[1:31:02] so that >> Yes.

[1:31:03] » Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. Can I just confirm too uh to

[1:31:08] conversion of existing accessory structure to a DAU shall be reviewed

[1:31:13] administratively? So are we saying that it that will not come before planning

[1:31:16] commission? >> Yeah.

[1:31:18] » Yep. It would not be. >> They handle it. So I I have a question.

[1:31:22] If if we're going to say a garage was built and it only has a three-foot

[1:31:26] setback doesn't

[1:31:28] » it's now eligible for >> No. Well, at time of construction.

[1:31:32] » Yeah. >> Right. So

[1:31:34] » that's the right terminology. Right. >> Are you saying

[1:31:36] » saying at what? Um under the conditions that exist currently. So at time of

[1:31:41] construction, not in 1978 when it was built.

[1:31:44] » Exactly. So you're saying that it needs to meet the codes as they are now.

[1:31:48] » At time Yeah. At time of construction. Okay, that's what I thought.

[1:31:51] » Okay, thank you. >> Of new construction. Maybe at time of

[1:31:53] new construction. Yeah. So it's not grandfathered in at a foot off the fence

[1:31:58] line. Yeah. >> Can I Is sorry. Going back to two. Is

[1:32:02] there a reason why we wouldn't want that to come before planning commission?

[1:32:08] » Well, you don't have the rest of it coming to you. So, do you want to see

[1:32:11] that piece of it? I mean, I I I don't think we care. I guess this is well

[1:32:17] » I mean that's why the ordinance well enough that they just

[1:32:22] » figure >> I'm okay just it's just

[1:32:24] » well that anybody that's doing that has to go through the normal permitting

[1:32:27] process and go through the city to get permits for that and we don't get any of

[1:32:32] those permits for new construction normally

[1:32:35] » we just do dirt that land [snorts] >> so just theoretically let's say somebody

[1:32:42] builds a garage let's say they build a very nice shed

[1:32:48] [laughter] and then six months later they come and say actually it's a D AU.

[1:32:53] What's the difference between that and building it? And I'm not argu I'm I'm

[1:32:58] just trying to think through this in my own head. What would um

[1:33:04] what would be the difference I guess and why would we not want that? Why why

[1:33:08] would we want the first one? Like if they're building a DADU from scratch to

[1:33:12] come before planning commission, but if they build a nice shed that they happen

[1:33:16] to turn into a DADU in six months, why would that not come?

[1:33:20] » The other one doesn't come before us, right?

[1:33:22] » No, >> the the new one doesn't come before us

[1:33:25] either. None of them do. >> Okay, great. I think to answer that a

[1:33:29] little bit, Justin, um I I would tell you if somebody has one and they ever

[1:33:36] didn't get a a certificate of occupancy, um

[1:33:42] » they'd be pretty liable if there was a fire and someone got hurt or someone got

[1:33:45] killed. >> Um they they could lose everything they

[1:33:49] had at that point. Um, so I think that's part of going through the the process of

[1:33:55] the site plan, the building plan, making sure we're meeting fire codes and doing

[1:33:59] all that. So for someone to build something and then just come back and

[1:34:02] say, "Hey, you know what? I told you I was building the garage, but now it's

[1:34:06] this." Um, the the city wouldn't take the liability of saying, "Oh, yeah, go

[1:34:13] ahead. You can live in there." >> Are you saying to that that might

[1:34:16] circumvent the height restriction? [laughter]

[1:34:19] » Yeah. if they build something that's compliant and they want to

[1:34:21] [clears throat] convert it. >> The other thing, Justin, is the state

[1:34:25] state law requires that these things be approved administratively,

[1:34:29] » they can't. So, if you they come in here and you start putting conditions on

[1:34:32] them, um that's not that's not legal. Either the conversion meets the building

[1:34:41] code requirements or it doesn't. Well, and I think what what I'm hearing

[1:34:45] Justin say is they don't come to us on each individual situation, but we're

[1:34:50] kind of setting the ground rules right now.

[1:34:53] » So, in in essence, we are setting the ground rules what everybody else will

[1:34:57] need to conform to. So, I think it's just a matter of discussing and deciding

[1:35:01] what we're willing overall to have the city sign off on and give permits for

[1:35:07] that meets what um the planning commission set in motion.

[1:35:12] » Y Okay, moving on. Uh number four, the

[1:35:18] fact that an accessory structure was legally constructed does not by itself

[1:35:22] establish that the structure complies with the requirements applicable uh to

[1:35:26] residential occupancy. Uh five, the owner shall obtain all permits and

[1:35:31] complete all improvements necessary to convert the structure to lawful

[1:35:36] residential occupancy before the structure may be occupied as a DADU.

[1:35:41] Uh, six, if the accessory structure is a detached garage, the owner shall provide

[1:35:46] any replacement parking required under section 10A1-25.

[1:35:53] Um, application and administrative review. Um, an owner seeking approval of

[1:35:58] a DADU shall submit an application to the city on a form established by the

[1:36:02] city. Um, the application may require information reasonably necessary to

[1:36:07] determine compliance with this chapter, including a site plan showing existing

[1:36:12] and proposed structures, um, property boundaries, building

[1:36:17] setbacks, easements, proposed DADU floor area, building height and dimensions,

[1:36:22] parking locations, utility connections, building plans as required by applicable

[1:36:27] building codes, evidence that the existing single family dwelling and any

[1:36:32] structure proposed for conversion version were legally established and an

[1:36:36] owner occupancy certification. Um, number three, the land use authority

[1:36:43] shall approve an application that complies with this chapter and other

[1:36:47] applicable law. Um, four, the land use authority may deny an application only

[1:36:54] upon determining that the application fails to comply with an applicable

[1:36:58] requirement of this chapter, the city code or state or federal law. Five, a

[1:37:03] denial shall identify the basis for denial with

[1:37:07] sufficient specificity to allow the applicant to determine the requirements

[1:37:11] necessary for approval. Um so separate ownership and subdivision

[1:37:19] prohibited a DADU shall remain accessory to the primary dwelling and shall not be

[1:37:25] one separately divided from the primary dwelling, two separately conveyed from

[1:37:29] the primary dwelling or three converted into a separate legal lot or parcel. Um

[1:37:35] except as otherwise expressly permitted by applicable state law and city

[1:37:39] subdivision ordinances. um compliance and enforcement. A DADU

[1:37:45] shall at all times be maintained and occupied in compliance with the ch with

[1:37:49] this chapter and other political laws. Um

[1:37:53] the establishment or occupancy of a DADU contrary to this chapter constitutes a

[1:37:58] violation of city code and may be enforced through any civil,

[1:38:01] administrative or remedy available to the city. uh enforcement of this chapter

[1:38:07] shall be conducted in accordance with applicable state law. And the last one,

[1:38:12] existing development agreements. I'm not sure about this. I got to talk to the

[1:38:17] attorney about this. Nothing in this chapter supersedes a prohibition or

[1:38:22] restriction on detached accessory dwelling units

[1:38:26] um contained in a development agreement signed by the city own or before May 6,

[1:38:30] 2026 to the extent the prohibition or restriction is protected by Utah code

[1:38:37] 1021304. I'm not exactly sure what that he put

[1:38:41] that in there. Um, I've got to clarify exact I I think it just means if there

[1:38:46] was a development agreement before May 6, 2026

[1:38:51] that um they're still valid. Um I I I don't I don't know exactly what that

[1:38:58] means. Would we want to also include in that wording and get the advice from the

[1:39:01] attorney whether there's anything with any subdivision or development CCNRs or

[1:39:05] or HOA bylaws to make sure there's, >> you know, does it supersede or does it

[1:39:12] um prior to 2026 allow those to remain in place?

[1:39:16] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. I made a note of that. And

[1:39:21] then the last thing, um, uh, just other considerations,

[1:39:27] uh, Darren and I talked about, it probably would be a good idea if you're

[1:39:30] going to do this to have a fenced yard. Um, if you're going to put a DADU in

[1:39:35] your backyard, you probably should have a fenced yard. Um, and then two, and

[1:39:41] this is a can of worms that I don't know, this why I kept it separate. Do we

[1:39:45] want to go down this road trying to define what occupancy what levels of

[1:39:49] occupancy mean? We've never done this up to this point. It's it it's very

[1:39:55] difficult. >> Um and and even more difficult to

[1:40:00] enforce, >> but there's other cities that have gone

[1:40:04] down this road. >> I don't know if we want to try that. I'm

[1:40:09] fine on the like you can only rent one like if you leave a family member can

[1:40:13] live on the home, right? Someone can live there. That's not you can't double.

[1:40:18] I think that's as specific as we get. Do people have thoughts on that or I don't

[1:40:24] know. >> Just so everybody understands what I'm

[1:40:26] talking about. We're talking about, you know, a definition like three

[1:40:30] individuals that are non-related, an individual single family related by

[1:40:34] blood, marriage, legal, guardianship. Um, you know, on and on. Um, those lines

[1:40:40] are getting very blurry these days. >> Yeah. Um,

[1:40:44] » I think you just >> Yeah, I wouldn't

[1:40:47] » can only write one. >> I don't. Yeah.

[1:40:49] » No, >> you can only read one.

[1:40:52] » Have an opinion. >> Okay. What else? Well, where like let's

[1:40:57] can we just do a refresh of where we feel like we have points of differences

[1:41:01] and maybe that's where we need to focus. It sounds like the setback, but we might

[1:41:05] all be willing to do something that's like meets the code, right? If it's

[1:41:08] Nate, but setback then the houses. If it's 10, it's 10. I

[1:41:12] » I really like Justin's idea. I don't know people's thoughts on that.

[1:41:16] » The other is the height. Um are any of us saying they want you're

[1:41:22] saying you would be willing to do two stories? Who's saying that? I don't

[1:41:25] know. >> I I definitely am looking. We need to

[1:41:28] have something that allows for a detached garage, whatever that setback,

[1:41:33] sideyard setback would be, but but limit it not to a full twotory. Do it as a a

[1:41:40] what they call a one and a half story. Um,

[1:41:44] » so in your mind, what's that height? >> Yeah. What's the height?

[1:41:47] » What's that height in your mind? >> I I would have to compute it out. If you

[1:41:50] have a 1012 pitch on a and it depends on the size of building. If it's a 24 x 24,

[1:41:54] you just got to divide it out. If you have a 1012 pitch, the rise is 10 inches

[1:41:58] per every 12 inches. So, >> right,

[1:42:01] » let us do some work on that. >> Yeah, I mean 35 I think is

[1:42:06] way too high. >> Yeah, they're thinking 20.

[1:42:09] » My only concern is again if we can have a if somebody can have a 35 foot

[1:42:14] [clears throat] shed next door, why couldn't they have a 35 foot DADU?

[1:42:19] » Right. like, >> well, I'm going to put something else

[1:42:21] out there that doesn't even relate to this. 35 ft is also an antiquated amount

[1:42:25] these days with the height of homes. >> So, that actually needs to be modified

[1:42:31] as well in our code along with probably a couple other things, but um I think

[1:42:38] there needs to be a height requirement if it's not attached

[1:42:43] um for the very same reason. Let's say you have a a twostory home with a a 10

[1:42:48] 12 pitch roof, the primary residence, which there are plenty of those in the

[1:42:52] in the city. If you do a detached structure that's only a a 20 by 20 and

[1:42:56] it's that tall, it is going to look strange.

[1:42:59] » Sure. But we also say that it has to follow something to the effect that it

[1:43:03] has to follow the >> similar construction

[1:43:05] » similar construction and architecture. >> Well, all that means is materials. And I

[1:43:10] have that in my subdivision the same. It's the CCNRs that you know, you want

[1:43:14] it to to make it look as much like the uh rockets

[1:43:18] » as the primary structure. Now, in the older subdivisions and older homes,

[1:43:22] that's going to be harder to do. >> Yeah.

[1:43:28] » So, and brings my next question. and Darren and Jeff, can we have another

[1:43:33] just a work meeting to where we can get together as a commission with the city

[1:43:39] and talk about all these things so we we can come up with suggestions for the for

[1:43:43] the city uh citizens to hear at our next meeting.

[1:43:47] » Yeah, I think that's a good idea >> because it's there's a lot to talk

[1:43:51] through in my opinion. >> Yeah.

[1:43:52] » Yeah. >> Are are people required to have a

[1:43:54] business license to have a DADU and rent it out? Is that it doesn't where does it

[1:44:00] doesn't really say anything in here about that does it

[1:44:05] » about [clears throat] sorry >> that they would fill out a a a per an

[1:44:11] application >> okay it's I

[1:44:13] » I don't know if there that be associated [clears throat] with a fee

[1:44:17] » I mean that's still to be determined >> okay see I didn't think

[1:44:20] » there would be an application process >> okay okay because that seems like it

[1:44:25] would bring some accountability there's some in here where it's says something

[1:44:28] to be effective. There must be accountability

[1:44:30] » internal to use. We require >> Yeah.

[1:44:32] » I I don't know what the fee is. >> I don't think we call it a business.

[1:44:37] » Yeah. It's just like, >> but it's a license to have

[1:44:44] [clears throat]

[1:44:53] » and they put on there.

[1:45:10] Well, the whole idea behind that is is that not breaking these off and selling

[1:45:16] them as separate units. That's the idea.

[1:45:26] We we we can take a look. >> They allow you to sell them separately

[1:45:29] in Eastman. >> Yeah. I mean, if somebody had

[1:45:32] » a whole different animal.

[1:45:36] » Yeah, that's fair.

[1:45:41] » You would still just subdivide it and the home and the DADU would be one lot

[1:45:47] in that subdivision. Like you does that make sense? Like the DADU and the home

[1:45:51] would be on a lot if you were to subdivide it and everything else. You

[1:45:55] can't separate it from it. >> Correct.

[1:45:58] » Well, that's hopefully someone does it. >> Yeah.

[1:46:01] » I mean, you if not, you're tearing it down.

[1:46:07] » Yeah. >> No, I I think that's a good point to

[1:46:09] look into.

[1:46:22] Yeah. >> Yeah. It wouldn't prevent somebody from

[1:46:27] dividing bigger lots um if there was enough room. But um you do not want to

[1:46:33] go down that road where you're selling these things as separate units.

[1:46:38] That's [clears throat]

[1:46:46] » lot size all that. >> Yeah.

[1:46:51] » I mean, if in the end someone wanted to subdivide it and their DADU is far away,

[1:46:54] they would just tear it down. There's more value in I mean, they would just

[1:46:59] tear it down. >> But I will take a look at that.

[1:47:08] » [snorts and sighs]

[1:47:12] » It said mobile homes. Mobile homes and >> and uh shipping containers.

[1:47:17] » Yeah. Yeah. I mean it does this would allow a tiny home. I mean we're saying

[1:47:22] anything that's bigger than 400 square feet.

[1:47:28] » But it would have to be similar to the existing home. So you I mean

[1:47:32] » Well, I'm not questioning that. I'm just We have

[1:47:37] » I don't think that's a thing. >> Doesn't it doesn't it say something?

[1:47:43] » It did say something in here. It did say something in here right away.

[1:47:45] » If it complies with all codes, then why why why wouldn't you be able to bring a

[1:47:49] prefab in? >> Yeah.

[1:47:54] » So, when they when they uh build those prefab homes, um they go through an

[1:47:59] inspection process >> and and they're signed off by an

[1:48:03] engineer. Yeah. >> Say it meant these points.

[1:48:09] » Yeah. >> Right. And look similar.

[1:48:11] » This is a small thing, but under design, we should probably address things like

[1:48:15] balconies, decks, and patios. >> Um, yes, I think that is a good idea.

[1:48:21] Um, >> and then also, I know we we've talked

[1:48:23] about this in the past and I don't know if it really went anywhere, but I think

[1:48:26] the total kind of lot density, the lot coverage as a whole should also be

[1:48:30] considered. So, you know, if you're a primary residence, you have a detached

[1:48:35] garage, you have a DADU, you you know, you have a shed, and you have other

[1:48:38] things. I think that saying holistically like our, you know, like in Salt Lake,

[1:48:42] your lot can't be more than 40% built. >> It does say that,

[1:48:48] » but that's just the just the back though >> from the rear line all the way back.

[1:48:54] » You know, I think that there's other ways of

[1:48:55] » you can't fill up more than 50% of your backyard. But if if you have a sideyard

[1:49:00] and you're building accessory buildings or something, right, don't build more

[1:49:04] than 40% of your lot >> so it doesn't become too dense as a

[1:49:09] whole. >> Do you want that to be looked at more

[1:49:15] than what we've our ordinance already calls for?

[1:49:18] » I think that we it was brought up a long time ago and I don't I don't know if it

[1:49:22] maybe just something to talk about, right? Maybe it's not just a rear a rear

[1:49:27] coverage, but a whole lot coverage, >> a total lot coverage.

[1:49:30] » I would we would we almost just go back and I can't remember which uh there

[1:49:35] there's something specific that we talked about that. Oh, it was the pool.

[1:49:40] » It can't be more than 50% impervious, right? So like pool cement, everything.

[1:49:45] We decided it's too hard to deal with the sides and nothing's in the front. I

[1:49:51] mean, we don't allow anything in the front. And some people's sideyards are

[1:49:56] their yards, but I just don't I mean, how many I don't know. I don't

[1:50:01] » know how many is. >> I wonder if that would be completely

[1:50:03] separate than this just because this is specific to

[1:50:07] » um if you add on to the primary home >> backyard can't have more than that.

[1:50:11] » You can add on to the front of a primary home

[1:50:13] » and add square footage on the front of it. And then

[1:50:15] » as long as you can meet the setback. >> Yeah. As long as you're in the setback.

[1:50:18] » Meet that setback. But yeah, you can't. you have to stay,

[1:50:22] » but kind of the idea that, you know, building your entire lot within the

[1:50:26] setbacks, you want to kind of still maintain some um some open space,

[1:50:32] » I guess, right? Yeah. Right. Now, theoretically, you could build out to

[1:50:35] your setbacks and be fine >> in your front yard.

[1:50:37] » Yeah. >> Yeah. So, yes, we've kind of m

[1:50:39] controlled the backyard, but what about there's other ways to densify on your

[1:50:42] lot? I don't know if it's a huge issue here,

[1:50:45] but >> yeah,

[1:50:46] » every other city that I've done a project in, there's always a lot

[1:50:49] coverage requirement. >> Um, are you saying don't build these in

[1:50:54] the front yard? >> No, I'm just saying in general instead

[1:50:56] of having just a rear yard >> says don't build them in the front yard.

[1:51:00] » A rear yard coverage requirement. So 50% of your your backyard can only be built

[1:51:05] to ch maybe change that and say let's make it holistic. Let's say the entire

[1:51:10] your entire property you can only build 40% of it.

[1:51:13] Okay, we'll look at that. >> Maybe that opens up a lot.

[1:51:19] » Um, >> what [clears throat]

[1:51:22] » the other things I had was um >> decks patios,

[1:51:25] » um, >> roof decks,

[1:51:29] » uh, >> balconies, decks, patios,

[1:51:31] » frosted glass on >> frosted glass

[1:51:33] » only on >> clear stories. Yeah.

[1:51:35] » You know, above six feet. Um

[1:51:39] the short-term exception for people that are out of town on some kind of calling

[1:51:46] um >> but not to rent it like double rent it

[1:51:50] just family can there >> um

[1:51:55] uh take out the provisions for power and gas on on a single meter. Um,

[1:52:06] look at the square footage benchmark for monthly utility bills.

[1:52:13] » Take out the bedroom requirement >> a studio for a studio.

[1:52:19] » Yeah. >> Um,

[1:52:23] was there anything else? Put in something about having a fence that your

[1:52:28] backyard's got to be fenced. the the address you'd have one A and one B.

[1:52:35] » Yeah, >> we'll put that in there.

[1:52:38] » The decks and balconies, if it's single story, no one's going to have a balcony,

[1:52:42] » right? I'm just saying even if it's a >> like if it's a flat roof, you know, they

[1:52:46] could have a roof deck. >> I mean, I'm still not opposed to dual

[1:52:51] story. Again, I just keep coming and that's why I say, can we can we talk

[1:52:56] about setting a time where we can get together and have a work meeting on this

[1:52:59] and and fine-tuning this for >> you on what we come up with. And I

[1:53:04] wanted to address one other thing. There's a group of citizens of Fruit

[1:53:08] Heights that put this. We all got these packets and they're more or less all

[1:53:12] their suggestions for us all to look at this and go over everything we've talked

[1:53:16] about tonight and just let them know that we're going to review those as well

[1:53:20] and see if that any of this fits into where we've already talked about. So we

[1:53:26] » and I think a lot of it does align with what the city I think it's really close.

[1:53:30] So, >> okay. Well, Darren and I will we'll

[1:53:35] we'll set up another work meeting. >> So, Haley's already asking. Um,

[1:53:43] » do we want to look at calendars now? Is that what we're doing?

[1:53:45] » Yeah, look at your look at your calendars. Um, we could do a we could do

[1:53:50] a work session. Um, >> Wednesday the 16th.

[1:53:55] » Wednesday the 16th. That would give a couple few days before the public

[1:53:59] hearing. >> That's a week from tomorrow.

[1:54:01] » It's a week from tomorrow. It gives everybody time to go through what

[1:54:05] information's out there. Um >> and gives Jeff and I time to kind of go

[1:54:12] through those questions that you've asked us today.

[1:54:15] » Yeah. >> Um and get

[1:54:17] » 16th. Yeah, that's fine. We can do it or

[1:54:21] Thursday. Wednesday or Thursday. I >> I don't know how early anybody can get

[1:54:24] here. Um, so depending on how early you get here, we could do it earlier

[1:54:29] » and do a work session >> at 6.

[1:54:32] » At six. >> Yeah, I could do

[1:54:34] » I'm good at six. >> I could do six.

[1:54:36] » Six is fine. I can do anytime after 4 probably.

[1:54:40] » So if you if you if six o'clock works for the 16th um

[1:54:45] » Haley will put that together. We'll do it as a work session.

[1:54:48] » Okay. >> So that we can just sit down and discuss

[1:54:50] everything that we've got and go through the process. I can't do the 16th. I

[1:54:55] apologize. Sorry. >> But

[1:54:57] » I could do the 17th. I could do Thursday.

[1:54:59] » That's fine. >> Thursday.

[1:55:01] » I'm good. >> Anytime.

[1:55:03] » 14th. Like that Monday. >> The 14th is Monday.

[1:55:08] » I could do the 14th. >> Pretty fast.

[1:55:12] » Yeah. >> Yeah. Pretty fast.

[1:55:14] » I could do the 14th. 15th. 17th. >> I can't do this. I need

[1:55:20] » Let's go 17th. >> Thursday. Well, I could do the 17th of

[1:55:23] at 6:00 and I have to leave at 7:00. I just have a commitment at 7:00, but I

[1:55:26] can come. >> Let's try that.

[1:55:27] » 55 minutes. >> Do we

[1:55:29] » Thursday >> the 17th at 6?

[1:55:31] » Do we want to try? >> We can do 5:30, too. If that works.

[1:55:34] » 5:30 is fine. >> I I could I will commit to being here.

[1:55:37] » Sorry. I just have another thing at 7. >> 5.

[1:55:40] » So, let's do 5:30. >> 5:30 on the 17th.

[1:55:43] » All right. >> Okay.

[1:55:47] Got that?

[1:55:51] » Yeah. Yeah, the public can come to a work session. It's just no comments. It

[1:55:54] It's just giving them a chance to go through everything again. Um that gives

[1:55:58] us time to get a document out 24 hours before the public hearing. Um

[1:56:06] so but but that's fine. We we can get it out probably that Friday um if we have

[1:56:11] time to to go through it. So >> So we just need to come prepared to make

[1:56:15] decision. >> Very prepared. Yeah.

[1:56:17] » Yeah. >> And you're going to work up some Yeah.

[1:56:21] And we'll try to get that out to you as early as we can. But [clears throat]

[1:56:27] yeah, that's just barely a week away from tomorrow or two days. Yeah.

[1:56:32] » But the city council can still I mean they we can say one thing and

[1:56:37] they'll say, "Yeah, we're not doing that."

[1:56:38] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:56:40] » But we don't know where they fall on any of this.

[1:56:43] » So this is an ordinance. We'll have our we we do our work session on this next

[1:56:47] meeting on the >> I'm just saying it doesn't give much

[1:56:50] time to change things >> and then we'll have our public hearing

[1:56:52] that following week >> um after the public hearing. It'll be

[1:56:56] your recommendation for any changes at that time or anything that you want to

[1:57:01] do and then we'll forward that on >> they're going to have to have a work

[1:57:03] session >> um city council for their next meeting

[1:57:07] » on the 28th 29th. >> Elizabeth

[1:57:23] at the same time.

[1:57:30] » Parking might be a little tight.

[1:57:45] Okay, we'll look at that, too. >> Um, the the only thing I I I noticed the

[1:57:50] minutes from our 8:25 meeting is not on the agenda. Do we

[1:57:55] » Oh, yeah. >> Do we want to take care of those next?

[1:58:00] » Oh, yeah. Yeah. It's a special meeting. >> Sorry. Okay.

[1:58:04] » It's a special. Do we need a motion to >> I motion to close the meeting?

[1:58:11] » I second. >> All in favor, please say yes.

[1:58:15] » Yes. >> Motion carried. Thank you,

[1:58:18] » Mark.

Special Planning Commission Meeting 9.8.26

Transcript