[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.