[1:23] So I did this. >> There's some interesting stories there,

[1:26] I bet. >> There is.

[1:43] » We're ready. >> Okay, fantastic.

[1:49] Okay, we're going to go ahead and start planning commission meeting um

[1:55] for August 13th. Um welcome to everybody. Thank you for

[2:00] being here and participating. Um

[2:04] and I wanted to welcome our soon-to-be or

[2:09] now soon-to-be or now? When does your start date? Soon-to-be community

[2:13] development

[2:18] potentially. >> [laughter]

[2:21] » Okay, maybe I maybe I jumped the gun on there, but

[2:25] Hey Brad, we're happy to have you tonight. So, thanks for joining us.

[2:29] Um okay. So, we're going to start with the declaration of conflict of interest

[2:35] if any. Excellent.

[2:39] And our first item, well, our third item on the agenda is the public hearing to

[2:44] consider changes to 17-31-3 internal accessory dwelling units to

[2:48] comply with Senate Bill 284. And I'm hoping we've got a little explanation on

[2:53] that before we jump into the public? Okay, perfect.

[2:57] » Thank you, chair. Uh so, as just to refresh everyone's memory, during the

[3:02] 2026 Utah legislative session, uh Senate Bill 284 was passed. Um

[3:08] it's titled local land use and water modifications, and it essentially

[3:13] established new requirements for cities um that by October 1st, 2026, they had

[3:20] to establish requirements uh for DADUs to allow them in in certain

[3:24] circumstances. Uh and so, the state statute essentially states that um

[3:29] cities are required to allow detached ADUs on single-family lots larger than

[3:34] 1,000 square feet, comply with health building health, fire, safety codes, and

[3:39] also include a process for conversion of legal accessory structures uh to these

[3:44] detached ADU um

[3:46] structures subject to setback requirements. So, the law does provide

[3:50] some parameters on what can and can't be regulated.

[3:54] Um but for the purpose of this discussion,

[3:57] I think what is important is that one of the kind of key talking points that's

[4:01] come up um internally and um as we've been looking at what the state is

[4:06] requiring is um I think one of the kind of two

[4:10] highlights that I think are going to be most of concern um

[4:15] are probably setbacks and then height. So, how we want to approach that in

[4:19] terms of, you know, do we want to allow um

[4:23] you know, these detached ADUs to be, you know, up to 30 ft and and two story? Do

[4:28] we want to restrict that height? Uh and then do we want to implement additional

[4:31] setbacks beyond what would be required for a normal accessory structure? Um so,

[4:37] our very own Will Sovern Corn has put together an ordinance for us based on

[4:41] what the state law allows for. Um and really this this meeting we're

[4:47] hoping, you know, in addition to the public hearing, to get some feedback on

[4:50] that ordinance to see where we can add more um what we can tweak so that it's a

[4:55] better fit for Kaysville specifically. Um we did post a public hearing notice

[5:00] for this item on the 27th. Um

[5:03] and the general plan does not speak explicitly in favor or against the

[5:08] proposed amendment, so it's considered neutral.

[5:11] Um and with that in mind, staff is recommending the planning commission

[5:14] send a recommendation of approval to the city council for enacting the proposed

[5:18] text amendment as provided in the draft ordinance. But, uh

[5:23] we would love to hear everyone's thoughts and then see

[5:26] see what kind of discussion we can have. >> Okay, thanks, Ann. Is there anything

[5:31] else we want to discuss before we open up public hearing? Will, do you have

[5:35] anything to add? Do you want to walk through it?

[5:37] » Well, yeah. I think maybe that'd be the best thing to do.

[5:39] » I'd like I'd like to do that. >> to talk about uh a lot of parts of it.

[5:44] So, what I drafted up and I volunteered because staff was uh very

[5:49] minimal at the time and Jason was concerned about the city

[5:53] being able to meet the October 1st deadline that was set forth in the bill

[5:57] that was passed by the legislature for

[6:00] detached ADUs that a lot of communities, not every

[6:04] community, but but most including Kaysville must have adopted or should

[6:09] have adopted by October 1st otherwise you'll just be able to have ADUs

[6:14] detached ADUs without any kinds of restrictions.

[6:18] So, that's why we needed to have this ordinance done.

[6:22] You know, I've had a little bit of background in this so I volunteered to

[6:25] to draft something up. What I drafted is fairly minimal. What I did was I just

[6:30] kind of put the basics in there. There are a lot of options on things we can do

[6:35] particularly with things like Ann mentioned with heights and setbacks,

[6:39] design characteristics. There is a there's a real issue about design and

[6:45] what you can do and maybe not do with regard to design and we can talk through

[6:49] a little bit of that. But then um

[6:54] Commissioner Toller sent us a draft ordinance that to give credit do I

[6:58] understand it's your brother who drafted that, right?

[7:01] » Correct. >> Right.

[7:02] And I have to say it's it's a phenomenal piece of work. It really is well done,

[7:06] well crafted and it goes ahead and put forward recommendations I guess you

[7:13] would call it on a number of things that I didn't include in mine that I thought

[7:18] we'd have discussion about. And then decide which direction we wanted to go,

[7:22] but have you all seen the the one that Paul sent out?

[7:26] » Yes. >> So, there's a lot of detail in that and

[7:29] we I guess we got to talk about when I say we I mean I'm I am on the planning

[7:34] commission, but I'm acting more like staff at this point so that's why I'm

[7:37] sitting down here. Cuz I I don't want to be the undue

[7:40] influence sitting on the commission for the recommendation that's going to

[7:44] be made. But, we ought to talk through some of those options and and see where

[7:48] we want to go with those and what we want to recommend onto the city council.

[7:52] And it'll ultimately, of course, be up to the city council to adopt whatever uh

[7:56] code it is we do on that. Let me just say this as well. What I

[8:01] realized, first of all, the bill also has a provision in it that says that the

[8:06] city should not put any undue barriers on paraphrasing here, but undue barriers

[8:12] in the way to converting existing accessory structures to ADUs.

[8:17] Um when I looked through the provisions in our city code about the governing of

[8:24] accessory structures, there's issues.

[8:28] Our whole zoning code has issues. We We know that we've talked about it, but

[8:32] there are some issues >> [clears throat]

[8:34] » with regard to accessory structures that I think

[8:39] whether we were doing that ADUs or not, we ought to really take a look at and

[8:42] think about making some modifications and changes there.

[8:46] That's why you'll see on the agenda as the next agenda item a discussion about

[8:51] uh making changes to our accessory structures provisions in our code.

[8:56] A lot of what we do there will probably also apply to ADUs or vice versa. What

[9:00] we do on ADUs may then also wind up applying to accessory structures.

[9:05] But, it really became apparent to me as I was looking at that and trying to

[9:08] decide, well, what do we We We probably want to try to be close to whatever

[9:12] we require for accessory structures for the ADUs as well. And it became obvious

[9:18] to me after reading it after a little while and talking to some of the

[9:21] residents about some existing accessory structures out there, I thought, ah, I

[9:27] don't think I don't know that that's a good idea, particularly for ADUs, to

[9:31] allow some of those things. And really, we ought to look at making modifications

[9:34] to our accessory um buildings uh

[9:39] provisions in our code as well. So, that'll be a separate discussion, but it

[9:44] is related to the ADUs as well. >> Right.

[9:46] And timely, too, sounds like. Okay.

[9:52] Do you want to walk us through maybe we go through the original draft?

[9:56] » Yeah, let's do that. >> I kind of think maybe after that we

[10:00] you can maybe chime in, but maybe then we'll do public hearing and see if some

[10:05] of the things we hear might align with what we we've seen in the green lines.

[10:10] » That sounds good. >> Okay.

[10:12] » Um >> Perhaps just a sorry.

[10:14] » Sure, go ahead. >> Just a a point of clarification.

[10:18] On the on the agenda. So,

[10:21] uh we have a public hearing. We have a discussion

[10:26] of a possible action to review accessory structures.

[10:31] But, the commission is not being asked

[10:34] tonight to approve and pass

[10:38] a draft ordinance. That would come in a subsequent meeting.

[10:43] » Are you talking about for accessory structures or for the ADU?

[10:46] » for the ADUs. >> We would encourage you to pass on some

[10:49] type of recommendation to the city council just because of the impending

[10:52] deadline. It's going to be on their work agenda next week, so they're going to

[10:56] have some time to play with it. Staff's going to have some time to play with it.

[10:59] What we'd like tonight is to get the commission's recommendation on what

[11:02] you'd like to see in that ordinance just because we're coming up on that

[11:05] deadline. And I think we need to give the time to the council.

[11:10] Okay. >> Um I believe the calendar would allow us

[11:14] um I think

[11:17] both by Anne's comments and what we just heard from Will,

[11:20] there are significant changes to make to the draft ordinance.

[11:24] Would that Is that fair? >> Yeah.

[11:26] » And and so, um

[11:30] » Well, I think we'll have a number of options and maybe we can

[11:34] discuss it more as we kind of get through it because we can always

[11:40] recommend approval with you know

[11:43] a pretty good laundry list if we want or we can

[11:48] recommend as is or we can recommend denial and maybe or bring back. I mean,

[11:54] we may end up we come back. But let's see how far we get and

[12:00] and see if it falls in those parameters of a possibility. Does that sound right?

[12:04] » Is that available all along?

[12:07] Somewhere is draft.

[12:10] Um It's part of the package.

[12:13] » End of packet. It's so if you're on if you've got access or laptop or an iPad,

[12:19] you can go to our website. I can walk you through it to get to it.

[12:23] Um it's under agendas and it's in the agenda packet for this evening's

[12:27] meeting. >> Um Is that going to be on

[12:30] » So this is going to be up on the screen right here. Will, do you want me to just

[12:32] follow you as you go through it cuz I've got it up here. So

[12:36] » I'm being We don't have screens, do you know that? Are you aware of that?

[12:38] » The screens are not working. >> This is this is a little different in

[12:41] the than the one that's in the packet because this one doesn't have the red

[12:44] lines. >> Oh.

[12:46] » I think [clears throat] they can change that.

[12:48] Let

[12:55] Okay, let's change. Do you want the red lines on it?

[12:57] » Yeah, that would be I think the best and then we can go through those.

[13:02] » Okay, you guys are giving me a whirl here. Okay, so we're going to go to all

[13:05] markup. >> There you go.

[13:08] » All right, so we've got that and your screens are not working.

[13:11] » No. >> Okay, I will work on that.

[13:15] » You should have this in your packets though.

[13:17] » Yes, we can continue with that. >> So yeah.

[13:21] So as you can see the city code already had a provision in it with regard to

[13:27] internal accessory dwelling units, which was something that the state

[13:30] legislature passed a bill in a previous session and cities all had to allow for

[13:36] that. And so, we do have that in there. I brought up some stuff and then Katie

[13:41] has drafted that into ordinance form. And what she's basically doing here is

[13:46] she's taking that section and making it applicable to all accessory dwelling

[13:52] units, not just to the internals. And then it'll call out the different

[13:56] ones as you'll see as we go through this. So,

[13:59] So, you So, just to go through this and if you have any questions or comments,

[14:03] stop and let's talk about them. We have the definitions of of what they what

[14:08] these are. The the detached ones which are new, the internal ones which have

[14:13] existed now for a couple of years. That and then it

[14:18] gives what the regulations are that need to be complied with.

[14:21] And uh making those consistent with

[14:26] what is now required under the various the bills

[14:31] that have been put forward. So, we get all the way down here now to

[14:35] where it says detached accessory dwelling units number three.

[14:39] It says that DADUs, I'll just call them DADUs and

[14:43] you'll know what I'm referring to. DADUs are allowed on any lot or parcel

[14:47] that is 11,000 square feet or larger. First point of discussion, the state

[14:53] code also then says that because it says 11,000 square feet in the state code,

[14:58] that does not prohibit communities from allowing them on smaller lots if they so

[15:03] desire. We There are a number of communities

[15:07] around the state that are allowing for them on smaller lots.

[15:11] Part of the rationale for that being that ADUs are a really kind of a easy,

[15:17] low-hanging fruit way of trying to address

[15:20] the housing affordability issue. Uh

[15:23] you may not get a a tremendous number of new units or or units that can handle

[15:29] um people that need housing. Um but it is a way and it's being viewed

[15:35] that way. It's being been accepted that way all around the country and a number

[15:38] of states have now put provisions in place that allow for

[15:42] ADUs as a way to help address the housing affordability issue. So,

[15:48] if that's the case, we have drafted this right now with what's all what the

[15:52] specification is in the state code. But wondering if there's any appetite on

[15:58] the commission and then ultimately on the council for allowing them on any

[16:02] lots smaller than 11,000 square feet.

[16:10] » I I'm a personally I would be interested in that, but I don't think it would fly

[16:15] in our community. I think we'll be really

[16:19] um I think this would probably shake up

[16:23] enough people in the community to allow it at

[16:27] 11,000, but I mean it wouldn't offend me to go lower, but

[16:31] » And having said said that, you know, we can it can be adopted this

[16:35] way and it always can be amended in the future.

[16:37] » Yeah. >> If uh if the desire so turns out

[16:40] » I think it's a great starting point. >> But there are communities many community

[16:44] not of all I don't know if I could say many, but there are a number of

[16:46] communities around the state that are allowing them down to like 8,000 square

[16:50] feet. Some of them don't put a square footage restriction on the lot. They

[16:54] just regulate them by the yard area >> Um

[16:57] » by the the restrictions on lot coverage and yard area.

[17:01] » Setbacks and if it fits, it >> Yeah.

[17:03] » fits. >> So, Brad, I'm curious. What's Layton

[17:07] City looking at allowing?

[17:12] » Sure. >> Yeah.

[17:14] » You're going to have to introduce yourself

[17:15] » know who Brad is. You all you probably don't know who Brad is.

[17:18] » [laughter] >> Thanks, Wolf. Um yeah, so um I I've been

[17:21] going through the draft ordinance as well as just uh the other regulations.

[17:25] So, Layton City's also in the same boat that we're in uh right now in the in the

[17:29] process of drafting some regulations. Um they're not planning on They already

[17:33] allow detached accessory dwelling units um down to lot sizes of six 6,000 sq ft.

[17:39] Um yeah, so to your point, Wolf, if there's already a lot of other cities

[17:42] that allow them at various lot sizes, uh Syracuse I think allows them at 10,000

[17:46] sq ft. So, you know, again, it's not unprecedented to have them at a smaller

[17:50] lot sizes, but it really is just up to us to determine what works best in our

[17:54] community, like you had said, Chair. Um you know, is

[17:57] 11,000 going to be the right Is that a good starting point, or do we say, you

[18:02] know, eight or or 10,000 sq ft? I know that we do have some, you know, most of

[18:07] our subdivisions kind of on the western side of the city are larger

[18:10] subdivisions. Um and then in our kind of historic area, we're going to have

[18:14] smaller lot sizes. You know, as Will said, you know, we can

[18:18] apply different setback standards. For some For an example,

[18:22] um and also the other question is do we allow them in just the rear yard area or

[18:26] in the side yard area? Um some cities allow both. Some say it just needs to be

[18:30] behind the home. Um and so uh I think also single story,

[18:34] two story. A lot of cities do lots of different things. You might

[18:38] have a a garage that's in somebody's backyard, and they want to do a loft ADU

[18:42] on top of that garage, uh which then ends up, you know, becoming a two-story

[18:45] structure. So, uh some typical setbacks are, you know, requiring that they meet

[18:49] the same setbacks as the residential uh the the the primary residences, or

[18:54] having additional setbacks um up up uh in addition to what you already have for

[18:59] an accessory structure. So, one of the things that Wolf had mentioned earlier

[19:02] is that the state code does say that we need to allow the conversion of

[19:07] accessory structures to be converted into uh

[19:10] detached ADUs. But one of the questions is, do, you

[19:14] know, we might have smaller setbacks for an accessory structure and we'd rather

[19:19] have a DADU be further set back from the property line because it might have

[19:24] obviously a greater impact as a residence than if we just had a shed or

[19:28] or something like that or a structure that

[19:30] uh, you know, houses different equipment. So, sorry, I just like bom,

[19:34] you know, word vomited all of that stuff to you right

[19:37] there. But yes, there's there's a lot of different regulations in your Right.

[19:40] Well, if there's um, lots of different ways, but yeah, what I've seen a lot is

[19:44] um, before the state mandated this with this most recent legislative change uh,

[19:50] 10,000 square feet's kind of been what I see in the most in most cities.

[19:54] » Yeah, the legislature, the original bill or the original language in the bill

[19:57] actually was going to be 8,000 square feet.

[20:00] But I think they they legislators felt comments and pressure and they upped it

[20:06] to 11. Um, so that's what that's what's in the

[20:09] state code. >> Does anyone else want to chime in on

[20:12] square footage requirement?

[20:15] » I I would say like I like you I I wouldn't be I wouldn't have a problem

[20:20] discussing that going smaller. Um, one thing I do like is if it matched

[20:25] a zone. Like for just for clarity. Um,

[20:29] you know, basically this would be R12 and above for us.

[20:32] And but we can't just say that because it could go all down to 11,000 square

[20:36] feet. So, um, if we were to pick a number lower

[20:39] than than 11,000, I would say like let's

[20:43] match it to our normal zoning. Like to an R10

[20:47] is where I'd go, but >> That's smart.

[20:52] » Okay. I [clears throat] I agree um,

[20:56] with the chair that perhaps

[21:01] um, we may have an AUD in a

[21:06] a smaller, square-foot print property. Um

[21:13] in my opinion having an AUD will devalue the overall

[21:19] property. And so

[21:22] there are we have we have a unique situation in West Kaysville. Yes, the

[21:28] lots are larger. But if you'll go with me on a quick tour

[21:32] of Utah up and down I-15. Let's think about housing west of I-15.

[21:45] Are there million-dollar homes west of I-15 in Provo?

[21:51] Orem?

[21:54] Lehi? Maybe. There's some in South Jordan.

[22:01] But as you continue on through Davis County, we have something very unique in

[22:06] West Kaysville. The property values

[22:10] west of I-15 are tremendous.

[22:14] That's not the typical situation. Usually one wants to be on the hill to

[22:20] have their million-dollar home. We have very very valuable properties

[22:25] that we don't want to devalue.

[22:29] And so while I don't know that the arithmetic would work

[22:34] I'm not Once we determine the setback and all of

[22:38] the other things, if if if it's feasible to have an AUD on a smaller lot

[22:46] in the neighborhoods around us I may not be opposed to that. Um because

[22:53] I think that might be a place for this housing to

[22:58] exist or coexist. >> So you're suggesting that it might be a

[23:01] better fit for a smaller >> If if

[23:04] » lot. I don't agree with you on it being

[23:07] devaluing the main property. >> Yeah, I would agree. I don't think

[23:10] there's any evidence of that. In fact, I think if anything there's evidence to

[23:14] the contrary, which is um ADUs actually enhance the value

[23:19] because it's uh revenue a potentially revenue generating

[23:23] » It is a potential revenue item. Um and I've

[23:30] in my professional career I've consumed a few thousand appraisals and made a few

[23:35] thousand home loans and and I think that uh

[23:39] it will have an impact. But again, just from my experience.

[23:44] » Okay. >> But I I do agree there may be a place

[23:47] for it if if the back what's kind of backwards arithmetic

[23:51] with the setback, with the placement, would it even work on a lot less than

[23:56] 11,000? I don't know. >> Yeah.

[23:58] » But I just wanted to To the extent that that it would,

[24:02] I'm not opposed to it. Plus considering it in other

[24:05] » Okay. >> Just just an interesting anecdote.

[24:09] Um you know, since we're talking about that and about

[24:12] So, um when I was in Salt Lake City as the planning director,

[24:16] um the council uh wanted to and we began

[24:20] the process of allowing for ADUs or amending the city's code to allow for

[24:25] ADUs. Uh this was long before the legislature

[24:29] or anybody was considering this. It's probably around I don't know, 2012 or

[24:33] something like that. The um the the place where we got a lot

[24:38] of acceptance for allowing for ADUs was on the west side of Salt Lake, which is

[24:43] generally smaller, less expensive homes. The place we got the most resistance

[24:49] was in the east side in the avenues. That's where we got the most resistance

[24:53] and yet they had bigger properties. Um you know, more ability to do that,

[24:57] but it it was just interesting to me.

[25:03] » I think that sentiment will come forth in the public hearing.

[25:07] » Right. Okay, let's continue.

[25:10] » All right. Um,

[25:13] so they uh that 3B, they must comply with the building,

[25:18] health, and fire regulations as stipulated in the state code

[25:22] in the bill and then of course conform to the

[25:26] applicable land use regulations for the zone in which they're located.

[25:30] Um, and those are specified in the language back in our code

[25:35] in the like for residential zones. And that's primarily where we're going to

[25:39] get ADUs in the residential zones because they're residential structures.

[25:44] Um, and conform to those setback requirements. Okay, now here's where we

[25:47] get into the issue. This says conform to the setback requirements of accessory

[25:52] structures in the zone for which they're located.

[25:57] I think we probably want to address that and probably adopt something different.

[26:02] And Paul, the code that he submitted as an example,

[26:08] does provide for some more restrictive setback requirements.

[26:15] Um, and and I think that would be appropriate. One of the things with our

[26:19] accessory structure code is that it allows accessory structures to go right

[26:24] up to within a foot of the rear property line.

[26:28] You know, that probably works for a tough shed

[26:31] or something like that, but it can be problematic when you're getting

[26:35] something that's a little bigger and a little bit more involved like

[26:37] potentially an ADU that may even have windows on that side. And we we'll talk

[26:42] about windows and design here in a little bit, but you know, we we I I'm

[26:48] guessing that we will want to consider requiring an additional rear yard

[26:53] setback um for the ADUs. Now, as Brad mentioned,

[26:59] you know, there are some communities that require them to have meet the same

[27:02] setback as the primary the residential structure.

[27:06] That really to me kind of defeats the purpose because

[27:10] you're oftentimes going to locate those ADUs in the required rear yard. If they

[27:14] have to meet the same setback, there isn't any place they can really go if

[27:19] the house and the is just meets that that minimum setback.

[27:24] So, I think we probably want to allow them they're generally going to be

[27:27] smaller structures. We may want to talk about if we want to

[27:31] limit them to single story structures or whatever else it is.

[27:34] But uh generally, I think they can be closer than that 30 or 20-ft rear yard

[27:39] setback that may be required in the residential zone.

[27:43] But I think it's got to be more than a foot.

[27:45] Um but where we feel comfortable with that

[27:48] that may be what we ought to discuss.

[27:56] » Thoughts on that? >> Thoughts on that?

[27:58] » Do we Do we want to do that now or after the public comment or

[28:01] » I We can do that. >> Let's do that.

[28:02] » Yep. That's a probably a good suggestion.

[28:05] Okay, so that's one thing to be aware of and to listen for to comments on that.

[28:10] All right, the other part and talks about being designed consistent with the

[28:13] design of the single family dwelling. This This is a can of worms.

[28:18] And I'll tell you why. Few years ago, the legislature pat

[28:22] passed a provision that said for one and two family structures,

[28:26] local governments cannot adopt design regulations.

[28:30] Cannot adopt design standards and it has a specific list of all the different

[28:34] kinds of things like um exterior materials and

[28:41] um you know, whatever you might attach to

[28:44] it and and all There's a whole list of things that it says you can't regulate

[28:49] the design of. And but it says specifically for the

[28:53] dwelling. All right.

[28:56] » I have a I have a note for you and and Katie there, please. And

[29:01] um it's going to take more lawyering than I could give it, but

[29:05] um you talk you talk code 10 21

[29:10] 304. >> Mhm.

[29:13] » Well, if you were just referring to section 3D.

[29:20] Then if you go on to the next section 10 21 3044

[29:28] A little three a land use subsection may

[29:38] require be designed consistent with the design of the single-family dwelling.

[29:44] » You're talking about the bill here for the ADUs?

[29:46] » The state the state law. >> Yeah, for the ADUs. Yeah, that's that's

[29:50] what I'm talking about here. >> two those two phrases are at conflict.

[29:54] » They they are absolutely. >> But if we can

[29:58] if we in our ordinance may rely on 10 21 30443

[30:05] » Yeah. >> we absolutely should.

[30:06] » So, here's where the dilemma comes in and this can of worms that I'm talking

[30:11] about. In the bill that was passed that then

[30:14] requires that we have the detached ADUs it also talks in there and it says

[30:20] specifically that um

[30:22] you can you can regulate you can't regulate the

[30:26] design of ADUs

[30:29] consistent with the section of code we just talked about.

[30:34] But then elsewhere in that same bill it taught it says what Paul just talked

[30:38] about. It said we can require the ADUs to be consistent with the design of the

[30:45] primary dwelling on the property.

[30:49] Well, how do you do that if the other part

[30:52] says you can't regulate design? So, it's

[30:56] to me it's illegal, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Somebody's going to

[31:00] probably challenge it sometime, but >> What does it mean?

[31:03] » Go ahead. >> Like what does consistent mean? So, for

[31:06] example, I'm on a half-acre, I want to add on to my house, they no longer make

[31:11] my brick. It's not made anymore. So,

[31:15] I'm out of luck because my my HOA requires a certain amount of

[31:20] brick or rock versus stucco? So, I Yeah, I think that's a can of

[31:25] worms and I think that's vague and I think it's

[31:29] » And I'd say if we did get a legal challenge, um the code is ambiguous and

[31:33] what a court usually does with something that's ambiguous, two things. Um they go

[31:38] with the more specific and in my opinion, the more specific is the list

[31:41] of design standards that we can't regulate. And two, in land use, they uh

[31:46] interpret it in favor of the property owner.

[31:50] » All right. So, what I would recommend, what I as I

[31:55] thought about this, I thought what we should do is we should rely on the

[31:58] section that Paul just referred to, which says we can require them to be

[32:01] consistent with the design of the primary residential structure on the

[32:05] property. >> Seems reasonable.

[32:07] » But, I think we leave that language pre just like that. We don't start listing

[32:13] specific things that it can or can't be. >> Yeah, let let's quote the state quote

[32:17] the state code. We run a foul of that other part of the state code.

[32:21] » Yes. >> By saying, you know, well, look, we're

[32:23] just requiring them to be as the code says, consistent with the design. Now,

[32:29] the the >> And we're going to get some questions

[32:32] just like this commissioner had. They don't make that brick anymore, but it's

[32:36] consistent. It's not metal or steel or bamboo or whatever the the homeowner's

[32:42] thinking of creating the ADU out. It's consistent with the rest of their home.

[32:47] » But does that does that then conflict with the idea of being able to allow

[32:52] people to convert existing structures? What if their existing structure is made

[32:57] out of metal? >> Yeah.

[32:59] Yeah, I think that's >> contradiction.

[33:01] » That's a good good point. And I think by leaving it fairly general as is

[33:09] the language is in the bill, um it leaves a lot of discretion

[33:15] on the part of the staff that'll likely be reviewing it and to

[33:19] say, "Well, you know, yeah, we think that's consistent and that's not." What

[33:22] that then means is what Katie was just talking about. If it's if it's vague

[33:27] like that and you get a couple of reasonable

[33:31] interpretations, you know, let's say the staff says, "Well, you got to put you

[33:34] got to put orange-colored brick on there to be consistent."

[33:38] And the applicant says, "They're not making that brick anymore, but I have a

[33:42] brick here that I think is pretty close, you know, or pretty consistent."

[33:47] Um would to do that. And if you have a reasonable

[33:50] interpretation that to look somebody that could look at that and say, "Well,

[33:54] I can see the city side of it and I can see the owner side of it." Our state

[33:58] code specifies that you go with what the owner the applicant wants to do.

[34:03] If it can reasonably be interpreted different ways. So, that leaves us open

[34:08] in that regard. But I don't if we get any more specific,

[34:12] I think we're going to run a foul of the other provision of the code. That that's

[34:17] Katie, I don't know what what you're thinking. You're the legal.

[34:20] » Well, it would be my recommendation to not um

[34:23] to not touch the things that that that list that says we're not supposed to

[34:27] touch, but um I was able to talk to somebody at the league yesterday.

[34:31] They're aware of this ambiguity and they think that it will be addressed in the

[34:34] next session. So, we may be able to amend it next spring.

[34:38] » I see. >> Um as far as um

[34:43] the existing accessory structures being converted,

[34:48] um what it does say in the state code and what I think we would put in our

[34:53] ordinances to say you can convert an accessory structure as long as you can

[34:57] comply with all of the requirements that we have for the ADU.

[35:01] » Exactly. I think it says we must provide a path.

[35:04] » Right. Exactly. >> that path may mean

[35:08] you've got to move this one wall back 9 ft.

[35:10] » Right. >> You've got to change it from a metal

[35:13] clad building to something consistent with the home.

[35:16] » Right. Exactly. If they can do that, then they can convert the existing

[35:20] structure. If they can't, they would not be able to.

[35:24] » Yeah, it's a whole different category from a

[35:26] » Okay. >> um a mower shed to

[35:29] now a residence. >> Right.

[35:32] » All right. Um

[35:36] Next provision, uh

[35:39] Roman numeral five item, there may not be larger in size than the single-family

[35:43] dwelling. Um we may want to be smaller than that.

[35:47] A number of communities are. They put a limit. They say it can't be

[35:51] uh more than 70% for example the size of the of the existing single-family

[35:56] dwelling. Or they may set a specific square footage.

[36:00] Cuz you may have some small homes on a lot that you could put an ADU on and you

[36:05] know, it if you have a percentage, it may wind up being a really little ADU,

[36:09] which maybe not is a problem, but it may not be real reasonable either. So, uh

[36:15] some consideration there. Maybe make it a percentage of the size of the primary

[36:20] structure or a specific square footage. Um think that through a little bit and

[36:25] see what we may want to do there, and what what comments we may get.

[36:28] » Okay. >> Um not located in a utility easement, uh

[36:32] may not be located in the front yard. I think those are all pretty

[36:35] straightforward, nothing to be controversial there.

[36:39] Okay, and then um as far as parking, we are limited in the parking that we can

[36:44] require for ADUs. If they're smaller than 650 square feet, we can only

[36:50] require one additional off-street parking space to be provided on the

[36:54] property. If they're larger than 650, we can allow two, but only two off-street

[37:00] parking spaces uh to be located um off the street.

[37:06] Um you can see the other provisions there about

[37:09] um displacing uh any existing parking

[37:12] spaces, that they have to be paved. Um

[37:17] and that it has to have utility services, um and uh talks about that a

[37:22] little bit. And let's see, where we at? Number five,

[37:26] general ADU uh standards. Um no more than one

[37:32] ADU, either an IADU or a

[37:36] DADU, located on a on a property. That may be

[37:41] something to discuss, because there are some communities that allow both.

[37:46] They will allow an internal and a detached.

[37:50] What's the feeling of the commission? >> I I think we recently had discussion

[37:55] here in planning commission with a

[37:59] community member who was planning to do both. Yeah.

[38:04] Already had the internal and was doing planning for the next, so.

[38:11] And maybe we'll circle back. Shall we circle back to that as well?

[38:15] Something to consider. >> Would that issue be that

[38:19] they would have to provide way more parking, because you would have the

[38:23] parking requirement for both. >> Uh

[38:28] » It's part of it. >> I don't know if the IADU has a parking

[38:31] standard. Does the IADU have I have to look.

[38:34] I can't remember now if the IADU has a >> to provide one space for the IADU.

[38:39] » What is it? >> You have to provide one space for the

[38:41] internal. >> Okay, so yes.

[38:43] » that I think it has to be not the four spots. You've like you've got to

[38:48] have >> Can't be tandem.

[38:49] » Yeah, it can't be tandem. Thank you. >> Yeah.

[38:54] Okay, one one additional for the IADU. Yeah, and if you had

[38:58] um both you'd have you would be allowed to I think require the additional

[39:03] parking as well.

[39:07] Um then we talk about single-family uh in in an ADU. That's you know, the same

[39:12] as if in a single-family structure um or unit. Um

[39:19] that it has to obtain a valid permit for renting um

[39:23] and cannot be rented for less than 30 days.

[39:28] That's to you know, kind of address and prevent

[39:31] the short-term rental issue um which is an issue in some communities

[39:37] uh many in fact. And then uh there's the state code does

[39:41] allow the community to require that the

[39:46] primary owner of the property must live in one of the units. Either in the

[39:51] primary unit or in the ADU. And we have that drafted here so that

[39:56] that court requirement would be there. Um that's generally a quick rundown of

[40:02] it. I think with some of the options uh talked about there.

[40:06] A lot of the stuff that that Paul's ordinance had was with regard to a lot

[40:12] of the design standards. And we just talked about that about how

[40:16] we probably need to leave that more general rather than getting specific

[40:20] because of the issues in the code and how that would be treated legally.

[40:25] And then the setbacks.

[40:28] What we want to do on the setbacks. >> And I think an additional one is the 30

[40:34] or 90 or some other number of consecutive days for rent rental.

[40:38] » Yeah, you can go up to 90. Yeah.

[40:41] » So. >> We may also want to talk about things

[40:44] like there is

[40:46] the state code does allow things like massing and like the percentage of lot

[40:51] area that can be covered by an ADU. >> Yes.

[40:54] » Or by all the structures that are on the property

[40:58] and also things like window placement and things like that and so we you know

[41:04] we want to talk about that as well. If those are requirements that we want to

[41:08] put in. >> Thank you.

[41:09] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[41:10] » And and thank you for the I can see that

[41:16] what what I provided was overreaching on parking. This is disappointing that you

[41:21] can only require one. I know even if we grant building permits we're always so

[41:26] concerned about parking but the way the state has brought this down that's

[41:32] if it's 650 it's

[41:35] one parking spot.

[41:39] » And I'll just say this is my own comment on the parking. I think by and large

[41:45] unless you have a disparate you know like five different

[41:49] individuals which is I guess that's our definition of a family right? It is

[41:52] five. We have five individuals living there it's possible that you could have

[41:55] five cars. >> Yep.

[41:58] » So we may only have one or maybe two parking additional parking spaces that

[42:02] means some of those cars are going to have to park on the street.

[42:05] I frankly they're public streets people can park on the streets. I don't think

[42:09] that's a problem or an issue. It should be allowed. The problem comes

[42:13] in the wintertime when our city code requires no overnight

[42:18] parking on the street. And where do those cars go?

[42:21] And that's that becomes an issue. >> Right.

[42:24] Okay. Well, thank you so much for A, helping the city with this draft

[42:30] ordinance and and B, for walking us through it.

[42:33] Um I think that is fantastic. So, we're

[42:36] going to go ahead now and we're going to have the public comment.

[42:41] Um or the public hearing part. So, we

[42:46] um

[42:50] I'm going to say most of you all look fairly familiar to this process, but um

[42:54] we'll just hold you to 3 minutes each. If you'll just state your name, um

[42:59] and then we just ask that you be respectful to

[43:04] each other and um to staff and we'll just go ahead and

[43:08] open up to whoever wants to come forward.

[43:21] » Hi. My name's Jill Dredge and I don't live

[43:24] in the neighborhood in West Kaysville, but I've been down there and I would

[43:27] encourage everybody to go down to that neighborhood and see kind of what

[43:31] they're dealing with with good ADUs and some that have been a little bit of a

[43:35] problem down there. Um one of the things that as you were

[43:38] talking I think the property value for the person that has the ADU can go up,

[43:43] but I think the property value for the people that are living within that may

[43:48] go down because I've gone down there and seen how it's changed backyards for

[43:52] people where it's a two-level especially and the windows are there and they look

[43:57] right down into people's backyards. So, I think those are things to kind of

[44:01] consider. Um

[44:04] one of them uh the temperature in their backyard is 10° higher because it's a

[44:09] metal building and it's right by their garden area. So, I think those are some

[44:14] things to consider. Um, and anyway, that's all I wanted to say.

[44:19] Thank you. >> Thank you, Joe.

[44:31] » Lorraine Starkey, Kaysville. I hope to focus on three things.

[44:35] Number one, how the rules for new ADUs or detached ADUs will be enforced.

[44:41] Number two, what happens to the lot structures that do not cleanly fit the

[44:47] new rules. And number three, what happens if Kaysville is not ready by

[44:52] October 1st. So, let's start with enforcement. What

[44:55] if we do that? The rules matter when they're enforced. Today, we have

[45:00] residents that are pointing to structures in their neighborhoods,

[45:04] two-story garage apartment built on a foot from the property line, accessory

[45:08] buildings the size of commercial storage units,

[45:12] a rear addition facing the major street, all that went through city staff,

[45:18] planning commission, city council approved. It is this is not

[45:22] hypothetical, it happened here in Kaysville under today's codes. There are

[45:29] some severely challenged neighbors in um, Utah's home town.

[45:35] A citizen letter to the commission describes this in particular, structures

[45:39] that are approved in spite of the existing restrictions on detached

[45:45] accessory dwelling units. I would invite all each of you to review

[45:49] this letter carefully. My question directly is, as the

[45:54] standards are adopted, what is our enforcement plan? Will there be

[45:59] inspections periodically? Will the city retire

[46:03] rely entirely on neighbors to file complaints after the fact? Does the code

[46:09] enforcement have the staffing today to handle the expected increase in ADU

[46:16] applications? Will the city commit today to publicly track and report the permits

[46:23] that are issued for ADUs each year so that we can watch and monitor the

[46:28] cumulative effect over time instead of dif-

[46:32] discovering it lot by lot as we're experiencing today? Number two,

[46:37] non-conforming lots, ex- existing structures. Not every lot has a clean

[46:44] 1,000 square foot. We have corner lots, flag lots.

[46:48] What if we clarify eligibility today for the structures that are built under

[46:54] the old rules? Are they grandfathered without question?

[46:58] Um or is there a re- view process? Finally, the timing. If Kaysville does

[47:03] not have a finalized objective standards before the the

[47:09] deadline, what is our fallback? Will we default to the bare minimum?

[47:13] Is it possible to pause the ADUs approval until the local standards are

[47:18] firmly in place? I urge our commission not to let the deadline approach and

[47:22] arrive without clear answers. We do have authority. May I respectfully

[47:28] request that our commission use every ounce of this authority to establish

[47:33] appropriate codes and staffing, whatever is to see and make sure that whatever

[47:40] is enforced. Thank you.

[47:50] » And then the downside of Rambo. >> My name is Laurie Cragan and I live in

[47:54] the Old Mill Farms neighborhood. On May 6th of this year, 3 months ago, the

[47:59] state of Utah mandated that Kaysville must now permit detached accessory

[48:03] dwellings. Up until this point in time, they were not allowed, only IADUs. I am

[48:08] the owner of a 1,500 sq ft IADU attached the back of my third car garage and

[48:14] understand how valuable it can be. I also understand, having grown children

[48:19] who need housing as I have my son's family of five living in my basement. We

[48:23] are grateful to have had the space to offer in times of need. The city of

[48:27] Kaysville has the opportunity to do something monumental for its residents

[48:31] in considering the changes to section 17-31-3.

[48:36] There are things that the state has mandated to be included in this new

[48:39] ordinance, but there are also substantial list of things Kaysville

[48:42] still has power to regulate. While I appreciate the work that has

[48:46] gone into the draft in the packet, it is sorely lacking in many items. Utah code

[48:51] section 1-21-3044 gives the city the ability to still

[48:56] regulate many things about these DADUs. To name a few, size, dimension, height,

[49:00] maximum lot coverage, setbacks from property lines, window orientation,

[49:04] architectural design consistency with the primary residence, and 90-day rental

[49:09] term, owner occupancy, parking placement, so much that can still be

[49:13] written into the document and tied up. We need specifics spelled out with

[49:17] diagrams of where these DADUs can be placed on lots so there is no confusion.

[49:23] I have a 2,400 sq ft 30-ft high steel pole barn in the property right behind

[49:31] mine, 10 ft from my property line. Due to the accessory structures code

[49:36] requirements on the books right now, it was permitted by the city and it was

[49:40] built last summer. The intention intention of the property owner is to

[49:44] work on his truck on the lower level and build a residence on the top level for

[49:48] family. This commercial-looking building is in my neighborhood. Privacy we once

[49:53] enjoyed is gone as I now have four large clear windows staring into my property.

[49:58] There are two more of these still buildings on one neighbor's property and

[50:03] another neighbor is in the process of building a 2,700 square foot 29 foot

[50:08] high building on a corner lot right next to the main street our neighborhood uses

[50:12] to go about our lives. It is obvious that our current accessory building code

[50:16] needs to be looked at and revised. You have one chance to get this right for

[50:21] all the property owners of Kaysville. We are counting on you to keep our

[50:25] neighborhoods beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. Please send the

[50:29] draft included in the packet back for a review and meet again in 2 weeks with a

[50:32] more complete draft. Please give us the residents another chance for public

[50:36] comment on that revised draft before giving it to the council. I understand

[50:41] there is an October 1st deadline. That we must have items spelled out more

[50:45] clearly and specific detail. It's been mandated by the state but there's many

[50:50] ways that we can make these DADUs acceptable. Thank you.

[50:54] » Thank you.

[51:09] » My name is Susan Harris. >> I sent oh

[51:12] » Sorry. >> Can you say your name again, ma'am?

[51:14] » Susan Harris and I sent a a letter to all of you a few days ago.

[51:19] Um I spent hours going through that new law because frankly it scares me to

[51:23] death. Cuz I can just as she just said, our

[51:27] neighborhood has changed and I'm not right in that neighborhood. I'm a little

[51:30] further away but for

[51:33] existing code I mean I don't understand either why

[51:37] there's a 30 foot building in anyone's backyard but um

[51:41] I just I'm really concerned about where this could all go and so and I'm kind of

[51:47] really disgruntled that like there's something to propose

[51:50] to like the council before you even get impact from the public. I think that's

[51:54] kind of weird. Like shouldn't you hear what we have to say and then work

[51:57] something and send it to the council? Cuz, you know, what if we had an idea or

[52:02] you or something? So. Um I'm one of those who that neighbor

[52:07] I'm the one that has the neighbor's ADU a foot off my property line.

[52:12] And I measured it. And that was the wall. That's not even

[52:16] overhang. And so, code somewhere like didn't work.

[52:21] And that's kind of I think the fear as even like what we have in place is

[52:25] concerning. And I think it needs to be reviewed and And as this dear lady said

[52:31] that we have to be careful when we start restricting on what it looks like.

[52:35] I think we have every right to give some ideas or just even say it. We don't have

[52:39] to go into every detail, but there's only going to be one chance. And

[52:43] the last of my letter, the one thing I did say that I just would like to

[52:46] reiterate again is

[52:50] the intentions don't matter once things start changing.

[52:53] And if we miss, you know, that T or that I,

[52:56] then we have, you know, 30-ft buildings in the backyard of everything. And the

[53:01] neighborhood that we all bought into and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars

[53:06] changes dramatically. And this could go berserk. Like

[53:10] everybody could come in and want to do this.

[53:13] Maybe 20, maybe 30. And it will probably, you know, increase over time.

[53:17] But I think we need to be very careful right now

[53:22] to decide what we want Kaysville to be. And I I don't think every city has to

[53:27] be, you know, everything to everybody. We don't have to be a high-density

[53:31] place. But we do have a state law that is requiring a few things.

[53:34] But I think we need to put things in place so that it will work for where we

[53:40] live, who we are, and the things that we've already

[53:43] invested in this city time and time again.

[53:46] And I thank you for your time. >> Thank you.

[54:08] » Um my name is Gary Yuras, going to 422 Joshua Drive, and

[54:13] I've noticed most of my a lot of the people here are from my neighborhood,

[54:16] and I there's a reason why, and and it's been expressed tonight that there's been

[54:20] a lot of things occur in our neighborhood that in our opinion should

[54:24] not have been allowed to happen. And and I think part of it is

[54:28] enforcement, part of it is the standards in your zoning ordinance. We need to, as

[54:33] Will said, look at the accessory buildings, deal with height. We've got

[54:37] two-story accessory buildings with windows that look down in people's

[54:41] property. I feel my heart breaks for the Cragans,

[54:45] you know, they've invested a lot of money in their property, and now they've

[54:48] got a two-story building sitting there with windows. Their privacy has been

[54:51] destroyed. That should not happen to people in this community.

[54:56] Um I think that the accessory unit should not be in

[55:01] two-story buildings. I think they should be limited to single story. In fact, I

[55:04] think there should be no accessory buildings in

[55:08] over one story high, just to provide the the atmosphere and the massing within

[55:14] within our community. I think there should be no windows

[55:18] uh to the adjacent property. You know, I I think you use a standard

[55:22] of if you're sitting in an adjacent property looking at one of these

[55:26] residential units should be viewed as a looked at as a shed or a garage there,

[55:32] and so you're sitting in your property and see my my privacy has not been

[55:35] violated. So, I think that's very important. Now, as far as the setback,

[55:40] I think these are residential dwellings. I think that should have the 8-ft

[55:45] setback that a typical residential dwelling should have because think of it

[55:48] for a minute. If you get two property owners put two units there back

[55:53] back-to-back, if you use the foot setback, you got a 2-ft difference

[55:57] between those buildings. And in our residential subdivisions,

[56:01] we're saying there should be at least 16 ft between a residential dwellings.

[56:05] Well, that should apply to the uh

[56:08] the ADUs or whatever you call them.

[56:11] Sorry about that. Um also, I agree strongly that it should

[56:15] meet the design standards of the existing buildings. And I yeah, you can

[56:19] talk about conflicts, but I think you need to make sure that that meets that.

[56:23] And I I think there is not a conflict there. The state statute says that you

[56:28] can make it meet there. You're not dictating what it has to be. You're just

[56:31] saying it has to meet the existing. So, I think that's reasonable.

[56:35] I think the parking is an issue. Uh I don't know how to resolve that. Maybe

[56:40] maybe we have to go back to the legislature and talk about that. But if

[56:44] you got a 650 and you're saying there's only one unit, well, think about it. Our

[56:49] area does not have public transit. You got a couple of movers into there. How

[56:54] many cars is going to be in there in a 650 unit? Probably two.

[56:58] And so, one of them's going to be on the street. And um as a city manager for

[57:02] Woods Cross for a number of years, and we put in a unit uh project, and we

[57:07] missed it on the parking. And that became a real problem. So,

[57:11] parking becomes a problem. Um I'd just like to say one other thing is

[57:15] enforcement is important. Enforcement needs to happen. I'm glad we got the new

[57:19] guy here because you can spend hours and hours going over

[57:24] this, but if it's not enforced, it doesn't mean anything. So, thank you.

[57:27] » Thank you.

[57:48] » Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the commission?

[57:56] Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public comment.

[58:02] And um we can open it up to the commission to

[58:07] discuss um

[58:11] some of the things that I'm hearing are um

[58:15] a lot of what we've discussed the accessory code needs to be needs to

[58:20] be amended, accessory building code. Um

[58:27] Enforcement is a great question. I think that kind of lands on city where we

[58:32] don't have a lot of staff um currently to enforce.

[58:38] Um That being said, I think we

[58:44] the general consensus is we still want to have some regulations, so

[58:49] um um architectural standards as much as we

[58:54] can enforce sounds like it's kind of um setbacks I think or something we're

[59:01] going to want to address as well that we can kind of

[59:04] bump those up a little bit. Parking is fairly set sounds like.

[59:10] Um single story maybe something we want to talk about in window

[59:14] placement. So, I'm going to just open this up to commission members to just

[59:19] start batting out some ideas and things that you'd like to amend from

[59:24] » they go down, they go sideways. >> There you go.

[59:29] » [laughter] >> Yeah.

[59:30] » That's what we want.

[59:33] » Now we know Now we know what Mindy wants.

[59:37] Go in sideways. [laughter]

[59:41] Okay, I think we're we're good.

[59:44] » Please. >> Sure. Um

[59:46] so I've listed a number of the issues, some

[59:50] of which I brought up, some of the things that you have, and we've heard

[59:53] maybe we address them one at a time. How about height?

[59:56] I don't maybe start with height. >> Start with height.

[59:58] » What's the What's the feeling of the commission on the recommendation

[1:00:01] » on setback, don't you think? >> What's that?

[1:00:04] » For me, I think it depends on the setback because if you have a two-story

[1:00:09] home and like a lot of property around it

[1:00:14] » Yeah. >> and it would also depend on windows.

[1:00:17] » I know a number >> this overlaps and it entwines in such a

[1:00:21] complicated way. >> Yeah, I know a number of communities

[1:00:24] that they limit ADUs to single story. Uh to me, that seems pretty reasonable

[1:00:30] because they're supposed to be smaller accessory structures to the main house.

[1:00:34] » My only question I have with that is currently we have a fair amount of

[1:00:40] IADUs because there's a breezeway or something that are over

[1:00:45] » over a garage. >> over a garage. And we currently have a

[1:00:47] lot of you know, accessory residences that are

[1:00:52] on a second story, and how how does that play into that?

[1:00:56] » to convert, like are we stepping on the ability to

[1:01:00] convert an existing IADU?

[1:01:04] » Yeah, I mean, that it may well do. If you have like a detached garage and you

[1:01:08] want to put one over over the main garage part

[1:01:12] it would limit that if you limited single story.

[1:01:16] So, that may not be the best solution, but um you know

[1:01:21] you certainly don't want them 30 ft, I don't think.

[1:01:25] » Um, >> is there a a requirement or anything for

[1:01:29] setback from the in the main structure of the house? Is there like a fire

[1:01:33] requirement or anything like that? >> There there's probably just the fire

[1:01:35] code requirement, which I don't know exactly what that is, but it's not that

[1:01:39] it's not real great. If they have firewalls, if they have fire uh code

[1:01:43] walls, they can be fairly close. >> Okay.

[1:01:46] » Um, but it they they have to meet that fire code requirement to be close.

[1:01:51] » So, we're looking at a minimum distance from the main

[1:01:54] structure, setback, and the height that are all

[1:01:59] presenting some sort of an issue when we go back to the lot size that we're

[1:02:03] proposing to put them on. >> Yeah.

[1:02:08] » I do think um, considering what the

[1:02:13] what the residents are saying that we should be generous with our setbacks

[1:02:18] » Mhm. >> from neighbors.

[1:02:20] Maybe match existing home structure setbacks.

[1:02:25] So, >> Thank you. I I agree with that

[1:02:27] sentiment. We're creating a residence with an with a auxiliary dwelling unit.

[1:02:33] And and let's keep it simple. It's not very

[1:02:36] forgiving. Um, would

[1:02:38] » I will just say that if we do that, we may be really limiting uh particularly

[1:02:43] on lots, you know, that just bear it that

[1:02:45] just meet the minimum setback requirement. That would basically mean

[1:02:49] that you couldn't have an ADU.

[1:02:51] » may be some where I don't have 16 ft between me and my

[1:02:55] neighbor. >> That Yeah, that's what it would have to

[1:02:58] have. There have to be more room on the sides.

[1:03:00] » And and that's okay. One of the one of the comments that we heard and I've

[1:03:04] heard um, some of our city council echo is

[1:03:10] we don't have to be everything to everybody in Kaysville.

[1:03:13] We're a unique city. >> So,

[1:03:19] Well, is this correct in that So, for side if we're talking side yards,

[1:03:25] the minimum setback varies by lot. So, 10, 8, and the smallest is 5.

[1:03:32] » Right. >> But, that's on a 6,000 sq ft lot, which

[1:03:37] wouldn't be >> Which if we limit it to 10 or 11,000,

[1:03:41] that wouldn't be us. >> No, and

[1:03:43] » So, >> And right now, accessory structures have

[1:03:45] to meet the side yard requirements. Um so, um in that case,

[1:03:51] you know, the uh ADUs should probably will should probably meet that as well.

[1:03:56] I don't think that's going to be a an issue in most cases. I think they'll be

[1:03:59] able to meet those side yard requirements. I think it's just the rear

[1:04:02] yard that's going to be an issue. >> is the bigger issue.

[1:04:05] » What What What about like uh oddly shaped lots or corner lots that maybe

[1:04:09] wouldn't have such much of a backyard, right?

[1:04:13] » Corner lots are an interesting issue. Um I have to tell you I was kind of beating

[1:04:18] my head against the wall for a while to exactly understand how our

[1:04:22] um accessory structure requirements worked on corner lots cuz the the

[1:04:27] language in our code is it's um

[1:04:31] it it's not clear. >> Mhm.

[1:04:33] » Not clear to me anyway, and uh I That is one thing as we when we

[1:04:38] address our accessory structures, I think we need to address that.

[1:04:42] Um and clarify that and get it to where we think it should be.

[1:04:47] But, we can do that for ADUs right now at this point. We can specify whatever

[1:04:52] it is we want to. So, on a corner lot on the side that's adjacent to the street,

[1:04:57] normally, you're required to have a 20-ft setback.

[1:05:01] Uh but, in some cases, our code does have uh the ability to put um ADUs

[1:05:06] within that those 20 ft. Or I'm sorry, accessory structures. Do we want to

[1:05:10] allow ADUs to go into that, or do we want them to also meet that 20-ft

[1:05:14] setback requirement?

[1:05:17] » Yes, the 20-ft setback requirement because it's a it's a dwelling, it's a

[1:05:22] residence, not an accessory building. >> And it's adjacent to the street.

[1:05:30] » Um the the chair um made, you know, good notes, and I'm sorry if a couple of

[1:05:35] these are redundant, but um I'll just rattle off my list to um

[1:05:46] I someone someone maybe can draft how we

[1:05:52] deal with the the unit over a garage, window

[1:05:57] orientation, but generally single-story.

[1:06:03] Um in our language, I hope we put that we we've provided a path

[1:06:10] for uh you to convert an existing building

[1:06:14] to an an accessory dwelling unit, but it must

[1:06:18] meet all of the requirements of the code. We've [snorts] heard the the

[1:06:22] citizens speak about enforcement. I read um the fine is $100 a day. Is that in

[1:06:29] the ordinance? Um

[1:06:32] » Um I think it's out on the page A, yeah.

[1:06:36] » I I regard I hope it's still there. I I

[1:06:39] read it and >> Oh, yeah, I got it right here for you.

[1:06:41] » Okay, I read it and maybe forgot it, but but that seems like

[1:06:46] that gives it some teeth. Um

[1:06:50] and then we just talked about corner lots.

[1:06:53] Um the um

[1:06:57] window orientation ought to be addressed. Uh minimum side

[1:07:02] yard, I think this is a great guide since we're creating residences.

[1:07:08] And then, um, I appreciate

[1:07:11] uh, council's guidance.

[1:07:15] And we shouldn't vary from the language of section 1021304

[1:07:21] 4A3, but let's at least put that in there,

[1:07:26] that it be designed consistent with the design of the single-family dwelling.

[1:07:31] » Yeah. >> Then it sounds like the legislature's

[1:07:33] going to maybe clean that up uh, address the conflict. That's what courts and

[1:07:38] legislatures are for, but in the meantime, we're going to use what the

[1:07:42] state's mandated to us, um,

[1:07:47] and then the other thing that I heard that I thought was interesting is, um,

[1:07:53] pausing permits and and

[1:07:57] well, if you've taken the laboring oar here, I'll let you address if that might

[1:08:01] be prudent, um,

[1:08:05] » What was your question again, Alan? >> Uh, just

[1:08:07] » Pausing permits. >> Pausing permits until we we

[1:08:10] » Oh, on the accessory >> dwelling and this, if that's an

[1:08:13] appropriate action. >> Yeah, so the way that works, um, it's we

[1:08:18] we call it a moratorium. I mean, that's what everybody kind of calls it. Once

[1:08:21] you've decided to do this, you have 6 months

[1:08:24] to address your code and make whatever changes that you want to.

[1:08:27] And people say it's a moratorium. It's not really a moratorium.

[1:08:31] What it is is you've just put everybody on notice

[1:08:34] that if they insist on going ahead with building something

[1:08:40] that is governed by those provisions, they may have to come back and change it

[1:08:46] if we change the code. And most people will say, "Well, I'm

[1:08:49] going to wait till you decide what it is you're going to do."

[1:08:51] » I see. >> And so in that in essence it becomes a

[1:08:54] moratorium [clears throat] because they'll say, "Well, let's wait and see

[1:08:57] what you come up with." But there are some that will say, "I'm

[1:09:00] going to go ahead anyway." And then if it changes, they're obligated to go back

[1:09:05] and change it. So, modify the

[1:09:07] » And is that And is that an option? My understanding is October 1st is the

[1:09:12] state deadline, and if we don't have a You know. code, then you get whatever

[1:09:20] comes through. >> why what we need to specify what it is

[1:09:23] we want for the ADUs right now. >> Yeah.

[1:09:25] » Now, some of those same things we may change the accessory

[1:09:29] structures ordinance as well, but that's not what we're doing right now. We're

[1:09:34] going to just work on this piece. >> ADUs, sorry. We can't We can't pause on

[1:09:37] the ADU. >> Yeah, sorry if I didn't make that

[1:09:39] distinction clear. That that the accessory

[1:09:42] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:09:43] » [clears throat]

[1:09:48] » My thought I just keep thinking back on the size of the We're talking about the

[1:09:52] level of the house, right? The stories. If you are on a smaller lot, a

[1:09:57] non-conforming lot, a non-typical lot, would it would make sense if you were

[1:10:02] spending the money to make the structure to go up so that it would allow for more

[1:10:07] square footage or more parking or any of those things, right? So, it would allow

[1:10:11] for that. But, like we have everybody concerned

[1:10:16] about is um your privacy in your backyard.

[1:10:19] Personally, I live in a smaller home, so they can see me in my backyard.

[1:10:24] I'm used to it. That's just how it is. But, I can understand that it's an

[1:10:28] issue. I don't think it should be 1 ft from the from the

[1:10:31] » I wonder if if an appropriate setback could resolve the second-story issue.

[1:10:37] » Mhm. Setback from the neighbor or

[1:10:39] » Probably with the combining window placement

[1:10:44] and setbacks. I feel like that would cause

[1:10:48] » It all comes back down to lot size. So, maybe that's where we should start

[1:10:52] is with the larger What size lot? Do we want 11,000? Do we want 8,000? Do we

[1:10:58] want 10,000? >> Mhm.

[1:11:00] » Maybe that's a good jumping off point. >> That's a good place.

[1:11:06] » I don't know. >> Any comment?

[1:11:09] » I I think I I Yeah, I think the chairs that both the chair and I have got

[1:11:13] commented that if the arithmetic works,

[1:11:17] fine if it's on a smaller lot, but it may not.

[1:11:23] » Does anyone want to make an adjustment to the 11,000

[1:11:27] now? Obviously, we can change it later, but

[1:11:30] do we want to do that? >> I think they should be allowed on

[1:11:33] smaller lots if they can conform

[1:11:36] to these setbacks. >> Uh to whatever we set up backs that we

[1:11:40] decide on it. >> Uh you know, and I don't know that the

[1:11:44] city would want to go this far, but there are communities out there that

[1:11:46] don't specify a minimum lot size. Um they just say you have to meet the

[1:11:52] the setback requirements, and if they can meet them on whatever lot, it's

[1:11:56] fine. I don't know that you want to go that far,

[1:11:59] but that's an option. >> Guess there are smaller homes on bigger

[1:12:02] lots. Um or make their lot look bigger just

[1:12:06] because they are a tinier home, right? So,

[1:12:09] this is saying a quarter acre, just over a quarter acre at 11,000 sq ft.

[1:12:16] There are some homes that are on smaller lots that might be able to conform to it

[1:12:20] somewhat. I think for sure there would be.

[1:12:25] Mhm. >> What do you want to set as your minimum

[1:12:28] square feet? >> Or or zoning

[1:12:31] district or like you say, just

[1:12:36] leave it. >> There's a lot. There are a lot to do.

[1:12:45] » Yeah, and I mean, there's always whatever it is that you recommend now

[1:12:49] and the council winds up adopting, it can be changed later.

[1:12:53] » Yeah.

[1:12:59] » So, do we we do we do we ask our our crack staff

[1:13:06] to take a crack at drafting something for less than 11,000 square feet, or do

[1:13:12] we go with the state-mandated 11,000 square feet or larger is really the

[1:13:17] the issue and and we could look at what they propose

[1:13:22] in 2 weeks. Um or as the chair suggested,

[1:13:27] perhaps we

[1:13:29] we pro we we've given direction. That's they've taken notes. They have

[1:13:36] they've they've heard. Um do we

[1:13:39] let the city council finalize it? That's the

[1:13:43] possibility. >> it's appropriate for us to give them a

[1:13:45] suggestion. >> Mhm.

[1:13:47] » Yeah, I think I'd recommend that you you make some recommendations tonight.

[1:13:52] » And then they [clears throat] >> Because I it sounds like the the

[1:13:53] council's going to discuss this at their in a work session next week.

[1:13:58] » So, we need to give them the word. >> your input

[1:14:00] » Uh-huh. >> There is a work session. Okay.

[1:14:03] » council. That's my understanding. Is that right, Jason?

[1:14:09] » Well, just for the sake of a starting point, I mean

[1:14:14] I'm curious if anyone would feel comfortable with

[1:14:17] recommending 8,000 square feet.

[1:14:22] » 8,000's kind of where I've been sticking in my mind.

[1:14:25] » 8,000. >> Any other thoughts on that?

[1:14:30] I mean, part of me just part of me thinks for the in the interest of time,

[1:14:37] you start kind of basic, start with we can always

[1:14:44] adjust, but I don't feel like it's a one-time shot,

[1:14:49] but I feel like um if you kind of cover yourself, and

[1:14:54] then you may decide you want to open it up more,

[1:14:57] you could, but >> There'll still be limitations to it. I

[1:15:01] mean everything else. >> Everything. Everything else in addition

[1:15:04] to the lot size. So there will be things that won't make it so that they could

[1:15:07] conform and get the the video.

[1:15:10] So it's I think it's the 8,000 square feet might add some flexibility.

[1:15:14] » I guess if you have your setbacks set, your height set, or

[1:15:19] whatnot, it wouldn't really uh affect your neighbor. It would only

[1:15:23] affect you, your lot, if it was a smaller lot.

[1:15:26] » the way down to the RT zoning. >> The what?

[1:15:30] » If you look at the zoning, >> Mhm.

[1:15:32] » that's that's smaller than an R16.

[1:15:37] » Okay. So well, is an R16 is Is that 6,000? Is that what it says?

[1:15:43] » I don't know. I'm leaning more towards the 10,000.

[1:15:46] » 10,000 square. 10,000 because you're saying it 8,000 it's for everybody but

[1:15:53] the R16. Looks like.

[1:15:56] » Yeah, R16 is 6,000. >> Yeah. So

[1:16:00] 10,000?

[1:16:04] » I agree with that. >> That's where I would be.

[1:16:06] » Feel okay about 10,000? >> Okay.

[1:16:13] » Okay, let's tentatively say that. Um height, do we want to say

[1:16:18] um single story, or do we want to

[1:16:22] I would love to say single story, but I just worry that that conflicts with the

[1:16:28] existing structure conversion. So could we have something that says single story

[1:16:34] except if there's an existing structure conversion, and if so, then a lot, you

[1:16:40] know, that depends on windows, that depends on

[1:16:44] I'm worried that we're going to contradict our cell by saying single

[1:16:48] story. >> Yeah, and and I I live on 5 acres, you

[1:16:52] know, any building I'm I'm building is going to be 100 ft from my neighbor's

[1:16:57] boundary. I mean, there there's I can think of examples where a second

[1:17:01] story, you know, an apartment above garage, things like that would be

[1:17:05] completely reasonable. >> appropriate.

[1:17:07] » And so and so I'm I'm reluctant to to to go with that. Now, I I want to ask it

[1:17:11] seems to me like a lot of height and setbacks

[1:17:15] kind of come together and there's there's a diagonal line and and I'm

[1:17:21] I know I've read it, but I don't have the words for it and stuff and so

[1:17:24] if that is built into it you can have a second story, but not 8

[1:17:29] ft off the property like you got to follow that that diagonal and

[1:17:33] people that are more into that can flesh out the the details there.

[1:17:38] » of naturally govern itself if we had that

[1:17:41] » It would it would keep that second story from being right up on your property

[1:17:44] line and that could be a reasonable way to write

[1:17:47] it. Um if we were to allow second story. Right

[1:17:50] now, the current code and I'm looking to the rest of the city

[1:17:54] staff to keep me straight here cuz I'm not sure I got it straight. But, um

[1:17:59] an accessory structure can go within 1 ft of the rear property line.

[1:18:04] It can be up to the wall can be up to 16 ft high.

[1:18:08] And then what if you go higher than that up to a maximum of 30 ft, for each foot

[1:18:13] higher you go, you have to be 1 ft further set back.

[1:18:16] » It starts at 12, not 16. >> 12, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. 12.

[1:18:22] That's how that's how it works now. But, if you you know

[1:18:26] » I think when something crazy >> That's crazy.

[1:18:29] » our say our setback is 8 ft

[1:18:33] to start. >> Minimum setback.

[1:18:35] » Minimum setback is 8 and then we have a height

[1:18:40] » 12 ft >> 12 ft or something, and then it could

[1:18:43] grow from there. Same language, you know.

[1:18:49] » Which could potentially, the higher you're wanting to go, you're going to

[1:18:52] run out of room. So, the smaller the lot >> That's true.

[1:18:55] » Yeah. >> So, you're constrained by your building

[1:18:58] envelope by If you're wanting to go two-story, but your lot's smaller

[1:19:02] it's naturally, like what you're saying, it might need

[1:19:05] » You don't need to or might need to It still has to do with the setback. You

[1:19:09] simply just won't have >> the option.

[1:19:11] » The setbacks and the room in the backyard to stay with your setbacks to

[1:19:15] go taller. >> Right.

[1:19:16] » But with a smaller lot maybe that's okay.

[1:19:20] » Yeah. >> Yeah, just be one-story.

[1:19:22] » Yes.

[1:19:26] » Well um

[1:19:28] 8-ft minimum side setback?

[1:19:32] » Rear? >> Rear.

[1:19:32] » Rear. >> Cuz they have to meet the side setbacks.

[1:19:35] » Yeah. The sides are already built in. >> Or we we would specify that 80s.

[1:19:40] Our accessory structure ordinance now requires that accessory structures meet

[1:19:43] the side setback requirements. Um the rear they can go within a foot,

[1:19:48] but if you make that 80s

[1:19:50] » the 1-ft issue.

[1:19:54] So, is 8 ft appropriate in the rear? >> Yeah, is 8 ft Is that enough?

[1:20:00] » It's not much. >> It is not much if it's a two-story.

[1:20:03] » Yes. So, you start with 8 ft, and the taller

[1:20:07] you go, the closer to the wards the home you're going to go.

[1:20:10] » Go. >> Yeah.

[1:20:12] So, 8 ft with a height of >> of a 12-ft

[1:20:14] » 12-ft >> Sounds good to me.

[1:20:16] » But 12

[1:20:20] » I need a visual.

[1:20:26] For every foot setback. >> Yeah.

[1:20:30] » And can we limit that it's not taller than the initial structure, the main

[1:20:34] primary structure? >> Yes.

[1:20:36] » Yeah, that would definitely probably be a good thing to have in there, that it

[1:20:39] can't be taller than the

[1:20:41] » I want a big princess tower in the back.

[1:20:46] » I kind of like 75% maybe 75% rule on

[1:20:51] square footage of the original. >> But would that be 75% of the primary

[1:20:57] structure or the Okay. Yeah, as the max. >> Was that 75 or 70?

[1:21:02] » So if you're saying you can't have the If you're saying they can't be taller

[1:21:06] than the first dwelling, if you're in a single story home, you can't build a

[1:21:10] two-story dwelling. >> Correct. Right.

[1:21:13] » Cuz you're saying by >> It would say that, yeah.

[1:21:16] » But if it's a two-story on a smaller lot and you don't have the room, it's going

[1:21:20] to end up being a one-story anyway. >> Yeah, also true.

[1:21:24] » So that's the That's the caveat.

[1:21:27] » Right now, if I purchase a lot in Kaysville

[1:21:32] in any of these zones except the A1 A5.

[1:21:39] Um if I'm going to build a dwelling unit,

[1:21:43] my rear setback is 15 ft. Is there reason to vary from that

[1:21:50] because it's an auxiliary dwelling unit? >> It just won't allow smaller lots to

[1:21:57] to use the space. >> And is that that Is that a problem?

[1:22:08] I I think sticking with these makes a lot of I mean

[1:22:14] that this is what people have expected. This is the setback from their neighbors

[1:22:19] now. So if someone start building a building

[1:22:23] in the backyard that's not 15 ft, but 8 ft

[1:22:28] that's not what it changes the character of my

[1:22:32] neighborhood. I'd love to stick with what's on our

[1:22:35] chart. >> But what about those people that have

[1:22:38] that limitation that don't have a big lot to work with?

[1:22:41] » And I don't And I don't think you'd end up with a

[1:22:45] I mean, we're limiting what can end up you know,

[1:22:49] » At that point it's just a tough pill to swallow, isn't You know, that's

[1:22:52] like sorry, all you can build is this damn tough shed.

[1:22:57] Enjoy. >> I I also think that

[1:23:01] maybe we're overestimating how many of these units will be built. Not that they

[1:23:06] won't be built, but I don't >> Right, cuz it's still a financial

[1:23:10] commitment. >> It's still a huge financial

[1:23:12] » I wanted to look that up, you know, what what percentage of properties actually

[1:23:15] have ADUs and it it's got to be in cities that have allowed it for

[1:23:19] years, you know, it's got to be a very small percentage.

[1:23:21] » Well, you're looking at 40,000 to pour the cement and do the electric and

[1:23:26] the water. Like it's a big investment. I don't think they're going to be popping

[1:23:30] up willy-nilly all over the place. >> One thing to consider is a couple months

[1:23:35] ago I reached out to Farmington City about

[1:23:39] when they had passed their ADU ordinance, just kind of get an idea of

[1:23:41] what they saw once they had allowed for detached ADUs

[1:23:46] and when I spoke to their staff, they were telling me it was a very minimal

[1:23:50] increase year by year. It was only a handful per year that they saw. It

[1:23:54] wasn't, you know, this huge influx that they had incoming. Um so, for what it's

[1:23:59] worth, that's that's what other cities have seen.

[1:24:01] » Yeah, the league has been asking that question and I think generally it's not

[1:24:06] huge. There are some communities that are seeing more

[1:24:10] uh of an impact, but but it's not huge. If you look around the country, it's

[1:24:16] generally not huge, but in some places like, for example, I just was reading an

[1:24:20] article San Francisco has been

[1:24:24] allowing has been permitting a lot of ADUs lately and but that may be because

[1:24:29] it's so damn expensive to build in San Francisco. That's about all people can

[1:24:34] afford to build. >> And it's landlocked. Yeah, it's built

[1:24:37] out. >> built out, yeah.

[1:24:40] » Interesting. >> Yeah, I I was originally kind of wanting

[1:24:44] to stick to the the standard setbacks and I've kind of

[1:24:48] come around to the idea that it can be smaller just because this is a new

[1:24:52] category. I mean, at first I was like, well, it's a dwelling, it's, you know,

[1:24:56] the same same as other stuff and now I've kind of realized it it's it is a

[1:25:00] new thing. And so

[1:25:05] you know, back to that argument of 15 or something something less.

[1:25:10] Um

[1:25:12] I I I feel like it is a new category and I would be willing to go a little less,

[1:25:16] but I I I understand the the concern, you

[1:25:19] know, of this is going to change neighborhoods.

[1:25:23] » If we don't want 8 ft, maybe we could do something different like 10.

[1:25:28] Or 12, but I think when we get into 15, yeah, we're just limiting who's able to

[1:25:33] do this and I I think that's a problem.

[1:25:37] » We're only limiting it to the extent of what our current zoning is for a home.

[1:25:47] » Yeah, and >> No more, no less.

[1:25:49] » But you have to consider that homes don't that homes have a 30-ft height

[1:25:55] restriction and these would not have that. They would you wouldn't have a

[1:25:59] 30-ft home

[1:26:02] 8 ft away from you because it has the height restriction that go with it.

[1:26:11] » The what's what's been described, the increasing

[1:26:13] » The increasing height, so

[1:26:18] » Yeah, maybe the arithmetic will make the 8 ft moot.

[1:26:22] We'll just see.

[1:26:31] » Is this the 12 ft wall, right?

[1:26:34] » 8 or 10. >> Like in the A1 area.

[1:26:38] Okay. It might be a good idea also to ask um

[1:26:43] our new Brad >> Yeah.

[1:26:45] » what's going on in our new Brad. >> Yes.

[1:26:47] » Let's ask our new only Brad we have. >> [laughter]

[1:26:50] » What is working in Layton City cuz they currently have that right now.

[1:26:55] » It's a great idea. >> I know Farmington I don't think they

[1:26:58] have more than a hundred of these in their whole entire city. So.

[1:27:02] » That they know of. >> That Well, and that that would probably

[1:27:05] be touche for Kaysville City. >> Cuz I'll tell you in every community

[1:27:07] that I'm aware of there are ADUs there that

[1:27:11] » They don't have to. >> that were never really permitted.

[1:27:13] » sure. So yeah, I know. >> I'll tell you if you want to speak

[1:27:15] » If you want to speak to maybe what Layton's setbacks are.

[1:27:19] » Come on up Brad. Do you have any any >> I mean you're here so

[1:27:23] » input on setbacks or height? >> Yeah, and I'm happy to do this at the

[1:27:27] same time I don't work here yet and so I do want to be respectful of your debate

[1:27:32] as well as the general public and their comments and so

[1:27:35] um that's why I've been kind of just taking everything in and I don't want to

[1:27:38] jump chime in and make sure that everybody else's

[1:27:41] comments were were um so just to hear where

[1:27:46] Layton City does allow um detached accessory dwelling units in the

[1:27:51] side yard and in the rear yard. Um

[1:27:54] for if they're in the side yard to Commissioner Fowler's point, they have

[1:27:57] to meet the same setbacks as the residence. Um they have to meet the same

[1:28:01] rear setback as the residence. And then if it's a

[1:28:06] So you know, for if it's a single story same minimum side setbacks as the

[1:28:10] primary dwelling, same rear setback as the primary dwelling. If it's a

[1:28:14] two-story, then it's a 10-ft side setback, but then it's still the same

[1:28:18] rear setback. If it's just in the rear yard area,

[1:28:21] then it's a minimum side setback of 5 ft if it's a single story or 10 10 ft if

[1:28:26] it's a two-story. And then for

[1:28:29] the rear yard, it would be a rear yard setback of 10 ft. So, it's kind of your

[1:28:33] point of sure a lot. Um and also or or if it's two stories, then

[1:28:38] 20 ft. So, like you know, maybe you push your pattern having that distance

[1:28:42] setback further from that rear property line. Those are some things to consider.

[1:28:48] Also, I was you know, just mentioning to Jason that

[1:28:51] some of the concerns and and I understand the concerns that were

[1:28:54] mentioned about the design criteria. The state has really kind of put us in a

[1:28:59] tough position because this the the part of state code that they have

[1:29:03] referenced and the building materials that we

[1:29:06] cannot and the design standards that we can't regulate, one of those things is

[1:29:10] the placement of windows. And that's building materials. And so,

[1:29:13] some of the concerns that were brought up and I think that they're valid

[1:29:16] concerns about what the materials look like and where those windows are going

[1:29:19] to be. Our hands are tied at this at the moment

[1:29:23] for where we can replace some of those things, you know. And so, with that,

[1:29:27] it gets kind of back to what we've all been saying

[1:29:29] » Okay. >> kind of limited on height,

[1:29:31] the location when it comes to setbacks and probably the size of the ADU at this

[1:29:36] point, um you know, unless you know, in this next legislative session they give

[1:29:40] us a little bit more uh ability to to regulate those things

[1:29:43] more. >> Thank you. So, that's an interesting uh

[1:29:47] way to do it where if it's a one-story, this, if it's a two-story, that.

[1:29:52] Rather than add a foot, gain a foot, sort of thing.

[1:29:56] » It'd be a little easier to keep track. >> That might be a little little simpler.

[1:30:01] Yeah. >> Yeah.

[1:30:02] » Thank you. And um as we do our drafting, I hope we will

[1:30:08] please use the language the state did provide in 10-21-304-4

[1:30:15] where we may take into account the proximity of property lines,

[1:30:21] easements, and window orientation. Let's Let's Let's put that in our

[1:30:26] ordinance so that when things come before this body or

[1:30:32] the building department, that window orientation, particularly on a two-story

[1:30:36] structure, is a consideration, which the state's provided us. We shouldn't

[1:30:42] exclude that from any draft ordinance. Let's give ourselves the ability to uh

[1:30:49] direct as to that, and then also be designed consistent with the design of

[1:30:55] the single-family dwelling, understanding the conflict.

[1:31:01] For now, let's let's include

[1:31:05] We certainly couldn't be We're just including what the

[1:31:09] legislature's language is. They're not going to

[1:31:18] » I'm wondering if we could um kind of go back to the draft and just, you know,

[1:31:27] I made some notes as as you took us through it, Will.

[1:31:31] Um kind of the first question marks for me show up at

[1:31:37] number three. Um

[1:31:41] let's see. D A D U's must meet the following, and

[1:31:44] then we hit the Roman numeral three.

[1:31:50] Does anyone have issue pre

[1:31:55] to that to that >> Three. Oh, good catch. Yeah,

[1:31:58] that needs to be Yeah, that's what That's what we're

[1:32:01] asking how you want to modify. >> wondering if we just kind

[1:32:05] » through the draft and let us just kind of say cuz we've kind of spelled out

[1:32:10] maybe what we're looking for and let's just start pinning down some things and

[1:32:13] if there's anything >> That's good.

[1:32:15] » that's not in there, we can add it just so we can get to a motion.

[1:32:19] » Yeah, that'd be good. >> Awesome.

[1:32:21] So, if we're we're on that Roman numeral three and we don't want it to conform to

[1:32:26] setback requirements for accessory structures,

[1:32:30] we want it to um do we want to say

[1:32:34] um have an 8-ft rear setback for a single story?

[1:32:42] » I don't know after listening to our Brad,

[1:32:47] I'm wondering if we should.

[1:32:51] » Yeah, or or perhaps uh chair, the uh

[1:32:55] conform to existing zoning regulations with the following changes. So, we we

[1:33:03] pork barrel this in and then you amend

[1:33:08] however you wish from there like 10-ft setback or

[1:33:13] for single family and X setback for two-story, but we start here.

[1:33:20] So, >> So, you're saying each zoning would have

[1:33:22] a a different setback? >> Sure, cuz that's what I bought per

[1:33:26] That's what I bought when I bought my home.

[1:33:30] » But, I I kind of I know that's what we >> latent's doing to an extent, right?

[1:33:34] » That would be a little restrictive.

[1:33:42] » Cuz [laughter] if I'm in Mr. Packer's neighborhood, I'm not, but if I have 5

[1:33:46] acres, my

[1:33:49] minimum side yard is this. If I'm in another neighborhood, my minimum side

[1:33:54] yard is that. And so, I can expect when I notice my neighbor starting to build a

[1:34:00] foundation in their backyard, that it's about this far from

[1:34:07] my home.

[1:34:11] » I don't That's not how I interpreted that, that we would just go straight

[1:34:15] with the zoning residential zoning setbacks, but that we would specify

[1:34:22] a smaller setback

[1:34:27] as a as a single story.

[1:34:31] And then maybe if it's maybe maybe you keep the

[1:34:36] the regular zoning setbacks if it's a second story if there's a second story.

[1:34:42] Does anybody else Did any Did anyone understand that differently than me?

[1:34:48] I don't know that we're all on the same page.

[1:34:50] » That's the debate we're having. >> you're you're just trying to keep a

[1:34:53] universal uniform throughout the zonings where

[1:34:57] Commissioner Toller wants to be conditional per the zoning?

[1:35:02] Is that what we're Is that what we're looking at?

[1:35:06] » Um

[1:35:09] Well, I Yes, I think I'm I'm do I'm kind of in

[1:35:13] my mind just let's set a a setback

[1:35:18] for single story, a setback for two story,

[1:35:22] not conditional to zoning. Okay.

[1:35:28] I tend to That's where I was.

[1:35:31] » That's where you are? >> Mhm.

[1:35:34] » I I reckon I thank you. I respect the opinion. I just think

[1:35:38] we're we have a mandate from the legislature

[1:35:43] to allow accessory dwelling units. We don't have a mandate from the

[1:35:48] legislature to alter the character of our

[1:35:51] neighborhoods or start building homes or dwelling units or whatever we call them

[1:35:58] closer to one another than we currently do.

[1:36:02] I recognize I may have the minority opinion, but I don't think so when um

[1:36:09] » Well, you can >> things start being built,

[1:36:12] um there'll be public clamor.

[1:36:15] » I I see what you're saying cuz you purchase for space.

[1:36:19] Right? You don't want to diminish. >> So, Commissioner Tolaris just go by

[1:36:25] the residential setbacks as >> This side

[1:36:27] » in code. Gentlemen, do you have any other

[1:36:31] thoughts on that?

[1:36:34] » I I I would say that this is a new thing.

[1:36:38] Um like I said, I originally was kind of under that idea like well, it's you

[1:36:42] know, keep it within the the residential envelope. Um and then I realized this is

[1:36:49] a new category and everyone who lives in a property that is larger than 11,000

[1:36:54] square feet needs to get used to the idea that that there is

[1:37:00] a new category and I I'm not saying, you know,

[1:37:04] anything goes, of course, but that um

[1:37:10] it's it's it's going to happen.

[1:37:14] And it's new to to everyone and um

[1:37:20] to make it reasonable, I think it's it's fine to allow

[1:37:26] smaller setbacks. Um again, that's my my opinion um

[1:37:32] on that and that these are different. They're I I first I thought of them as

[1:37:36] just another house and now I realize it's not another house.

[1:37:39] It's a DADU and it's a different category. So, that's where I my opinion

[1:37:45] differs with with his and I would be willing to go smaller on those setbacks.

[1:37:49] Um and I think that would be the

[1:37:56] Yeah, that would be the way I would go. >> I actually agree with Commissioner

[1:38:00] Toler.

[1:38:03] And because it's already set up this way in

[1:38:08] in a way

[1:38:11] what we're bringing in would be easier for landowners to

[1:38:15] and property owners to adhere to.

[1:38:22] With what Mr. With what Commissioner Toler

[1:38:25] and his brothers' redlines have said.

[1:38:30] Although there's room for movement

[1:38:34] once we allow room for movement

[1:38:40] we're opening up a whole new book. Uh can of worms, sorry.

[1:38:47] I don't know the right phrase for that.

[1:38:53] » Okay. Well, um we seem to be a little bit at odds on

[1:38:59] number three. So but we certainly don't want to have

[1:39:04] it as conform to setback requirements for accessory structures because we know

[1:39:10] well, currently that's just not sufficient.

[1:39:12] » I I think there's Well, I I suspect there's unanimous consent that

[1:39:18] accessory structures is not the standard.

[1:39:20] » Right. Right. >> [clears throat]

[1:39:25] » Okay, so maybe we'll come back to that. So, I think we're going to stick with

[1:39:30] this um for be just just the wording that is that you've got there.

[1:39:36] Do you all feel good about that? >> Yeah.

[1:39:38] » Leave the wording just the way it is so we're not in any sort of trouble, but we

[1:39:42] can still ask for it to be designed

[1:39:45] consistent with the dwelling. Um

[1:39:50] » [clears throat] >> may not be larger in size than the

[1:39:51] single-family dwelling. Do we feel comfortable with a 75%

[1:39:58] number? Does anyone want to throw out a

[1:40:01] different number? >> I don't know a solution, chair,

[1:40:05] but I can still think of hypothetical situations where that would

[1:40:10] that would be problematic. Um you have an old

[1:40:14] you know, 1920s farmhouse and um

[1:40:20] it's it's already only 800 square feet or something like that

[1:40:23] and you say, you know, it's you know, I I think that would be very rare, but

[1:40:28] I just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility that

[1:40:31] but I do like the idea that we have some kind of

[1:40:34] I just don't know a better way to say it, so

[1:40:38] maybe that maybe maybe the percentage is the best way.

[1:40:41] » Percentage of land?

[1:40:45] » Yeah, I I think what you're describing is the barn dominium. It's bigger than

[1:40:49] the house, but it feels appropriate cuz it's on 5 acres or 3 acres or something.

[1:40:54] That I I can see that possibility. Um

[1:40:57] » The main structure becomes the carriage house.

[1:41:00] » Yes. Yes. Um so

[1:41:03] » So what's the >> Perhaps

[1:41:05] » I have no solution. I just wanted to mention that.

[1:41:07] » Right. >> Yeah, perhaps that's one

[1:41:10] » But then I >> area where we do rely on

[1:41:13] on the zoning. Um

[1:41:16] if it were in a uh an A5

[1:41:20] that the 70 or 75% rule may not apply because of my land use, but that's

[1:41:28] that's muddying the waters. I do think um a a great starting place is 70 or

[1:41:34] 75%. >> I'm just curious if I can ask Brad, are

[1:41:38] you aware of any size

[1:41:42] limitations in other communities that you've worked with?

[1:41:45] » Um yeah, I've been having regular meetings with the planning department

[1:41:48] with detached accessory dwelling units in other communities as well, not just

[1:41:51] Layton City. Um typically I've seen 50% of the square

[1:41:55] footage of the the primary residence. Or

[1:41:59] another number, whichever is less, right? So, for example, um

[1:42:04] you know, it could be 50% of the square footage of the primary

[1:42:07] residence or 1,200 sq ft, whichever is less. And so, then that's how that is

[1:42:12] when we have somebody come in, we would probably look at the county

[1:42:14] records and say, "This is what the square footage of that home is. You can

[1:42:18] go to 50% or 1,200 sq ft, but whichever is the lesser of those two numbers,

[1:42:23] that's what you're stuck to." Um

[1:42:26] what what might be difficult is is and I think we'd have to be clear on if we're

[1:42:30] saying the square footage of the home or the footprint of the home.

[1:42:33] Um because

[1:42:35] if if we're going to do it use a percentage, because then you could have

[1:42:38] » Yeah. >> a debate at the counter, you know, with

[1:42:40] someone that says, "Well, it just says 50% of my home. The square

[1:42:45] footage of my home is 2,000 sq ft, but the footprint of my home is only 1,000."

[1:42:49] Well, I'm just using those numbers for simplicity's

[1:42:51] sake. >> Okay.

[1:42:52] » And so, we probably won't want to look at that and then

[1:42:55] that as a commission determine if you want to base it as on the footprint of

[1:42:58] the home. If you do that, then

[1:43:01] that may mean helps with the visual impact what you've

[1:43:05] got around it, because you can see what the footprint of the home is and then

[1:43:08] what the footprint of that uh detached accessory dwelling unit

[1:43:12] might look like. And so, you can kind of visually see that. If you go with the

[1:43:15] square footage, then you might get a uh detached accessory dwelling unit

[1:43:19] that's either 75% or the same size as the footprint of the home.

[1:43:24] Um but it's it's still going to be only 50% of that square footage.

[1:43:28] So, um >> Okay.

[1:43:30] » My thought would be 50% of the the footprint of the home as measured from

[1:43:34] like the exterior foundation. >> Mhm.

[1:43:37] » Again, I'm trying to be very clear so that that way we know exactly how we're

[1:43:40] regulating this. Or so we go for percentage or a set number.

[1:43:46] Whether it's 1,200 or 1,500 square feet and then we say in the code whichever is

[1:43:50] less. So then that way we're

[1:43:53] holding to the stricture of the two standards, but we're still giving

[1:43:56] somebody the opportunity to to meet one of those two.

[1:43:59] » Thank you. And then for our draftsman the the exhibit A attachment A to what I

[1:44:05] forwarded to you, Wilf, has how Lehi, Provo, Salt Lake, Ogden, Mill Creek,

[1:44:10] South Jordan, Riverton, and Cottonwood Heights dealt with this very issue.

[1:44:16] First column. Whether by percentage, whether by square

[1:44:20] feet, we've got some good examples there of of how we might address it. Not many

[1:44:27] The only one that's using a percentage is Riverton. And they're doing it based

[1:44:31] on the lot. Not not the uh not in relation to the

[1:44:37] dwelling. So there's some

[1:44:41] choices there. >> So would it's probably not super

[1:44:44] related, but if you've got those limitations with the

[1:44:48] footprint or whatever how you want to figure that out, then maybe the clients

[1:44:53] or the homeowners option is to do an addition and make it an IADU.

[1:44:58] » Yeah. >> We have some flexibility that way.

[1:45:01] » Yep. Yeah, I'm thinking of you know, with

[1:45:04] what Commissioner Packer mentioned, if you got a really small home

[1:45:08] » Mhm. >> on that home, maybe the thing to do is

[1:45:11] to add on to the home rather than build a free standing

[1:45:16] attached ADU. >> But you can work a internal one into it

[1:45:20] » Mhm. >> to get the same

[1:45:23] outcome.

[1:45:26] Okay, do we do we want to throw out a number, a percentage, or something

[1:45:32] different? Does anyone want to >> I I

[1:45:35] I would say we do, just to say it may not be larger.

[1:45:39] I think that's but I I like the either 70 or something. I don't know.

[1:45:45] I say we put a number there that's smaller.

[1:45:47] » the footprint idea. Let's specify footprint.

[1:45:53] » The footprint would make it a smaller unit, right? 1,200 square feet or less.

[1:45:58] So, if you had a 4,000 square foot house, but it's fit in a two-story,

[1:46:03] three-story, whatever. So, you're saying your footprint's really only 1,500,

[1:46:07] right? >> it's 70% or if it's 50%

[1:46:11] of the larger lot, we're talking about footprint only, not square footage. So,

[1:46:17] yeah, so it might be more in a second story.

[1:46:20] » Mhm. I see what you're saying.

[1:46:23] So, we really want to just address that footprint of the whole thing.

[1:46:27] Not going to barn them in with your 1,900.

[1:46:30] » specific. >> South Jordan dealt with this issue by

[1:46:35] having us put some more of a burden on us, but they've said that if it's more

[1:46:40] than 35% of the gross living area or 1,500 square feet, it requires planning

[1:46:46] commission review. So, that's a one-sy, two-sy approach,

[1:46:51] but um

[1:46:53] it does give us some more review opportunity.

[1:46:58] » Well, that does limit if you say a specific

[1:47:01] the lesser of the two for a person who has a big home or a big space to work

[1:47:06] with. Does limit those grievances, I think,

[1:47:10] that those uh dwelling units are causing right now.

[1:47:24] Okay. >> Yeah, I I chair I would just say if we

[1:47:27] can't figure out a something where we're all happy with

[1:47:33] still having something and and the cleaner and simpler it can be, you know,

[1:47:36] with this first first go around. Um

[1:47:41] cuz you know, we have lots of great ideas, but they could be complicated

[1:47:45] with exceptions and things like that and since we, you know, looking at a

[1:47:49] deadline and and stuff. >> So, we might recommend Are you saying we

[1:47:53] might recommend to city council we want to see between 50 to 75%

[1:47:59] of the footprint and possibly, you know, a minimum or a

[1:48:04] maximum of 1,200 square feet.

[1:48:08] So, maybe we're not >> I guess like a a starting line or a base

[1:48:11] where they're going to have to say you know, here's our minimum and then if we

[1:48:14] decide we need to amend later to have exceptions or

[1:48:17] or things like >> I think what the chair just put out is

[1:48:20] reasonable. Salt Lake City limits it to 1,000 square feet.

[1:48:25] 1,200 seems reasonable. >> 1,200 seems to be the

[1:48:29] » But the the next stop >> one, but

[1:48:31] » If I understand the next stop for this document is a city council work meeting.

[1:48:36] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:48:37] » I think we're going to get a lot of feedback tonight. We're going to get a

[1:48:39] lot of feedback on Thursday and then we're going to come up with a new draft.

[1:48:44] » Okay. Very good. >> Yeah.

[1:48:45] » I like the 50% or 1,200

[1:48:49] » 50% or 1,200 >> of the footprint

[1:48:53] lesser of the two. >> And the you're speaking the footprint

[1:48:57] » footprint Right.

[1:49:00] » Yeah, great place to start. >> Okay, we have something down.

[1:49:06] Okay.

[1:49:11] We agreed on something. >> [laughter]

[1:49:15] » Okay. And then

[1:49:18] the next thing that I had question on and so stop me if we want to

[1:49:23] hit anything else is five A.

[1:49:27] Do we want to have no more than one IADU or DADU? Do we feel comfortable

[1:49:35] with that or do you want to allow both?

[1:49:38] » I'm okay with both. >> Yeah.

[1:49:40] » As long as the second one >> with both if they fit the setbacks.

[1:49:44] » So you're okay with both. You're okay with leaving it as is.

[1:49:47] » I'm okay with both. >> You're okay too with both. Anybody any

[1:49:49] other thoughts on allowing that? >> No more than one would be where I'm at.

[1:49:55] » than one.

[1:50:02] » I would be I would Again, I can think of examples where

[1:50:07] having both would be manageable.

[1:50:14] I'm not completely sold on it but I I wouldn't It's not a hill I'm going to

[1:50:19] I'm going to fight on like >> Okay. Well, maybe we'll leave it as is

[1:50:24] for now. >> Yeah, I'm fine with one if we need it.

[1:50:27] » Okay. >> Change it later.

[1:50:31] » Um what am I missing?

[1:50:36] » Um E. 63 E.

[1:50:39] » Good with owner occupied. >> I don't like 30 consecutive days. I

[1:50:42] think it should be at least 90. >> Oh, here we go. E. 90. Do you all feel

[1:50:48] good about 90? >> Yes.

[1:50:50] » Yeah. >> Okay, we have consensus on 90.

[1:50:59] And then I guess we just don't really have Oh, let's see.

[1:51:06] It's just the uh three B two where we're kind of landing.

[1:51:12] is that right? Where it has height.

[1:51:16] And lot coverage and then three for the

[1:51:20] setbacks. Is that kind of our sticky point?

[1:51:24] » That's our sticky point. But I did have one other issue.

[1:51:27] » 381. >> Are we sticking with the 11,000?

[1:51:31] » Oh, 11,000. Did you want to reduce that or leave it?

[1:51:35] » Um Do you feel okay if we switch it to

[1:51:39] 10,000 to open up more opportunity? >> I'd prefer 10,000.

[1:51:43] » You have R10, R110? >> I'm good with that.

[1:51:46] » Okay.

[1:51:48] » Um Commissioner Artola, I think it was you that said on

[1:51:52] 5F, I think it is what it is. The owner of the lot or parcel must be

[1:51:58] residing in the single-family. All right, that that was an issue for

[1:52:02] you. So, can we go ahead and

[1:52:04] » I don't want to build an an auxiliary dwelling unit and move out and I've

[1:52:09] created an income property duplex in a single-family zone.

[1:52:13] Not not what the legislature intends. We have a recital that I proposed that

[1:52:22] that makes that clear. Whereas the stated purpose of the legislature's

[1:52:27] accessory dwelling unit is to increase the supply of long-term housing.

[1:52:33] And that that makes clear that hey, we

[1:52:37] didn't intend this to be we're going to build

[1:52:41] uh two or more

[1:52:43] uh two units in a single-family zone and then make them rentals and move on.

[1:52:50] » So, that's already in there. It's okay as is.

[1:52:54] » Yeah, isn't that the same as ADUs?

[1:52:58] » Okay. I just wanted to double-check that cuz

[1:53:01] » Thank you. Yeah.

[1:53:07] » Okay, so we've got 10,000 square feet.

[1:53:11] » Uh right. I'm trying. >> And now we just need setbacks.

[1:53:16] » Setbacks.

[1:53:38] » Yeah, I I don't know that we're going to We're we're never going to agree

[1:53:42] completely, and that's okay um on setbacks.

[1:53:45] » Yes. >> Um

[1:53:48] and we do have that small comfort of knowing that the city

[1:53:53] council is the one that actually has to to make the final decision, but

[1:53:56] » Can [laughter] we Can we Can we narrow it down and give them maybe a range?

[1:54:02] » Yeah, I you know >> that we're looking for.

[1:54:05] » And and >> I think rear setback can go to at least

[1:54:09] 10 ft if not 8. I don't think it has to match the

[1:54:15] zoning. I think that's going to limit people. But that is just my opinion.

[1:54:19] » No, I agree with that. >> Do you like Layton's better than the

[1:54:22] other like >> Yes.

[1:54:29] But they're decent though.

[1:54:34] Okay. I wonder um if there is language that we could

[1:54:41] include in there to maybe look at other city codes for for the setbacks.

[1:54:48] So if we >> And have half of the setback.

[1:54:53] So no more than half of the setback. >> That would be 7 ft.

[1:54:57] » Okay. >> That's less than 8.

[1:54:59] » Uh perhaps uh Chairman perhaps

[1:55:02] » It's a little cringey for me. >> This is an area

[1:55:05] » where um

[1:55:08] we take the approach South Jordan did is if there is since we're creating a a

[1:55:13] dwelling unit if there's variance

[1:55:17] from these setbacks that that requires review

[1:55:21] by this body. Might be one way to deal with it.

[1:55:25] » but it's not a dwelling unit. It's an accessory dwell dwelling unit. There's a

[1:55:29] difference. We're talking like a mother-in-law's apartment. It's For me,

[1:55:34] it's different, but >> We are talking about rear setbacks right

[1:55:37] now, right? >> No, reg- regardless of what you call it,

[1:55:41] someone's living there, coming going, looking out their windows. You're

[1:55:45] creating a home in my backyard

[1:55:50] that that will have a setback. We've heard quite a bit from the public

[1:55:55] tonight about concerns with setbacks and privacy.

[1:56:00] And I think we're asking for trouble if we vary from what the existing zoning

[1:56:06] districts have. I've made my point more than twice. I

[1:56:09] apologize, but you know where I'm at. >> The one one

[1:56:16] caution I might have to what um

[1:56:19] Paul is is suggesting to perhaps have a review

[1:56:24] if it varies is that the state code, the bill that

[1:56:27] was passed says that you cannot make ADUs conditional uses.

[1:56:33] » Mhm. >> While we're not calling it a conditional

[1:56:35] use, it's pretty similar to what we would be doing for a conditional use if

[1:56:40] that >> Yeah, I the review process would be

[1:56:42] messy. I'm just >> Yeah.

[1:56:43] » I was looking for a compromise, but perhaps there's a way.

[1:56:48] » Good point. Uh 10 ft.

[1:56:52] I don't know. 12 ft.

[1:56:56] What are we at? 15? normally? >> to like the um

[1:56:59] » 15? >> The ideas that Layton has, they seemed

[1:57:03] reasonable to me. I can't quote them off the top of my

[1:57:07] head, you know. It's been a minute. >> Okay. Yeah, but I think in a motion, you

[1:57:12] could recommend that you align with Layton City code. If you want to be

[1:57:18] specific, maybe you can't say what it is. But you could say instead of

[1:57:25] number three here, we're going to ask that it come back

[1:57:30] looking like, you know, the setbacks in in this city's code.

[1:57:37] If somebody were to make a motion.

[1:57:43] I mean, if you start if anybody's mulling that over in their head.

[1:57:48] That you could it could be achieved perhaps.

[1:57:53] And it may or may not fly, but we could always try.

[1:58:01] Is there anything else you want to um hash out? Anything that you

[1:58:05] So, I have made some adjustments to allow 10,000 sq ft or larger.

[1:58:13] Um we're going to look at

[1:58:17] I mean, potentially Layton's

[1:58:20] code as um setbacks.

[1:58:24] We definitely want to be design consistent with the original dwelling.

[1:58:30] We're looking at per- perhaps not to exceed 50% or 1,200 sq ft

[1:58:36] of the footprint of the original. Excuse me. Not to exceed 50% of the

[1:58:41] footprint or 1,200 which is whichever is smaller.

[1:58:46] And

[1:58:49] rented not to exceed 90 not or no less than 90 consecutive days.

[1:58:55] » And only one unit, is that what we decided?

[1:58:58] » Yes. >> Yes, one accessory.

[1:59:01] And leaving it as no more than one. That's a that leaves it, right?

[1:59:12] And I guess the other thing that we didn't discuss is window placement, so

[1:59:15] we can or we can't? >> Um we may according to the state code,

[1:59:21] but >> potential.

[1:59:23] » Sorry about that. I could With that limiting it also

[1:59:28] limits, you know, somebody trying to do two

[1:59:32] dwellings, exterior dwellings on there. Just by saying it's you can either do an

[1:59:38] internal one or an external one, but just one.

[1:59:41] » Yeah, one. >> what you're saying?

[1:59:43] But then they could do accessory buildings.

[1:59:46] » No more than one. >> Say that again.

[1:59:48] Mhm, so okay. >> They can't have both at once.

[1:59:50] » have one ADU Yeah, they can't have both, but like

[1:59:54] what if they wanted to make two outdoor

[1:59:58] ADUs? >> Oh, does that not

[2:00:00] » detached ADUs. >> Does that apply that?

[2:00:01] » Does that Does that keep it limited there?

[2:00:04] » Yeah. >> No more than one

[2:00:06] » Yeah. >> of this or one of that.

[2:00:08] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[2:00:11] » One dwelling. >> Yeah.

[2:00:14] » One dwelling One dwelling unit One dwelling unit is all.

[2:00:18] » Yeah. >> You just get one.

[2:00:20] » I'm not sure it states >> that language is right.

[2:00:22] » Pick your poison.

[2:00:26] And or and

[2:00:30] » Okay.

[2:00:39] Should I attempt a motion? Kind of scared.

[2:00:44] I mean, this This big This is a big one. >> It a little scary.

[2:00:48] » And and but it's not a it's not a finished

[2:00:50] product exactly. I mean there's still work to be done.

[2:00:55] » Oh boy. Okay. Let's see.

[2:01:02] I would like to make a motion that we

[2:01:09] send forth the recommendation of the ordinance as written with the following

[2:01:14] adjustments. Um

[2:01:18] that Do I have to like have all of the

[2:01:22] numbers with it? 3A the allowance be 10,000 square feet

[2:01:29] um lots. Um that we refer to Layton's code for

[2:01:35] setback requirements, which is

[2:01:40] 3B. >> 3E. I don't think we need the section

[2:01:44] number. >> [laughter]

[2:01:47] » I'm about to pass out. Okay. Um

[2:01:52] that we also as written that the design be consistent

[2:01:57] with the design of the single-family dwelling

[2:01:59] um which is as written that we allow for 50% of the house footprint or 12,000

[2:02:09] square feet, whichever is smaller. >> 1,200

[2:02:12] » 1,200 >> 1,200

[2:02:13] » 1,200 >> What's a fan house? I'm tired.

[2:02:17] I'm tired. And that renting um be for no shorter than 90 days consecutive days.

[2:02:27] » We have a motion. >> I'll second it.

[2:02:31] » And a second. >> Okay, we will vote. Um

[2:02:37] Commissioner Packer, we'll start with you.

[2:02:39] » Aye. >> Aye.

[2:02:41] » Aye. >> Aye.

[2:02:43] » Aye. >> Aye.

[2:02:47] » [laughter] >> Excellent. Okay.

[2:02:50] » Can we write that in the notes? And then we got a round of applause.

[2:02:53] » Did you get Did you get that?

[2:02:57] » Okay. We are going to move to discussion of

[2:03:02] possible action to review accessory structure code requirements, and I think

[2:03:08] » We absolutely >> We've discussed Do we want to go into

[2:03:11] detail? Do you want to bring that up? >> I mean, I think We just wanted to make

[2:03:14] you aware that we learned through this process that there are some issues

[2:03:17] there. I mean, we can talk about what those issues are, but we don't need to

[2:03:22] do that tonight. By What What we do need from you is a motion to do this so so

[2:03:29] that it actually goes on the record. >> To get it on the agenda.

[2:03:32] » And that gets it to the point where then we if we will essentially have 6 months

[2:03:38] to >> To bring something

[2:03:39] » code and and make any whatever adjustments

[2:03:42] » already taken out the link, or we would have if if city council were to

[2:03:48] approve where we take the link out of the

[2:03:52] DADUs could be using the same setbacks as the accessory.

[2:03:58] » Right? >> Yes. Because you you specify

[2:04:01] » eliminate that scare, but we definitely want to get it on the books.

[2:04:06] » Right. Yeah, I mean, now now we want to do this for

[2:04:09] for accessory uh structures in general.

[2:04:13] There are some issues there that I think we need to work on.

[2:04:16] » accessory structures one foot away. >> So,

[2:04:20] I would entertain a motion if someone would like to put one forth to

[2:04:25] uh make an amendment to that code. >> To consider.

[2:04:29] » To consider. >> To consider making changes to the

[2:04:33] accessory structure provisions >> I would like to make a motion.

[2:04:38] So that we can eventually go home that we

[2:04:42] at a future meeting discuss the possible action to review accessory

[2:04:46] structure code requirements. >> I second.

[2:04:53] » Commissioner Moore, we'll start with you.

[2:04:55] » I. >> I.

[2:04:58] » I. >> I.

[2:04:59] » I. >> I.

[2:05:03] » Very good. That passes. And

[2:05:08] » Everybody take a big deep breath. >> We are at other matters.

[2:05:16] Do we have any other matters? >> Do we have Do we have to approve the

[2:05:18] minutes? >> Approve the minutes.

[2:05:20] » Oh, did I skip one? Okay.

[2:05:23] All right. Does anyone want to make a motion to Does any

[2:05:27] » Does anybody review the minutes?

[2:05:32] » I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes from the July 23rd meeting.

[2:05:37] » Second. >> And we'll vote all together.

[2:05:42] » I. >> I.

[2:05:45] » Great. >> Other matters.

[2:05:48] » Wow. >> Okay. Um

[2:05:52] Really the only matters Well, a couple of things. This is Anne's last night.

[2:05:57] » [applause]

[2:06:00] » So she put >> applauding. Don't clap for that.

[2:06:03] » They're saying good job. >> So we appreciate um the two years, just

[2:06:07] a little over two years.

[2:06:10] » I know you're leaving the state, Anne. Remind us where.

[2:06:13] » Uh I'm moving to the East Coast, northern Virginia specifically.

[2:06:17] » Wow. >> Things are much easier back there.

[2:06:21] » [laughter]

[2:06:24] » Well, at least for now. >> Anne's been with us for two years um

[2:06:28] and it's been a delight

[2:06:33] to have her work next to me. So, she'll be great where she's going.

[2:06:38] And we will work on getting a new a new employee soon. I'm not sure how

[2:06:43] long that's going to take, but we're going to find the right one. So,

[2:06:47] I'm just thank her for trusting and getting to know us

[2:06:52] Kaysville people because we love our Kaysville and

[2:06:55] and she's I think learned to love us, too.

[2:06:58] » And it's such a credit to Ann. Tomorrow was her last day and she's here tonight.

[2:07:01] She hasn't checked out for a second. She's with us to the bitter end and I

[2:07:06] just think that shows a lot of professionalism.

[2:07:08] » Thank you. >> Thank you, Ann.

[2:07:10] » Good for her. >> Um and then yes, hopefully Brad will be

[2:07:13] starting with us. I'm pretty sure it's a done deal. So, August 31st

[2:07:18] I think he did okay tonight. I think he'll be all right. It was kind of like

[2:07:21] his like a fourth interview he didn't know about. It was pretty brutal hazing

[2:07:25] » It was his audition. >> Yeah. Yeah, it was just a little bit of

[2:07:28] hazing. I think he did all right. So, um on August 31st he'll be joining our team

[2:07:33] and we look forward to having him um come be a part of Kaysville City with

[2:07:37] us.

[2:07:42] I'm sorry I'm so emotional. Um

[2:07:46] And then we have the APA conference coming up in October, September, one of

[2:07:51] these months in the fallish time. I just got [snorts] to get through

[2:07:54] August and then we can talk the rest of the year. So, September if you're

[2:07:58] interested in going, please um just on the text thread, let me know. Just APA

[2:08:03] thumbs up or whatever um and I'll get you registered. And then the ULUI, I

[2:08:07] believe, is in October. So, um I believe if we register for the APA,

[2:08:12] the more that we have registered Did you send me that?

[2:08:16] That we get a discount. It's a little bit cheaper the more of us that that

[2:08:21] sign up for that. So, >> And and that's local, right? Here we go.

[2:08:25] » To the Davis Conference Center. >> Very good.

[2:08:27] » Okay. >> Pretty good commute, can't beat it. You

[2:08:29] know. Could ride your bike there if you

[2:08:32] wanted. Um >> Wait, you can't feel hotels?

[2:08:35] » [laughter]

[2:08:37] » Now you're pushing it. Um

[2:08:41] And then oh, we do have a variance coming on our agenda on the 27th. Do you

[2:08:46] want to talk just a little bit about that?

[2:08:49] » Nope, we're not going to talk about it. >> We're not I [laughter] am going to send

[2:08:52] out um there's a a guidebook on being an appeal

[2:08:57] authority cuz I think that's going to be new for all of us. So, I've I'll send

[2:09:00] that out tomorrow and you can kind of read about what some training that the

[2:09:04] Land Use Institute's given on being an appeal authority. So

[2:09:07] » And maybe just remind just what you put in the text as far as

[2:09:11] » Oh, yeah. Um basically, yeah, we're we're not going to talk about it between

[2:09:14] now and then because you're you're acting kind of as a judge. So, you want

[2:09:18] to just base it on the evidence that you hear that night. So, um try not to talk

[2:09:22] about it with neighbors or me or anyone. And we'll just

[2:09:26] » You can talk to me. I have no clue what's going on.

[2:09:27] » don't talk to Mandy. >> [laughter]

[2:09:29] » Let's just we'll just come and hear the evidence and then you'll make your

[2:09:32] decision and that's how it goes. >> is that happening?

[2:09:35] » The next meeting. Yeah, and we'll try to keep that agenda light. We're trying to

[2:09:39] push everything off until Brad's on, but um that one will be fine.

[2:09:44] » use permit that um applied yesterday. It's for a preschool.

[2:09:48] » Okay. >> And then she's wanting to open it for

[2:09:50] the first obviously to start that week. So, I think

[2:09:54] » Throw them on. >> Those are pretty simple. If that's okay,

[2:09:58] we put that on the agenda. >> Yeah, absolutely. That'll be

[2:10:00] » [snorts] >> All right, you guys. I think that's

[2:10:05] all from us. >> If I can add one thing just real quick,

[2:10:08] I just thought about this. >> I have to say something.

[2:10:10] » Oh. >> You did a good job. Thank you very much

[2:10:12] for your efforts. >> Thank you very much.

[2:10:15] » Yes. >> On on looking at the accessory

[2:10:18] structures ordinance code, by doing this, you know, we talked about how this

[2:10:22] is a moratorium, not really a moratorium. The issue really becomes, I

[2:10:26] mean, we don't intend to stop things like people putting tough sheds in their

[2:10:30] backyards and things like that. And yet by saying we're looking at the accessory

[2:10:34] structures, it kind of opens the possibility that

[2:10:37] that might change. You know, I don't know how we give

[2:10:41] someone that assurance, but I think we want to

[2:10:43] try to figure out at a staff level if somebody comes in and they says, "I want

[2:10:47] to buy I want to put in a tough shed." We tell them, "Look, we're looking at

[2:10:51] the ordinance, but we're probably not going to change that part of it, so

[2:10:54] you're probably okay in going ahead." But,

[2:10:59] that probably makes Katie nervous cuz she's going to be like, "Well, what if

[2:11:02] we do wind up changing it and then we told them that we weren't going to

[2:11:05] change it." Um, you know, I our intent really is to

[2:11:08] look at bigger accessory structures, but um, you never know, I guess.

[2:11:14] » Yeah, hopefully putting it where most of it's going to take place over the

[2:11:18] winter, we won't have as many. >> Yeah.

[2:11:20] » So, it's good timing.

[2:11:24] Hopefully we have a winter.

[2:11:29] » Okay. Is there nothing else? >> You can.

[2:11:32] » It's all the motions. >> All right. Adjourned.

[2:11:38] » Thank you so much. >> Thank you.

[2:11:40] » Thank you so much.

[2:11:42] » Thanks. >> Cheers.

[2:11:44] » Yeah.

Planning Commission 8-13-2026

Agenda

Transcript