So I did this. >> There's some interesting stories there,
I bet. >> There is.
» We're ready. >> Okay, fantastic.
Okay, we're going to go ahead and start planning commission meeting um
for August 13th. Um welcome to everybody. Thank you for
being here and participating. Um
and I wanted to welcome our soon-to-be or
now soon-to-be or now? When does your start date? Soon-to-be community
development
potentially. >> [laughter]
» Okay, maybe I maybe I jumped the gun on there, but
Hey Brad, we're happy to have you tonight. So, thanks for joining us.
Um okay. So, we're going to start with the declaration of conflict of interest
if any. Excellent.
And our first item, well, our third item on the agenda is the public hearing to
consider changes to 17-31-3 internal accessory dwelling units to
comply with Senate Bill 284. And I'm hoping we've got a little explanation on
that before we jump into the public? Okay, perfect.
» Thank you, chair. Uh so, as just to refresh everyone's memory, during the
2026 Utah legislative session, uh Senate Bill 284 was passed. Um
it's titled local land use and water modifications, and it essentially
established new requirements for cities um that by October 1st, 2026, they had
to establish requirements uh for DADUs to allow them in in certain
circumstances. Uh and so, the state statute essentially states that um
cities are required to allow detached ADUs on single-family lots larger than
1,000 square feet, comply with health building health, fire, safety codes, and
also include a process for conversion of legal accessory structures uh to these
detached ADU um
structures subject to setback requirements. So, the law does provide
some parameters on what can and can't be regulated.
Um but for the purpose of this discussion,
I think what is important is that one of the kind of key talking points that's
come up um internally and um as we've been looking at what the state is
requiring is um I think one of the kind of two
highlights that I think are going to be most of concern um
are probably setbacks and then height. So, how we want to approach that in
terms of, you know, do we want to allow um
you know, these detached ADUs to be, you know, up to 30 ft and and two story? Do
we want to restrict that height? Uh and then do we want to implement additional
setbacks beyond what would be required for a normal accessory structure? Um so,
our very own Will Sovern Corn has put together an ordinance for us based on
what the state law allows for. Um and really this this meeting we're
hoping, you know, in addition to the public hearing, to get some feedback on
that ordinance to see where we can add more um what we can tweak so that it's a
better fit for Kaysville specifically. Um we did post a public hearing notice
for this item on the 27th. Um
and the general plan does not speak explicitly in favor or against the
proposed amendment, so it's considered neutral.
Um and with that in mind, staff is recommending the planning commission
send a recommendation of approval to the city council for enacting the proposed
text amendment as provided in the draft ordinance. But, uh
we would love to hear everyone's thoughts and then see
see what kind of discussion we can have. >> Okay, thanks, Ann. Is there anything
else we want to discuss before we open up public hearing? Will, do you have
anything to add? Do you want to walk through it?
» Well, yeah. I think maybe that'd be the best thing to do.
» I'd like I'd like to do that. >> to talk about uh a lot of parts of it.
So, what I drafted up and I volunteered because staff was uh very
minimal at the time and Jason was concerned about the city
being able to meet the October 1st deadline that was set forth in the bill
that was passed by the legislature for
detached ADUs that a lot of communities, not every
community, but but most including Kaysville must have adopted or should
have adopted by October 1st otherwise you'll just be able to have ADUs
detached ADUs without any kinds of restrictions.
So, that's why we needed to have this ordinance done.
You know, I've had a little bit of background in this so I volunteered to
to draft something up. What I drafted is fairly minimal. What I did was I just
kind of put the basics in there. There are a lot of options on things we can do
particularly with things like Ann mentioned with heights and setbacks,
design characteristics. There is a there's a real issue about design and
what you can do and maybe not do with regard to design and we can talk through
a little bit of that. But then um
Commissioner Toller sent us a draft ordinance that to give credit do I
understand it's your brother who drafted that, right?
» Correct. >> Right.
And I have to say it's it's a phenomenal piece of work. It really is well done,
well crafted and it goes ahead and put forward recommendations I guess you
would call it on a number of things that I didn't include in mine that I thought
we'd have discussion about. And then decide which direction we wanted to go,
but have you all seen the the one that Paul sent out?
» Yes. >> So, there's a lot of detail in that and
we I guess we got to talk about when I say we I mean I'm I am on the planning
commission, but I'm acting more like staff at this point so that's why I'm
sitting down here. Cuz I I don't want to be the undue
influence sitting on the commission for the recommendation that's going to
be made. But, we ought to talk through some of those options and and see where
we want to go with those and what we want to recommend onto the city council.
And it'll ultimately, of course, be up to the city council to adopt whatever uh
code it is we do on that. Let me just say this as well. What I
realized, first of all, the bill also has a provision in it that says that the
city should not put any undue barriers on paraphrasing here, but undue barriers
in the way to converting existing accessory structures to ADUs.
Um when I looked through the provisions in our city code about the governing of
accessory structures, there's issues.
Our whole zoning code has issues. We We know that we've talked about it, but
there are some issues >> [clears throat]
» with regard to accessory structures that I think
whether we were doing that ADUs or not, we ought to really take a look at and
think about making some modifications and changes there.
That's why you'll see on the agenda as the next agenda item a discussion about
uh making changes to our accessory structures provisions in our code.
A lot of what we do there will probably also apply to ADUs or vice versa. What
we do on ADUs may then also wind up applying to accessory structures.
But, it really became apparent to me as I was looking at that and trying to
decide, well, what do we We We probably want to try to be close to whatever
we require for accessory structures for the ADUs as well. And it became obvious
to me after reading it after a little while and talking to some of the
residents about some existing accessory structures out there, I thought, ah, I
don't think I don't know that that's a good idea, particularly for ADUs, to
allow some of those things. And really, we ought to look at making modifications
to our accessory um buildings uh
provisions in our code as well. So, that'll be a separate discussion, but it
is related to the ADUs as well. >> Right.
And timely, too, sounds like. Okay.
Do you want to walk us through maybe we go through the original draft?
» Yeah, let's do that. >> I kind of think maybe after that we
you can maybe chime in, but maybe then we'll do public hearing and see if some
of the things we hear might align with what we we've seen in the green lines.
» That sounds good. >> Okay.
» Um >> Perhaps just a sorry.
» Sure, go ahead. >> Just a a point of clarification.
On the on the agenda. So,
uh we have a public hearing. We have a discussion
of a possible action to review accessory structures.
But, the commission is not being asked
tonight to approve and pass
a draft ordinance. That would come in a subsequent meeting.
» Are you talking about for accessory structures or for the ADU?
» for the ADUs. >> We would encourage you to pass on some
type of recommendation to the city council just because of the impending
deadline. It's going to be on their work agenda next week, so they're going to
have some time to play with it. Staff's going to have some time to play with it.
What we'd like tonight is to get the commission's recommendation on what
you'd like to see in that ordinance just because we're coming up on that
deadline. And I think we need to give the time to the council.
Okay. >> Um I believe the calendar would allow us
um I think
both by Anne's comments and what we just heard from Will,
there are significant changes to make to the draft ordinance.
Would that Is that fair? >> Yeah.
» And and so, um
» Well, I think we'll have a number of options and maybe we can
discuss it more as we kind of get through it because we can always
recommend approval with you know
a pretty good laundry list if we want or we can
recommend as is or we can recommend denial and maybe or bring back. I mean,
we may end up we come back. But let's see how far we get and
and see if it falls in those parameters of a possibility. Does that sound right?
» Is that available all along?
Somewhere is draft.
Um It's part of the package.
» End of packet. It's so if you're on if you've got access or laptop or an iPad,
you can go to our website. I can walk you through it to get to it.
Um it's under agendas and it's in the agenda packet for this evening's
meeting. >> Um Is that going to be on
» So this is going to be up on the screen right here. Will, do you want me to just
follow you as you go through it cuz I've got it up here. So
» I'm being We don't have screens, do you know that? Are you aware of that?
» The screens are not working. >> This is this is a little different in
the than the one that's in the packet because this one doesn't have the red
lines. >> Oh.
» I think [clears throat] they can change that.
Let
Okay, let's change. Do you want the red lines on it?
» Yeah, that would be I think the best and then we can go through those.
» Okay, you guys are giving me a whirl here. Okay, so we're going to go to all
markup. >> There you go.
» All right, so we've got that and your screens are not working.
» No. >> Okay, I will work on that.
» You should have this in your packets though.
» Yes, we can continue with that. >> So yeah.
So as you can see the city code already had a provision in it with regard to
internal accessory dwelling units, which was something that the state
legislature passed a bill in a previous session and cities all had to allow for
that. And so, we do have that in there. I brought up some stuff and then Katie
has drafted that into ordinance form. And what she's basically doing here is
she's taking that section and making it applicable to all accessory dwelling
units, not just to the internals. And then it'll call out the different
ones as you'll see as we go through this. So,
So, you So, just to go through this and if you have any questions or comments,
stop and let's talk about them. We have the definitions of of what they what
these are. The the detached ones which are new, the internal ones which have
existed now for a couple of years. That and then it
gives what the regulations are that need to be complied with.
And uh making those consistent with
what is now required under the various the bills
that have been put forward. So, we get all the way down here now to
where it says detached accessory dwelling units number three.
It says that DADUs, I'll just call them DADUs and
you'll know what I'm referring to. DADUs are allowed on any lot or parcel
that is 11,000 square feet or larger. First point of discussion, the state
code also then says that because it says 11,000 square feet in the state code,
that does not prohibit communities from allowing them on smaller lots if they so
desire. We There are a number of communities
around the state that are allowing for them on smaller lots.
Part of the rationale for that being that ADUs are a really kind of a easy,
low-hanging fruit way of trying to address
the housing affordability issue. Uh
you may not get a a tremendous number of new units or or units that can handle
um people that need housing. Um but it is a way and it's being viewed
that way. It's being been accepted that way all around the country and a number
of states have now put provisions in place that allow for
ADUs as a way to help address the housing affordability issue. So,
if that's the case, we have drafted this right now with what's all what the
specification is in the state code. But wondering if there's any appetite on
the commission and then ultimately on the council for allowing them on any
lots smaller than 11,000 square feet.
» I I'm a personally I would be interested in that, but I don't think it would fly
in our community. I think we'll be really
um I think this would probably shake up
enough people in the community to allow it at
11,000, but I mean it wouldn't offend me to go lower, but
» And having said said that, you know, we can it can be adopted this
way and it always can be amended in the future.
» Yeah. >> If uh if the desire so turns out
» I think it's a great starting point. >> But there are communities many community
not of all I don't know if I could say many, but there are a number of
communities around the state that are allowing them down to like 8,000 square
feet. Some of them don't put a square footage restriction on the lot. They
just regulate them by the yard area >> Um
» by the the restrictions on lot coverage and yard area.
» Setbacks and if it fits, it >> Yeah.
» fits. >> So, Brad, I'm curious. What's Layton
City looking at allowing?
» Sure. >> Yeah.
» You're going to have to introduce yourself
» know who Brad is. You all you probably don't know who Brad is.
» [laughter] >> Thanks, Wolf. Um yeah, so um I I've been
going through the draft ordinance as well as just uh the other regulations.
So, Layton City's also in the same boat that we're in uh right now in the in the
process of drafting some regulations. Um they're not planning on They already
allow detached accessory dwelling units um down to lot sizes of six 6,000 sq ft.
Um yeah, so to your point, Wolf, if there's already a lot of other cities
that allow them at various lot sizes, uh Syracuse I think allows them at 10,000
sq ft. So, you know, again, it's not unprecedented to have them at a smaller
lot sizes, but it really is just up to us to determine what works best in our
community, like you had said, Chair. Um you know, is
11,000 going to be the right Is that a good starting point, or do we say, you
know, eight or or 10,000 sq ft? I know that we do have some, you know, most of
our subdivisions kind of on the western side of the city are larger
subdivisions. Um and then in our kind of historic area, we're going to have
smaller lot sizes. You know, as Will said, you know, we can
apply different setback standards. For some For an example,
um and also the other question is do we allow them in just the rear yard area or
in the side yard area? Um some cities allow both. Some say it just needs to be
behind the home. Um and so uh I think also single story,
two story. A lot of cities do lots of different things. You might
have a a garage that's in somebody's backyard, and they want to do a loft ADU
on top of that garage, uh which then ends up, you know, becoming a two-story
structure. So, uh some typical setbacks are, you know, requiring that they meet
the same setbacks as the residential uh the the the primary residences, or
having additional setbacks um up up uh in addition to what you already have for
an accessory structure. So, one of the things that Wolf had mentioned earlier
is that the state code does say that we need to allow the conversion of
accessory structures to be converted into uh
detached ADUs. But one of the questions is, do, you
know, we might have smaller setbacks for an accessory structure and we'd rather
have a DADU be further set back from the property line because it might have
obviously a greater impact as a residence than if we just had a shed or
or something like that or a structure that
uh, you know, houses different equipment. So, sorry, I just like bom,
you know, word vomited all of that stuff to you right
there. But yes, there's there's a lot of different regulations in your Right.
Well, if there's um, lots of different ways, but yeah, what I've seen a lot is
um, before the state mandated this with this most recent legislative change uh,
10,000 square feet's kind of been what I see in the most in most cities.
» Yeah, the legislature, the original bill or the original language in the bill
actually was going to be 8,000 square feet.
But I think they they legislators felt comments and pressure and they upped it
to 11. Um, so that's what that's what's in the
state code. >> Does anyone else want to chime in on
square footage requirement?
» I I would say like I like you I I wouldn't be I wouldn't have a problem
discussing that going smaller. Um, one thing I do like is if it matched
a zone. Like for just for clarity. Um,
you know, basically this would be R12 and above for us.
And but we can't just say that because it could go all down to 11,000 square
feet. So, um, if we were to pick a number lower
than than 11,000, I would say like let's
match it to our normal zoning. Like to an R10
is where I'd go, but >> That's smart.
» Okay. I [clears throat] I agree um,
with the chair that perhaps
um, we may have an AUD in a
a smaller, square-foot print property. Um
in my opinion having an AUD will devalue the overall
property. And so
there are we have we have a unique situation in West Kaysville. Yes, the
lots are larger. But if you'll go with me on a quick tour
of Utah up and down I-15. Let's think about housing west of I-15.
Are there million-dollar homes west of I-15 in Provo?
Orem?
Lehi? Maybe. There's some in South Jordan.
But as you continue on through Davis County, we have something very unique in
West Kaysville. The property values
west of I-15 are tremendous.
That's not the typical situation. Usually one wants to be on the hill to
have their million-dollar home. We have very very valuable properties
that we don't want to devalue.
And so while I don't know that the arithmetic would work
I'm not Once we determine the setback and all of
the other things, if if if it's feasible to have an AUD on a smaller lot
in the neighborhoods around us I may not be opposed to that. Um because
I think that might be a place for this housing to
exist or coexist. >> So you're suggesting that it might be a
better fit for a smaller >> If if
» lot. I don't agree with you on it being
devaluing the main property. >> Yeah, I would agree. I don't think
there's any evidence of that. In fact, I think if anything there's evidence to
the contrary, which is um ADUs actually enhance the value
because it's uh revenue a potentially revenue generating
» It is a potential revenue item. Um and I've
in my professional career I've consumed a few thousand appraisals and made a few
thousand home loans and and I think that uh
it will have an impact. But again, just from my experience.
» Okay. >> But I I do agree there may be a place
for it if if the back what's kind of backwards arithmetic
with the setback, with the placement, would it even work on a lot less than
11,000? I don't know. >> Yeah.
» But I just wanted to To the extent that that it would,
I'm not opposed to it. Plus considering it in other
» Okay. >> Just just an interesting anecdote.
Um you know, since we're talking about that and about
So, um when I was in Salt Lake City as the planning director,
um the council uh wanted to and we began
the process of allowing for ADUs or amending the city's code to allow for
ADUs. Uh this was long before the legislature
or anybody was considering this. It's probably around I don't know, 2012 or
something like that. The um the the place where we got a lot
of acceptance for allowing for ADUs was on the west side of Salt Lake, which is
generally smaller, less expensive homes. The place we got the most resistance
was in the east side in the avenues. That's where we got the most resistance
and yet they had bigger properties. Um you know, more ability to do that,
but it it was just interesting to me.
» I think that sentiment will come forth in the public hearing.
» Right. Okay, let's continue.
» All right. Um,
so they uh that 3B, they must comply with the building,
health, and fire regulations as stipulated in the state code
in the bill and then of course conform to the
applicable land use regulations for the zone in which they're located.
Um, and those are specified in the language back in our code
in the like for residential zones. And that's primarily where we're going to
get ADUs in the residential zones because they're residential structures.
Um, and conform to those setback requirements. Okay, now here's where we
get into the issue. This says conform to the setback requirements of accessory
structures in the zone for which they're located.
I think we probably want to address that and probably adopt something different.
And Paul, the code that he submitted as an example,
does provide for some more restrictive setback requirements.
Um, and and I think that would be appropriate. One of the things with our
accessory structure code is that it allows accessory structures to go right
up to within a foot of the rear property line.
You know, that probably works for a tough shed
or something like that, but it can be problematic when you're getting
something that's a little bigger and a little bit more involved like
potentially an ADU that may even have windows on that side. And we we'll talk
about windows and design here in a little bit, but you know, we we I I'm
guessing that we will want to consider requiring an additional rear yard
setback um for the ADUs. Now, as Brad mentioned,
you know, there are some communities that require them to have meet the same
setback as the primary the residential structure.
That really to me kind of defeats the purpose because
you're oftentimes going to locate those ADUs in the required rear yard. If they
have to meet the same setback, there isn't any place they can really go if
the house and the is just meets that that minimum setback.
So, I think we probably want to allow them they're generally going to be
smaller structures. We may want to talk about if we want to
limit them to single story structures or whatever else it is.
But uh generally, I think they can be closer than that 30 or 20-ft rear yard
setback that may be required in the residential zone.
But I think it's got to be more than a foot.
Um but where we feel comfortable with that
that may be what we ought to discuss.
» Thoughts on that? >> Thoughts on that?
» Do we Do we want to do that now or after the public comment or
» I We can do that. >> Let's do that.
» Yep. That's a probably a good suggestion.
Okay, so that's one thing to be aware of and to listen for to comments on that.
All right, the other part and talks about being designed consistent with the
design of the single family dwelling. This This is a can of worms.
And I'll tell you why. Few years ago, the legislature pat
passed a provision that said for one and two family structures,
local governments cannot adopt design regulations.
Cannot adopt design standards and it has a specific list of all the different
kinds of things like um exterior materials and
um you know, whatever you might attach to
it and and all There's a whole list of things that it says you can't regulate
the design of. And but it says specifically for the
dwelling. All right.
» I have a I have a note for you and and Katie there, please. And
um it's going to take more lawyering than I could give it, but
um you talk you talk code 10 21
304. >> Mhm.
» Well, if you were just referring to section 3D.
Then if you go on to the next section 10 21 3044
A little three a land use subsection may
require be designed consistent with the design of the single-family dwelling.
» You're talking about the bill here for the ADUs?
» The state the state law. >> Yeah, for the ADUs. Yeah, that's that's
what I'm talking about here. >> two those two phrases are at conflict.
» They they are absolutely. >> But if we can
if we in our ordinance may rely on 10 21 30443
» Yeah. >> we absolutely should.
» So, here's where the dilemma comes in and this can of worms that I'm talking
about. In the bill that was passed that then
requires that we have the detached ADUs it also talks in there and it says
specifically that um
you can you can regulate you can't regulate the
design of ADUs
consistent with the section of code we just talked about.
But then elsewhere in that same bill it taught it says what Paul just talked
about. It said we can require the ADUs to be consistent with the design of the
primary dwelling on the property.
Well, how do you do that if the other part
says you can't regulate design? So, it's
to me it's illegal, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen. Somebody's going to
probably challenge it sometime, but >> What does it mean?
» Go ahead. >> Like what does consistent mean? So, for
example, I'm on a half-acre, I want to add on to my house, they no longer make
my brick. It's not made anymore. So,
I'm out of luck because my my HOA requires a certain amount of
brick or rock versus stucco? So, I Yeah, I think that's a can of
worms and I think that's vague and I think it's
» And I'd say if we did get a legal challenge, um the code is ambiguous and
what a court usually does with something that's ambiguous, two things. Um they go
with the more specific and in my opinion, the more specific is the list
of design standards that we can't regulate. And two, in land use, they uh
interpret it in favor of the property owner.
» All right. So, what I would recommend, what I as I
thought about this, I thought what we should do is we should rely on the
section that Paul just referred to, which says we can require them to be
consistent with the design of the primary residential structure on the
property. >> Seems reasonable.
» But, I think we leave that language pre just like that. We don't start listing
specific things that it can or can't be. >> Yeah, let let's quote the state quote
the state code. We run a foul of that other part of the state code.
» Yes. >> By saying, you know, well, look, we're
just requiring them to be as the code says, consistent with the design. Now,
the the >> And we're going to get some questions
just like this commissioner had. They don't make that brick anymore, but it's
consistent. It's not metal or steel or bamboo or whatever the the homeowner's
thinking of creating the ADU out. It's consistent with the rest of their home.
» But does that does that then conflict with the idea of being able to allow
people to convert existing structures? What if their existing structure is made
out of metal? >> Yeah.
Yeah, I think that's >> contradiction.
» That's a good good point. And I think by leaving it fairly general as is
the language is in the bill, um it leaves a lot of discretion
on the part of the staff that'll likely be reviewing it and to
say, "Well, you know, yeah, we think that's consistent and that's not." What
that then means is what Katie was just talking about. If it's if it's vague
like that and you get a couple of reasonable
interpretations, you know, let's say the staff says, "Well, you got to put you
got to put orange-colored brick on there to be consistent."
And the applicant says, "They're not making that brick anymore, but I have a
brick here that I think is pretty close, you know, or pretty consistent."
Um would to do that. And if you have a reasonable
interpretation that to look somebody that could look at that and say, "Well,
I can see the city side of it and I can see the owner side of it." Our state
code specifies that you go with what the owner the applicant wants to do.
If it can reasonably be interpreted different ways. So, that leaves us open
in that regard. But I don't if we get any more specific,
I think we're going to run a foul of the other provision of the code. That that's
Katie, I don't know what what you're thinking. You're the legal.
» Well, it would be my recommendation to not um
to not touch the things that that that list that says we're not supposed to
touch, but um I was able to talk to somebody at the league yesterday.
They're aware of this ambiguity and they think that it will be addressed in the
next session. So, we may be able to amend it next spring.
» I see. >> Um as far as um
the existing accessory structures being converted,
um what it does say in the state code and what I think we would put in our
ordinances to say you can convert an accessory structure as long as you can
comply with all of the requirements that we have for the ADU.
» Exactly. I think it says we must provide a path.
» Right. Exactly. >> that path may mean
you've got to move this one wall back 9 ft.
» Right. >> You've got to change it from a metal
clad building to something consistent with the home.
» Right. Exactly. If they can do that, then they can convert the existing
structure. If they can't, they would not be able to.
» Yeah, it's a whole different category from a
» Okay. >> um a mower shed to
now a residence. >> Right.
» All right. Um
Next provision, uh
Roman numeral five item, there may not be larger in size than the single-family
dwelling. Um we may want to be smaller than that.
A number of communities are. They put a limit. They say it can't be
uh more than 70% for example the size of the of the existing single-family
dwelling. Or they may set a specific square footage.
Cuz you may have some small homes on a lot that you could put an ADU on and you
know, it if you have a percentage, it may wind up being a really little ADU,
which maybe not is a problem, but it may not be real reasonable either. So, uh
some consideration there. Maybe make it a percentage of the size of the primary
structure or a specific square footage. Um think that through a little bit and
see what we may want to do there, and what what comments we may get.
» Okay. >> Um not located in a utility easement, uh
may not be located in the front yard. I think those are all pretty
straightforward, nothing to be controversial there.
Okay, and then um as far as parking, we are limited in the parking that we can
require for ADUs. If they're smaller than 650 square feet, we can only
require one additional off-street parking space to be provided on the
property. If they're larger than 650, we can allow two, but only two off-street
parking spaces uh to be located um off the street.
Um you can see the other provisions there about
um displacing uh any existing parking
spaces, that they have to be paved. Um
and that it has to have utility services, um and uh talks about that a
little bit. And let's see, where we at? Number five,
general ADU uh standards. Um no more than one
ADU, either an IADU or a
DADU, located on a on a property. That may be
something to discuss, because there are some communities that allow both.
They will allow an internal and a detached.
What's the feeling of the commission? >> I I think we recently had discussion
here in planning commission with a
community member who was planning to do both. Yeah.
Already had the internal and was doing planning for the next, so.
And maybe we'll circle back. Shall we circle back to that as well?
Something to consider. >> Would that issue be that
they would have to provide way more parking, because you would have the
parking requirement for both. >> Uh
» It's part of it. >> I don't know if the IADU has a parking
standard. Does the IADU have I have to look.
I can't remember now if the IADU has a >> to provide one space for the IADU.
» What is it? >> You have to provide one space for the
internal. >> Okay, so yes.
» that I think it has to be not the four spots. You've like you've got to
have >> Can't be tandem.
» Yeah, it can't be tandem. Thank you. >> Yeah.
Okay, one one additional for the IADU. Yeah, and if you had
um both you'd have you would be allowed to I think require the additional
parking as well.
Um then we talk about single-family uh in in an ADU. That's you know, the same
as if in a single-family structure um or unit. Um
that it has to obtain a valid permit for renting um
and cannot be rented for less than 30 days.
That's to you know, kind of address and prevent
the short-term rental issue um which is an issue in some communities
uh many in fact. And then uh there's the state code does
allow the community to require that the
primary owner of the property must live in one of the units. Either in the
primary unit or in the ADU. And we have that drafted here so that
that court requirement would be there. Um that's generally a quick rundown of
it. I think with some of the options uh talked about there.
A lot of the stuff that that Paul's ordinance had was with regard to a lot
of the design standards. And we just talked about that about how
we probably need to leave that more general rather than getting specific
because of the issues in the code and how that would be treated legally.
And then the setbacks.
What we want to do on the setbacks. >> And I think an additional one is the 30
or 90 or some other number of consecutive days for rent rental.
» Yeah, you can go up to 90. Yeah.
» So. >> We may also want to talk about things
like there is
the state code does allow things like massing and like the percentage of lot
area that can be covered by an ADU. >> Yes.
» Or by all the structures that are on the property
and also things like window placement and things like that and so we you know
we want to talk about that as well. If those are requirements that we want to
put in. >> Thank you.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» And and thank you for the I can see that
what what I provided was overreaching on parking. This is disappointing that you
can only require one. I know even if we grant building permits we're always so
concerned about parking but the way the state has brought this down that's
if it's 650 it's
one parking spot.
» And I'll just say this is my own comment on the parking. I think by and large
unless you have a disparate you know like five different
individuals which is I guess that's our definition of a family right? It is
five. We have five individuals living there it's possible that you could have
five cars. >> Yep.
» So we may only have one or maybe two parking additional parking spaces that
means some of those cars are going to have to park on the street.
I frankly they're public streets people can park on the streets. I don't think
that's a problem or an issue. It should be allowed. The problem comes
in the wintertime when our city code requires no overnight
parking on the street. And where do those cars go?
And that's that becomes an issue. >> Right.
Okay. Well, thank you so much for A, helping the city with this draft
ordinance and and B, for walking us through it.
Um I think that is fantastic. So, we're
going to go ahead now and we're going to have the public comment.
Um or the public hearing part. So, we
um
I'm going to say most of you all look fairly familiar to this process, but um
we'll just hold you to 3 minutes each. If you'll just state your name, um
and then we just ask that you be respectful to
each other and um to staff and we'll just go ahead and
open up to whoever wants to come forward.
» Hi. My name's Jill Dredge and I don't live
in the neighborhood in West Kaysville, but I've been down there and I would
encourage everybody to go down to that neighborhood and see kind of what
they're dealing with with good ADUs and some that have been a little bit of a
problem down there. Um one of the things that as you were
talking I think the property value for the person that has the ADU can go up,
but I think the property value for the people that are living within that may
go down because I've gone down there and seen how it's changed backyards for
people where it's a two-level especially and the windows are there and they look
right down into people's backyards. So, I think those are things to kind of
consider. Um
one of them uh the temperature in their backyard is 10° higher because it's a
metal building and it's right by their garden area. So, I think those are some
things to consider. Um, and anyway, that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Joe.
» Lorraine Starkey, Kaysville. I hope to focus on three things.
Number one, how the rules for new ADUs or detached ADUs will be enforced.
Number two, what happens to the lot structures that do not cleanly fit the
new rules. And number three, what happens if Kaysville is not ready by
October 1st. So, let's start with enforcement. What
if we do that? The rules matter when they're enforced. Today, we have
residents that are pointing to structures in their neighborhoods,
two-story garage apartment built on a foot from the property line, accessory
buildings the size of commercial storage units,
a rear addition facing the major street, all that went through city staff,
planning commission, city council approved. It is this is not
hypothetical, it happened here in Kaysville under today's codes. There are
some severely challenged neighbors in um, Utah's home town.
A citizen letter to the commission describes this in particular, structures
that are approved in spite of the existing restrictions on detached
accessory dwelling units. I would invite all each of you to review
this letter carefully. My question directly is, as the
standards are adopted, what is our enforcement plan? Will there be
inspections periodically? Will the city retire
rely entirely on neighbors to file complaints after the fact? Does the code
enforcement have the staffing today to handle the expected increase in ADU
applications? Will the city commit today to publicly track and report the permits
that are issued for ADUs each year so that we can watch and monitor the
cumulative effect over time instead of dif-
discovering it lot by lot as we're experiencing today? Number two,
non-conforming lots, ex- existing structures. Not every lot has a clean
1,000 square foot. We have corner lots, flag lots.
What if we clarify eligibility today for the structures that are built under
the old rules? Are they grandfathered without question?
Um or is there a re- view process? Finally, the timing. If Kaysville does
not have a finalized objective standards before the the
deadline, what is our fallback? Will we default to the bare minimum?
Is it possible to pause the ADUs approval until the local standards are
firmly in place? I urge our commission not to let the deadline approach and
arrive without clear answers. We do have authority. May I respectfully
request that our commission use every ounce of this authority to establish
appropriate codes and staffing, whatever is to see and make sure that whatever
is enforced. Thank you.
» And then the downside of Rambo. >> My name is Laurie Cragan and I live in
the Old Mill Farms neighborhood. On May 6th of this year, 3 months ago, the
state of Utah mandated that Kaysville must now permit detached accessory
dwellings. Up until this point in time, they were not allowed, only IADUs. I am
the owner of a 1,500 sq ft IADU attached the back of my third car garage and
understand how valuable it can be. I also understand, having grown children
who need housing as I have my son's family of five living in my basement. We
are grateful to have had the space to offer in times of need. The city of
Kaysville has the opportunity to do something monumental for its residents
in considering the changes to section 17-31-3.
There are things that the state has mandated to be included in this new
ordinance, but there are also substantial list of things Kaysville
still has power to regulate. While I appreciate the work that has
gone into the draft in the packet, it is sorely lacking in many items. Utah code
section 1-21-3044 gives the city the ability to still
regulate many things about these DADUs. To name a few, size, dimension, height,
maximum lot coverage, setbacks from property lines, window orientation,
architectural design consistency with the primary residence, and 90-day rental
term, owner occupancy, parking placement, so much that can still be
written into the document and tied up. We need specifics spelled out with
diagrams of where these DADUs can be placed on lots so there is no confusion.
I have a 2,400 sq ft 30-ft high steel pole barn in the property right behind
mine, 10 ft from my property line. Due to the accessory structures code
requirements on the books right now, it was permitted by the city and it was
built last summer. The intention intention of the property owner is to
work on his truck on the lower level and build a residence on the top level for
family. This commercial-looking building is in my neighborhood. Privacy we once
enjoyed is gone as I now have four large clear windows staring into my property.
There are two more of these still buildings on one neighbor's property and
another neighbor is in the process of building a 2,700 square foot 29 foot
high building on a corner lot right next to the main street our neighborhood uses
to go about our lives. It is obvious that our current accessory building code
needs to be looked at and revised. You have one chance to get this right for
all the property owners of Kaysville. We are counting on you to keep our
neighborhoods beautiful and aesthetically pleasing. Please send the
draft included in the packet back for a review and meet again in 2 weeks with a
more complete draft. Please give us the residents another chance for public
comment on that revised draft before giving it to the council. I understand
there is an October 1st deadline. That we must have items spelled out more
clearly and specific detail. It's been mandated by the state but there's many
ways that we can make these DADUs acceptable. Thank you.
» Thank you.
» My name is Susan Harris. >> I sent oh
» Sorry. >> Can you say your name again, ma'am?
» Susan Harris and I sent a a letter to all of you a few days ago.
Um I spent hours going through that new law because frankly it scares me to
death. Cuz I can just as she just said, our
neighborhood has changed and I'm not right in that neighborhood. I'm a little
further away but for
existing code I mean I don't understand either why
there's a 30 foot building in anyone's backyard but um
I just I'm really concerned about where this could all go and so and I'm kind of
really disgruntled that like there's something to propose
to like the council before you even get impact from the public. I think that's
kind of weird. Like shouldn't you hear what we have to say and then work
something and send it to the council? Cuz, you know, what if we had an idea or
you or something? So. Um I'm one of those who that neighbor
I'm the one that has the neighbor's ADU a foot off my property line.
And I measured it. And that was the wall. That's not even
overhang. And so, code somewhere like didn't work.
And that's kind of I think the fear as even like what we have in place is
concerning. And I think it needs to be reviewed and And as this dear lady said
that we have to be careful when we start restricting on what it looks like.
I think we have every right to give some ideas or just even say it. We don't have
to go into every detail, but there's only going to be one chance. And
the last of my letter, the one thing I did say that I just would like to
reiterate again is
the intentions don't matter once things start changing.
And if we miss, you know, that T or that I,
then we have, you know, 30-ft buildings in the backyard of everything. And the
neighborhood that we all bought into and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
changes dramatically. And this could go berserk. Like
everybody could come in and want to do this.
Maybe 20, maybe 30. And it will probably, you know, increase over time.
But I think we need to be very careful right now
to decide what we want Kaysville to be. And I I don't think every city has to
be, you know, everything to everybody. We don't have to be a high-density
place. But we do have a state law that is requiring a few things.
But I think we need to put things in place so that it will work for where we
live, who we are, and the things that we've already
invested in this city time and time again.
And I thank you for your time. >> Thank you.
» Um my name is Gary Yuras, going to 422 Joshua Drive, and
I've noticed most of my a lot of the people here are from my neighborhood,
and I there's a reason why, and and it's been expressed tonight that there's been
a lot of things occur in our neighborhood that in our opinion should
not have been allowed to happen. And and I think part of it is
enforcement, part of it is the standards in your zoning ordinance. We need to, as
Will said, look at the accessory buildings, deal with height. We've got
two-story accessory buildings with windows that look down in people's
property. I feel my heart breaks for the Cragans,
you know, they've invested a lot of money in their property, and now they've
got a two-story building sitting there with windows. Their privacy has been
destroyed. That should not happen to people in this community.
Um I think that the accessory unit should not be in
two-story buildings. I think they should be limited to single story. In fact, I
think there should be no accessory buildings in
over one story high, just to provide the the atmosphere and the massing within
within our community. I think there should be no windows
uh to the adjacent property. You know, I I think you use a standard
of if you're sitting in an adjacent property looking at one of these
residential units should be viewed as a looked at as a shed or a garage there,
and so you're sitting in your property and see my my privacy has not been
violated. So, I think that's very important. Now, as far as the setback,
I think these are residential dwellings. I think that should have the 8-ft
setback that a typical residential dwelling should have because think of it
for a minute. If you get two property owners put two units there back
back-to-back, if you use the foot setback, you got a 2-ft difference
between those buildings. And in our residential subdivisions,
we're saying there should be at least 16 ft between a residential dwellings.
Well, that should apply to the uh
the ADUs or whatever you call them.
Sorry about that. Um also, I agree strongly that it should
meet the design standards of the existing buildings. And I yeah, you can
talk about conflicts, but I think you need to make sure that that meets that.
And I I think there is not a conflict there. The state statute says that you
can make it meet there. You're not dictating what it has to be. You're just
saying it has to meet the existing. So, I think that's reasonable.
I think the parking is an issue. Uh I don't know how to resolve that. Maybe
maybe we have to go back to the legislature and talk about that. But if
you got a 650 and you're saying there's only one unit, well, think about it. Our
area does not have public transit. You got a couple of movers into there. How
many cars is going to be in there in a 650 unit? Probably two.
And so, one of them's going to be on the street. And um as a city manager for
Woods Cross for a number of years, and we put in a unit uh project, and we
missed it on the parking. And that became a real problem. So,
parking becomes a problem. Um I'd just like to say one other thing is
enforcement is important. Enforcement needs to happen. I'm glad we got the new
guy here because you can spend hours and hours going over
this, but if it's not enforced, it doesn't mean anything. So, thank you.
» Thank you.
» Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the commission?
Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public comment.
And um we can open it up to the commission to
discuss um
some of the things that I'm hearing are um
a lot of what we've discussed the accessory code needs to be needs to
be amended, accessory building code. Um
Enforcement is a great question. I think that kind of lands on city where we
don't have a lot of staff um currently to enforce.
Um That being said, I think we
the general consensus is we still want to have some regulations, so
um um architectural standards as much as we
can enforce sounds like it's kind of um setbacks I think or something we're
going to want to address as well that we can kind of
bump those up a little bit. Parking is fairly set sounds like.
Um single story maybe something we want to talk about in window
placement. So, I'm going to just open this up to commission members to just
start batting out some ideas and things that you'd like to amend from
» they go down, they go sideways. >> There you go.
» [laughter] >> Yeah.
» That's what we want.
» Now we know Now we know what Mindy wants.
Go in sideways. [laughter]
Okay, I think we're we're good.
» Please. >> Sure. Um
so I've listed a number of the issues, some
of which I brought up, some of the things that you have, and we've heard
maybe we address them one at a time. How about height?
I don't maybe start with height. >> Start with height.
» What's the What's the feeling of the commission on the recommendation
» on setback, don't you think? >> What's that?
» For me, I think it depends on the setback because if you have a two-story
home and like a lot of property around it
» Yeah. >> and it would also depend on windows.
» I know a number >> this overlaps and it entwines in such a
complicated way. >> Yeah, I know a number of communities
that they limit ADUs to single story. Uh to me, that seems pretty reasonable
because they're supposed to be smaller accessory structures to the main house.
» My only question I have with that is currently we have a fair amount of
IADUs because there's a breezeway or something that are over
» over a garage. >> over a garage. And we currently have a
lot of you know, accessory residences that are
on a second story, and how how does that play into that?
» to convert, like are we stepping on the ability to
convert an existing IADU?
» Yeah, I mean, that it may well do. If you have like a detached garage and you
want to put one over over the main garage part
it would limit that if you limited single story.
So, that may not be the best solution, but um you know
you certainly don't want them 30 ft, I don't think.
» Um, >> is there a a requirement or anything for
setback from the in the main structure of the house? Is there like a fire
requirement or anything like that? >> There there's probably just the fire
code requirement, which I don't know exactly what that is, but it's not that
it's not real great. If they have firewalls, if they have fire uh code
walls, they can be fairly close. >> Okay.
» Um, but it they they have to meet that fire code requirement to be close.
» So, we're looking at a minimum distance from the main
structure, setback, and the height that are all
presenting some sort of an issue when we go back to the lot size that we're
proposing to put them on. >> Yeah.
» I do think um, considering what the
what the residents are saying that we should be generous with our setbacks
» Mhm. >> from neighbors.
Maybe match existing home structure setbacks.
So, >> Thank you. I I agree with that
sentiment. We're creating a residence with an with a auxiliary dwelling unit.
And and let's keep it simple. It's not very
forgiving. Um, would
» I will just say that if we do that, we may be really limiting uh particularly
on lots, you know, that just bear it that
just meet the minimum setback requirement. That would basically mean
that you couldn't have an ADU.
» may be some where I don't have 16 ft between me and my
neighbor. >> That Yeah, that's what it would have to
have. There have to be more room on the sides.
» And and that's okay. One of the one of the comments that we heard and I've
heard um, some of our city council echo is
we don't have to be everything to everybody in Kaysville.
We're a unique city. >> So,
Well, is this correct in that So, for side if we're talking side yards,
the minimum setback varies by lot. So, 10, 8, and the smallest is 5.
» Right. >> But, that's on a 6,000 sq ft lot, which
wouldn't be >> Which if we limit it to 10 or 11,000,
that wouldn't be us. >> No, and
» So, >> And right now, accessory structures have
to meet the side yard requirements. Um so, um in that case,
you know, the uh ADUs should probably will should probably meet that as well.
I don't think that's going to be a an issue in most cases. I think they'll be
able to meet those side yard requirements. I think it's just the rear
yard that's going to be an issue. >> is the bigger issue.
» What What What about like uh oddly shaped lots or corner lots that maybe
wouldn't have such much of a backyard, right?
» Corner lots are an interesting issue. Um I have to tell you I was kind of beating
my head against the wall for a while to exactly understand how our
um accessory structure requirements worked on corner lots cuz the the
language in our code is it's um
it it's not clear. >> Mhm.
» Not clear to me anyway, and uh I That is one thing as we when we
address our accessory structures, I think we need to address that.
Um and clarify that and get it to where we think it should be.
But, we can do that for ADUs right now at this point. We can specify whatever
it is we want to. So, on a corner lot on the side that's adjacent to the street,
normally, you're required to have a 20-ft setback.
Uh but, in some cases, our code does have uh the ability to put um ADUs
within that those 20 ft. Or I'm sorry, accessory structures. Do we want to
allow ADUs to go into that, or do we want them to also meet that 20-ft
setback requirement?
» Yes, the 20-ft setback requirement because it's a it's a dwelling, it's a
residence, not an accessory building. >> And it's adjacent to the street.
» Um the the chair um made, you know, good notes, and I'm sorry if a couple of
these are redundant, but um I'll just rattle off my list to um
I someone someone maybe can draft how we
deal with the the unit over a garage, window
orientation, but generally single-story.
Um in our language, I hope we put that we we've provided a path
for uh you to convert an existing building
to an an accessory dwelling unit, but it must
meet all of the requirements of the code. We've [snorts] heard the the
citizens speak about enforcement. I read um the fine is $100 a day. Is that in
the ordinance? Um
» Um I think it's out on the page A, yeah.
» I I regard I hope it's still there. I I
read it and >> Oh, yeah, I got it right here for you.
» Okay, I read it and maybe forgot it, but but that seems like
that gives it some teeth. Um
and then we just talked about corner lots.
Um the um
window orientation ought to be addressed. Uh minimum side
yard, I think this is a great guide since we're creating residences.
And then, um, I appreciate
uh, council's guidance.
And we shouldn't vary from the language of section 1021304
4A3, but let's at least put that in there,
that it be designed consistent with the design of the single-family dwelling.
» Yeah. >> Then it sounds like the legislature's
going to maybe clean that up uh, address the conflict. That's what courts and
legislatures are for, but in the meantime, we're going to use what the
state's mandated to us, um,
and then the other thing that I heard that I thought was interesting is, um,
pausing permits and and
well, if you've taken the laboring oar here, I'll let you address if that might
be prudent, um,
» What was your question again, Alan? >> Uh, just
» Pausing permits. >> Pausing permits until we we
» Oh, on the accessory >> dwelling and this, if that's an
appropriate action. >> Yeah, so the way that works, um, it's we
we call it a moratorium. I mean, that's what everybody kind of calls it. Once
you've decided to do this, you have 6 months
to address your code and make whatever changes that you want to.
And people say it's a moratorium. It's not really a moratorium.
What it is is you've just put everybody on notice
that if they insist on going ahead with building something
that is governed by those provisions, they may have to come back and change it
if we change the code. And most people will say, "Well, I'm
going to wait till you decide what it is you're going to do."
» I see. >> And so in that in essence it becomes a
moratorium [clears throat] because they'll say, "Well, let's wait and see
what you come up with." But there are some that will say, "I'm
going to go ahead anyway." And then if it changes, they're obligated to go back
and change it. So, modify the
» And is that And is that an option? My understanding is October 1st is the
state deadline, and if we don't have a You know. code, then you get whatever
comes through. >> why what we need to specify what it is
we want for the ADUs right now. >> Yeah.
» Now, some of those same things we may change the accessory
structures ordinance as well, but that's not what we're doing right now. We're
going to just work on this piece. >> ADUs, sorry. We can't We can't pause on
the ADU. >> Yeah, sorry if I didn't make that
distinction clear. That that the accessory
» Okay. >> Yeah.
» [clears throat]
» My thought I just keep thinking back on the size of the We're talking about the
level of the house, right? The stories. If you are on a smaller lot, a
non-conforming lot, a non-typical lot, would it would make sense if you were
spending the money to make the structure to go up so that it would allow for more
square footage or more parking or any of those things, right? So, it would allow
for that. But, like we have everybody concerned
about is um your privacy in your backyard.
Personally, I live in a smaller home, so they can see me in my backyard.
I'm used to it. That's just how it is. But, I can understand that it's an
issue. I don't think it should be 1 ft from the from the
» I wonder if if an appropriate setback could resolve the second-story issue.
» Mhm. Setback from the neighbor or
» Probably with the combining window placement
and setbacks. I feel like that would cause
» It all comes back down to lot size. So, maybe that's where we should start
is with the larger What size lot? Do we want 11,000? Do we want 8,000? Do we
want 10,000? >> Mhm.
» Maybe that's a good jumping off point. >> That's a good place.
» I don't know. >> Any comment?
» I I think I I Yeah, I think the chairs that both the chair and I have got
commented that if the arithmetic works,
fine if it's on a smaller lot, but it may not.
» Does anyone want to make an adjustment to the 11,000
now? Obviously, we can change it later, but
do we want to do that? >> I think they should be allowed on
smaller lots if they can conform
to these setbacks. >> Uh to whatever we set up backs that we
decide on it. >> Uh you know, and I don't know that the
city would want to go this far, but there are communities out there that
don't specify a minimum lot size. Um they just say you have to meet the
the setback requirements, and if they can meet them on whatever lot, it's
fine. I don't know that you want to go that far,
but that's an option. >> Guess there are smaller homes on bigger
lots. Um or make their lot look bigger just
because they are a tinier home, right? So,
this is saying a quarter acre, just over a quarter acre at 11,000 sq ft.
There are some homes that are on smaller lots that might be able to conform to it
somewhat. I think for sure there would be.
Mhm. >> What do you want to set as your minimum
square feet? >> Or or zoning
district or like you say, just
leave it. >> There's a lot. There are a lot to do.
» Yeah, and I mean, there's always whatever it is that you recommend now
and the council winds up adopting, it can be changed later.
» Yeah.
» So, do we we do we do we ask our our crack staff
to take a crack at drafting something for less than 11,000 square feet, or do
we go with the state-mandated 11,000 square feet or larger is really the
the issue and and we could look at what they propose
in 2 weeks. Um or as the chair suggested,
perhaps we
we pro we we've given direction. That's they've taken notes. They have
they've they've heard. Um do we
let the city council finalize it? That's the
possibility. >> it's appropriate for us to give them a
suggestion. >> Mhm.
» Yeah, I think I'd recommend that you you make some recommendations tonight.
» And then they [clears throat] >> Because I it sounds like the the
council's going to discuss this at their in a work session next week.
» So, we need to give them the word. >> your input
» Uh-huh. >> There is a work session. Okay.
» council. That's my understanding. Is that right, Jason?
» Well, just for the sake of a starting point, I mean
I'm curious if anyone would feel comfortable with
recommending 8,000 square feet.
» 8,000's kind of where I've been sticking in my mind.
» 8,000. >> Any other thoughts on that?
I mean, part of me just part of me thinks for the in the interest of time,
you start kind of basic, start with we can always
adjust, but I don't feel like it's a one-time shot,
but I feel like um if you kind of cover yourself, and
then you may decide you want to open it up more,
you could, but >> There'll still be limitations to it. I
mean everything else. >> Everything. Everything else in addition
to the lot size. So there will be things that won't make it so that they could
conform and get the the video.
So it's I think it's the 8,000 square feet might add some flexibility.
» I guess if you have your setbacks set, your height set, or
whatnot, it wouldn't really uh affect your neighbor. It would only
affect you, your lot, if it was a smaller lot.
» the way down to the RT zoning. >> The what?
» If you look at the zoning, >> Mhm.
» that's that's smaller than an R16.
» Okay. So well, is an R16 is Is that 6,000? Is that what it says?
» I don't know. I'm leaning more towards the 10,000.
» 10,000 square. 10,000 because you're saying it 8,000 it's for everybody but
the R16. Looks like.
» Yeah, R16 is 6,000. >> Yeah. So
10,000?
» I agree with that. >> That's where I would be.
» Feel okay about 10,000? >> Okay.
» Okay, let's tentatively say that. Um height, do we want to say
um single story, or do we want to
I would love to say single story, but I just worry that that conflicts with the
existing structure conversion. So could we have something that says single story
except if there's an existing structure conversion, and if so, then a lot, you
know, that depends on windows, that depends on
I'm worried that we're going to contradict our cell by saying single
story. >> Yeah, and and I I live on 5 acres, you
know, any building I'm I'm building is going to be 100 ft from my neighbor's
boundary. I mean, there there's I can think of examples where a second
story, you know, an apartment above garage, things like that would be
completely reasonable. >> appropriate.
» And so and so I'm I'm reluctant to to to go with that. Now, I I want to ask it
seems to me like a lot of height and setbacks
kind of come together and there's there's a diagonal line and and I'm
I know I've read it, but I don't have the words for it and stuff and so
if that is built into it you can have a second story, but not 8
ft off the property like you got to follow that that diagonal and
people that are more into that can flesh out the the details there.
» of naturally govern itself if we had that
» It would it would keep that second story from being right up on your property
line and that could be a reasonable way to write
it. Um if we were to allow second story. Right
now, the current code and I'm looking to the rest of the city
staff to keep me straight here cuz I'm not sure I got it straight. But, um
an accessory structure can go within 1 ft of the rear property line.
It can be up to the wall can be up to 16 ft high.
And then what if you go higher than that up to a maximum of 30 ft, for each foot
higher you go, you have to be 1 ft further set back.
» It starts at 12, not 16. >> 12, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. 12.
That's how that's how it works now. But, if you you know
» I think when something crazy >> That's crazy.
» our say our setback is 8 ft
to start. >> Minimum setback.
» Minimum setback is 8 and then we have a height
» 12 ft >> 12 ft or something, and then it could
grow from there. Same language, you know.
» Which could potentially, the higher you're wanting to go, you're going to
run out of room. So, the smaller the lot >> That's true.
» Yeah. >> So, you're constrained by your building
envelope by If you're wanting to go two-story, but your lot's smaller
it's naturally, like what you're saying, it might need
» You don't need to or might need to It still has to do with the setback. You
simply just won't have >> the option.
» The setbacks and the room in the backyard to stay with your setbacks to
go taller. >> Right.
» But with a smaller lot maybe that's okay.
» Yeah. >> Yeah, just be one-story.
» Yes.
» Well um
8-ft minimum side setback?
» Rear? >> Rear.
» Rear. >> Cuz they have to meet the side setbacks.
» Yeah. The sides are already built in. >> Or we we would specify that 80s.
Our accessory structure ordinance now requires that accessory structures meet
the side setback requirements. Um the rear they can go within a foot,
but if you make that 80s
» the 1-ft issue.
So, is 8 ft appropriate in the rear? >> Yeah, is 8 ft Is that enough?
» It's not much. >> It is not much if it's a two-story.
» Yes. So, you start with 8 ft, and the taller
you go, the closer to the wards the home you're going to go.
» Go. >> Yeah.
So, 8 ft with a height of >> of a 12-ft
» 12-ft >> Sounds good to me.
» But 12
» I need a visual.
For every foot setback. >> Yeah.
» And can we limit that it's not taller than the initial structure, the main
primary structure? >> Yes.
» Yeah, that would definitely probably be a good thing to have in there, that it
can't be taller than the
» I want a big princess tower in the back.
» I kind of like 75% maybe 75% rule on
square footage of the original. >> But would that be 75% of the primary
structure or the Okay. Yeah, as the max. >> Was that 75 or 70?
» So if you're saying you can't have the If you're saying they can't be taller
than the first dwelling, if you're in a single story home, you can't build a
two-story dwelling. >> Correct. Right.
» Cuz you're saying by >> It would say that, yeah.
» But if it's a two-story on a smaller lot and you don't have the room, it's going
to end up being a one-story anyway. >> Yeah, also true.
» So that's the That's the caveat.
» Right now, if I purchase a lot in Kaysville
in any of these zones except the A1 A5.
Um if I'm going to build a dwelling unit,
my rear setback is 15 ft. Is there reason to vary from that
because it's an auxiliary dwelling unit? >> It just won't allow smaller lots to
to use the space. >> And is that that Is that a problem?
I I think sticking with these makes a lot of I mean
that this is what people have expected. This is the setback from their neighbors
now. So if someone start building a building
in the backyard that's not 15 ft, but 8 ft
that's not what it changes the character of my
neighborhood. I'd love to stick with what's on our
chart. >> But what about those people that have
that limitation that don't have a big lot to work with?
» And I don't And I don't think you'd end up with a
I mean, we're limiting what can end up you know,
» At that point it's just a tough pill to swallow, isn't You know, that's
like sorry, all you can build is this damn tough shed.
Enjoy. >> I I also think that
maybe we're overestimating how many of these units will be built. Not that they
won't be built, but I don't >> Right, cuz it's still a financial
commitment. >> It's still a huge financial
» I wanted to look that up, you know, what what percentage of properties actually
have ADUs and it it's got to be in cities that have allowed it for
years, you know, it's got to be a very small percentage.
» Well, you're looking at 40,000 to pour the cement and do the electric and
the water. Like it's a big investment. I don't think they're going to be popping
up willy-nilly all over the place. >> One thing to consider is a couple months
ago I reached out to Farmington City about
when they had passed their ADU ordinance, just kind of get an idea of
what they saw once they had allowed for detached ADUs
and when I spoke to their staff, they were telling me it was a very minimal
increase year by year. It was only a handful per year that they saw. It
wasn't, you know, this huge influx that they had incoming. Um so, for what it's
worth, that's that's what other cities have seen.
» Yeah, the league has been asking that question and I think generally it's not
huge. There are some communities that are seeing more
uh of an impact, but but it's not huge. If you look around the country, it's
generally not huge, but in some places like, for example, I just was reading an
article San Francisco has been
allowing has been permitting a lot of ADUs lately and but that may be because
it's so damn expensive to build in San Francisco. That's about all people can
afford to build. >> And it's landlocked. Yeah, it's built
out. >> built out, yeah.
» Interesting. >> Yeah, I I was originally kind of wanting
to stick to the the standard setbacks and I've kind of
come around to the idea that it can be smaller just because this is a new
category. I mean, at first I was like, well, it's a dwelling, it's, you know,
the same same as other stuff and now I've kind of realized it it's it is a
new thing. And so
you know, back to that argument of 15 or something something less.
Um
I I I feel like it is a new category and I would be willing to go a little less,
but I I I understand the the concern, you
know, of this is going to change neighborhoods.
» If we don't want 8 ft, maybe we could do something different like 10.
Or 12, but I think when we get into 15, yeah, we're just limiting who's able to
do this and I I think that's a problem.
» We're only limiting it to the extent of what our current zoning is for a home.
» Yeah, and >> No more, no less.
» But you have to consider that homes don't that homes have a 30-ft height
restriction and these would not have that. They would you wouldn't have a
30-ft home
8 ft away from you because it has the height restriction that go with it.
» The what's what's been described, the increasing
» The increasing height, so
» Yeah, maybe the arithmetic will make the 8 ft moot.
We'll just see.
» Is this the 12 ft wall, right?
» 8 or 10. >> Like in the A1 area.
Okay. It might be a good idea also to ask um
our new Brad >> Yeah.
» what's going on in our new Brad. >> Yes.
» Let's ask our new only Brad we have. >> [laughter]
» What is working in Layton City cuz they currently have that right now.
» It's a great idea. >> I know Farmington I don't think they
have more than a hundred of these in their whole entire city. So.
» That they know of. >> That Well, and that that would probably
be touche for Kaysville City. >> Cuz I'll tell you in every community
that I'm aware of there are ADUs there that
» They don't have to. >> that were never really permitted.
» sure. So yeah, I know. >> I'll tell you if you want to speak
» If you want to speak to maybe what Layton's setbacks are.
» Come on up Brad. Do you have any any >> I mean you're here so
» input on setbacks or height? >> Yeah, and I'm happy to do this at the
same time I don't work here yet and so I do want to be respectful of your debate
as well as the general public and their comments and so
um that's why I've been kind of just taking everything in and I don't want to
jump chime in and make sure that everybody else's
comments were were um so just to hear where
Layton City does allow um detached accessory dwelling units in the
side yard and in the rear yard. Um
for if they're in the side yard to Commissioner Fowler's point, they have
to meet the same setbacks as the residence. Um they have to meet the same
rear setback as the residence. And then if it's a
So you know, for if it's a single story same minimum side setbacks as the
primary dwelling, same rear setback as the primary dwelling. If it's a
two-story, then it's a 10-ft side setback, but then it's still the same
rear setback. If it's just in the rear yard area,
then it's a minimum side setback of 5 ft if it's a single story or 10 10 ft if
it's a two-story. And then for
the rear yard, it would be a rear yard setback of 10 ft. So, it's kind of your
point of sure a lot. Um and also or or if it's two stories, then
20 ft. So, like you know, maybe you push your pattern having that distance
setback further from that rear property line. Those are some things to consider.
Also, I was you know, just mentioning to Jason that
some of the concerns and and I understand the concerns that were
mentioned about the design criteria. The state has really kind of put us in a
tough position because this the the part of state code that they have
referenced and the building materials that we
cannot and the design standards that we can't regulate, one of those things is
the placement of windows. And that's building materials. And so,
some of the concerns that were brought up and I think that they're valid
concerns about what the materials look like and where those windows are going
to be. Our hands are tied at this at the moment
for where we can replace some of those things, you know. And so, with that,
it gets kind of back to what we've all been saying
» Okay. >> kind of limited on height,
the location when it comes to setbacks and probably the size of the ADU at this
point, um you know, unless you know, in this next legislative session they give
us a little bit more uh ability to to regulate those things
more. >> Thank you. So, that's an interesting uh
way to do it where if it's a one-story, this, if it's a two-story, that.
Rather than add a foot, gain a foot, sort of thing.
» It'd be a little easier to keep track. >> That might be a little little simpler.
Yeah. >> Yeah.
» Thank you. And um as we do our drafting, I hope we will
please use the language the state did provide in 10-21-304-4
where we may take into account the proximity of property lines,
easements, and window orientation. Let's Let's Let's put that in our
ordinance so that when things come before this body or
the building department, that window orientation, particularly on a two-story
structure, is a consideration, which the state's provided us. We shouldn't
exclude that from any draft ordinance. Let's give ourselves the ability to uh
direct as to that, and then also be designed consistent with the design of
the single-family dwelling, understanding the conflict.
For now, let's let's include
We certainly couldn't be We're just including what the
legislature's language is. They're not going to
» I'm wondering if we could um kind of go back to the draft and just, you know,
I made some notes as as you took us through it, Will.
Um kind of the first question marks for me show up at
number three. Um
let's see. D A D U's must meet the following, and
then we hit the Roman numeral three.
Does anyone have issue pre
to that to that >> Three. Oh, good catch. Yeah,
that needs to be Yeah, that's what That's what we're
asking how you want to modify. >> wondering if we just kind
» through the draft and let us just kind of say cuz we've kind of spelled out
maybe what we're looking for and let's just start pinning down some things and
if there's anything >> That's good.
» that's not in there, we can add it just so we can get to a motion.
» Yeah, that'd be good. >> Awesome.
So, if we're we're on that Roman numeral three and we don't want it to conform to
setback requirements for accessory structures,
we want it to um do we want to say
um have an 8-ft rear setback for a single story?
» I don't know after listening to our Brad,
I'm wondering if we should.
» Yeah, or or perhaps uh chair, the uh
conform to existing zoning regulations with the following changes. So, we we
pork barrel this in and then you amend
however you wish from there like 10-ft setback or
for single family and X setback for two-story, but we start here.
So, >> So, you're saying each zoning would have
a a different setback? >> Sure, cuz that's what I bought per
That's what I bought when I bought my home.
» But, I I kind of I know that's what we >> latent's doing to an extent, right?
» That would be a little restrictive.
» Cuz [laughter] if I'm in Mr. Packer's neighborhood, I'm not, but if I have 5
acres, my
minimum side yard is this. If I'm in another neighborhood, my minimum side
yard is that. And so, I can expect when I notice my neighbor starting to build a
foundation in their backyard, that it's about this far from
my home.
» I don't That's not how I interpreted that, that we would just go straight
with the zoning residential zoning setbacks, but that we would specify
a smaller setback
as a as a single story.
And then maybe if it's maybe maybe you keep the
the regular zoning setbacks if it's a second story if there's a second story.
Does anybody else Did any Did anyone understand that differently than me?
I don't know that we're all on the same page.
» That's the debate we're having. >> you're you're just trying to keep a
universal uniform throughout the zonings where
Commissioner Toller wants to be conditional per the zoning?
Is that what we're Is that what we're looking at?
» Um
Well, I Yes, I think I'm I'm do I'm kind of in
my mind just let's set a a setback
for single story, a setback for two story,
not conditional to zoning. Okay.
I tend to That's where I was.
» That's where you are? >> Mhm.
» I I reckon I thank you. I respect the opinion. I just think
we're we have a mandate from the legislature
to allow accessory dwelling units. We don't have a mandate from the
legislature to alter the character of our
neighborhoods or start building homes or dwelling units or whatever we call them
closer to one another than we currently do.
I recognize I may have the minority opinion, but I don't think so when um
» Well, you can >> things start being built,
um there'll be public clamor.
» I I see what you're saying cuz you purchase for space.
Right? You don't want to diminish. >> So, Commissioner Tolaris just go by
the residential setbacks as >> This side
» in code. Gentlemen, do you have any other
thoughts on that?
» I I I would say that this is a new thing.
Um like I said, I originally was kind of under that idea like well, it's you
know, keep it within the the residential envelope. Um and then I realized this is
a new category and everyone who lives in a property that is larger than 11,000
square feet needs to get used to the idea that that there is
a new category and I I'm not saying, you know,
anything goes, of course, but that um
it's it's it's going to happen.
And it's new to to everyone and um
to make it reasonable, I think it's it's fine to allow
smaller setbacks. Um again, that's my my opinion um
on that and that these are different. They're I I first I thought of them as
just another house and now I realize it's not another house.
It's a DADU and it's a different category. So, that's where I my opinion
differs with with his and I would be willing to go smaller on those setbacks.
Um and I think that would be the
Yeah, that would be the way I would go. >> I actually agree with Commissioner
Toler.
And because it's already set up this way in
in a way
what we're bringing in would be easier for landowners to
and property owners to adhere to.
With what Mr. With what Commissioner Toler
and his brothers' redlines have said.
Although there's room for movement
once we allow room for movement
we're opening up a whole new book. Uh can of worms, sorry.
I don't know the right phrase for that.
» Okay. Well, um we seem to be a little bit at odds on
number three. So but we certainly don't want to have
it as conform to setback requirements for accessory structures because we know
well, currently that's just not sufficient.
» I I think there's Well, I I suspect there's unanimous consent that
accessory structures is not the standard.
» Right. Right. >> [clears throat]
» Okay, so maybe we'll come back to that. So, I think we're going to stick with
this um for be just just the wording that is that you've got there.
Do you all feel good about that? >> Yeah.
» Leave the wording just the way it is so we're not in any sort of trouble, but we
can still ask for it to be designed
consistent with the dwelling. Um
» [clears throat] >> may not be larger in size than the
single-family dwelling. Do we feel comfortable with a 75%
number? Does anyone want to throw out a
different number? >> I don't know a solution, chair,
but I can still think of hypothetical situations where that would
that would be problematic. Um you have an old
you know, 1920s farmhouse and um
it's it's already only 800 square feet or something like that
and you say, you know, it's you know, I I think that would be very rare, but
I just wanted to throw that out there as a possibility that
but I do like the idea that we have some kind of
I just don't know a better way to say it, so
maybe that maybe maybe the percentage is the best way.
» Percentage of land?
» Yeah, I I think what you're describing is the barn dominium. It's bigger than
the house, but it feels appropriate cuz it's on 5 acres or 3 acres or something.
That I I can see that possibility. Um
» The main structure becomes the carriage house.
» Yes. Yes. Um so
» So what's the >> Perhaps
» I have no solution. I just wanted to mention that.
» Right. >> Yeah, perhaps that's one
» But then I >> area where we do rely on
on the zoning. Um
if it were in a uh an A5
that the 70 or 75% rule may not apply because of my land use, but that's
that's muddying the waters. I do think um a a great starting place is 70 or
75%. >> I'm just curious if I can ask Brad, are
you aware of any size
limitations in other communities that you've worked with?
» Um yeah, I've been having regular meetings with the planning department
with detached accessory dwelling units in other communities as well, not just
Layton City. Um typically I've seen 50% of the square
footage of the the primary residence. Or
another number, whichever is less, right? So, for example, um
you know, it could be 50% of the square footage of the primary
residence or 1,200 sq ft, whichever is less. And so, then that's how that is
when we have somebody come in, we would probably look at the county
records and say, "This is what the square footage of that home is. You can
go to 50% or 1,200 sq ft, but whichever is the lesser of those two numbers,
that's what you're stuck to." Um
what what might be difficult is is and I think we'd have to be clear on if we're
saying the square footage of the home or the footprint of the home.
Um because
if if we're going to do it use a percentage, because then you could have
» Yeah. >> a debate at the counter, you know, with
someone that says, "Well, it just says 50% of my home. The square
footage of my home is 2,000 sq ft, but the footprint of my home is only 1,000."
Well, I'm just using those numbers for simplicity's
sake. >> Okay.
» And so, we probably won't want to look at that and then
that as a commission determine if you want to base it as on the footprint of
the home. If you do that, then
that may mean helps with the visual impact what you've
got around it, because you can see what the footprint of the home is and then
what the footprint of that uh detached accessory dwelling unit
might look like. And so, you can kind of visually see that. If you go with the
square footage, then you might get a uh detached accessory dwelling unit
that's either 75% or the same size as the footprint of the home.
Um but it's it's still going to be only 50% of that square footage.
So, um >> Okay.
» My thought would be 50% of the the footprint of the home as measured from
like the exterior foundation. >> Mhm.
» Again, I'm trying to be very clear so that that way we know exactly how we're
regulating this. Or so we go for percentage or a set number.
Whether it's 1,200 or 1,500 square feet and then we say in the code whichever is
less. So then that way we're
holding to the stricture of the two standards, but we're still giving
somebody the opportunity to to meet one of those two.
» Thank you. And then for our draftsman the the exhibit A attachment A to what I
forwarded to you, Wilf, has how Lehi, Provo, Salt Lake, Ogden, Mill Creek,
South Jordan, Riverton, and Cottonwood Heights dealt with this very issue.
First column. Whether by percentage, whether by square
feet, we've got some good examples there of of how we might address it. Not many
The only one that's using a percentage is Riverton. And they're doing it based
on the lot. Not not the uh not in relation to the
dwelling. So there's some
choices there. >> So would it's probably not super
related, but if you've got those limitations with the
footprint or whatever how you want to figure that out, then maybe the clients
or the homeowners option is to do an addition and make it an IADU.
» Yeah. >> We have some flexibility that way.
» Yep. Yeah, I'm thinking of you know, with
what Commissioner Packer mentioned, if you got a really small home
» Mhm. >> on that home, maybe the thing to do is
to add on to the home rather than build a free standing
attached ADU. >> But you can work a internal one into it
» Mhm. >> to get the same
outcome.
Okay, do we do we want to throw out a number, a percentage, or something
different? Does anyone want to >> I I
I would say we do, just to say it may not be larger.
I think that's but I I like the either 70 or something. I don't know.
I say we put a number there that's smaller.
» the footprint idea. Let's specify footprint.
» The footprint would make it a smaller unit, right? 1,200 square feet or less.
So, if you had a 4,000 square foot house, but it's fit in a two-story,
three-story, whatever. So, you're saying your footprint's really only 1,500,
right? >> it's 70% or if it's 50%
of the larger lot, we're talking about footprint only, not square footage. So,
yeah, so it might be more in a second story.
» Mhm. I see what you're saying.
So, we really want to just address that footprint of the whole thing.
Not going to barn them in with your 1,900.
» specific. >> South Jordan dealt with this issue by
having us put some more of a burden on us, but they've said that if it's more
than 35% of the gross living area or 1,500 square feet, it requires planning
commission review. So, that's a one-sy, two-sy approach,
but um
it does give us some more review opportunity.
» Well, that does limit if you say a specific
the lesser of the two for a person who has a big home or a big space to work
with. Does limit those grievances, I think,
that those uh dwelling units are causing right now.
Okay. >> Yeah, I I chair I would just say if we
can't figure out a something where we're all happy with
still having something and and the cleaner and simpler it can be, you know,
with this first first go around. Um
cuz you know, we have lots of great ideas, but they could be complicated
with exceptions and things like that and since we, you know, looking at a
deadline and and stuff. >> So, we might recommend Are you saying we
might recommend to city council we want to see between 50 to 75%
of the footprint and possibly, you know, a minimum or a
maximum of 1,200 square feet.
So, maybe we're not >> I guess like a a starting line or a base
where they're going to have to say you know, here's our minimum and then if we
decide we need to amend later to have exceptions or
or things like >> I think what the chair just put out is
reasonable. Salt Lake City limits it to 1,000 square feet.
1,200 seems reasonable. >> 1,200 seems to be the
» But the the next stop >> one, but
» If I understand the next stop for this document is a city council work meeting.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» I think we're going to get a lot of feedback tonight. We're going to get a
lot of feedback on Thursday and then we're going to come up with a new draft.
» Okay. Very good. >> Yeah.
» I like the 50% or 1,200
» 50% or 1,200 >> of the footprint
lesser of the two. >> And the you're speaking the footprint
» footprint Right.
» Yeah, great place to start. >> Okay, we have something down.
Okay.
We agreed on something. >> [laughter]
» Okay. And then
the next thing that I had question on and so stop me if we want to
hit anything else is five A.
Do we want to have no more than one IADU or DADU? Do we feel comfortable
with that or do you want to allow both?
» I'm okay with both. >> Yeah.
» As long as the second one >> with both if they fit the setbacks.
» So you're okay with both. You're okay with leaving it as is.
» I'm okay with both. >> You're okay too with both. Anybody any
other thoughts on allowing that? >> No more than one would be where I'm at.
» than one.
» I would be I would Again, I can think of examples where
having both would be manageable.
I'm not completely sold on it but I I wouldn't It's not a hill I'm going to
I'm going to fight on like >> Okay. Well, maybe we'll leave it as is
for now. >> Yeah, I'm fine with one if we need it.
» Okay. >> Change it later.
» Um what am I missing?
» Um E. 63 E.
» Good with owner occupied. >> I don't like 30 consecutive days. I
think it should be at least 90. >> Oh, here we go. E. 90. Do you all feel
good about 90? >> Yes.
» Yeah. >> Okay, we have consensus on 90.
And then I guess we just don't really have Oh, let's see.
It's just the uh three B two where we're kind of landing.
is that right? Where it has height.
And lot coverage and then three for the
setbacks. Is that kind of our sticky point?
» That's our sticky point. But I did have one other issue.
» 381. >> Are we sticking with the 11,000?
» Oh, 11,000. Did you want to reduce that or leave it?
» Um Do you feel okay if we switch it to
10,000 to open up more opportunity? >> I'd prefer 10,000.
» You have R10, R110? >> I'm good with that.
» Okay.
» Um Commissioner Artola, I think it was you that said on
5F, I think it is what it is. The owner of the lot or parcel must be
residing in the single-family. All right, that that was an issue for
you. So, can we go ahead and
» I don't want to build an an auxiliary dwelling unit and move out and I've
created an income property duplex in a single-family zone.
Not not what the legislature intends. We have a recital that I proposed that
that makes that clear. Whereas the stated purpose of the legislature's
accessory dwelling unit is to increase the supply of long-term housing.
And that that makes clear that hey, we
didn't intend this to be we're going to build
uh two or more
uh two units in a single-family zone and then make them rentals and move on.
» So, that's already in there. It's okay as is.
» Yeah, isn't that the same as ADUs?
» Okay. I just wanted to double-check that cuz
» Thank you. Yeah.
» Okay, so we've got 10,000 square feet.
» Uh right. I'm trying. >> And now we just need setbacks.
» Setbacks.
» Yeah, I I don't know that we're going to We're we're never going to agree
completely, and that's okay um on setbacks.
» Yes. >> Um
and we do have that small comfort of knowing that the city
council is the one that actually has to to make the final decision, but
» Can [laughter] we Can we Can we narrow it down and give them maybe a range?
» Yeah, I you know >> that we're looking for.
» And and >> I think rear setback can go to at least
10 ft if not 8. I don't think it has to match the
zoning. I think that's going to limit people. But that is just my opinion.
» No, I agree with that. >> Do you like Layton's better than the
other like >> Yes.
But they're decent though.
Okay. I wonder um if there is language that we could
include in there to maybe look at other city codes for for the setbacks.
So if we >> And have half of the setback.
So no more than half of the setback. >> That would be 7 ft.
» Okay. >> That's less than 8.
» Uh perhaps uh Chairman perhaps
» It's a little cringey for me. >> This is an area
» where um
we take the approach South Jordan did is if there is since we're creating a a
dwelling unit if there's variance
from these setbacks that that requires review
by this body. Might be one way to deal with it.
» but it's not a dwelling unit. It's an accessory dwell dwelling unit. There's a
difference. We're talking like a mother-in-law's apartment. It's For me,
it's different, but >> We are talking about rear setbacks right
now, right? >> No, reg- regardless of what you call it,
someone's living there, coming going, looking out their windows. You're
creating a home in my backyard
that that will have a setback. We've heard quite a bit from the public
tonight about concerns with setbacks and privacy.
And I think we're asking for trouble if we vary from what the existing zoning
districts have. I've made my point more than twice. I
apologize, but you know where I'm at. >> The one one
caution I might have to what um
Paul is is suggesting to perhaps have a review
if it varies is that the state code, the bill that
was passed says that you cannot make ADUs conditional uses.
» Mhm. >> While we're not calling it a conditional
use, it's pretty similar to what we would be doing for a conditional use if
that >> Yeah, I the review process would be
messy. I'm just >> Yeah.
» I was looking for a compromise, but perhaps there's a way.
» Good point. Uh 10 ft.
I don't know. 12 ft.
What are we at? 15? normally? >> to like the um
» 15? >> The ideas that Layton has, they seemed
reasonable to me. I can't quote them off the top of my
head, you know. It's been a minute. >> Okay. Yeah, but I think in a motion, you
could recommend that you align with Layton City code. If you want to be
specific, maybe you can't say what it is. But you could say instead of
number three here, we're going to ask that it come back
looking like, you know, the setbacks in in this city's code.
If somebody were to make a motion.
I mean, if you start if anybody's mulling that over in their head.
That you could it could be achieved perhaps.
And it may or may not fly, but we could always try.
Is there anything else you want to um hash out? Anything that you
So, I have made some adjustments to allow 10,000 sq ft or larger.
Um we're going to look at
I mean, potentially Layton's
code as um setbacks.
We definitely want to be design consistent with the original dwelling.
We're looking at per- perhaps not to exceed 50% or 1,200 sq ft
of the footprint of the original. Excuse me. Not to exceed 50% of the
footprint or 1,200 which is whichever is smaller.
And
rented not to exceed 90 not or no less than 90 consecutive days.
» And only one unit, is that what we decided?
» Yes. >> Yes, one accessory.
And leaving it as no more than one. That's a that leaves it, right?
And I guess the other thing that we didn't discuss is window placement, so
we can or we can't? >> Um we may according to the state code,
but >> potential.
» Sorry about that. I could With that limiting it also
limits, you know, somebody trying to do two
dwellings, exterior dwellings on there. Just by saying it's you can either do an
internal one or an external one, but just one.
» Yeah, one. >> what you're saying?
But then they could do accessory buildings.
» No more than one. >> Say that again.
Mhm, so okay. >> They can't have both at once.
» have one ADU Yeah, they can't have both, but like
what if they wanted to make two outdoor
ADUs? >> Oh, does that not
» detached ADUs. >> Does that apply that?
» Does that Does that keep it limited there?
» Yeah. >> No more than one
» Yeah. >> of this or one of that.
» Yeah. >> Okay.
» One dwelling. >> Yeah.
» One dwelling One dwelling unit One dwelling unit is all.
» Yeah. >> You just get one.
» I'm not sure it states >> that language is right.
» Pick your poison.
And or and
» Okay.
Should I attempt a motion? Kind of scared.
I mean, this This big This is a big one. >> It a little scary.
» And and but it's not a it's not a finished
product exactly. I mean there's still work to be done.
» Oh boy. Okay. Let's see.
I would like to make a motion that we
send forth the recommendation of the ordinance as written with the following
adjustments. Um
that Do I have to like have all of the
numbers with it? 3A the allowance be 10,000 square feet
um lots. Um that we refer to Layton's code for
setback requirements, which is
3B. >> 3E. I don't think we need the section
number. >> [laughter]
» I'm about to pass out. Okay. Um
that we also as written that the design be consistent
with the design of the single-family dwelling
um which is as written that we allow for 50% of the house footprint or 12,000
square feet, whichever is smaller. >> 1,200
» 1,200 >> 1,200
» 1,200 >> What's a fan house? I'm tired.
I'm tired. And that renting um be for no shorter than 90 days consecutive days.
» We have a motion. >> I'll second it.
» And a second. >> Okay, we will vote. Um
Commissioner Packer, we'll start with you.
» Aye. >> Aye.
» [laughter] >> Excellent. Okay.
» Can we write that in the notes? And then we got a round of applause.
» Did you get Did you get that?
» Okay. We are going to move to discussion of
possible action to review accessory structure code requirements, and I think
» We absolutely >> We've discussed Do we want to go into
detail? Do you want to bring that up? >> I mean, I think We just wanted to make
you aware that we learned through this process that there are some issues
there. I mean, we can talk about what those issues are, but we don't need to
do that tonight. By What What we do need from you is a motion to do this so so
that it actually goes on the record. >> To get it on the agenda.
» And that gets it to the point where then we if we will essentially have 6 months
to >> To bring something
» code and and make any whatever adjustments
» already taken out the link, or we would have if if city council were to
approve where we take the link out of the
DADUs could be using the same setbacks as the accessory.
» Right? >> Yes. Because you you specify
» eliminate that scare, but we definitely want to get it on the books.
» Right. Yeah, I mean, now now we want to do this for
for accessory uh structures in general.
There are some issues there that I think we need to work on.
» accessory structures one foot away. >> So,
I would entertain a motion if someone would like to put one forth to
uh make an amendment to that code. >> To consider.
» To consider. >> To consider making changes to the
accessory structure provisions >> I would like to make a motion.
So that we can eventually go home that we
at a future meeting discuss the possible action to review accessory
structure code requirements. >> I second.
» Commissioner Moore, we'll start with you.
» I. >> I.
» Very good. That passes. And
» Everybody take a big deep breath. >> We are at other matters.
Do we have any other matters? >> Do we have Do we have to approve the
minutes? >> Approve the minutes.
» Oh, did I skip one? Okay.
All right. Does anyone want to make a motion to Does any
» Does anybody review the minutes?
» I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes from the July 23rd meeting.
» Second. >> And we'll vote all together.
» I. >> I.
» Great. >> Other matters.
» Wow. >> Okay. Um
Really the only matters Well, a couple of things. This is Anne's last night.
» [applause]
» So she put >> applauding. Don't clap for that.
» They're saying good job. >> So we appreciate um the two years, just
a little over two years.
» I know you're leaving the state, Anne. Remind us where.
» Uh I'm moving to the East Coast, northern Virginia specifically.
» Wow. >> Things are much easier back there.
» [laughter]
» Well, at least for now. >> Anne's been with us for two years um
and it's been a delight
to have her work next to me. So, she'll be great where she's going.
And we will work on getting a new a new employee soon. I'm not sure how
long that's going to take, but we're going to find the right one. So,
I'm just thank her for trusting and getting to know us
Kaysville people because we love our Kaysville and
and she's I think learned to love us, too.
» And it's such a credit to Ann. Tomorrow was her last day and she's here tonight.
She hasn't checked out for a second. She's with us to the bitter end and I
just think that shows a lot of professionalism.
» Thank you. >> Thank you, Ann.
» Good for her. >> Um and then yes, hopefully Brad will be
starting with us. I'm pretty sure it's a done deal. So, August 31st
I think he did okay tonight. I think he'll be all right. It was kind of like
his like a fourth interview he didn't know about. It was pretty brutal hazing
» It was his audition. >> Yeah. Yeah, it was just a little bit of
hazing. I think he did all right. So, um on August 31st he'll be joining our team
and we look forward to having him um come be a part of Kaysville City with
us.
I'm sorry I'm so emotional. Um
And then we have the APA conference coming up in October, September, one of
these months in the fallish time. I just got [snorts] to get through
August and then we can talk the rest of the year. So, September if you're
interested in going, please um just on the text thread, let me know. Just APA
thumbs up or whatever um and I'll get you registered. And then the ULUI, I
believe, is in October. So, um I believe if we register for the APA,
the more that we have registered Did you send me that?
That we get a discount. It's a little bit cheaper the more of us that that
sign up for that. So, >> And and that's local, right? Here we go.
» To the Davis Conference Center. >> Very good.
» Okay. >> Pretty good commute, can't beat it. You
know. Could ride your bike there if you
wanted. Um >> Wait, you can't feel hotels?
» [laughter]
» Now you're pushing it. Um
And then oh, we do have a variance coming on our agenda on the 27th. Do you
want to talk just a little bit about that?
» Nope, we're not going to talk about it. >> We're not I [laughter] am going to send
out um there's a a guidebook on being an appeal
authority cuz I think that's going to be new for all of us. So, I've I'll send
that out tomorrow and you can kind of read about what some training that the
Land Use Institute's given on being an appeal authority. So
» And maybe just remind just what you put in the text as far as
» Oh, yeah. Um basically, yeah, we're we're not going to talk about it between
now and then because you're you're acting kind of as a judge. So, you want
to just base it on the evidence that you hear that night. So, um try not to talk
about it with neighbors or me or anyone. And we'll just
» You can talk to me. I have no clue what's going on.
» don't talk to Mandy. >> [laughter]
» Let's just we'll just come and hear the evidence and then you'll make your
decision and that's how it goes. >> is that happening?
» The next meeting. Yeah, and we'll try to keep that agenda light. We're trying to
push everything off until Brad's on, but um that one will be fine.
» use permit that um applied yesterday. It's for a preschool.
» Okay. >> And then she's wanting to open it for
the first obviously to start that week. So, I think
» Throw them on. >> Those are pretty simple. If that's okay,
we put that on the agenda. >> Yeah, absolutely. That'll be
» [snorts] >> All right, you guys. I think that's
all from us. >> If I can add one thing just real quick,
I just thought about this. >> I have to say something.
» Oh. >> You did a good job. Thank you very much
for your efforts. >> Thank you very much.
» Yes. >> On on looking at the accessory
structures ordinance code, by doing this, you know, we talked about how this
is a moratorium, not really a moratorium. The issue really becomes, I
mean, we don't intend to stop things like people putting tough sheds in their
backyards and things like that. And yet by saying we're looking at the accessory
structures, it kind of opens the possibility that
that might change. You know, I don't know how we give
someone that assurance, but I think we want to
try to figure out at a staff level if somebody comes in and they says, "I want
to buy I want to put in a tough shed." We tell them, "Look, we're looking at
the ordinance, but we're probably not going to change that part of it, so
you're probably okay in going ahead." But,
that probably makes Katie nervous cuz she's going to be like, "Well, what if
we do wind up changing it and then we told them that we weren't going to
change it." Um, you know, I our intent really is to
look at bigger accessory structures, but um, you never know, I guess.
» Yeah, hopefully putting it where most of it's going to take place over the
winter, we won't have as many. >> Yeah.
» So, it's good timing.
Hopefully we have a winter.
» Okay. Is there nothing else? >> You can.
» It's all the motions. >> All right. Adjourned.
» Thank you so much. >> Thank you.
» Thank you so much.
» Thanks. >> Cheers.
» Yeah.