[1:23] So I did this.
>> There's some interesting stories there,
[1:26] I bet.
>> There is.
[1:43] » We're ready.
>> Okay, fantastic.
[1:49] Okay, we're going to go ahead and start
planning commission meeting um
[1:55] for August 13th.
Um welcome to everybody. Thank you for
[2:00] being here and participating.
Um
[2:04] and I wanted to welcome our soon-to-be
or
[2:09] now soon-to-be or now? When does your
start date? Soon-to-be community
[2:13] development
[2:18] potentially.
>> [laughter]
[2:21] » Okay, maybe I maybe I jumped the gun on
there, but
[2:25] Hey Brad, we're happy to have you
tonight. So, thanks for joining us.
[2:29] Um okay. So, we're going to start with
the declaration of conflict of interest
[2:35] if any.
Excellent.
[2:39] And our first item, well, our third item
on the agenda is the public hearing to
[2:44] consider changes to 17-31-3
internal accessory dwelling units to
[2:48] comply with Senate Bill 284. And I'm
hoping we've got a little explanation on
[2:53] that before we jump into the
public? Okay, perfect.
[2:57] » Thank you, chair. Uh so, as just to
refresh everyone's memory, during the
[3:02] 2026 Utah legislative session,
uh Senate Bill 284 was passed. Um
[3:08] it's titled local land use and water
modifications, and it essentially
[3:13] established new requirements for cities
um that by October 1st, 2026, they had
[3:20] to establish requirements uh for DADUs
to allow them in in certain
[3:24] circumstances. Uh and so, the state
statute essentially states that um
[3:29] cities are required to allow detached
ADUs on single-family lots larger than
[3:34] 1,000 square feet, comply with health
building health, fire, safety codes, and
[3:39] also include a process for conversion of
legal accessory structures uh to these
[3:44] detached ADU
um
[3:46] structures subject to setback
requirements. So, the law does provide
[3:50] some parameters on what can and can't be
regulated.
[3:54] Um
but for the purpose of this discussion,
[3:57] I think what is important is that one of
the kind of key talking points that's
[4:01] come up um internally and um as we've
been looking at what the state is
[4:06] requiring is
um I think one of the kind of two
[4:10] highlights that I think are going to be
most of concern um
[4:15] are probably setbacks and then height.
So, how we want to approach that in
[4:19] terms of, you know, do we want to allow
um
[4:23] you know, these detached ADUs to be, you
know, up to 30 ft and and two story? Do
[4:28] we want to restrict that height? Uh and
then do we want to implement additional
[4:31] setbacks beyond what would be required
for a normal accessory structure? Um so,
[4:37] our very own Will Sovern Corn has put
together an ordinance for us based on
[4:41] what the state law allows for.
Um and really this this meeting we're
[4:47] hoping, you know, in addition to the
public hearing, to get some feedback on
[4:50] that ordinance to see where we can add
more um what we can tweak so that it's a
[4:55] better fit for Kaysville specifically.
Um we did post a public hearing notice
[5:00] for this item on the 27th.
Um
[5:03] and the general plan does not speak
explicitly in favor or against the
[5:08] proposed amendment, so it's considered
neutral.
[5:11] Um and with that in mind, staff is
recommending the planning commission
[5:14] send a recommendation of approval to the
city council for enacting the proposed
[5:18] text amendment as provided in the draft
ordinance. But, uh
[5:23] we would love to
hear everyone's thoughts and then see
[5:26] see what kind of discussion we can have.
>> Okay, thanks, Ann. Is there anything
[5:31] else we want to discuss before we open
up public hearing? Will, do you have
[5:35] anything to add? Do you want to walk
through it?
[5:37] » Well, yeah. I think maybe that'd be the
best thing to do.
[5:39] » I'd like I'd like to do that.
>> to talk about uh a lot of parts of it.
[5:44] So, what I drafted up and
I volunteered because staff was uh very
[5:49] minimal at the time and Jason was
concerned about the city
[5:53] being able to meet the October 1st
deadline that was set forth in the bill
[5:57] that was passed by the legislature
for
[6:00] detached ADUs
that a lot of communities, not every
[6:04] community, but but most including
Kaysville must have adopted or should
[6:09] have adopted by October 1st otherwise
you'll just be able to have ADUs
[6:14] detached ADUs without any kinds of
restrictions.
[6:18] So, that's why we needed to have this
ordinance done.
[6:22] You know, I've had a little bit of
background in this so I volunteered to
[6:25] to draft something up. What I drafted is
fairly minimal. What I did was I just
[6:30] kind of put the basics in there. There
are a lot of options on things we can do
[6:35] particularly with things like Ann
mentioned with heights and setbacks,
[6:39] design characteristics. There is a
there's a real issue about design and
[6:45] what you can do and maybe not do with
regard to design and we can talk through
[6:49] a little bit of that.
But then um
[6:54] Commissioner Toller sent us a draft
ordinance that to give credit do I
[6:58] understand it's your brother who drafted
that, right?
[7:01] » Correct.
>> Right.
[7:02] And I have to say it's it's a phenomenal
piece of work. It really is well done,
[7:06] well crafted and it goes ahead and
put forward recommendations I guess you
[7:13] would call it on a number of things that
I didn't include in mine that I thought
[7:18] we'd have discussion about. And then
decide which direction we wanted to go,
[7:22] but have you all seen the the one that
Paul sent out?
[7:26] » Yes.
>> So, there's a lot of detail in that and
[7:29] we I guess we got to talk about when I
say we I mean I'm I am on the planning
[7:34] commission, but I'm acting more like
staff at this point so that's why I'm
[7:37] sitting down here.
Cuz I I don't want to be the undue
[7:40] influence sitting on the commission
for the recommendation that's going to
[7:44] be made. But, we ought to talk through
some of those options and and see where
[7:48] we want to go with those and what we
want to recommend onto the city council.
[7:52] And it'll ultimately, of course, be up
to the city council to adopt whatever uh
[7:56] code it is we do on that.
Let me just say this as well. What I
[8:01] realized, first of all, the bill also
has a provision in it that says that the
[8:06] city should not put any undue barriers
on paraphrasing here, but undue barriers
[8:12] in the way to converting existing
accessory structures to ADUs.
[8:17] Um when I looked through the provisions
in our city code about the governing of
[8:24] accessory structures,
there's issues.
[8:28] Our whole zoning code has issues. We We
know that we've talked about it, but
[8:32] there are some issues
>> [clears throat]
[8:34] » with regard to accessory structures
that I think
[8:39] whether we were doing that ADUs or not,
we ought to really take a look at and
[8:42] think about making some modifications
and changes there.
[8:46] That's why you'll see on the agenda as
the next agenda item a discussion about
[8:51] uh making changes to our accessory
structures provisions in our code.
[8:56] A lot of what we do there will probably
also apply to ADUs or vice versa. What
[9:00] we do on ADUs may then also wind up
applying to accessory structures.
[9:05] But, it really became apparent to me as
I was looking at that and trying to
[9:08] decide, well, what do we We We probably
want to try to be close to whatever
[9:12] we require for accessory structures for
the ADUs as well. And it became obvious
[9:18] to me after reading it after a little
while and talking to some of the
[9:21] residents about some existing accessory
structures out there, I thought, ah, I
[9:27] don't think I don't know that that's a
good idea, particularly for ADUs, to
[9:31] allow some of those things. And really,
we ought to look at making modifications
[9:34] to our accessory um
buildings uh
[9:39] provisions in our code as well. So,
that'll be a separate discussion, but it
[9:44] is related to the ADUs as well.
>> Right.
[9:46] And timely, too, sounds like.
Okay.
[9:52] Do you want to walk us through maybe we
go through the original draft?
[9:56] » Yeah, let's do that.
>> I kind of think maybe after that we
[10:00] you can maybe chime in, but maybe then
we'll do public hearing and see if some
[10:05] of the things we hear might align with
what we we've seen in the green lines.
[10:10] » That sounds good.
>> Okay.
[10:12] » Um
>> Perhaps just a sorry.
[10:14] » Sure, go ahead.
>> Just a a point of clarification.
[10:18] On the on the agenda.
So,
[10:21] uh we have a public hearing.
We have a discussion
[10:26] of a possible
action to review accessory structures.
[10:31] But,
the commission is not being asked
[10:34] tonight
to approve and pass
[10:38] a draft ordinance. That would come in a
subsequent meeting.
[10:43] » Are you talking about for accessory
structures or for the ADU?
[10:46] » for the ADUs.
>> We would encourage you to pass on some
[10:49] type of recommendation to the city
council just because of the impending
[10:52] deadline. It's going to be on their work
agenda next week, so they're going to
[10:56] have some time to play with it. Staff's
going to have some time to play with it.
[10:59] What we'd like tonight is to get the
commission's recommendation on what
[11:02] you'd like to see in that ordinance just
because we're coming up on that
[11:05] deadline. And I think we need to give
the time to the council.
[11:10] Okay.
>> Um I believe the calendar would allow us
[11:14] um
I think
[11:17] both by Anne's comments and what we just
heard from Will,
[11:20] there are significant changes to make to
the draft ordinance.
[11:24] Would that Is that fair?
>> Yeah.
[11:26] » And and so,
um
[11:30] » Well, I think we'll have a
number of options and maybe we can
[11:34] discuss it more as we kind of get
through it because we can always
[11:40] recommend approval with
you know
[11:43] a pretty good laundry list if we want or
we can
[11:48] recommend as is or we can recommend
denial and maybe or bring back. I mean,
[11:54] we may end up we come back.
But let's see how far we get and
[12:00] and see if it falls in those parameters
of a possibility. Does that sound right?
[12:04] » Is that available
all along?
[12:07] Somewhere is
draft.
[12:10] Um
It's part of the package.
[12:13] » End of packet. It's so if you're on if
you've got access or laptop or an iPad,
[12:19] you can go to our website. I can walk
you through it to get to it.
[12:23] Um it's under agendas and it's in the
agenda packet for this evening's
[12:27] meeting.
>> Um Is that going to be on
[12:30] » So this is going to be up on the screen
right here. Will, do you want me to just
[12:32] follow you as you go through it cuz I've
got it up here. So
[12:36] » I'm being We don't have screens, do you
know that? Are you aware of that?
[12:38] » The screens are not working.
>> This is this is a little different in
[12:41] the than the one that's in the packet
because this one doesn't have the red
[12:44] lines.
>> Oh.
[12:46] » I think [clears throat] they can change
that.
[12:48] Let
[12:55] Okay, let's change. Do you want the red
lines on it?
[12:57] » Yeah, that would be I think the best
and then we can go through those.
[13:02] » Okay, you guys are giving me a whirl
here. Okay, so we're going to go to all
[13:05] markup.
>> There you go.
[13:08] » All right, so we've got that and your
screens are not working.
[13:11] » No.
>> Okay, I will work on that.
[13:15] » You should have this in your packets
though.
[13:17] » Yes, we can continue with that.
>> So yeah.
[13:21] So as you can see the city code already
had a provision in it with regard to
[13:27] internal accessory dwelling units,
which was something that the state
[13:30] legislature passed a bill in a previous
session and cities all had to allow for
[13:36] that. And so, we do have that in there.
I brought up some stuff and then Katie
[13:41] has drafted that into ordinance form.
And what she's basically doing here is
[13:46] she's taking that section and making it
applicable to all accessory dwelling
[13:52] units, not just to the internals.
And then it'll call out the different
[13:56] ones as you'll see as we go through
this. So,
[13:59] So, you So, just to go through this and
if you have any questions or comments,
[14:03] stop and let's talk about them. We have
the definitions of of what they what
[14:08] these are. The the detached ones which
are new, the internal ones which have
[14:13] existed now for a couple of years.
That and then it
[14:18] gives what the regulations are that need
to be complied with.
[14:21] And uh
making those consistent with
[14:26] what is
now required under the various the bills
[14:31] that have been put forward.
So, we get all the way down here now to
[14:35] where it says detached accessory
dwelling units number three.
[14:39] It says that
DADUs, I'll just call them DADUs and
[14:43] you'll know what I'm referring to.
DADUs are allowed on any lot or parcel
[14:47] that is 11,000 square feet or larger.
First point of discussion, the state
[14:53] code also then says that because it says
11,000 square feet in the state code,
[14:58] that does not prohibit communities from
allowing them on smaller lots if they so
[15:03] desire.
We There are a number of communities
[15:07] around the state that are allowing for
them on smaller lots.
[15:11] Part of the rationale for that being
that ADUs are a really kind of a easy,
[15:17] low-hanging fruit way of trying to
address
[15:20] the housing affordability issue.
Uh
[15:23] you may not get a a tremendous number of
new units or or units that can handle
[15:29] um people that need housing.
Um but it is a way and it's being viewed
[15:35] that way. It's being been accepted that
way all around the country and a number
[15:38] of states have now
put provisions in place that allow for
[15:42] ADUs as a way to help address
the housing affordability issue. So,
[15:48] if that's the case, we have drafted this
right now with what's all what the
[15:52] specification is in the state code.
But wondering if there's any appetite on
[15:58] the commission and then ultimately on
the council for allowing them on any
[16:02] lots smaller than 11,000 square feet.
[16:10] » I I'm a personally I would be interested
in that, but I don't think it would fly
[16:15] in our community. I think we'll be
really
[16:19] um
I think this would probably shake up
[16:23] enough
people in the community to allow it at
[16:27] 11,000, but I mean it wouldn't offend me
to go lower, but
[16:31] » And having said said that,
you know, we can it can be adopted this
[16:35] way and it always can be amended in the
future.
[16:37] » Yeah.
>> If uh if the desire so turns out
[16:40] » I think it's a great starting point.
>> But there are communities many community
[16:44] not of all I don't know if I could say
many, but there are a number of
[16:46] communities around the state that are
allowing them down to like 8,000 square
[16:50] feet. Some of them don't put a square
footage restriction on the lot. They
[16:54] just regulate them by the yard area
>> Um
[16:57] » by the the restrictions on lot coverage
and yard area.
[17:01] » Setbacks and if it fits, it
>> Yeah.
[17:03] » fits.
>> So, Brad, I'm curious. What's Layton
[17:07] City looking at allowing?
[17:12] » Sure.
>> Yeah.
[17:14] » You're going to have to introduce
yourself
[17:15] » know who Brad is. You all you probably
don't know who Brad is.
[17:18] » [laughter]
>> Thanks, Wolf. Um yeah, so um I I've been
[17:21] going through the draft ordinance as
well as just uh the other regulations.
[17:25] So, Layton City's also in the same boat
that we're in uh right now in the in the
[17:29] process of drafting some regulations. Um
they're not planning on They already
[17:33] allow detached accessory dwelling units
um down to lot sizes of six 6,000 sq ft.
[17:39] Um yeah, so to your point, Wolf, if
there's already a lot of other cities
[17:42] that allow them at various lot sizes, uh
Syracuse I think allows them at 10,000
[17:46] sq ft. So, you know, again, it's not
unprecedented to have them at a smaller
[17:50] lot sizes, but it really is just up to
us to determine what works best in our
[17:54] community, like you had said, Chair. Um
you know, is
[17:57] 11,000 going to be the right Is that a
good starting point, or do we say, you
[18:02] know, eight or or 10,000 sq ft? I know
that we do have some, you know, most of
[18:07] our subdivisions kind of on the western
side of the city are larger
[18:10] subdivisions. Um and then in our kind of
historic area, we're going to have
[18:14] smaller lot sizes.
You know, as Will said, you know, we can
[18:18] apply different setback standards. For
some For an example,
[18:22] um and also the other question is do we
allow them in just the rear yard area or
[18:26] in the side yard area? Um some cities
allow both. Some say it just needs to be
[18:30] behind the home.
Um and so uh I think also single story,
[18:34] two story. A lot of cities
do lots of different things. You might
[18:38] have a a garage that's in somebody's
backyard, and they want to do a loft ADU
[18:42] on top of that garage, uh which then
ends up, you know, becoming a two-story
[18:45] structure. So, uh some typical setbacks
are, you know, requiring that they meet
[18:49] the same setbacks as the residential
uh the the the primary residences, or
[18:54] having additional setbacks um up up uh
in addition to what you already have for
[18:59] an accessory structure. So, one of the
things that Wolf had mentioned earlier
[19:02] is that the state code does say that we
need to allow the conversion of
[19:07] accessory structures to be converted
into uh
[19:10] detached ADUs.
But one of the questions is, do, you
[19:14] know, we might have smaller setbacks for
an accessory structure and we'd rather
[19:19] have a DADU be further set back from the
property line because it might have
[19:24] obviously a greater impact as a
residence than if we just had a shed or
[19:28] or something like that or a structure
that
[19:30] uh, you know, houses different
equipment. So, sorry, I just like bom,
[19:34] you know, word
vomited all of that stuff to you right
[19:37] there. But yes, there's there's a lot of
different regulations in your Right.
[19:40] Well, if there's um, lots of different
ways, but yeah, what I've seen a lot is
[19:44] um, before the state mandated this with
this most recent legislative change uh,
[19:50] 10,000 square feet's kind of been what I
see in the most in most cities.
[19:54] » Yeah, the legislature, the original bill
or the original language in the bill
[19:57] actually was going to be 8,000 square
feet.
[20:00] But I think they they legislators felt
comments and pressure and they upped it
[20:06] to 11.
Um, so that's what that's what's in the
[20:09] state code.
>> Does anyone else want to chime in on
[20:12] square footage
requirement?
[20:15] » I I would say like I like you I I
wouldn't be I wouldn't have a problem
[20:20] discussing that going smaller. Um,
one thing I do like is if it matched
[20:25] a zone. Like for just for clarity.
Um,
[20:29] you know, basically this would be R12
and above for us.
[20:32] And but we can't just say that because
it could go all down to 11,000 square
[20:36] feet. So,
um, if we were to pick a number lower
[20:39] than
than 11,000, I would say like let's
[20:43] match it to our normal zoning. Like to
an R10
[20:47] is where I'd go, but
>> That's smart.
[20:52] » Okay.
I [clears throat] I agree um,
[20:56] with the chair that
perhaps
[21:01] um,
we may have an AUD in a
[21:06] a smaller, square-foot print property.
Um
[21:13] in my opinion
having an AUD will devalue the overall
[21:19] property.
And so
[21:22] there are we have we have a unique
situation in West Kaysville. Yes, the
[21:28] lots are larger.
But if you'll go with me on a quick tour
[21:32] of Utah up and down I-15.
Let's think about housing west of I-15.
[21:45] Are there million-dollar homes west of
I-15 in Provo?
[21:51] Orem?
[21:54] Lehi? Maybe.
There's some in South Jordan.
[22:01] But as you continue on through Davis
County, we have something very unique in
[22:06] West Kaysville.
The property values
[22:10] west
of I-15 are tremendous.
[22:14] That's not the typical situation.
Usually one wants to be on the hill to
[22:20] have their million-dollar home.
We have very very valuable properties
[22:25] that we don't want to
devalue.
[22:29] And so while I don't know that the
arithmetic would work
[22:34] I'm not
Once we determine the setback and all of
[22:38] the other things, if if if it's feasible
to have an AUD on a smaller lot
[22:46] in the neighborhoods around us
I may not be opposed to that. Um because
[22:53] I think that might be a place for this
housing to
[22:58] exist or coexist.
>> So you're suggesting that it might be a
[23:01] better fit for a smaller
>> If if
[23:04] » lot.
I don't agree with you on it being
[23:07] devaluing the main property.
>> Yeah, I would agree. I don't think
[23:10] there's any evidence of that. In fact, I
think if anything there's evidence to
[23:14] the contrary, which is
um ADUs actually enhance the value
[23:19] because it's uh revenue a potentially
revenue generating
[23:23] » It is a potential revenue item. Um
and I've
[23:30] in my professional career I've consumed
a few thousand appraisals and made a few
[23:35] thousand home loans and and I think that
uh
[23:39] it will have an impact.
But again, just from my experience.
[23:44] » Okay.
>> But I I do agree there may be a place
[23:47] for it if if the back what's kind of
backwards arithmetic
[23:51] with the setback, with the placement,
would it even work on a lot less than
[23:56] 11,000? I don't know.
>> Yeah.
[23:58] » But I just wanted to To the extent that
that it would,
[24:02] I'm not opposed to it. Plus considering
it in other
[24:05] » Okay.
>> Just just an interesting anecdote.
[24:09] Um you know, since we're talking about
that and about
[24:12] So, um when I was in Salt Lake City as
the planning director,
[24:16] um
the council uh wanted to and we began
[24:20] the process of allowing for ADUs or
amending the city's code to allow for
[24:25] ADUs.
Uh this was long before the legislature
[24:29] or anybody was considering this. It's
probably around I don't know, 2012 or
[24:33] something like that.
The um the the place where we got a lot
[24:38] of acceptance for allowing for ADUs was
on the west side of Salt Lake, which is
[24:43] generally smaller, less expensive homes.
The place we got the most resistance
[24:49] was in the east side in the avenues.
That's where we got the most resistance
[24:53] and yet they had bigger properties.
Um you know, more ability to do that,
[24:57] but it it was just interesting to me.
[25:03] » I think that sentiment will come forth
in the public hearing.
[25:07] » Right.
Okay, let's continue.
[25:10] » All right.
Um,
[25:13] so they uh that
3B, they must comply with the building,
[25:18] health, and fire regulations as
stipulated in the state code
[25:22] in the bill
and then of course conform to the
[25:26] applicable land use regulations for the
zone in which they're located.
[25:30] Um, and those are specified in the
language back in our code
[25:35] in the like for residential zones. And
that's primarily where we're going to
[25:39] get ADUs in the residential zones
because they're residential structures.
[25:44] Um, and conform to those setback
requirements. Okay, now here's where we
[25:47] get into the issue. This says conform to
the setback requirements of accessory
[25:52] structures in the zone for which they're
located.
[25:57] I think we probably want to address that
and probably adopt something different.
[26:02] And Paul, the
code that he submitted as an example,
[26:08] does provide for some more restrictive
setback requirements.
[26:15] Um, and and I think that would be
appropriate. One of the things with our
[26:19] accessory structure code is that it
allows accessory structures to go right
[26:24] up to within a foot of the rear property
line.
[26:28] You know, that probably works for a
tough shed
[26:31] or something like that, but it can be
problematic when you're getting
[26:35] something that's a little bigger and a
little bit more involved like
[26:37] potentially an ADU that may even have
windows on that side. And we we'll talk
[26:42] about windows and design here in a
little bit, but you know, we we I I'm
[26:48] guessing that we will want to consider
requiring an additional rear yard
[26:53] setback
um for the ADUs. Now, as Brad mentioned,
[26:59] you know, there are some communities
that require them to have meet the same
[27:02] setback as the primary the residential
structure.
[27:06] That really to me kind of defeats the
purpose because
[27:10] you're oftentimes going to locate those
ADUs in the required rear yard. If they
[27:14] have to meet the same setback, there
isn't any place they can really go if
[27:19] the house and the
is just meets that that minimum setback.
[27:24] So, I think we probably want to allow
them they're generally going to be
[27:27] smaller structures.
We may want to talk about if we want to
[27:31] limit them to single story structures or
whatever else it is.
[27:34] But uh generally, I think they can be
closer than that 30 or 20-ft rear yard
[27:39] setback that may be required in the
residential zone.
[27:43] But I think it's got to be more than a
foot.
[27:45] Um but where we feel comfortable with
that
[27:48] that may be what we ought to discuss.
[27:56] » Thoughts on that?
>> Thoughts on that?
[27:58] » Do we Do we want to do that now or after
the public comment or
[28:01] » I We can do that.
>> Let's do that.
[28:02] » Yep.
That's a probably a good suggestion.
[28:05] Okay, so that's one thing to be aware of
and to listen for to comments on that.
[28:10] All right, the other part and talks
about being designed consistent with the
[28:13] design of the single family dwelling.
This This is a can of worms.
[28:18] And I'll tell you why.
Few years ago, the legislature pat
[28:22] passed a provision that said for one and
two family structures,
[28:26] local governments cannot adopt design
regulations.
[28:30] Cannot adopt design standards and it has
a specific list of all the different
[28:34] kinds of things like um
exterior materials and
[28:41] um
you know, whatever you might attach to
[28:44] it and and all There's a whole list of
things that it says you can't regulate
[28:49] the design of.
And but it says specifically for the
[28:53] dwelling.
All right.
[28:56] » I have a I have a note for you and and
Katie there, please. And
[29:01] um it's going to take more lawyering
than I could give it, but
[29:05] um you talk you talk code
10 21
[29:10] 304.
>> Mhm.
[29:13] » Well, if you were just referring to
section 3D.
[29:20] Then if you go on to the next section
10 21 3044
[29:28] A little three
a land use subsection may
[29:38] require be designed consistent with the
design of the single-family dwelling.
[29:44] » You're talking about the bill here for
the ADUs?
[29:46] » The state the state law.
>> Yeah, for the ADUs. Yeah, that's that's
[29:50] what I'm talking about here.
>> two those two phrases are at conflict.
[29:54] » They they are absolutely.
>> But if we can
[29:58] if we in our ordinance may rely on 10 21
30443
[30:05] » Yeah.
>> we absolutely should.
[30:06] » So, here's where the dilemma comes in
and this can of worms that I'm talking
[30:11] about.
In the bill that was passed that then
[30:14] requires that we have the detached ADUs
it also talks in there and it says
[30:20] specifically that
um
[30:22] you can
you can regulate you can't regulate the
[30:26] design
of ADUs
[30:29] consistent with the section of code we
just talked about.
[30:34] But then elsewhere in that same bill it
taught it says what Paul just talked
[30:38] about. It said we can require the ADUs
to be consistent with the design of the
[30:45] primary dwelling on the property.
[30:49] Well,
how do you do that if the other part
[30:52] says you can't regulate design?
So, it's
[30:56] to me it's illegal, it's a lawsuit
waiting to happen. Somebody's going to
[31:00] probably challenge it sometime, but
>> What does it mean?
[31:03] » Go ahead.
>> Like what does consistent mean? So, for
[31:06] example, I'm on a half-acre, I want to
add on to my house, they no longer make
[31:11] my brick. It's not made anymore.
So,
[31:15] I'm out of luck because my
my HOA requires a certain amount of
[31:20] brick or rock versus stucco?
So, I Yeah, I think that's a can of
[31:25] worms and I think that's vague and I
think it's
[31:29] » And I'd say if we did get a legal
challenge, um the code is ambiguous and
[31:33] what a court usually does with something
that's ambiguous, two things. Um they go
[31:38] with the more specific and in my
opinion, the more specific is the list
[31:41] of design standards that we can't
regulate. And two, in land use, they uh
[31:46] interpret it in favor of the property
owner.
[31:50] » All right. So,
what I would recommend, what I as I
[31:55] thought about this, I thought what we
should do is we should rely on the
[31:58] section that Paul just referred to,
which says we can require them to be
[32:01] consistent with the design of the
primary residential structure on the
[32:05] property.
>> Seems reasonable.
[32:07] » But, I think we leave that language pre
just like that. We don't start listing
[32:13] specific things that it can or can't be.
>> Yeah, let let's quote the state quote
[32:17] the state code. We run a foul of that
other part of the state code.
[32:21] » Yes.
>> By saying, you know, well, look, we're
[32:23] just requiring them to be as the code
says, consistent with the design. Now,
[32:29] the the
>> And we're going to get some questions
[32:32] just like this commissioner had. They
don't make that brick anymore, but it's
[32:36] consistent. It's not metal or steel or
bamboo or whatever the the homeowner's
[32:42] thinking of creating the ADU out. It's
consistent with the rest of their home.
[32:47] » But does that does that then conflict
with the idea of being able to allow
[32:52] people to convert existing structures?
What if their existing structure is made
[32:57] out of metal?
>> Yeah.
[32:59] Yeah, I think that's
>> contradiction.
[33:01] » That's a good good point. And I think by
leaving it fairly general as is
[33:09] the language is in the bill,
um it leaves a lot of discretion
[33:15] on the part of the staff
that'll likely be reviewing it and to
[33:19] say, "Well, you know, yeah, we think
that's consistent and that's not." What
[33:22] that then means is what Katie was just
talking about. If it's if it's vague
[33:27] like that
and you get a couple of reasonable
[33:31] interpretations, you know, let's say the
staff says, "Well, you got to put you
[33:34] got to put orange-colored brick on there
to be consistent."
[33:38] And the applicant says, "They're not
making that brick anymore, but I have a
[33:42] brick here that I think is pretty close,
you know, or pretty consistent."
[33:47] Um would to do that.
And if you have a reasonable
[33:50] interpretation that to look somebody
that could look at that and say, "Well,
[33:54] I can see the city side of it and I can
see the owner side of it." Our state
[33:58] code specifies that you go with what the
owner the applicant wants to do.
[34:03] If it can reasonably be interpreted
different ways. So, that leaves us open
[34:08] in that regard.
But I don't if we get any more specific,
[34:12] I think we're going to run a foul of the
other provision of the code. That that's
[34:17] Katie, I don't know what what you're
thinking. You're the legal.
[34:20] » Well, it would be my recommendation to
not um
[34:23] to not touch the things that that that
list that says we're not supposed to
[34:27] touch, but um I was able to talk to
somebody at the league yesterday.
[34:31] They're aware of this ambiguity and they
think that it will be addressed in the
[34:34] next session. So, we may be able to
amend it next spring.
[34:38] » I see.
>> Um as far as um
[34:43] the existing accessory structures being
converted,
[34:48] um what it does say in the state code
and what I think we would put in our
[34:53] ordinances to say you can convert an
accessory structure as long as you can
[34:57] comply with all of the requirements that
we have for the ADU.
[35:01] » Exactly. I think it says we must provide
a path.
[35:04] » Right. Exactly.
>> that path may mean
[35:08] you've got to move this one wall back 9
ft.
[35:10] » Right.
>> You've got to change it from a metal
[35:13] clad building to something consistent
with the home.
[35:16] » Right. Exactly. If they can do that,
then they can convert the existing
[35:20] structure. If they can't,
they would not be able to.
[35:24] » Yeah, it's a whole different category
from a
[35:26] » Okay.
>> um a mower shed to
[35:29] now a residence.
>> Right.
[35:32] » All right. Um
[35:36] Next provision,
uh
[35:39] Roman numeral five item, there may not
be larger in size than the single-family
[35:43] dwelling.
Um we may want to be smaller than that.
[35:47] A number of communities are. They put a
limit. They say it can't be
[35:51] uh more than 70% for example the size of
the of the existing single-family
[35:56] dwelling. Or they may set a specific
square footage.
[36:00] Cuz you may have some small homes on a
lot that you could put an ADU on and you
[36:05] know, it if you have a percentage, it
may wind up being a really little ADU,
[36:09] which maybe not is a problem, but it may
not be real reasonable either. So, uh
[36:15] some consideration there. Maybe make it
a percentage of the size of the primary
[36:20] structure or a specific square footage.
Um think that through a little bit and
[36:25] see what we may want to do there, and
what what comments we may get.
[36:28] » Okay.
>> Um not located in a utility easement, uh
[36:32] may not be located in the front yard. I
think those are all pretty
[36:35] straightforward, nothing to be
controversial there.
[36:39] Okay, and then um as far as parking, we
are limited in the parking that we can
[36:44] require for ADUs. If they're smaller
than 650 square feet, we can only
[36:50] require one additional off-street
parking space to be provided on the
[36:54] property. If they're larger than 650, we
can allow two, but only two off-street
[37:00] parking spaces uh to be located um off
the street.
[37:06] Um you can see the other provisions
there about
[37:09] um
displacing uh any existing parking
[37:12] spaces, that they have to be paved.
Um
[37:17] and that it has to have utility
services, um and uh talks about that a
[37:22] little bit.
And let's see, where we at? Number five,
[37:26] general ADU uh standards.
Um no more than one
[37:32] ADU,
either an IADU or a
[37:36] DADU,
located on a on a property. That may be
[37:41] something to discuss, because there are
some communities that allow both.
[37:46] They will allow an internal and a
detached.
[37:50] What's the feeling of the commission?
>> I I think we recently had discussion
[37:55] here in planning commission
with a
[37:59] community member who
was planning to do both. Yeah.
[38:04] Already had the internal and was doing
planning for the next, so.
[38:11] And maybe we'll circle back. Shall we
circle back to that as well?
[38:15] Something to consider.
>> Would that issue be that
[38:19] they would have to provide way more
parking, because you would have the
[38:23] parking requirement for both.
>> Uh
[38:28] » It's part of it.
>> I don't know if the IADU has a parking
[38:31] standard. Does the IADU have I have to
look.
[38:34] I can't remember now if the IADU has a
>> to provide one space for the IADU.
[38:39] » What is it?
>> You have to provide one space for the
[38:41] internal.
>> Okay, so yes.
[38:43] » that I think it has to be not the
four spots. You've like you've got to
[38:48] have
>> Can't be tandem.
[38:49] » Yeah, it can't be tandem. Thank you.
>> Yeah.
[38:54] Okay, one one additional for the IADU.
Yeah, and if you had
[38:58] um both you'd have you would be allowed
to I think require the additional
[39:03] parking as well.
[39:07] Um then we talk about single-family uh
in in an ADU. That's you know, the same
[39:12] as if in a single-family structure
um or unit. Um
[39:19] that it has to obtain a valid permit for
renting um
[39:23] and cannot be rented for less than 30
days.
[39:28] That's to
you know, kind of address and prevent
[39:31] the short-term rental issue
um which is an issue in some communities
[39:37] uh many in fact.
And then uh there's the state code does
[39:41] allow
the community to require that the
[39:46] primary owner of the property must live
in one of the units. Either in the
[39:51] primary unit or in the ADU.
And we have that drafted here so that
[39:56] that court requirement would be there.
Um that's generally a quick rundown of
[40:02] it. I think with some of the options uh
talked about there.
[40:06] A lot of the stuff that that Paul's
ordinance had was with regard to a lot
[40:12] of the design standards.
And we just talked about that about how
[40:16] we probably need to leave that more
general rather than getting specific
[40:20] because of the issues in the code and
how that would be treated legally.
[40:25] And then
the setbacks.
[40:28] What we want to do on the setbacks.
>> And I think an additional one is the 30
[40:34] or 90 or some other number of
consecutive days for rent rental.
[40:38] » Yeah, you can go up to 90.
Yeah.
[40:41] » So.
>> We may also want to talk about things
[40:44] like
there is
[40:46] the state code does allow things like
massing and like the percentage of lot
[40:51] area that can be covered by an ADU.
>> Yes.
[40:54] » Or by all the structures that are on the
property
[40:58] and also things like window placement
and things like that and so we you know
[41:04] we want to talk about that as well. If
those are requirements that we want to
[41:08] put in.
>> Thank you.
[41:09] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[41:10] » And and thank you for the
I can see that
[41:16] what what I provided was overreaching on
parking. This is disappointing that you
[41:21] can only require one. I know even if we
grant building permits we're always so
[41:26] concerned about parking but the way the
state has brought this down that's
[41:32] if it's 650
it's
[41:35] one parking spot.
[41:39] » And I'll just say this is my own comment
on the parking. I think by and large
[41:45] unless you have a
disparate you know like five different
[41:49] individuals which is I guess that's our
definition of a family right? It is
[41:52] five. We have five individuals living
there it's possible that you could have
[41:55] five cars.
>> Yep.
[41:58] » So we may only have one or maybe two
parking additional parking spaces that
[42:02] means some of those cars are going to
have to park on the street.
[42:05] I frankly they're public streets people
can park on the streets. I don't think
[42:09] that's a problem or an issue.
It should be allowed. The problem comes
[42:13] in the wintertime
when our city code requires no overnight
[42:18] parking on the street. And where do
those cars go?
[42:21] And that's that becomes an issue.
>> Right.
[42:24] Okay. Well, thank you so much for A,
helping the city with this draft
[42:30] ordinance and
and B, for walking us through it.
[42:33] Um
I think that is fantastic. So, we're
[42:36] going to go ahead now and we're going to
have the public comment.
[42:41] Um
or the public hearing part. So, we
[42:46] um
[42:50] I'm going to say most of you all look
fairly familiar to this process, but um
[42:54] we'll just hold you to 3 minutes each.
If you'll just state your name, um
[42:59] and then
we just ask that you be respectful to
[43:04] each other and um
to staff and we'll just go ahead and
[43:08] open up to whoever wants to come
forward.
[43:21] » Hi.
My name's Jill Dredge and I don't live
[43:24] in the neighborhood in West Kaysville,
but I've been down there and I would
[43:27] encourage everybody to go down to that
neighborhood and see kind of what
[43:31] they're dealing with with good ADUs and
some that have been a little bit of a
[43:35] problem down there. Um
one of the things that as you were
[43:38] talking I think the property value for
the person that has the ADU can go up,
[43:43] but I think the property value for the
people that are living within that may
[43:48] go down because I've gone down there and
seen how it's changed backyards for
[43:52] people where it's a two-level especially
and the windows are there and they look
[43:57] right down into people's backyards. So,
I think those are things to kind of
[44:01] consider.
Um
[44:04] one of them uh the temperature in their
backyard is 10° higher because it's a
[44:09] metal building and it's right by their
garden area. So, I think those are some
[44:14] things to consider. Um,
and anyway, that's all I wanted to say.
[44:19] Thank you.
>> Thank you, Joe.
[44:31] » Lorraine Starkey, Kaysville. I hope to
focus on three things.
[44:35] Number one, how the rules for new ADUs
or detached ADUs will be enforced.
[44:41] Number two, what happens to the lot
structures that do not cleanly fit the
[44:47] new rules. And number three, what
happens if Kaysville is not ready by
[44:52] October 1st.
So, let's start with enforcement. What
[44:55] if we do that? The rules matter
when they're enforced. Today, we have
[45:00] residents that are pointing to
structures in their neighborhoods,
[45:04] two-story garage apartment built on a
foot from the property line, accessory
[45:08] buildings the size of commercial storage
units,
[45:12] a rear addition facing the major street,
all that went through city staff,
[45:18] planning commission, city council
approved. It is this is not
[45:22] hypothetical, it happened here in
Kaysville under today's codes. There are
[45:29] some severely challenged
neighbors in um, Utah's home town.
[45:35] A citizen letter to the commission
describes this in particular, structures
[45:39] that are approved in spite of the
existing restrictions on detached
[45:45] accessory dwelling units.
I would invite all each of you to review
[45:49] this letter carefully.
My question directly is, as the
[45:54] standards are adopted, what is our
enforcement plan? Will there be
[45:59] inspections periodically? Will the city
retire
[46:03] rely entirely on neighbors to file
complaints after the fact? Does the code
[46:09] enforcement have the staffing today
to handle the expected increase in ADU
[46:16] applications? Will the city commit today
to publicly track and report the permits
[46:23] that are issued for ADUs each year so
that we can watch and monitor the
[46:28] cumulative effect over time instead of
dif-
[46:32] discovering it lot by lot as we're
experiencing today? Number two,
[46:37] non-conforming lots, ex- existing
structures. Not every lot has a clean
[46:44] 1,000 square foot. We have corner lots,
flag lots.
[46:48] What if we clarify eligibility today
for the structures that are built under
[46:54] the old rules? Are they grandfathered
without question?
[46:58] Um or is there a re- view process?
Finally, the timing. If Kaysville does
[47:03] not have a finalized
objective standards before the the
[47:09] deadline, what is our fallback? Will we
default to the bare minimum?
[47:13] Is it possible to pause the ADUs
approval until the local standards are
[47:18] firmly in place? I urge our commission
not to let the deadline approach and
[47:22] arrive without clear answers.
We do have authority. May I respectfully
[47:28] request that our commission use every
ounce of this authority to establish
[47:33] appropriate codes and staffing, whatever
is to see and make sure that whatever
[47:40] is enforced.
Thank you.
[47:50] » And then the downside of Rambo.
>> My name is Laurie Cragan and I live in
[47:54] the Old Mill Farms neighborhood. On May
6th of this year, 3 months ago, the
[47:59] state of Utah mandated that Kaysville
must now permit detached accessory
[48:03] dwellings. Up until this point in time,
they were not allowed, only IADUs. I am
[48:08] the owner of a 1,500 sq ft IADU attached
the back of my third car garage and
[48:14] understand how valuable it can be. I
also understand, having grown children
[48:19] who need housing as I have my son's
family of five living in my basement. We
[48:23] are grateful to have had the space to
offer in times of need. The city of
[48:27] Kaysville has the opportunity to do
something monumental for its residents
[48:31] in considering the changes to section
17-31-3.
[48:36] There are things that the state has
mandated to be included in this new
[48:39] ordinance, but there are also
substantial list of things Kaysville
[48:42] still has power to regulate.
While I appreciate the work that has
[48:46] gone into the draft in the packet, it is
sorely lacking in many items. Utah code
[48:51] section 1-21-3044
gives the city the ability to still
[48:56] regulate many things about these DADUs.
To name a few, size, dimension, height,
[49:00] maximum lot coverage, setbacks from
property lines, window orientation,
[49:04] architectural design consistency with
the primary residence, and 90-day rental
[49:09] term, owner occupancy, parking
placement, so much that can still be
[49:13] written into the document and tied up.
We need specifics spelled out with
[49:17] diagrams of where these DADUs can be
placed on lots so there is no confusion.
[49:23] I have a 2,400 sq ft 30-ft high steel
pole barn in the property right behind
[49:31] mine, 10 ft from my property line.
Due to the accessory structures code
[49:36] requirements on the books right now, it
was permitted by the city and it was
[49:40] built last summer. The intention
intention of the property owner is to
[49:44] work on his truck on the lower level and
build a residence on the top level for
[49:48] family. This commercial-looking building
is in my neighborhood. Privacy we once
[49:53] enjoyed is gone as I now have four large
clear windows staring into my property.
[49:58] There are two more of these still
buildings on one neighbor's property and
[50:03] another neighbor is in the process of
building a 2,700 square foot 29 foot
[50:08] high building on a corner lot right next
to the main street our neighborhood uses
[50:12] to go about our lives. It is obvious
that our current accessory building code
[50:16] needs to be looked at and revised. You
have one chance to get this right for
[50:21] all the property owners of Kaysville. We
are counting on you to keep our
[50:25] neighborhoods beautiful and
aesthetically pleasing. Please send the
[50:29] draft included in the packet back for a
review and meet again in 2 weeks with a
[50:32] more complete draft. Please give us the
residents another chance for public
[50:36] comment on that revised draft before
giving it to the council. I understand
[50:41] there is an October 1st deadline.
That we must have items spelled out more
[50:45] clearly and specific detail. It's been
mandated by the state but there's many
[50:50] ways that we can make these DADUs
acceptable. Thank you.
[50:54] » Thank you.
[51:09] » My name is Susan Harris.
>> I sent oh
[51:12] » Sorry.
>> Can you say your name again, ma'am?
[51:14] » Susan Harris and I sent a a letter to
all of you a few days ago.
[51:19] Um I spent hours going through that new
law because frankly it scares me to
[51:23] death.
Cuz I can just as she just said, our
[51:27] neighborhood has changed and I'm not
right in that neighborhood. I'm a little
[51:30] further away but
for
[51:33] existing code
I mean I don't understand either why
[51:37] there's a 30 foot building in anyone's
backyard but um
[51:41] I just I'm really concerned about where
this could all go and so and I'm kind of
[51:47] really disgruntled that like there's
something to propose
[51:50] to like the council before you even get
impact from the public. I think that's
[51:54] kind of weird. Like shouldn't you hear
what we have to say and then work
[51:57] something and send it to the council?
Cuz, you know, what if we had an idea or
[52:02] you or something? So.
Um I'm one of those who that neighbor
[52:07] I'm the one that has the neighbor's ADU
a foot off my property line.
[52:12] And I measured it.
And that was the wall. That's not even
[52:16] overhang. And so, code
somewhere like didn't work.
[52:21] And that's kind of I think the fear as
even like what we have in place is
[52:25] concerning. And I think it needs to be
reviewed and And as this dear lady said
[52:31] that we have to be careful when we start
restricting on what it looks like.
[52:35] I think we have every right to give some
ideas or just even say it. We don't have
[52:39] to go into every detail, but
there's only going to be one chance. And
[52:43] the last of my letter, the one thing I
did say that I just would like to
[52:46] reiterate again is
[52:50] the intentions don't matter once things
start changing.
[52:53] And if we miss, you know, that T or that
I,
[52:56] then we have, you know, 30-ft buildings
in the backyard of everything. And the
[53:01] neighborhood that we all bought into and
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
[53:06] changes dramatically.
And this could go berserk. Like
[53:10] everybody could come in and want to do
this.
[53:13] Maybe 20, maybe 30. And it will
probably, you know, increase over time.
[53:17] But I think we need to be very careful
right now
[53:22] to decide what we want Kaysville to be.
And I I don't think every city has to
[53:27] be, you know, everything to everybody.
We don't have to be a high-density
[53:31] place. But we do have a state law that
is requiring a few things.
[53:34] But I think we need to put things in
place so that it will work for where we
[53:40] live, who we are,
and the things that we've already
[53:43] invested in this city time and time
again.
[53:46] And I thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
[54:08] » Um my name is Gary Yuras, going to 422
Joshua Drive, and
[54:13] I've noticed most of my a lot of the
people here are from my neighborhood,
[54:16] and I there's a reason why, and and it's
been expressed tonight that there's been
[54:20] a lot of things occur in our
neighborhood that in our opinion should
[54:24] not have been allowed to happen.
And and I think part of it is
[54:28] enforcement, part of it is the standards
in your zoning ordinance. We need to, as
[54:33] Will said, look at the accessory
buildings, deal with height. We've got
[54:37] two-story accessory buildings with
windows that look down in people's
[54:41] property.
I feel my heart breaks for the Cragans,
[54:45] you know, they've invested a lot of
money in their property, and now they've
[54:48] got a two-story building sitting there
with windows. Their privacy has been
[54:51] destroyed. That should not happen to
people in this community.
[54:56] Um I think that
the accessory unit should not be in
[55:01] two-story buildings. I think they should
be limited to single story. In fact, I
[55:04] think there should be no accessory
buildings in
[55:08] over one story high, just to provide the
the atmosphere and the massing within
[55:14] within our community. I think there
should be no windows
[55:18] uh to the adjacent property.
You know, I I think you use a standard
[55:22] of if you're sitting in an adjacent
property looking at one of these
[55:26] residential units should be viewed as a
looked at as a shed or a garage there,
[55:32] and so you're sitting in your property
and see my my privacy has not been
[55:35] violated. So, I think that's very
important. Now, as far as the setback,
[55:40] I think these are residential dwellings.
I think that should have the 8-ft
[55:45] setback that a typical residential
dwelling should have because think of it
[55:48] for a minute. If you get two property
owners put two units there back
[55:53] back-to-back, if you use the foot
setback, you got a 2-ft difference
[55:57] between those buildings.
And in our residential subdivisions,
[56:01] we're saying there should be at least 16
ft between a residential dwellings.
[56:05] Well, that should apply to the
uh
[56:08] the ADUs or
whatever you call them.
[56:11] Sorry about that.
Um also, I agree strongly that it should
[56:15] meet the design standards of the
existing buildings. And I yeah, you can
[56:19] talk about conflicts, but I think you
need to make sure that that meets that.
[56:23] And I I think there is not a conflict
there. The state statute says that you
[56:28] can make it meet there. You're not
dictating what it has to be. You're just
[56:31] saying it has to meet the existing. So,
I think that's reasonable.
[56:35] I think the parking is an issue. Uh I
don't know how to resolve that. Maybe
[56:40] maybe we have to go back to the
legislature and talk about that. But if
[56:44] you got a 650 and you're saying there's
only one unit, well, think about it. Our
[56:49] area does not have public transit. You
got a couple of movers into there. How
[56:54] many cars is going to be in there in a
650 unit? Probably two.
[56:58] And so, one of them's going to be on the
street. And um as a city manager for
[57:02] Woods Cross for a number of years, and
we put in a unit uh project, and we
[57:07] missed it on the parking.
And that became a real problem. So,
[57:11] parking becomes a problem. Um I'd just
like to say one other thing is
[57:15] enforcement is important. Enforcement
needs to happen. I'm glad we got the new
[57:19] guy here because
you can spend hours and hours going over
[57:24] this, but if it's not enforced, it
doesn't mean anything. So, thank you.
[57:27] » Thank you.
[57:48] » Is there anyone else who would like to
speak to the commission?
[57:56] Okay. We'll go ahead and close the
public comment.
[58:02] And um
we can open it up to the commission to
[58:07] discuss
um
[58:11] some of the things that I'm hearing are
um
[58:15] a lot of what we've discussed
the accessory code needs to be needs to
[58:20] be amended, accessory building code.
Um
[58:27] Enforcement is a great question. I think
that kind of lands on city where we
[58:32] don't have a lot of staff
um currently to enforce.
[58:38] Um
That being said, I think we
[58:44] the general consensus is we still want
to have some regulations, so
[58:49] um
um architectural standards as much as we
[58:54] can enforce sounds like it's kind of
um setbacks I think or something we're
[59:01] going to want to address as well that we
can kind of
[59:04] bump those up a little bit. Parking
is fairly set sounds like.
[59:10] Um single story maybe something we want
to talk about in window
[59:14] placement. So, I'm going to just open
this up to commission members to just
[59:19] start batting out some ideas and things
that you'd like to amend from
[59:24] » they go down, they go sideways.
>> There you go.
[59:29] » [laughter]
>> Yeah.
[59:30] » That's what we want.
[59:33] » Now we know Now we know what Mindy
wants.
[59:37] Go in sideways. [laughter]
[59:41] Okay, I think we're
we're good.
[59:44] » Please.
>> Sure. Um
[59:46] so
I've listed a number of the issues, some
[59:50] of which I brought up, some of the
things that you have, and we've heard
[59:53] maybe we address them one at a time. How
about height?
[59:56] I don't maybe start with height.
>> Start with height.
[59:58] » What's the What's the feeling of the
commission on the recommendation
[1:00:01] » on setback, don't you think?
>> What's that?
[1:00:04] » For me, I think it depends on the
setback because if you have a two-story
[1:00:09] home and like
a lot of property around it
[1:00:14] » Yeah.
>> and it would also depend on windows.
[1:00:17] » I know a number
>> this overlaps and it entwines in such a
[1:00:21] complicated way.
>> Yeah, I know a number of communities
[1:00:24] that they limit ADUs to single story.
Uh to me, that seems pretty reasonable
[1:00:30] because they're supposed to be smaller
accessory structures to the main house.
[1:00:34] » My only question I have with that is
currently we have a fair amount of
[1:00:40] IADUs because there's a breezeway or
something that are over
[1:00:45] » over a garage.
>> over a garage. And we currently have a
[1:00:47] lot of
you know, accessory residences that are
[1:00:52] on a second story, and how how does that
play into that?
[1:00:56] » to convert, like
are we stepping on the ability to
[1:01:00] convert an existing
IADU?
[1:01:04] » Yeah, I mean, that it may well do. If
you have like a detached garage and you
[1:01:08] want to put one over
over the main garage part
[1:01:12] it would limit that if you limited
single story.
[1:01:16] So, that may not be the best solution,
but um you know
[1:01:21] you certainly don't want them 30 ft, I
don't think.
[1:01:25] » Um,
>> is there a a requirement or anything for
[1:01:29] setback from the in the main structure
of the house? Is there like a fire
[1:01:33] requirement or anything like that?
>> There there's probably just the fire
[1:01:35] code requirement, which I don't know
exactly what that is, but it's not that
[1:01:39] it's not real great. If they have
firewalls, if they have fire uh code
[1:01:43] walls, they can be fairly close.
>> Okay.
[1:01:46] » Um, but it they they have to meet that
fire code requirement to be close.
[1:01:51] » So, we're looking at
a minimum distance from the main
[1:01:54] structure,
setback, and the height that are all
[1:01:59] presenting some sort of an issue when we
go back to the lot size that we're
[1:02:03] proposing to put them on.
>> Yeah.
[1:02:08] » I do think
um, considering what the
[1:02:13] what the residents are saying that we
should be generous with our setbacks
[1:02:18] » Mhm.
>> from neighbors.
[1:02:20] Maybe match existing home structure
setbacks.
[1:02:25] So,
>> Thank you. I I agree with that
[1:02:27] sentiment. We're creating a residence
with an with a auxiliary dwelling unit.
[1:02:33] And and
let's keep it simple. It's not very
[1:02:36] forgiving.
Um, would
[1:02:38] » I will just say that if we do that, we
may be really limiting uh particularly
[1:02:43] on
lots, you know, that just bear it that
[1:02:45] just meet the minimum setback
requirement. That would basically mean
[1:02:49] that you couldn't have
an ADU.
[1:02:51] » may be some where
I don't have 16 ft between me and my
[1:02:55] neighbor.
>> That Yeah, that's what it would have to
[1:02:58] have. There have to be more room on the
sides.
[1:03:00] » And and that's okay. One of the one of
the comments that we heard and I've
[1:03:04] heard um,
some of our city council echo is
[1:03:10] we don't have to be everything to
everybody in Kaysville.
[1:03:13] We're a unique city.
>> So,
[1:03:19] Well, is this correct in that So, for
side if we're talking side yards,
[1:03:25] the minimum setback varies by lot. So,
10, 8, and the smallest is 5.
[1:03:32] » Right.
>> But, that's on a 6,000 sq ft lot, which
[1:03:37] wouldn't be
>> Which if we limit it to 10 or 11,000,
[1:03:41] that wouldn't be us.
>> No, and
[1:03:43] » So,
>> And right now, accessory structures have
[1:03:45] to meet the side yard requirements.
Um so, um in that case,
[1:03:51] you know, the uh ADUs should probably
will should probably meet that as well.
[1:03:56] I don't think that's going to be a an
issue in most cases. I think they'll be
[1:03:59] able to meet those side yard
requirements. I think it's just the rear
[1:04:02] yard that's going to be an issue.
>> is the bigger issue.
[1:04:05] » What What What about like uh oddly
shaped lots or corner lots that maybe
[1:04:09] wouldn't have such much of a backyard,
right?
[1:04:13] » Corner lots are an interesting issue. Um
I have to tell you I was kind of beating
[1:04:18] my head against the wall for a while to
exactly understand how our
[1:04:22] um accessory structure requirements
worked on corner lots cuz the the
[1:04:27] language in our code is
it's um
[1:04:31] it it's not clear.
>> Mhm.
[1:04:33] » Not clear to me anyway, and uh
I That is one thing as we when we
[1:04:38] address our accessory structures, I
think we need to address that.
[1:04:42] Um and clarify that and get it to where
we think it should be.
[1:04:47] But, we can do that for ADUs right now
at this point. We can specify whatever
[1:04:52] it is we want to. So, on a corner lot on
the side that's adjacent to the street,
[1:04:57] normally, you're required to have a
20-ft setback.
[1:05:01] Uh but, in some cases, our code does
have uh the ability to put um ADUs
[1:05:06] within that those 20 ft. Or I'm sorry,
accessory structures. Do we want to
[1:05:10] allow ADUs to go into that, or do we
want them to also meet that 20-ft
[1:05:14] setback requirement?
[1:05:17] » Yes, the 20-ft setback requirement
because it's a it's a dwelling, it's a
[1:05:22] residence, not an accessory building.
>> And it's adjacent to the street.
[1:05:30] » Um the the chair um made, you know, good
notes, and I'm sorry if a couple of
[1:05:35] these are redundant, but um I'll just
rattle off my list to um
[1:05:46] I
someone someone maybe can draft how we
[1:05:52] deal with the
the unit over a garage, window
[1:05:57] orientation, but
generally single-story.
[1:06:03] Um in our language, I hope we put that
we we've provided a path
[1:06:10] for
uh you to convert an existing building
[1:06:14] to an
an accessory dwelling unit, but it must
[1:06:18] meet all of the requirements of the
code. We've [snorts] heard the the
[1:06:22] citizens speak about enforcement. I read
um the fine is $100 a day. Is that in
[1:06:29] the ordinance?
Um
[1:06:32] » Um I think it's out on the page
A, yeah.
[1:06:36] » I
I regard I hope it's still there. I I
[1:06:39] read it and
>> Oh, yeah, I got it right here for you.
[1:06:41] » Okay, I read it and maybe forgot it, but
but that seems like
[1:06:46] that gives it some teeth.
Um
[1:06:50] and then we just talked about corner
lots.
[1:06:53] Um
the um
[1:06:57] window orientation
ought to be addressed. Uh minimum side
[1:07:02] yard, I think this is a great guide
since we're creating residences.
[1:07:08] And then, um,
I appreciate
[1:07:11] uh, council's
guidance.
[1:07:15] And we shouldn't vary
from the language of section 1021304
[1:07:21] 4A3,
but let's at least put that in there,
[1:07:26] that it be designed consistent with the
design of the single-family dwelling.
[1:07:31] » Yeah.
>> Then it sounds like the legislature's
[1:07:33] going to maybe clean that up uh, address
the conflict. That's what courts and
[1:07:38] legislatures are for, but in the
meantime, we're going to use what the
[1:07:42] state's
mandated to us, um,
[1:07:47] and then the other thing that I heard
that I thought was interesting is, um,
[1:07:53] pausing permits and
and
[1:07:57] well, if you've taken the laboring oar
here, I'll let you address if that might
[1:08:01] be
prudent, um,
[1:08:05] » What was your question again, Alan?
>> Uh, just
[1:08:07] » Pausing permits.
>> Pausing permits until we we
[1:08:10] » Oh, on the accessory
>> dwelling and this, if that's an
[1:08:13] appropriate action.
>> Yeah, so the way that works, um, it's we
[1:08:18] we call it a moratorium. I mean, that's
what everybody kind of calls it. Once
[1:08:21] you've decided to do this, you have 6
months
[1:08:24] to address your code and make whatever
changes that you want to.
[1:08:27] And people say it's a moratorium. It's
not really a moratorium.
[1:08:31] What it is is you've just put everybody
on notice
[1:08:34] that if they insist on going ahead
with building something
[1:08:40] that is governed by those provisions,
they may have to come back and change it
[1:08:46] if we change the code.
And most people will say, "Well, I'm
[1:08:49] going to wait till you decide what it is
you're going to do."
[1:08:51] » I see.
>> And so in that in essence it becomes a
[1:08:54] moratorium [clears throat] because
they'll say, "Well, let's wait and see
[1:08:57] what you come up with."
But there are some that will say, "I'm
[1:09:00] going to go ahead anyway." And then if
it changes, they're obligated to go back
[1:09:05] and change it. So,
modify the
[1:09:07] » And is that And is that an option? My
understanding is October 1st is the
[1:09:12] state deadline, and if we don't have a
You know. code, then you get whatever
[1:09:20] comes through.
>> why what we need to specify what it is
[1:09:23] we want for the ADUs right now.
>> Yeah.
[1:09:25] » Now, some of those same things we may
change the accessory
[1:09:29] structures ordinance as well, but that's
not what we're doing right now. We're
[1:09:34] going to just work on this piece.
>> ADUs, sorry. We can't We can't pause on
[1:09:37] the ADU.
>> Yeah, sorry if I didn't make that
[1:09:39] distinction clear. That that the
accessory
[1:09:42] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:09:43] » [clears throat]
[1:09:48] » My thought I just keep thinking back on
the size of the We're talking about the
[1:09:52] level of the house, right? The stories.
If you are on a smaller lot, a
[1:09:57] non-conforming lot, a non-typical lot,
would it would make sense if you were
[1:10:02] spending the money to make the structure
to go up so that it would allow for more
[1:10:07] square footage or more parking or any of
those things, right? So, it would allow
[1:10:11] for that.
But, like we have everybody concerned
[1:10:16] about is um
your privacy in your backyard.
[1:10:19] Personally, I live in a smaller home, so
they can see me in my backyard.
[1:10:24] I'm used to it. That's just how it is.
But, I can understand that it's an
[1:10:28] issue. I don't think it should be 1 ft
from the from the
[1:10:31] » I wonder if if an appropriate setback
could resolve the second-story issue.
[1:10:37] » Mhm.
Setback from the neighbor or
[1:10:39] » Probably with the
combining window placement
[1:10:44] and setbacks.
I feel like that would cause
[1:10:48] » It all comes back down to lot size. So,
maybe that's where we should start
[1:10:52] is with the larger What size lot? Do we
want 11,000? Do we want 8,000? Do we
[1:10:58] want 10,000?
>> Mhm.
[1:11:00] » Maybe that's a good jumping off point.
>> That's a good place.
[1:11:06] » I don't know.
>> Any comment?
[1:11:09] » I I think I I Yeah, I think the chairs
that both the chair and I have got
[1:11:13] commented that
if the arithmetic works,
[1:11:17] fine if it's on a smaller lot, but it
may not.
[1:11:23] » Does anyone want to
make an adjustment to the 11,000
[1:11:27] now?
Obviously, we can change it later, but
[1:11:30] do we want to do that?
>> I think they should be allowed on
[1:11:33] smaller lots
if they can conform
[1:11:36] to these setbacks.
>> Uh to whatever we set up backs that we
[1:11:40] decide on it.
>> Uh you know, and I don't know that the
[1:11:44] city would want to go this far, but
there are communities out there that
[1:11:46] don't specify a minimum lot size.
Um they just say you have to meet the
[1:11:52] the setback requirements, and if they
can meet them on whatever lot, it's
[1:11:56] fine. I don't know that you want to go
that far,
[1:11:59] but that's an option.
>> Guess there are smaller homes on bigger
[1:12:02] lots. Um
or make their lot look bigger just
[1:12:06] because they are a tinier home, right?
So,
[1:12:09] this is saying a quarter acre, just over
a quarter acre at 11,000 sq ft.
[1:12:16] There are some homes that are on smaller
lots that might be able to conform to it
[1:12:20] somewhat.
I think for sure there would be.
[1:12:25] Mhm.
>> What do you want to set as your minimum
[1:12:28] square feet?
>> Or or zoning
[1:12:31] district or
like you say, just
[1:12:36] leave it.
>> There's a lot. There are a lot to do.
[1:12:45] » Yeah, and I mean, there's always
whatever it is that you recommend now
[1:12:49] and the council winds up adopting,
it can be changed later.
[1:12:53] » Yeah.
[1:12:59] » So, do we
we do we do we ask our our crack staff
[1:13:06] to take a crack at drafting something
for less than 11,000 square feet, or do
[1:13:12] we go with the state-mandated 11,000
square feet or larger is really the
[1:13:17] the issue and and we could look at what
they propose
[1:13:22] in 2 weeks.
Um or as the chair suggested,
[1:13:27] perhaps
we
[1:13:29] we pro we we've given direction.
That's they've taken notes. They have
[1:13:36] they've they've heard.
Um do we
[1:13:39] let the city council finalize it? That's
the
[1:13:43] possibility.
>> it's appropriate for us to give them a
[1:13:45] suggestion.
>> Mhm.
[1:13:47] » Yeah, I think I'd recommend that you you
make some recommendations tonight.
[1:13:52] » And then they [clears throat]
>> Because I it sounds like the the
[1:13:53] council's going to discuss this at their
in a work session next week.
[1:13:58] » So, we need to give them the word.
>> your input
[1:14:00] » Uh-huh.
>> There is a work session. Okay.
[1:14:03] » council. That's my understanding. Is
that right, Jason?
[1:14:09] » Well, just for the sake of a starting
point, I mean
[1:14:14] I'm curious if anyone would feel
comfortable with
[1:14:17] recommending
8,000 square feet.
[1:14:22] » 8,000's kind of where I've been sticking
in my mind.
[1:14:25] » 8,000.
>> Any other thoughts on that?
[1:14:30] I mean, part of me just part of me
thinks for the in the interest of time,
[1:14:37] you start kind of basic, start with
we can always
[1:14:44] adjust, but
I don't feel like it's a one-time shot,
[1:14:49] but I feel like
um if you kind of cover yourself, and
[1:14:54] then you may decide you want to open it
up more,
[1:14:57] you could, but
>> There'll still be limitations to it. I
[1:15:01] mean everything else.
>> Everything. Everything else in addition
[1:15:04] to the lot size. So there will be things
that won't make it so that they could
[1:15:07] conform and get the the
video.
[1:15:10] So it's I think it's the 8,000 square
feet might add some flexibility.
[1:15:14] » I guess if you have your
setbacks set, your height set, or
[1:15:19] whatnot, it wouldn't really uh
affect your neighbor. It would only
[1:15:23] affect you, your lot, if it was a
smaller lot.
[1:15:26] » the way down to the RT zoning.
>> The what?
[1:15:30] » If you look at the zoning,
>> Mhm.
[1:15:32] » that's that's
smaller than an R16.
[1:15:37] » Okay. So well, is an R16 is
Is that 6,000? Is that what it says?
[1:15:43] » I don't know. I'm leaning more towards
the 10,000.
[1:15:46] » 10,000 square. 10,000 because you're
saying it 8,000 it's for everybody but
[1:15:53] the R16.
Looks like.
[1:15:56] » Yeah, R16 is 6,000.
>> Yeah. So
[1:16:00] 10,000?
[1:16:04] » I agree with that.
>> That's where I would be.
[1:16:06] » Feel okay about 10,000?
>> Okay.
[1:16:13] » Okay, let's tentatively say that. Um
height, do we want to say
[1:16:18] um
single story, or do we want to
[1:16:22] I would love to say single story, but I
just worry that that conflicts with the
[1:16:28] existing structure conversion. So could
we have something that says single story
[1:16:34] except if there's an existing structure
conversion, and if so, then a lot, you
[1:16:40] know, that depends on windows, that
depends on
[1:16:44] I'm worried that we're going to
contradict our cell by saying single
[1:16:48] story.
>> Yeah, and and I I live on 5 acres, you
[1:16:52] know, any building I'm I'm building is
going to be 100 ft from my neighbor's
[1:16:57] boundary. I mean, there there's
I can think of examples where a second
[1:17:01] story, you know, an apartment above
garage, things like that would be
[1:17:05] completely reasonable.
>> appropriate.
[1:17:07] » And so and so I'm I'm reluctant to to to
go with that. Now, I I want to ask it
[1:17:11] seems to me like a lot of
height and setbacks
[1:17:15] kind of come together and there's
there's a diagonal line and and I'm
[1:17:21] I know I've read it, but I don't have
the words for it and stuff and so
[1:17:24] if that is built into it
you can have a second story, but not 8
[1:17:29] ft off the property like you got to
follow that that diagonal and
[1:17:33] people that are more into that can
flesh out the the details there.
[1:17:38] » of naturally govern itself if we had
that
[1:17:41] » It would it would keep that second story
from being right up on your property
[1:17:44] line and
that could be a reasonable way to write
[1:17:47] it. Um
if we were to allow second story. Right
[1:17:50] now, the current code and
I'm looking to the rest of the city
[1:17:54] staff to keep me straight here cuz I'm
not sure I got it straight. But, um
[1:17:59] an accessory structure can go within 1
ft of the rear property line.
[1:18:04] It can be up to the wall can be up to 16
ft high.
[1:18:08] And then what if you go higher than that
up to a maximum of 30 ft, for each foot
[1:18:13] higher you go, you have to be 1 ft
further set back.
[1:18:16] » It starts at 12, not 16.
>> 12, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. 12.
[1:18:22] That's how that's how it works now.
But, if you you know
[1:18:26] » I think when something crazy
>> That's crazy.
[1:18:29] » our say our setback is
8 ft
[1:18:33] to start.
>> Minimum setback.
[1:18:35] » Minimum setback is 8 and then we have a
height
[1:18:40] » 12 ft
>> 12 ft or something, and then it could
[1:18:43] grow from there.
Same language, you know.
[1:18:49] » Which could potentially, the higher
you're wanting to go, you're going to
[1:18:52] run out of room. So, the smaller the lot
>> That's true.
[1:18:55] » Yeah.
>> So, you're constrained by your building
[1:18:58] envelope by If you're wanting to go
two-story, but your lot's smaller
[1:19:02] it's naturally, like what you're saying,
it might need
[1:19:05] » You don't need to or might need to It
still has to do with the setback. You
[1:19:09] simply just won't have
>> the option.
[1:19:11] » The setbacks and the room in the
backyard to stay with your setbacks to
[1:19:15] go taller.
>> Right.
[1:19:16] » But with a smaller lot
maybe that's okay.
[1:19:20] » Yeah.
>> Yeah, just be one-story.
[1:19:22] » Yes.
[1:19:26] » Well
um
[1:19:28] 8-ft minimum
side setback?
[1:19:32] » Rear?
>> Rear.
[1:19:32] » Rear.
>> Cuz they have to meet the side setbacks.
[1:19:35] » Yeah. The sides are already built in.
>> Or we we would specify that 80s.
[1:19:40] Our accessory structure ordinance now
requires that accessory structures meet
[1:19:43] the side setback requirements.
Um the rear they can go within a foot,
[1:19:48] but if you make that
80s
[1:19:50] » the 1-ft issue.
[1:19:54] So, is 8 ft appropriate in the rear?
>> Yeah, is 8 ft Is that enough?
[1:20:00] » It's not much.
>> It is not much if it's a two-story.
[1:20:03] » Yes.
So, you start with 8 ft, and the taller
[1:20:07] you go, the closer to the wards the home
you're going to go.
[1:20:10] » Go.
>> Yeah.
[1:20:12] So, 8 ft with a height of
>> of a 12-ft
[1:20:14] » 12-ft
>> Sounds good to me.
[1:20:16] » But 12
[1:20:20] » I need a visual.
[1:20:26] For every foot setback.
>> Yeah.
[1:20:30] » And can we limit that it's not taller
than the initial structure, the main
[1:20:34] primary structure?
>> Yes.
[1:20:36] » Yeah, that would definitely probably be
a good thing to have in there, that it
[1:20:39] can't be taller
than the
[1:20:41] » I want a big princess tower in the back.
[1:20:46] » I kind of like 75%
maybe 75% rule on
[1:20:51] square footage of the original.
>> But would that be 75% of the primary
[1:20:57] structure or the Okay. Yeah, as the max.
>> Was that 75 or 70?
[1:21:02] » So if you're saying you can't have the
If you're saying they can't be taller
[1:21:06] than the first dwelling, if you're in a
single story home, you can't build a
[1:21:10] two-story dwelling.
>> Correct. Right.
[1:21:13] » Cuz you're saying by
>> It would say that, yeah.
[1:21:16] » But if it's a two-story on a smaller lot
and you don't have the room, it's going
[1:21:20] to end up being a one-story anyway.
>> Yeah, also true.
[1:21:24] » So that's the
That's the caveat.
[1:21:27] » Right now, if I
purchase a lot in Kaysville
[1:21:32] in any of these zones except
the A1 A5.
[1:21:39] Um if I'm going to build a dwelling
unit,
[1:21:43] my rear setback is 15 ft.
Is there reason to vary from that
[1:21:50] because it's an auxiliary dwelling unit?
>> It just won't allow smaller lots to
[1:21:57] to use the space.
>> And is that that Is that a problem?
[1:22:08] I I think sticking with these makes
a lot of I mean
[1:22:14] that this is what people have expected.
This is the setback from their neighbors
[1:22:19] now.
So if someone start building a building
[1:22:23] in the backyard that's not 15 ft, but 8
ft
[1:22:28] that's not what
it changes the character of my
[1:22:32] neighborhood.
I'd love to stick with what's on our
[1:22:35] chart.
>> But what about those people that have
[1:22:38] that limitation that don't have a big
lot to work with?
[1:22:41] » And I don't And I don't think you'd end
up with a
[1:22:45] I mean, we're limiting what can end up
you know,
[1:22:49] » At that point it's just a tough
pill to swallow, isn't You know, that's
[1:22:52] like sorry, all you can build is this
damn tough shed.
[1:22:57] Enjoy.
>> I I also think that
[1:23:01] maybe we're overestimating how many of
these units will be built. Not that they
[1:23:06] won't be built, but I don't
>> Right, cuz it's still a financial
[1:23:10] commitment.
>> It's still a huge financial
[1:23:12] » I wanted to look that up, you know, what
what percentage of properties actually
[1:23:15] have ADUs and it it's got to be
in cities that have allowed it for
[1:23:19] years, you know, it's got to be a very
small percentage.
[1:23:21] » Well, you're looking at 40,000 to
pour the cement and do the electric and
[1:23:26] the water. Like it's a big investment. I
don't think they're going to be popping
[1:23:30] up willy-nilly all over the place.
>> One thing to consider is a couple months
[1:23:35] ago
I reached out to Farmington City about
[1:23:39] when they had passed their ADU
ordinance, just kind of get an idea of
[1:23:41] what they saw
once they had allowed for detached ADUs
[1:23:46] and when I spoke to their staff, they
were telling me it was a very minimal
[1:23:50] increase year by year. It was only a
handful per year that they saw. It
[1:23:54] wasn't, you know, this huge influx that
they had incoming. Um so, for what it's
[1:23:59] worth, that's that's what other cities
have seen.
[1:24:01] » Yeah, the league has been asking that
question and I think generally it's not
[1:24:06] huge. There are some communities that
are seeing more
[1:24:10] uh of an impact, but but it's not huge.
If you look around the country, it's
[1:24:16] generally not huge, but in some places
like, for example, I just was reading an
[1:24:20] article San Francisco
has been
[1:24:24] allowing has been permitting a lot of
ADUs lately and but that may be because
[1:24:29] it's so damn expensive to build in San
Francisco. That's about all people can
[1:24:34] afford to build.
>> And it's landlocked. Yeah, it's built
[1:24:37] out.
>> built out, yeah.
[1:24:40] » Interesting.
>> Yeah, I I was originally kind of wanting
[1:24:44] to stick to the
the standard setbacks and I've kind of
[1:24:48] come around to the idea that it can be
smaller just because this is a new
[1:24:52] category. I mean, at first I was like,
well, it's a dwelling, it's, you know,
[1:24:56] the same same as other stuff and now
I've kind of realized it it's it is a
[1:25:00] new thing.
And so
[1:25:05] you know, back to that argument of 15 or
something something less.
[1:25:10] Um
[1:25:12] I I I feel like it is a new category and
I would be willing to go a little less,
[1:25:16] but
I I I understand the the concern, you
[1:25:19] know, of
this is going to change neighborhoods.
[1:25:23] » If we don't want 8 ft, maybe we could do
something different like 10.
[1:25:28] Or 12, but I think when we get into 15,
yeah, we're just limiting who's able to
[1:25:33] do this and I
I think that's a problem.
[1:25:37] » We're only limiting it to the extent of
what our current zoning is for a home.
[1:25:47] » Yeah, and
>> No more, no less.
[1:25:49] » But you have to consider that homes
don't that homes have a 30-ft height
[1:25:55] restriction and these would not have
that. They would you wouldn't have a
[1:25:59] 30-ft home
[1:26:02] 8 ft away from you because it has the
height restriction that go with it.
[1:26:11] » The what's what's been described, the
increasing
[1:26:13] » The increasing height, so
[1:26:18] » Yeah, maybe the arithmetic will make the
8 ft moot.
[1:26:22] We'll just see.
[1:26:31] » Is this the 12 ft
wall, right?
[1:26:34] » 8 or 10.
>> Like in the A1 area.
[1:26:38] Okay.
It might be a good idea also to ask um
[1:26:43] our new Brad
>> Yeah.
[1:26:45] » what's going on in our new Brad.
>> Yes.
[1:26:47] » Let's ask our new only Brad we have.
>> [laughter]
[1:26:50] » What is working in Layton City cuz they
currently have that right now.
[1:26:55] » It's a great idea.
>> I know Farmington I don't think they
[1:26:58] have more than a hundred of these in
their whole entire city. So.
[1:27:02] » That they know of.
>> That Well, and that that would probably
[1:27:05] be touche for Kaysville City.
>> Cuz I'll tell you in every community
[1:27:07] that I'm aware of there are ADUs there
that
[1:27:11] » They don't have to.
>> that were never really permitted.
[1:27:13] » sure. So yeah, I know.
>> I'll tell you if you want to speak
[1:27:15] » If you want to speak to maybe what
Layton's setbacks are.
[1:27:19] » Come on up Brad. Do you have any any
>> I mean you're here so
[1:27:23] » input on setbacks or height?
>> Yeah, and I'm happy to do this at the
[1:27:27] same time I don't work here yet and so I
do want to be respectful of your debate
[1:27:32] as well as the general public and their
comments and so
[1:27:35] um that's why I've been kind of just
taking everything in and I don't want to
[1:27:38] jump chime in
and make sure that everybody else's
[1:27:41] comments were were
um so just to hear where
[1:27:46] Layton City does allow um
detached accessory dwelling units in the
[1:27:51] side yard and in the rear yard.
Um
[1:27:54] for if they're in the side yard to
Commissioner Fowler's point, they have
[1:27:57] to meet the same setbacks as the
residence. Um they have to meet the same
[1:28:01] rear setback as the residence.
And then if it's a
[1:28:06] So you know, for if it's a single story
same minimum side setbacks as the
[1:28:10] primary dwelling, same rear setback as
the primary dwelling. If it's a
[1:28:14] two-story, then it's a 10-ft side
setback, but then it's still the same
[1:28:18] rear setback. If it's just in the rear
yard area,
[1:28:21] then it's a minimum side setback of 5 ft
if it's a single story or 10 10 ft if
[1:28:26] it's a two-story.
And then for
[1:28:29] the rear yard, it would be a rear yard
setback of 10 ft. So, it's kind of your
[1:28:33] point of sure a lot. Um
and also or or if it's two stories, then
[1:28:38] 20 ft. So, like you know, maybe you
push your pattern having that distance
[1:28:42] setback further from that rear property
line. Those are some things to consider.
[1:28:48] Also, I was you know, just mentioning to
Jason that
[1:28:51] some of the concerns and and I
understand the concerns that were
[1:28:54] mentioned about the design criteria.
The state has really kind of put us in a
[1:28:59] tough position because this the the
part of state code that they have
[1:29:03] referenced
and the building materials that we
[1:29:06] cannot and the design standards that we
can't regulate, one of those things is
[1:29:10] the placement of windows.
And that's building materials. And so,
[1:29:13] some of the concerns that were brought
up and I think that they're valid
[1:29:16] concerns about what the materials look
like and where those windows are going
[1:29:19] to be.
Our hands are tied at this at the moment
[1:29:23] for where we can replace some of those
things, you know. And so, with that,
[1:29:27] it gets kind of back to what we've all
been saying
[1:29:29] » Okay.
>> kind of limited on height,
[1:29:31] the location when it comes to setbacks
and probably the size of the ADU at this
[1:29:36] point, um you know, unless you know, in
this next legislative session they give
[1:29:40] us a little bit more
uh ability to to regulate those things
[1:29:43] more.
>> Thank you. So, that's an interesting uh
[1:29:47] way to do it where if it's a one-story,
this, if it's a two-story, that.
[1:29:52] Rather than add a foot, gain a foot,
sort of thing.
[1:29:56] » It'd be a little easier to keep track.
>> That might be a little little simpler.
[1:30:01] Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[1:30:02] » Thank you. And um
as we do our drafting, I hope we will
[1:30:08] please use the language the state did
provide in 10-21-304-4
[1:30:15] where we may take into account the
proximity of property lines,
[1:30:21] easements, and window orientation.
Let's Let's Let's put that in our
[1:30:26] ordinance so that when things come
before this body or
[1:30:32] the building department, that window
orientation, particularly on a two-story
[1:30:36] structure, is a consideration, which the
state's provided us. We shouldn't
[1:30:42] exclude that from any draft ordinance.
Let's give ourselves the ability to uh
[1:30:49] direct as to that, and then also be
designed consistent with the design of
[1:30:55] the single-family dwelling,
understanding the conflict.
[1:31:01] For now,
let's let's include
[1:31:05] We certainly couldn't be
We're just including what the
[1:31:09] legislature's language is. They're not
going to
[1:31:18] » I'm wondering if we could um kind of go
back to the draft and just, you know,
[1:31:27] I made some notes as as you took us
through it, Will.
[1:31:31] Um kind of the first question marks
for me show up at
[1:31:37] number three.
Um
[1:31:41] let's see.
D A D U's must meet the following, and
[1:31:44] then we hit the
Roman numeral three.
[1:31:50] Does anyone have issue
pre
[1:31:55] to that to that
>> Three. Oh, good catch. Yeah,
[1:31:58] that needs to be
Yeah, that's what That's what we're
[1:32:01] asking how you want to modify.
>> wondering if we just kind
[1:32:05] » through the draft and let us just kind
of say cuz we've kind of spelled out
[1:32:10] maybe what we're looking for and let's
just start pinning down some things and
[1:32:13] if there's anything
>> That's good.
[1:32:15] » that's not in there, we can add it just
so we can get to a motion.
[1:32:19] » Yeah, that'd be good.
>> Awesome.
[1:32:21] So, if we're we're on that Roman numeral
three and we don't want it to conform to
[1:32:26] setback requirements for accessory
structures,
[1:32:30] we want it to
um do we want to say
[1:32:34] um have an 8-ft
rear setback for a single story?
[1:32:42] » I don't know after listening to
our Brad,
[1:32:47] I'm wondering if we should.
[1:32:51] » Yeah, or or perhaps uh
chair, the uh
[1:32:55] conform to existing zoning regulations
with the following changes. So, we we
[1:33:03] pork barrel this in and then you
amend
[1:33:08] however you wish from there like
10-ft setback or
[1:33:13] for single family and X setback for
two-story, but we start here.
[1:33:20] So,
>> So, you're saying each zoning would have
[1:33:22] a a different setback?
>> Sure, cuz that's what I bought per
[1:33:26] That's what I bought when I bought my
home.
[1:33:30] » But, I I kind of I know that's what we
>> latent's doing to an extent, right?
[1:33:34] » That would be a little restrictive.
[1:33:42] » Cuz [laughter] if I'm in Mr. Packer's
neighborhood, I'm not, but if I have 5
[1:33:46] acres,
my
[1:33:49] minimum side yard is this. If I'm in
another neighborhood, my minimum side
[1:33:54] yard is that. And so, I can expect when
I notice my neighbor starting to build a
[1:34:00] foundation in their backyard, that it's
about this far from
[1:34:07] my home.
[1:34:11] » I don't That's not how I interpreted
that, that we would just go straight
[1:34:15] with the zoning residential zoning
setbacks, but that we would specify
[1:34:22] a smaller setback
[1:34:27] as a
as a single story.
[1:34:31] And then maybe if it's maybe maybe you
keep the
[1:34:36] the regular zoning setbacks if it's a
second story if there's a second story.
[1:34:42] Does anybody else Did any Did anyone
understand that differently than me?
[1:34:48] I don't know that we're all on the same
page.
[1:34:50] » That's the debate we're having.
>> you're you're just trying to keep a
[1:34:53] universal
uniform throughout the zonings where
[1:34:57] Commissioner Toller wants to be
conditional per the zoning?
[1:35:02] Is that what we're Is that what we're
looking at?
[1:35:06] » Um
[1:35:09] Well,
I Yes, I think I'm I'm do I'm kind of in
[1:35:13] my mind just let's set a
a setback
[1:35:18] for single story, a setback for
two story,
[1:35:22] not conditional to zoning. Okay.
[1:35:28] I tend to
That's where I was.
[1:35:31] » That's where you are?
>> Mhm.
[1:35:34] » I I reckon I thank you. I respect the
opinion. I just think
[1:35:38] we're
we have a mandate from the legislature
[1:35:43] to allow accessory dwelling units.
We don't have a mandate from the
[1:35:48] legislature
to alter the character of our
[1:35:51] neighborhoods or start building homes or
dwelling units or whatever we call them
[1:35:58] closer to one another than we currently
do.
[1:36:02] I recognize I may have the minority
opinion, but I don't think so when um
[1:36:09] » Well, you can
>> things start being built,
[1:36:12] um
there'll be public clamor.
[1:36:15] » I I see what you're saying cuz you
purchase for space.
[1:36:19] Right? You don't want to diminish.
>> So, Commissioner Tolaris just go by
[1:36:25] the residential setbacks as
>> This side
[1:36:27] » in code.
Gentlemen, do you have any other
[1:36:31] thoughts on that?
[1:36:34] » I
I I would say that this is a new thing.
[1:36:38] Um like I said, I originally was kind of
under that idea like well, it's you
[1:36:42] know, keep it within the the residential
envelope. Um and then I realized this is
[1:36:49] a new category and everyone who lives in
a property that is larger than 11,000
[1:36:54] square feet needs to
get used to the idea that that there is
[1:37:00] a new category and I I'm not saying, you
know,
[1:37:04] anything goes, of course, but that
um
[1:37:10] it's it's
it's going to happen.
[1:37:14] And it's new to to everyone and
um
[1:37:20] to make it reasonable, I think it's it's
fine to allow
[1:37:26] smaller setbacks.
Um again, that's my my opinion um
[1:37:32] on that and that these are different.
They're I I first I thought of them as
[1:37:36] just another house and now I realize
it's not another house.
[1:37:39] It's a DADU and it's a different
category. So, that's where I my opinion
[1:37:45] differs with with his and I would be
willing to go smaller on those setbacks.
[1:37:49] Um
and I think that would be the
[1:37:56] Yeah, that would be the way I would go.
>> I actually agree with Commissioner
[1:38:00] Toler.
[1:38:03] And
because it's already set up this way in
[1:38:08] in a way
[1:38:11] what we're bringing in would be easier
for landowners to
[1:38:15] and property owners to
adhere to.
[1:38:22] With what Mr. With what Commissioner
Toler
[1:38:25] and his brothers' redlines have said.
[1:38:30] Although there's room for movement
[1:38:34] once we allow room for movement
[1:38:40] we're opening up a whole new book.
Uh can of worms, sorry.
[1:38:47] I don't know the right phrase for that.
[1:38:53] » Okay. Well, um we seem to be a little
bit at odds on
[1:38:59] number three.
So but we certainly don't want to have
[1:39:04] it as conform to setback requirements
for accessory structures because we know
[1:39:10] well, currently that's just not
sufficient.
[1:39:12] » I I think there's Well, I
I suspect there's unanimous consent that
[1:39:18] accessory structures is not the
standard.
[1:39:20] » Right. Right.
>> [clears throat]
[1:39:25] » Okay, so maybe we'll come back to that.
So, I think we're going to stick with
[1:39:30] this um for be just just the wording
that is that you've got there.
[1:39:36] Do you all feel good about that?
>> Yeah.
[1:39:38] » Leave the wording just the way it is so
we're not in any sort of trouble, but we
[1:39:42] can still
ask for it to be designed
[1:39:45] consistent with the dwelling.
Um
[1:39:50] » [clears throat]
>> may not be larger in size than the
[1:39:51] single-family dwelling.
Do we feel comfortable with a 75%
[1:39:58] number?
Does anyone want to throw out a
[1:40:01] different number?
>> I don't know a solution, chair,
[1:40:05] but I can still think of
hypothetical situations where that would
[1:40:10] that would be problematic. Um you have
an old
[1:40:14] you know, 1920s farmhouse and
um
[1:40:20] it's it's already only
800 square feet or something like that
[1:40:23] and you say, you know, it's you know, I
I think that would be very rare, but
[1:40:28] I just wanted to throw that out there as
a possibility that
[1:40:31] but I do like the idea that we have some
kind of
[1:40:34] I just don't know
a better way to say it, so
[1:40:38] maybe that maybe maybe the percentage is
the best way.
[1:40:41] » Percentage of land?
[1:40:45] » Yeah, I I think what you're describing
is the barn dominium. It's bigger than
[1:40:49] the house, but it feels appropriate cuz
it's on 5 acres or 3 acres or something.
[1:40:54] That I I can see that possibility.
Um
[1:40:57] » The main structure becomes the carriage
house.
[1:41:00] » Yes. Yes. Um
so
[1:41:03] » So what's the
>> Perhaps
[1:41:05] » I have no solution. I just wanted to
mention that.
[1:41:07] » Right.
>> Yeah, perhaps that's one
[1:41:10] » But then I
>> area where we do rely on
[1:41:13] on the zoning.
Um
[1:41:16] if it were in a uh
an A5
[1:41:20] that the 70 or 75% rule may not apply
because of my land use, but that's
[1:41:28] that's muddying the waters. I do think
um a a great starting place is 70 or
[1:41:34] 75%.
>> I'm just curious if I can ask Brad, are
[1:41:38] you
aware of any size
[1:41:42] limitations in other communities that
you've worked with?
[1:41:45] » Um yeah, I've been having regular
meetings with the planning department
[1:41:48] with detached accessory dwelling units
in other communities as well, not just
[1:41:51] Layton City.
Um typically I've seen 50% of the square
[1:41:55] footage of the the primary residence.
Or
[1:41:59] another number, whichever is less,
right? So, for example, um
[1:42:04] you know, it could be
50% of the square footage of the primary
[1:42:07] residence or 1,200 sq ft, whichever is
less. And so, then that's how that is
[1:42:12] when we have somebody come in,
we would probably look at the county
[1:42:14] records and say, "This is what the
square footage of that home is. You can
[1:42:18] go to 50% or 1,200 sq ft, but whichever
is the lesser of those two numbers,
[1:42:23] that's what you're stuck to."
Um
[1:42:26] what what might be difficult is is and I
think we'd have to be clear on if we're
[1:42:30] saying the square footage of the home or
the footprint of the home.
[1:42:33] Um
because
[1:42:35] if if we're going to do it use a
percentage, because then you could have
[1:42:38] » Yeah.
>> a debate at the counter, you know, with
[1:42:40] someone that says, "Well,
it just says 50% of my home. The square
[1:42:45] footage of my home is 2,000 sq ft, but
the footprint of my home is only 1,000."
[1:42:49] Well, I'm just
using those numbers for simplicity's
[1:42:51] sake.
>> Okay.
[1:42:52] » And so, we probably won't want to look
at that and then
[1:42:55] that as a commission determine if you
want to base it as on the footprint of
[1:42:58] the home.
If you do that, then
[1:43:01] that may mean
helps with the visual impact what you've
[1:43:05] got around it, because you can see what
the footprint of the home is and then
[1:43:08] what the footprint of that
uh detached accessory dwelling unit
[1:43:12] might look like. And so, you can kind of
visually see that. If you go with the
[1:43:15] square footage, then you might get a
uh detached accessory dwelling unit
[1:43:19] that's either 75% or the same size as
the footprint of the home.
[1:43:24] Um but it's it's still going to be only
50% of that square footage.
[1:43:28] So, um
>> Okay.
[1:43:30] » My thought would be 50% of the the
footprint of the home as measured from
[1:43:34] like the exterior foundation.
>> Mhm.
[1:43:37] » Again, I'm trying to be very clear so
that that way we know exactly how we're
[1:43:40] regulating this. Or
so we go for percentage or a set number.
[1:43:46] Whether it's 1,200 or 1,500 square feet
and then we say in the code whichever is
[1:43:50] less. So then that way
we're
[1:43:53] holding to the stricture of the two
standards, but we're still giving
[1:43:56] somebody the opportunity to to meet one
of those two.
[1:43:59] » Thank you. And then for our draftsman
the the exhibit A attachment A to what I
[1:44:05] forwarded to you, Wilf, has how Lehi,
Provo, Salt Lake, Ogden, Mill Creek,
[1:44:10] South Jordan, Riverton, and Cottonwood
Heights dealt with this very issue.
[1:44:16] First column.
Whether by percentage, whether by square
[1:44:20] feet, we've got some good examples there
of of how we might address it. Not many
[1:44:27] The only one that's using a percentage
is Riverton. And they're doing it based
[1:44:31] on the lot.
Not not the uh not in relation to the
[1:44:37] dwelling. So
there's some
[1:44:41] choices there.
>> So would it's probably not super
[1:44:44] related, but
if you've got those limitations with the
[1:44:48] footprint or whatever how you want to
figure that out, then maybe the clients
[1:44:53] or the homeowners option is to do an
addition and make it an IADU.
[1:44:58] » Yeah.
>> We have some flexibility that way.
[1:45:01] » Yep.
Yeah, I'm thinking of you know, with
[1:45:04] what Commissioner Packer mentioned, if
you got a really small home
[1:45:08] » Mhm.
>> on that home, maybe the thing to do is
[1:45:11] to add on to the home
rather than build a free standing
[1:45:16] attached ADU.
>> But you can work a internal one into it
[1:45:20] » Mhm.
>> to get the same
[1:45:23] outcome.
[1:45:26] Okay, do we do we want to throw out
a number, a percentage, or something
[1:45:32] different? Does anyone want to
>> I I
[1:45:35] I would say we do, just to say it may
not be larger.
[1:45:39] I think that's but I I like the either
70 or something. I don't know.
[1:45:45] I say we put a number there that's
smaller.
[1:45:47] » the footprint idea. Let's
specify footprint.
[1:45:53] » The footprint would make it a smaller
unit, right? 1,200 square feet or less.
[1:45:58] So, if you had a 4,000 square foot
house, but it's fit in a two-story,
[1:46:03] three-story, whatever. So, you're saying
your footprint's really only 1,500,
[1:46:07] right?
>> it's 70% or if it's 50%
[1:46:11] of the larger lot, we're talking about
footprint only, not square footage. So,
[1:46:17] yeah, so it might be more in a second
story.
[1:46:20] » Mhm.
I see what you're saying.
[1:46:23] So, we really want to just address that
footprint of the whole thing.
[1:46:27] Not going to barn them in
with your 1,900.
[1:46:30] » specific.
>> South Jordan dealt with this issue by
[1:46:35] having us put some more of a burden on
us, but they've said that if it's more
[1:46:40] than 35% of the gross living area or
1,500 square feet, it requires planning
[1:46:46] commission review.
So, that's a one-sy, two-sy approach,
[1:46:51] but
um
[1:46:53] it does give us some more
review opportunity.
[1:46:58] » Well, that does limit if you say a
specific
[1:47:01] the lesser of the two for a person who
has a big home or a big space to work
[1:47:06] with.
Does limit those grievances, I think,
[1:47:10] that those uh
dwelling units are causing right now.
[1:47:24] Okay.
>> Yeah, I I chair I would just say if we
[1:47:27] can't figure out a
something where we're all happy with
[1:47:33] still having something and and the
cleaner and simpler it can be, you know,
[1:47:36] with this first first go around.
Um
[1:47:41] cuz you know, we have lots of great
ideas, but they could be complicated
[1:47:45] with exceptions and things like that and
since we, you know, looking at a
[1:47:49] deadline and and stuff.
>> So, we might recommend Are you saying we
[1:47:53] might recommend to city council we want
to see between 50 to 75%
[1:47:59] of the footprint
and possibly, you know, a minimum or a
[1:48:04] maximum
of 1,200 square feet.
[1:48:08] So, maybe we're not
>> I guess like a a starting line or a base
[1:48:11] where they're going to have to say you
know, here's our minimum and then if we
[1:48:14] decide we need to amend later to have
exceptions or
[1:48:17] or things like
>> I think what the chair just put out is
[1:48:20] reasonable. Salt Lake City limits it to
1,000 square feet.
[1:48:25] 1,200 seems reasonable.
>> 1,200 seems to be the
[1:48:29] » But the the next stop
>> one, but
[1:48:31] » If I understand the next stop for this
document is a city council work meeting.
[1:48:36] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:48:37] » I think we're going to get a lot of
feedback tonight. We're going to get a
[1:48:39] lot of feedback on Thursday and then
we're going to come up with a new draft.
[1:48:44] » Okay. Very good.
>> Yeah.
[1:48:45] » I like the 50%
or 1,200
[1:48:49] » 50% or 1,200
>> of the footprint
[1:48:53] lesser of the two.
>> And the you're speaking the footprint
[1:48:57] » footprint
Right.
[1:49:00] » Yeah, great place to start.
>> Okay, we have something down.
[1:49:06] Okay.
[1:49:11] We agreed on something.
>> [laughter]
[1:49:15] » Okay.
And then
[1:49:18] the next thing that I had question on
and so stop me if we want to
[1:49:23] hit anything else is five
A.
[1:49:27] Do we want to have no more than
one IADU or DADU? Do we feel comfortable
[1:49:35] with that or do you want to allow
both?
[1:49:38] » I'm okay with both.
>> Yeah.
[1:49:40] » As long as the second one
>> with both if they fit the setbacks.
[1:49:44] » So you're okay with both. You're okay
with leaving it as is.
[1:49:47] » I'm okay with both.
>> You're okay too with both. Anybody any
[1:49:49] other thoughts on allowing that?
>> No more than one would be where I'm at.
[1:49:55] » than one.
[1:50:02] » I would be I would
Again, I can think of examples where
[1:50:07] having both would be
manageable.
[1:50:14] I'm not completely sold on it but I I
wouldn't It's not a hill I'm going to
[1:50:19] I'm going to fight on like
>> Okay. Well, maybe we'll leave it as is
[1:50:24] for now.
>> Yeah, I'm fine with one if we need it.
[1:50:27] » Okay.
>> Change it later.
[1:50:31] » Um
what am I missing?
[1:50:36] » Um E.
63 E.
[1:50:39] » Good with owner occupied.
>> I don't like 30 consecutive days. I
[1:50:42] think it should be at least 90.
>> Oh, here we go. E. 90. Do you all feel
[1:50:48] good about 90?
>> Yes.
[1:50:50] » Yeah.
>> Okay, we have consensus on 90.
[1:50:59] And then I guess we just don't really
have Oh, let's see.
[1:51:06] It's just the uh
three B two where we're kind of landing.
[1:51:12] is that right?
Where it has height.
[1:51:16] And
lot coverage and then three for the
[1:51:20] setbacks. Is that kind of our sticky
point?
[1:51:24] » That's our sticky point. But I did have
one other issue.
[1:51:27] » 381.
>> Are we sticking with the 11,000?
[1:51:31] » Oh, 11,000. Did you want to reduce that
or leave it?
[1:51:35] » Um
Do you feel okay if we switch it to
[1:51:39] 10,000 to open up more opportunity?
>> I'd prefer 10,000.
[1:51:43] » You have R10, R110?
>> I'm good with that.
[1:51:46] » Okay.
[1:51:48] » Um Commissioner Artola, I think it was
you that said on
[1:51:52] 5F, I think it is what it is.
The owner of the lot or parcel must be
[1:51:58] residing in the single-family.
All right, that that was an issue for
[1:52:02] you. So,
can we go ahead and
[1:52:04] » I don't want to build an an auxiliary
dwelling unit and move out and I've
[1:52:09] created an income property duplex in a
single-family zone.
[1:52:13] Not not what the legislature intends.
We have a recital that I proposed that
[1:52:22] that makes that clear. Whereas the
stated purpose of the legislature's
[1:52:27] accessory dwelling unit is to increase
the supply of long-term housing.
[1:52:33] And
that that makes clear that hey, we
[1:52:37] didn't intend this to be
we're going to build
[1:52:41] uh
two or more
[1:52:43] uh two units in a single-family zone and
then make them rentals and move on.
[1:52:50] » So, that's already in there. It's okay
as is.
[1:52:54] » Yeah, isn't that the
same as ADUs?
[1:52:58] » Okay.
I just wanted to double-check that cuz
[1:53:01] » Thank you. Yeah.
[1:53:07] » Okay, so we've got 10,000 square feet.
[1:53:11] » Uh right. I'm trying.
>> And now we just need setbacks.
[1:53:16] » Setbacks.
[1:53:38] » Yeah, I I don't know that we're going to
We're we're never going to agree
[1:53:42] completely, and that's okay um on
setbacks.
[1:53:45] » Yes.
>> Um
[1:53:48] and we do have that
small comfort of knowing that the city
[1:53:53] council is the one that actually has to
to make the final decision, but
[1:53:56] » Can [laughter] we Can we Can we narrow
it down and give them maybe a range?
[1:54:02] » Yeah, I you know
>> that we're looking for.
[1:54:05] » And and
>> I think rear setback can go to at least
[1:54:09] 10 ft if not 8.
I don't think it has to match the
[1:54:15] zoning. I think that's going to limit
people. But that is just my opinion.
[1:54:19] » No, I agree with that.
>> Do you like Layton's better than the
[1:54:22] other like
>> Yes.
[1:54:29] But
they're decent though.
[1:54:34] Okay. I wonder um
if there is language that we could
[1:54:41] include in there to maybe look at other
city codes for for the setbacks.
[1:54:48] So if we
>> And have half of the setback.
[1:54:53] So no more than half of the setback.
>> That would be 7 ft.
[1:54:57] » Okay.
>> That's less than 8.
[1:54:59] » Uh perhaps uh
Chairman perhaps
[1:55:02] » It's a little cringey for me.
>> This is an area
[1:55:05] » where
um
[1:55:08] we take the approach South Jordan did is
if there is since we're creating a a
[1:55:13] dwelling unit
if there's variance
[1:55:17] from
these setbacks that that requires review
[1:55:21] by this body.
Might be one way to deal with it.
[1:55:25] » but it's not a dwelling unit. It's an
accessory dwell dwelling unit. There's a
[1:55:29] difference. We're talking like a
mother-in-law's apartment. It's For me,
[1:55:34] it's different, but
>> We are talking about rear setbacks right
[1:55:37] now, right?
>> No, reg- regardless of what you call it,
[1:55:41] someone's living there, coming going,
looking out their windows. You're
[1:55:45] creating a home
in my backyard
[1:55:50] that that will have a setback.
We've heard quite a bit from the public
[1:55:55] tonight about concerns with setbacks and
privacy.
[1:56:00] And I think we're asking for trouble if
we vary from what the existing zoning
[1:56:06] districts have.
I've made my point more than twice. I
[1:56:09] apologize, but you know where I'm at.
>> The one one
[1:56:16] caution I might have to what
um
[1:56:19] Paul is is suggesting to perhaps have a
review
[1:56:24] if it varies
is that the state code, the bill that
[1:56:27] was passed says that you cannot make
ADUs conditional uses.
[1:56:33] » Mhm.
>> While we're not calling it a conditional
[1:56:35] use, it's pretty similar to what we
would be doing for a conditional use if
[1:56:40] that
>> Yeah, I the review process would be
[1:56:42] messy. I'm just
>> Yeah.
[1:56:43] » I was looking for a compromise, but
perhaps there's a way.
[1:56:48] » Good point.
Uh 10 ft.
[1:56:52] I don't know.
12 ft.
[1:56:56] What are we at? 15? normally?
>> to like the um
[1:56:59] » 15?
>> The ideas that Layton has, they seemed
[1:57:03] reasonable to me.
I can't quote them off the top of my
[1:57:07] head, you know. It's been a minute.
>> Okay. Yeah, but I think in a motion, you
[1:57:12] could recommend that you align with
Layton City code. If you want to be
[1:57:18] specific, maybe you can't say what it
is. But you could say instead of
[1:57:25] number three here, we're going to ask
that it come back
[1:57:30] looking like, you know, the setbacks in
in this city's code.
[1:57:37] If somebody were to
make a motion.
[1:57:43] I mean, if you start if anybody's
mulling that over in their head.
[1:57:48] That you could it could be achieved
perhaps.
[1:57:53] And it may or may not fly, but
we could always try.
[1:58:01] Is there anything else you want to um
hash out? Anything that you
[1:58:05] So, I have made some adjustments to
allow 10,000 sq ft or larger.
[1:58:13] Um
we're going to look at
[1:58:17] I mean, potentially
Layton's
[1:58:20] code as
um setbacks.
[1:58:24] We definitely want to be design
consistent with the original dwelling.
[1:58:30] We're looking at per- perhaps not to
exceed 50% or 1,200 sq ft
[1:58:36] of the footprint of the original.
Excuse me. Not to exceed 50% of the
[1:58:41] footprint or 1,200 which is whichever is
smaller.
[1:58:46] And
[1:58:49] rented not to exceed 90 not or no less
than 90 consecutive days.
[1:58:55] » And only one unit, is that what we
decided?
[1:58:58] » Yes.
>> Yes, one accessory.
[1:59:01] And leaving it as no more than one.
That's a that leaves it, right?
[1:59:12] And I guess the other thing that we
didn't discuss is window placement, so
[1:59:15] we can or we can't?
>> Um we may according to the state code,
[1:59:21] but
>> potential.
[1:59:23] » Sorry about that.
I could With that limiting it also
[1:59:28] limits, you know, somebody trying to do
two
[1:59:32] dwellings, exterior dwellings on there.
Just by saying it's you can either do an
[1:59:38] internal one or an external one, but
just one.
[1:59:41] » Yeah, one.
>> what you're saying?
[1:59:43] But then they could do accessory
buildings.
[1:59:46] » No more than one.
>> Say that again.
[1:59:48] Mhm, so okay.
>> They can't have both at once.
[1:59:50] » have one ADU
Yeah, they can't have both, but like
[1:59:54] what if they wanted to make two
outdoor
[1:59:58] ADUs?
>> Oh, does that not
[2:00:00] » detached ADUs.
>> Does that apply that?
[2:00:01] » Does that Does that keep it limited
there?
[2:00:04] » Yeah.
>> No more than one
[2:00:06] » Yeah.
>> of this or one of that.
[2:00:08] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:00:11] » One dwelling.
>> Yeah.
[2:00:14] » One dwelling One dwelling unit One
dwelling unit is all.
[2:00:18] » Yeah.
>> You just get one.
[2:00:20] » I'm not sure it states
>> that language is right.
[2:00:22] » Pick your poison.
[2:00:26] And or
and
[2:00:30] » Okay.
[2:00:39] Should I attempt a motion?
Kind of scared.
[2:00:44] I mean, this This big This is a big one.
>> It a little scary.
[2:00:48] » And and
but it's not a it's not a finished
[2:00:50] product exactly. I mean there's still
work to be done.
[2:00:55] » Oh boy. Okay.
Let's see.
[2:01:02] I would like to make a motion
that we
[2:01:09] send forth the recommendation of the
ordinance as written with the following
[2:01:14] adjustments.
Um
[2:01:18] that
Do I have to like have all of the
[2:01:22] numbers with it?
3A the allowance be 10,000 square feet
[2:01:29] um lots.
Um that we refer to Layton's code for
[2:01:35] setback
requirements, which is
[2:01:40] 3B.
>> 3E. I don't think we need the section
[2:01:44] number.
>> [laughter]
[2:01:47] » I'm about to pass out. Okay.
Um
[2:01:52] that we also
as written that the design be consistent
[2:01:57] with the design of the single-family
dwelling
[2:01:59] um which is as written that we allow for
50% of the house footprint or 12,000
[2:02:09] square feet, whichever is smaller.
>> 1,200
[2:02:12] » 1,200
>> 1,200
[2:02:13] » 1,200
>> What's a fan house? I'm tired.
[2:02:17] I'm tired. And that renting um be for no
shorter than 90 days consecutive days.
[2:02:27] » We have a motion.
>> I'll second it.
[2:02:31] » And a second.
>> Okay, we will vote. Um
[2:02:37] Commissioner Packer, we'll start with
you.
[2:02:39] » Aye.
>> Aye.
[2:02:41] » Aye.
>> Aye.
[2:02:43] » Aye.
>> Aye.
[2:02:47] » [laughter]
>> Excellent. Okay.
[2:02:50] » Can we write that in the notes? And then
we got a round of applause.
[2:02:53] » Did you get Did you get that?
[2:02:57] » Okay.
We are going to move to discussion of
[2:03:02] possible action to review accessory
structure code requirements, and I think
[2:03:08] » We absolutely
>> We've discussed Do we want to go into
[2:03:11] detail? Do you want to bring that up?
>> I mean, I think We just wanted to make
[2:03:14] you aware that we learned through this
process that there are some issues
[2:03:17] there. I mean, we can talk about what
those issues are, but we don't need to
[2:03:22] do that tonight. By What What we do need
from you is a motion to do this so so
[2:03:29] that it actually goes on the record.
>> To get it on the agenda.
[2:03:32] » And that gets it to the point where then
we if we will essentially have 6 months
[2:03:38] to
>> To bring something
[2:03:39] » code and and make any whatever
adjustments
[2:03:42] » already taken out the link, or we would
have if if city council were to
[2:03:48] approve where we take the link out of
the
[2:03:52] DADUs could be using the same setbacks
as the accessory.
[2:03:58] » Right?
>> Yes. Because you you specify
[2:04:01] » eliminate that scare, but we definitely
want to get it on the books.
[2:04:06] » Right. Yeah, I mean, now now we want to
do this for
[2:04:09] for
accessory uh structures in general.
[2:04:13] There are some issues there that I think
we need to work on.
[2:04:16] » accessory structures one foot away.
>> So,
[2:04:20] I would entertain a motion if someone
would like to put one forth to
[2:04:25] uh make an amendment to that code.
>> To consider.
[2:04:29] » To consider.
>> To consider making changes to the
[2:04:33] accessory structure provisions
>> I would like to make a motion.
[2:04:38] So that we can eventually go home that
we
[2:04:42] at a future meeting discuss the possible
action to review accessory
[2:04:46] structure code requirements.
>> I second.
[2:04:53] » Commissioner Moore, we'll start with
you.
[2:04:55] » I.
>> I.
[2:04:58] » I.
>> I.
[2:04:59] » I.
>> I.
[2:05:03] » Very good. That passes.
And
[2:05:08] » Everybody take a big deep breath.
>> We are at other matters.
[2:05:16] Do we have any other matters?
>> Do we have Do we have to approve the
[2:05:18] minutes?
>> Approve the minutes.
[2:05:20] » Oh, did I skip one?
Okay.
[2:05:23] All right. Does anyone want to make a
motion to Does any
[2:05:27] » Does anybody review the minutes?
[2:05:32] » I'll make a motion that we approve the
minutes from the July 23rd meeting.
[2:05:37] » Second.
>> And we'll vote all together.
[2:05:42] » I.
>> I.
[2:05:45] » Great.
>> Other matters.
[2:05:48] » Wow.
>> Okay. Um
[2:05:52] Really the only matters Well, a couple
of things. This is Anne's last night.
[2:05:57] » [applause]
[2:06:00] » So she put
>> applauding. Don't clap for that.
[2:06:03] » They're saying good job.
>> So we appreciate um the two years, just
[2:06:07] a little over two years.
[2:06:10] » I know you're leaving the state, Anne.
Remind us where.
[2:06:13] » Uh I'm moving to the East Coast,
northern Virginia specifically.
[2:06:17] » Wow.
>> Things are much easier back there.
[2:06:21] » [laughter]
[2:06:24] » Well, at least for now.
>> Anne's been with us for two years um
[2:06:28] and it's been a delight
[2:06:33] to have her work next to me.
So, she'll be great where she's going.
[2:06:38] And we will work on getting a new
a new employee soon. I'm not sure how
[2:06:43] long that's going to take, but we're
going to find the right one. So,
[2:06:47] I'm just thank her
for trusting and getting to know us
[2:06:52] Kaysville
people because we love our Kaysville and
[2:06:55] and she's I think learned to love us,
too.
[2:06:58] » And it's such a credit to Ann. Tomorrow
was her last day and she's here tonight.
[2:07:01] She hasn't checked out for a second.
She's with us to the bitter end and I
[2:07:06] just think that shows a lot of
professionalism.
[2:07:08] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Ann.
[2:07:10] » Good for her.
>> Um and then yes, hopefully Brad will be
[2:07:13] starting with us. I'm pretty sure it's a
done deal. So, August 31st
[2:07:18] I think he did okay tonight. I think
he'll be all right. It was kind of like
[2:07:21] his like a fourth interview he didn't
know about. It was pretty brutal hazing
[2:07:25] » It was his audition.
>> Yeah. Yeah, it was just a little bit of
[2:07:28] hazing. I think he did all right. So, um
on August 31st he'll be joining our team
[2:07:33] and we look forward to having him um
come be a part of Kaysville City with
[2:07:37] us.
[2:07:42] I'm sorry I'm so emotional.
Um
[2:07:46] And then we have the APA conference
coming up in October, September, one of
[2:07:51] these months in the fallish time.
I just got [snorts] to get through
[2:07:54] August and then we can talk the rest of
the year. So, September if you're
[2:07:58] interested in going, please um just on
the text thread, let me know. Just APA
[2:08:03] thumbs up or whatever um and I'll get
you registered. And then the ULUI, I
[2:08:07] believe, is in October. So, um
I believe if we register for the APA,
[2:08:12] the more that we have registered Did you
send me that?
[2:08:16] That we get a discount. It's a little
bit cheaper the more of us that that
[2:08:21] sign up for that. So,
>> And and that's local, right? Here we go.
[2:08:25] » To the Davis Conference Center.
>> Very good.
[2:08:27] » Okay.
>> Pretty good commute, can't beat it. You
[2:08:29] know.
Could ride your bike there if you
[2:08:32] wanted. Um
>> Wait, you can't feel hotels?
[2:08:35] » [laughter]
[2:08:37] » Now you're pushing it.
Um
[2:08:41] And then oh, we do have a variance
coming on our agenda on the 27th. Do you
[2:08:46] want to talk just a little bit about
that?
[2:08:49] » Nope, we're not going to talk about it.
>> We're not I [laughter] am going to send
[2:08:52] out um
there's a a guidebook on being an appeal
[2:08:57] authority cuz I think that's going to be
new for all of us. So, I've I'll send
[2:09:00] that out tomorrow and you can kind of
read about what some training that the
[2:09:04] Land Use Institute's given on being an
appeal authority. So
[2:09:07] » And maybe just remind just what you put
in the text as far as
[2:09:11] » Oh, yeah. Um basically, yeah, we're
we're not going to talk about it between
[2:09:14] now and then because you're you're
acting kind of as a judge. So, you want
[2:09:18] to just base it on the evidence that you
hear that night. So, um try not to talk
[2:09:22] about it with neighbors or me or anyone.
And we'll just
[2:09:26] » You can talk to me. I have no clue
what's going on.
[2:09:27] » don't talk to Mandy.
>> [laughter]
[2:09:29] » Let's just we'll just come and hear the
evidence and then you'll make your
[2:09:32] decision and that's how it goes.
>> is that happening?
[2:09:35] » The next meeting. Yeah, and we'll try to
keep that agenda light. We're trying to
[2:09:39] push everything off until Brad's on, but
um that one will be fine.
[2:09:44] » use permit that um applied yesterday.
It's for a preschool.
[2:09:48] » Okay.
>> And then she's wanting to open it for
[2:09:50] the first obviously to start that week.
So, I think
[2:09:54] » Throw them on.
>> Those are pretty simple. If that's okay,
[2:09:58] we put that on the agenda.
>> Yeah, absolutely. That'll be
[2:10:00] » [snorts]
>> All right, you guys. I think that's
[2:10:05] all from us.
>> If I can add one thing just real quick,
[2:10:08] I just thought about this.
>> I have to say something.
[2:10:10] » Oh.
>> You did a good job. Thank you very much
[2:10:12] for your efforts.
>> Thank you very much.
[2:10:15] » Yes.
>> On on looking at the accessory
[2:10:18] structures ordinance code, by doing
this, you know, we talked about how this
[2:10:22] is a moratorium, not really a
moratorium. The issue really becomes, I
[2:10:26] mean, we don't intend to stop things
like people putting tough sheds in their
[2:10:30] backyards and things like that. And yet
by saying we're looking at the accessory
[2:10:34] structures,
it kind of opens the possibility that
[2:10:37] that might change.
You know, I don't know how we give
[2:10:41] someone that assurance, but I think we
want to
[2:10:43] try to figure out at a staff level if
somebody comes in and they says, "I want
[2:10:47] to buy I want to put in a tough shed."
We tell them, "Look, we're looking at
[2:10:51] the ordinance, but we're probably not
going to change that part of it, so
[2:10:54] you're probably okay in going ahead."
But,
[2:10:59] that probably makes Katie nervous cuz
she's going to be like, "Well, what if
[2:11:02] we do wind up changing it and then we
told them that we weren't going to
[2:11:05] change it."
Um, you know, I our intent really is to
[2:11:08] look at bigger accessory structures,
but um, you never know, I guess.
[2:11:14] » Yeah, hopefully putting it where most of
it's going to take place over the
[2:11:18] winter, we won't have as many.
>> Yeah.
[2:11:20] » So, it's good timing.
[2:11:24] Hopefully we have a winter.
[2:11:29] » Okay. Is there nothing else?
>> You can.
[2:11:32] » It's all the motions.
>> All right. Adjourned.
[2:11:38] » Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
[2:11:40] » Thank you
so much.
[2:11:42] » Thanks.
>> Cheers.
[2:11:44] » Yeah.