[0:00] This conference will now be recorded.

[0:10] » September 4th.

[0:11] and it is 9:30 a.m. We

[0:15] welcome anyone listening

[0:18] to we're glad you're here.

[0:21] >> There's a few

[0:26] off here. So, um,

[0:29] as you all know, uh, SP84 requires us to

[0:34] adopt, uh, a text amendment by October

[0:37] 1st,

[0:38] um, to allow for detached accessory

[0:41] dwelling units. And we've had, uh, to

[0:44] council, it's not through planning

[0:45] commission. Uh, it's such a, it's quite

[0:49] a big um project. And so the way we try

[0:54] to approach it here kind of based on

[0:56] some feedback and council wrers kind of

[0:58] I think hit it right on the head that we

[1:00] need to sit down on a table and kind of

[1:02] just read through this point by point.

[1:05] And so uh what we have in front of you

[1:08] here is a spreadsheet to kind of work

[1:10] through and guide us through the

[1:12] discussion. And the spreadsheet's got

[1:15] about 23 policy points to kind of go

[1:19] through one by one. And I don't know

[1:21] that we need to get through every one of

[1:22] them, but I think certainly there's some

[1:25] big ones like, you know, what lot size

[1:28] do you want to hit and and uh footprint,

[1:31] you know, uh size for structures. And

[1:36] I've kind of organized these by

[1:38] priority. So, you know, starting with

[1:40] lot size and minimum uh footprint or

[1:43] maximum footprint, things like that. And

[1:46] then you can see the first column is

[1:49] what does the state law actually require

[1:52] uh for allow and then what does the

[1:55] planning commission said so far what's

[1:57] the council input then so far and then

[1:58] there's another column that's kind of

[2:00] additional points they consider um

[2:03] obviously again we're under this kind of

[2:05] strict timeline to adopt something by

[2:07] October 1st so my thought is I know this

[2:12] is going to be something that's going to

[2:14] take many months to continue to tweak,

[2:16] look at, see what works, what doesn't

[2:18] work. Um, and then it sounds like the

[2:22] state very likely to have another

[2:24] iteration of this in the next

[2:26] legislative session. So, whatever we

[2:28] adopt is likely to change anyway. Um, so

[2:31] one one possible approach to this is we

[2:35] don't have a lot of concern about these.

[2:37] Um, we don't know the full impact. So we

[2:40] could start with a very restrictive

[2:43] approach to begin with and then as time

[2:45] allows over the next several months we

[2:47] continue to see what looks what works

[2:49] what doesn't work and then we can always

[2:52] ease up on those restrictions. It's a

[2:53] lot harder to allow something then pull

[2:56] back rather than start restrictive and

[2:57] then genuinely

[3:00] um allow you know more. So

[3:04] >> Jason, can I make a comment to that? Um,

[3:07] so I

[3:08] >> Okay, over the last few years, obviously

[3:10] I we've known this is coming and so I

[3:12] did want us to have an ADU ordinance in

[3:14] place for this reason. So that we

[3:16] wouldn't be up against a a deadline and

[3:18] now opinion that we probably don't truly

[3:21] want long term. But that being said,

[3:24] this is where we're at. Um, I do want to

[3:27] say that being restricted is good, but I

[3:29] there are so many people that have built

[3:32] extension buildings with the

[3:33] anticipation that they could turn into.

[3:37] I've talked to at least five, you know,

[3:39] so many, but five people, including like

[3:41] ourselves, my my own family, where we

[3:44] were hoping to be able to do a second

[3:46] story, which I think is appropriate in

[3:48] some areas on some lots. And so as we're

[3:50] looking at this restrictive and being

[3:52] conservative, I do want to make sure

[3:54] that we have a carveout for for

[3:56] situations that maybe are unique or you

[3:59] know there's so people can do that if

[4:01] they want to. We've had situations in my

[4:04] own neighborhood where someone built a

[4:05] really tall accessory building and

[4:07] everybody was very upset about it.

[4:09] However, we've allowed that in accessory

[4:12] buildings. And so I think the president

[4:16] has kind of already set for a taller

[4:17] building for various reasons, but I do

[4:20] think that we should be restrictive when

[4:21] we can and be conservative. So

[4:24] I hope our discussion can include the

[4:26] ability to have a second story option if

[4:28] people want it. And I realized that we

[4:32] are under the gun to put something in

[4:35] place. But and the problem with putting

[4:37] something restricting the second story

[4:39] at this point is a lot of people I'm

[4:42] sure more than five have already

[4:43] anticipated that we would do this. And

[4:46] so what I'm going to do over the next

[4:48] month, year, couple years to be able to

[4:51] allow that. So

[4:53] >> I would agree. I agree with you well

[4:55] because I believe some people have built

[4:57] like garages and then they have a space

[4:58] above where they don't have people

[5:01] living in it now but hopefully in the

[5:03] future I feel like um that flexibility

[5:09] be there.

[5:09] >> I mean multigenerational families are a

[5:11] thing right now and and not looked down

[5:14] upon anymore. It's just that's a good

[5:15] idea. It makes financial sense and so I

[5:17] think it's really for our own kids not

[5:19] with the anticipation that these are

[5:20] really going to be rented probably

[5:23] by you know the strangers out there but

[5:26] >> you guys can consider that. So yeah, I

[5:27] think the problem that happens is that a

[5:30] lot of the times if they build your

[5:31] garage for example the and as long as

[5:34] it's behind the house then the um

[5:38] the threshold I mean you can build your

[5:40] garage a foot off of

[5:46] » so we just start we start with middle

[5:53] stories are the second page that's the

[5:57] I'm good with I'm

[6:01] good with the 10,000 square feet of me.

[6:04] Yeah, I mean Well, you want to bump it

[6:06] to 11?

[6:07] >> 11.

[6:08] >> All right, bring it back to 11. Okay,

[6:10] >> real quick. Um, why did the planning

[6:13] commission go to 10,000? Exactly. Is

[6:16] that for reason? And I was like, it's

[6:18] not a big enough issue for me to click

[6:20] to buy.

[6:21] >> It was so that it would correspond with

[6:23] our current lot size things like we have

[6:25] our 110. That's what they said.

[6:27] >> Yeah.

[6:28] >> We have others in the city, but a lot of

[6:31] compliance.

[6:32] >> Can I tell you why I think they used

[6:33] to,000?

[6:35] Because if you look at 99.9% of the

[6:37] zoning ordinances, they have an R110, a

[6:40] 10,000 foot threshold, which includes a

[6:42] lot of lots. I think the legislature

[6:44] said, "Let's do 11 so we can be more

[6:47] restrictive." So it limits the amount

[6:49] that first comes in. I really believe

[6:51] that because they could have easily went

[6:52] 10 or five like they did on the interior

[6:55] or six like they did on interior, but I

[6:57] think they used the 11 because they knew

[6:59] that would still allow them on big lots

[7:02] in an R110 or an R18 subdivision, but

[7:06] there are many, many more R110s in

[7:09] cities than there are 111. It's just not

[7:11] a standard. Mhm. So that's why I say

[7:13] stay low.

[7:16] >> Go ahead.

[7:17] >> Great.

[7:20] » Well, I STILL WANT TO PUT IN MY PLUG FOR

[7:22] reviewing it later because I do think

[7:24] that if there are smaller lots, it's

[7:27] like I not like I don't want to say

[7:28] fair, but I think it makes sense to

[7:29] allow everyone to use their lot if it

[7:31] can comply.

[7:33] >> And and I will say there's not a vast

[7:36] number of lots. Um, if we went down to

[7:39] 10,000, I there's virtually no R110 on

[7:42] the west side of Kidsville. There's a

[7:44] lot of R110 kind of down in the south.

[7:47] Uh, well, across from Davis Golf Course,

[7:50] there's a bunch. Um, and then down

[7:52] across from Cherry Hill, there's a

[7:53] bunch. And that's pretty much most of

[7:55] it. There's a little pocket up by Hot

[7:57] Hollow. And most of those R110 lots, I'd

[8:00] say half of them, just eyeballing it,

[8:02] are probably actually under 11,000. and

[8:04] the other half seem to be above 11 even

[8:06] though that's R110. So again, not

[8:09] [laughter] talking about a huge number,

[8:10] but yes. So 11,000. So spitting it out

[8:14] there, this is going to be an ordinance

[8:16] meaning that as long as the person

[8:18] qualifies [snorts] for everything that

[8:20] we say today, they don't have to come to

[8:21] counsel. They don't have to do anything.

[8:23] They just have to go through Jim, right?

[8:25] >> But is there is this even a thought just

[8:28] throws it throwing it out there? I may

[8:30] have had time to turn it, but is there a

[8:32] thought of saying, you know, uh that if

[8:35] you don't meet these thresholds, you can

[8:37] still [snorts] bring No, you could bring

[8:41] something to actual be voted on a

[8:43] council like or is that something we

[8:46] would even want to would that tricky

[8:49] because the statute says we can't make

[8:51] unconditional. So, we're kind of

[8:54] allowing what we're can allow and then

[8:56] allowing more. So, it seems like they

[8:58] would like that. But

[8:59] >> could we do an overlay zone? Make a zone

[9:01] that's like

[9:03] >> allowed allowed DADU zone and then

[9:07] they'd have to apply for a reason as

[9:08] opposed to a conditional use

[9:12] >> because that would have to go through.

[9:14] >> That sounds like it's just going to do

[9:16] the same thing.

[9:17] >> I know, but it's not prohibited.

[9:19] >> Um, no problem. The only thing I was

[9:23] thinking is if there was anything that

[9:24] we could put into this into this

[9:26] ordinance that would stay that would

[9:28] stay. You know, for example, someone

[9:31] lives on 10,800

[9:34] that they that they don't that they can

[9:36] actually come to the council and the

[9:38] council can make the decision. But let's just say we get 10 or so or 15

[9:44] come back to us, then let's redo them.

[9:47] >> Sounds great. Sounds great. So 11,000.

[9:50] Perfect. Um okay, next slide is the DAU

[9:54] size. Um this city framework does not

[9:58] prohibit um us from regulating size. So

[10:01] the planning commission said 1,200 foot

[10:04] footprint as the max or I guess it's the

[10:07] lesser of 50% of the primary dwellings

[10:10] footprint for,200. I like 50% of the

[10:13] primary because it gives a smaller

[10:15] >> but let me ask this is that footprint or

[10:18] square footage that I would want to be

[10:21] the footprint of the home because I

[10:22] think what it is is that with a detached

[10:24] accessory going people are going to look

[10:26] at the massing and like they may because

[10:28] a lot of cities they say it's 50% of the

[10:30] square footage of the home and that

[10:31] excludes the garage right and so at

[10:34] least my my thought is that it's people

[10:36] how they compare the size of the

[10:38] detached accessory dwelling unit to the

[10:40] home I would want Well, and I also

[10:42] wanted to [clears throat] define is it

[10:43] 1,200 square foot on the on the DAU is

[10:47] if you go multi stories is that 1,200 on

[10:50] the first floor and 1,200 on the second

[10:51] floor that's a huge house or a total

[10:54] Yeah. square footage.

[10:59] » Yeah. I I think I'd want to go no more

[11:01] than 1,200 f feet because I my thought

[11:04] because of that is that like if I you

[11:06] know when I did some research on you

[11:08] know apartment units and such normally

[11:10] you know you don't get an apartment unit

[11:12] that has three bedrooms if it's 1,200

[11:15] ft² or less and if we want it for a DADU

[11:18] I'm thinking we probably don't want them

[11:20] to have more than two bedrooms because

[11:21] then we're going to turn out to having a

[11:23] parking problem right like there's

[11:25] different bleed over effects so that's

[11:27] where I would think that

[11:28] >> I don't want to go higher

[11:30] So total square footage

[11:33] >> of the living area and not the whole

[11:36] structure.

[11:36] >> But what about basement?

[11:38] >> Yeah. So if it's like

[11:39] >> upgrade, right?

[11:40] >> Right.

[11:41] >> Yeah. And that's the other thing we tal

[11:42] you talked about with the council like

[11:44] basement. So that's another question

[11:46] like say if they you know we were

[11:48] talking about like what if there's a

[11:49] garage and it's a loft.

[11:50] >> Yeah. Would you say 1,200 square feet of

[11:52] the living area of that? And you know

[11:55] like if the people are parking in that

[11:57] garage that are living in the DU then

[12:00] that would probably be appropriate

[12:03] >> of livable square footage, 1200 livable.

[12:06] >> Yeah.

[12:07] >> 50%

[12:07] >> above grade livable or

[12:09] >> I would like that. A lot of people

[12:11] realize that

[12:14] livable you realize that's a 30 by 40.

[12:19] That's big.

[12:21] just saying that.

[12:22] >> Yeah, but you still you still have the

[12:23] setbacks. I mean, people are still

[12:26] restrictive on the setbacks. That's what

[12:28] people are really upset about

[12:32] to exceed 1,200.

[12:33] >> Yeah. Other cities that do like,000

[12:36] square feet.

[12:37] >> Um

[12:38] >> Oh, thank you, mayor. If you feel more

[12:40] comfortable with that, but

[12:41] >> that do what?

[12:43] [clears throat]

[12:43] >> 1,000 square feet, 50% or 1,000 square

[12:47] feet, whichever is less.

[12:50] There's others that that even go higher

[12:52] than that. They go up to like 1500

[12:53] square feet which I like going above

[12:55] the,200 I think is maybe the max that

[12:59] like

[12:59] >> I mean Jim tell you that most of the

[13:02] four level splits you see out in Oakidge

[13:03] Highlands and all that they're less than

[13:06] 1200 square foot footprint.

[13:08] So they're like all the four level

[13:11] splits you see in Oakidge Highland and

[13:13] all those. Try to picture two of those

[13:15] on one lot.

[13:19] » 50% of the house. You can do the 50%

[13:21] house but not exceeding the 1200 square.

[13:25] >> That's Yeah, that's the thing. Yeah,

[13:26] whichever is the smaller.

[13:28] >> So you can have a bigger ADU than your

[13:29] house.

[13:31] >> That's what I'm saying. And that's totally fine.

[13:33] >> As long as you can't, right?

[13:35] >> 50% of your house. And that's where I

[13:36] think maybe that that's where we're

[13:38] covered is that if if we say it's 50% of

[13:40] the square footage of the footprint of

[13:42] the house, then

[13:45] >> the only way we're going to get a 12,200

[13:47] foot one is if the house is a really big

[13:49] house,

[13:49] >> right?

[13:50] >> Yeah.

[13:53] » Okay. Okay. Just to be clear, it's the

[13:55] lesser of 50% of the square footage of

[13:58] the primary structure of the footprint

[14:00] of the primary structure [clears throat]

[14:02] is the garage.

[14:05] [laughter]

[14:05] >> I I wouldn't mind having in the code

[14:07] that says like footprint and then in

[14:09] parentheses including the garage just to

[14:11] be completely correct.

[14:14] >> So if you added uh extended your garage

[14:17] right before you could make a bigger.

[14:22] So Jim, what would the typical

[14:25] based upon what we were just talking

[14:26] about? This typical ADU will be how big

[14:29] >> because you said you'd have to have a

[14:30] really big house to have a,200 foot.

[14:34] >> You'd have to have at least a 2400 foot

[14:36] house to and you know that's not real

[14:38] that's not a really big house but it

[14:40] hurts it hurts people.

[14:44] Uh

[14:45] >> this is a 24 uh00t

[14:48] footprint house.

[14:49] >> Okay. on an 11,000 foot watt. So that'd

[14:53] be a,200 square foot footprint ADU and

[14:56] it kind of cut off the time but yeah

[14:59] just to give you an idea and hopefully

[15:00] that's right that's

[15:02] >> AI sometimes AI is totally wrong but it

[15:05] looks looks good [laughter]

[15:07] almost all the ramblers in your

[15:09] neighborhood are 24 about 24

[15:11] >> but also that's 800T

[15:16] » that's true because yeah the homes there

[15:18] it's seven floor like if you look at the

[15:20] assessor's office

[15:21] >> it's

[15:23] area.

[15:23] >> Okay.

[15:28] I see what you're saying. So, it's

[15:32] home.

[15:32] >> Okay.

[15:32] >> Right.

[15:34] >> Yeah. And that's that's another thing,

[15:35] too, is that like if you [snorts] look

[15:36] at square footage of like a home where

[15:38] it's on the market or something, you

[15:40] know, they'll usually say that like the

[15:41] home is 2,400 feet, but that always

[15:43] excludes the garage. Like it's it's it's

[15:44] the livable space that they're talking

[15:46] about. So,

[15:47] >> yeah.

[15:48] >> So, so it includes the garage, doesn't

[15:50] it? That would be including the garage.

[15:53] >> It includes

[15:53] >> that does include the garage. The ones

[15:55] in your neighborhood when I was telling

[15:57] you about

[15:58] >> 2100 not included

[16:01] garage is 800 8 900 sometimes.

[16:04] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[16:04] >> So 21 square foot of the house.

[16:08] >> So if you have a if you have a thousand

[16:09] if you have a 2,000 foot home it's only

[16:12] a,000 square foot.

[16:13] >> Yeah.

[16:14] >> And so the ADU can only be a 500 square

[16:16] foot. No be,000

[16:18] >> 50%.

[16:20] >> Yeah. be 50% of the footprint

[16:22] >> 2,000 foot home but the footprints

[16:24] only,000, right?

[16:25] >> Am I understanding that correctly?

[16:27] >> Okay. So then you have a 500 foot ADU

[16:29] and that's liveable space.

[16:32] >> So you can have a garage and then you

[16:34] can put a 500 foot ADU above it

[16:36] >> or you can have a basement.

[16:39] >> Okay.

[16:39] >> Or both that price of building.

[16:44] >> Okay.

[16:45] >> We good on that one?

[16:47] >> Next one is the minimum Uh I don't know

[16:51] this

[16:54] and then the next one height and height

[16:58] and stories I guess we kind of talk

[17:00] about these together

[17:02] >> sounds like we want to talk about an

[17:03] exception maybe possibly for

[17:06] >> a second story not to think the height

[17:08] of the obviously the first house the

[17:10] main house

[17:12] >> um

[17:13] >> is a way to do that that's not too

[17:15] complicated I do think the setbacks

[17:17] matter more than anything else in this

[17:19] conversation.

[17:21] >> Yeah. I I think I've seen a lot of

[17:23] heights where it's 20 uh you know a

[17:26] maximum height of 20 ft

[17:28] >> or you know whichever is less. Yeah.

[17:31] Right. Kind of similar to the 50% right

[17:33] where it's like 20% or the height of the

[17:35] house whichever is less.

[17:37] >> Um you know because if you do have a

[17:39] landlord that's not very tall. Um but

[17:42] yeah, that's I think also what gets

[17:44] tricky about this is that when you have

[17:45] a two-story

[17:47] um as you mentioned like we might have

[17:49] people that already have built these

[17:50] structures that are really close to the

[17:52] property line and so then

[17:55] and I think some of the comments that

[17:56] have come out in the public meetings are

[17:58] well this is going to put somebody's

[18:00] residential unit like right next to my

[18:01] yard or it's one foot off the property

[18:03] line or whatever or you know but well it

[18:06] would have to be more than one foot off

[18:07] the property line you know.

[18:08] >> Yeah. If you have a twotory and let's

[18:09] just say it's 16 ft high, you're going

[18:12] to be minimum 4T anyway, right?

[18:14] >> Just because of because of the height,

[18:16] because of the setback,

[18:17] >> right? So, I think a lot of those

[18:19] concerns have been I'm used to having a

[18:21] dwelling that is 20 plus feet away from

[18:24] my property line and whatnot. Then it's

[18:27] um how I'm trying to figure out like how

[18:29] do we allow the conversion of maybe an

[18:31] existing

[18:33] structure that to have an ADU there, but

[18:35] then still get it set off enough where

[18:38] it's not imposing on the adjacent

[18:40] property. And maybe there's maybe

[18:42] there's some things that we can do where

[18:43] it's like window placement.

[18:44] >> Say, let's limit windows. You can't have

[18:46] windows [clears throat]

[18:47] facing a fence into your neighbor's

[18:49] area.

[18:49] >> Let's talk about windows first because

[18:51] to regulate windows is so tough. But you

[18:53] think about it and you drive down the

[18:55] road cuz people are keep talking about

[18:57] people looking in the bedroom, but every

[19:00] time you drive down the road and there's

[19:02] 8ft setbacks, I guarantee you those

[19:04] people's windows in those houses are 16

[19:07] ft apart and they're already there. So

[19:08] now you're talking about they don't want

[19:10] windows looking into their backyard or

[19:12] whatever and regulating windows. I mean,

[19:16] you know, it's like every subdivision we

[19:18] go in and look at these houses. When you

[19:20] go in there and you're looking doing a

[19:21] final, you're looking at the window,

[19:24] you 16 ft away. It's in every

[19:26] subdivision. And if you have reduced

[19:29] setbacks, five feet, then you're 10 feet

[19:31] away. You know, I was doing an

[19:33] inspection down in Farmington and I was

[19:35] sitting on the second floor of a

[19:36] million-doll home. walked up to check an

[19:39] outlet and I looked at a guy over there

[19:40] working in his computer because they

[19:42] have five foot setbacks 10 feet away. So

[19:45] there are better already there in these

[19:48] houses.

[19:50] >> So so they regulate when well it goes

[19:52] back to the old deal of if we regulate

[19:55] setbacks like the planning commission

[19:57] said if [snorts] it's an eight foot

[19:59] sideyard they have to be at least eight

[20:00] feet from the sideyard. If it's a 15

[20:02] foot rear ride they have to be at least

[20:04] 15 feet from the rear yard. then you're

[20:06] not being any more of of truth than the

[20:09] >> okay

[20:09] >> existing dwellings would have been in

[20:12] the first.

[20:13] >> Okay.

[20:13] >> Yeah.

[20:13] >> Does that

[20:14] >> I like the planning commission's idea of

[20:16] sticking with the setbacks that are

[20:17] required for the existing dwelling in

[20:19] that zone. Anyway,

[20:19] >> I feel like the only area maybe where

[20:21] you could have windows be

[20:24] [clears throat]

[20:25] >> an issue is if we allow second floors.

[20:30] >> Well, it depends on how high your lots

[20:32] build up. Like for example, my lot we

[20:34] built it up quite a bit.

[20:36] >> So people can see we're short, you know,

[20:38] but everyone else can see my yard.

[20:40] [laughter]

[20:45] » I don't know why they can't build up. So

[20:48] I don't I think I just lost my argument.

[20:51] [laughter]

[20:52] >> My point is that

[20:54] >> yeah it depends on the height of the lot

[20:56] obviously but my point is that if you

[20:59] it feels like a way you can satisfy this

[21:02] is to say that if if a first level

[21:06] window traditionally

[21:09] will see the vents or something like

[21:12] that, right? second level window, you

[21:15] know, it your yard is like your kind of

[21:17] private yard or whatever. Maybe uh maybe

[21:20] your, you know, sunbathes or whatever.

[21:23] And that that's the point of like you

[21:25] put something now in the backyard that's

[21:27] going to create like a

[21:29] >> a visual view drop and so

[21:32] >> right.

[21:33] >> Well, they do, but they all look into

[21:35] each other, right? And yeah, you could

[21:37] see the yard from up here. And you know,

[21:39] there's always going to be ways that you

[21:41] can see into the yard. I guess the

[21:44] concept now is

[21:45] >> one of those things that

[21:46] >> that these people, all of these people

[21:48] knew that they were buying the house

[21:49] that had this, but now this has always

[21:52] been the thing like you when you bought

[21:53] your house, you knew that there was

[21:55] going to be a house next to you. You

[21:57] didn't know [clears throat] that when

[21:59] you're doing your backyard that there

[22:01] would eventually be a twostory building

[22:03] that can look into your

[22:05] >> One of the things says it says you

[22:07] cannot regulate rooms. So bedrooms need

[22:11] egress windows. So now you're setting up

[22:14] the city to fail. That's what you're

[22:15] doing. I

[22:16] >> forgot about that.

[22:18] >> Mike, you brought up ones too. Today you

[22:21] can already do a new addition to your

[22:23] house and kind of that whole point of

[22:25] like now you've got maybe an additional

[22:28] there's no realation on the windows.

[22:30] Okay. All right.

[22:30] >> I forgot about that tricky.

[22:33] >> So going back to the like the double

[22:35] stories. So like the setback

[22:37] restrictions we have now. Can we make it

[22:40] more restrictive to where if you wanted

[22:42] to do two stories, we actually pull that

[22:44] farther from the the boundary line and

[22:47] then that would kind of

[22:48] >> Yeah, it's possible. But thing.

[22:50] [clears throat]

[22:50] >> What I've seen with a lot of other ADU

[22:52] ordinances um is that if it's a single

[22:54] story, then the setback could be less

[22:56] than what it is of the primary dwelling,

[22:58] but then if it's a two story, then it's

[23:00] like then you do have to meet the

[23:01] setback of the primary dwelling.

[23:02] >> I think we should discuss that and

[23:03] figure that out cuz I think that would

[23:05] kind of solve some of the issues with

[23:07] the windows.

[23:07] >> And when it comes to like the windows,

[23:09] the we can't regulate the the location

[23:12] placement of windows and doors and

[23:13] things like that except for this type of

[23:16] a situation. So like you know city code

[23:18] did say that we can't regulate those

[23:20] things but it said to conform to setback

[23:22] requirements that may take in account

[23:24] property lines and other structures

[23:26] easements window orientation massing or

[23:28] other elements. So like those things

[23:30] it's it's almost like they're giving us

[23:32] the ability to say that like

[23:34] >> we can regulate those things if it's

[23:36] related to a setback and if if it's a

[23:38] distance away from the property line

[23:40] then we can say where the windows are

[23:41] being located. So, for example, if

[23:43] there's already an accessory building on

[23:45] property and they want to make the

[23:46] second floor ADU and it's an exist

[23:48] existing building,

[23:50] >> then we can regulate where the windows

[23:51] go on the second floor should they come

[23:53] in to try to get a permit for that.

[23:55] >> Yes.

[23:55] >> Because it's existing rather than tear

[23:57] it down and start over, right?

[23:58] >> Is that what we're saying? Okay.

[24:00] >> At least the planning commission says we

[24:03] could make them so the windows were four

[24:04] feet or 5t high

[24:06] >> for bedrooms. Don't they have to be able

[24:08] to open for bedrooms?

[24:09] >> We can't put bedrooms on that side. So,

[24:11] They have to be so so close to the

[24:14] ground have to be so big.

[24:15] >> The other thing that makes it tricky,

[24:17] you know, on regulating window

[24:19] orientation is that say if it's we don't

[24:21] allow them, you know, facing adjacent

[24:23] properties, it's going to depend on

[24:24] where that bedroom is, right? Because

[24:26] then you're going to have to have an

[24:27] egress out of that.

[24:30] >> In that situation,

[24:31] >> okay,

[24:31] >> maybe they couldn't. I mean, if they if

[24:33] [laughter] they can't if they can't

[24:34] convert their current structure to have

[24:38] the windows and whatever, then they

[24:40] can't even move it. That's terrible. I

[24:41] absolutely agree. Like I don't think we

[24:43] need to write this so that people who

[24:45] already have something built can comply

[24:47] immediately.

[24:48] >> 100% Abby because we've never allowed

[24:51] >> they built their garages based on a

[24:53] garage. So for them to say, "Well, I

[24:56] can't do this because my garage won't

[24:58] let me." That's no excuse. That's a

[25:01] terrible argument because they've never

[25:03] been allowed.

[25:04] >> Well, yeah. And if anybody were to come

[25:05] forward and say, "I want to request a

[25:06] variance." be like,

[25:08] >> I'm not even going to accept that

[25:09] application because that's 100%

[25:11] self-imposed.

[25:12] >> Exactly.

[25:13] >> If they wanted to, you know, submit the

[25:14] application, I couldn't ever deny them,

[25:16] you know, if they want to, but it' be

[25:17] like, look, this is going to get a no

[25:19] from us from the get-go because you're

[25:21] it's a self-imposed archip. It it fails.

[25:23] >> Okay.

[25:25] >> Um, one one point on that, and I

[25:27] completely agree with everything. It

[25:29] will be an enforcement nightmare because

[25:32] if if you tell people, sorry, and we

[25:34] already have this going on, right?

[25:35] people are living up there and we know

[25:37] it, but if we get a complaint, we'll go

[25:40] out and we'll have to enforce it.

[25:42] >> There are other cities where they they

[25:44] allow the window to be there, but then

[25:46] it has to be like

[25:48] >> Yeah. like a a frosted window, right?

[25:51] Like it can't be a window that you can

[25:54] see out of. Um, and again, like say if

[25:57] we were to go out, we'd inspected it and

[25:59] it was that way. if they changed it

[26:01] after the fact that they could see out

[26:03] of like we're only going to know about

[26:04] that if we get a complaint on it. But

[26:06] >> and then my question is what do we do if

[26:08] we get a complaint? We've got what do? We tell them to change it and then

[26:12] they find them and then they don't pay

[26:15] it and then we

[26:16] >> Yeah. It eventually makes its way

[26:17] through the

[26:19] process.

[26:21] >> Okay.

[26:21] >> Um Okay. So we are going allowing two

[26:25] story with uh primary structure setback.

[26:29] >> Yes. Well, wait. Let's clarify what we

[26:31] mean by two story because I mean I think

[26:34] there are a lot of things you can mean

[26:35] when you say two stories.

[26:37] >> I can make a first story 15 ft tall and

[26:39] put a second story another 15t.

[26:44] >> I haven't seen the curve height of the

[26:46] house to meet the setback is 30 feet. a

[26:50] lot of 30 foot houses out there and the

[26:52] roofs right now because you measure it

[26:54] to the halfway point of the pitch some

[26:56] of those houses are 35 37 feet tall so

[27:00] you need to say

[27:01] >> maximum height to the ridge or the peak

[27:05] so it has I think had something where it

[27:08] said 25t max on

[27:10] >> two

[27:11] foot maximum um there's a lot of other

[27:13] cities that say 20 ft you know I felt

[27:15] like the majority was more under that 20

[27:18] was more under the 25 felt Leon was a

[27:20] little bit more open to a higher uh

[27:23] standard there. But like yeah, my my

[27:25] other thought too is if we measure it to

[27:27] the peak um if they're going to have a

[27:29] twotory,

[27:31] >> they're going to they'll have to figure

[27:32] out their roof pit their roof pitch that

[27:34] work, right? If they want to have a

[27:36] second story, so it might have to be a

[27:38] sh a more shallow roof pitch.

[27:40] >> Does that make a really ugly second

[27:41] building?

[27:43] >> You're going to have flat roofs then,

[27:45] right?

[27:46] >> You don't think so?

[27:49] 115.

[27:52] » If you have a something taller like a

[27:55] truck, you're going to pull in there.

[27:56] It's jacked up. You're going to have to

[27:57] have it. That makes

[27:58] >> Well, trailer

[28:01] built, you're going to have accessory

[28:03] buildings up with accessory dwelling.

[28:06] >> Well, that's

[28:08] I think a lot of people

[28:09] >> Well, we don't have to accommodate them

[28:10] wanting to put something on top of their

[28:12] garage.

[28:12] >> Trying to keep the two completely

[28:14] separate. That's what I'm hoping we can

[28:15] do because we still want people to have

[28:17] accessory buildings that they can use

[28:19] for the comfort and enjoyment of their

[28:22] own home and yard and not get these

[28:24] things mixed up. These are accessory

[28:26] dwelling units. So, we're saying this is

[28:28] another single family dwelling on a

[28:31] single lot.

[28:32] >> Makes sense. Yeah. So,

[28:34] >> here here's a question for you.

[28:36] >> I would rather see a second house look

[28:38] like the first house. I

[28:39] >> agree. And so is just some flat roofed

[28:41] ugly building.

[28:42] >> Weird thing.

[28:42] >> Could we do a 25

[28:45] that make sure that I mean it gets

[28:47] pitched, you know?

[28:48] >> Yeah. And I honestly I think that like

[28:50] they wrote in the state code it's it's

[28:52] broad enough that if we were to get a

[28:54] permit that came in and they were trying

[28:55] to do a flat roof, but then the home had

[28:57] a pitched roof.

[28:58] >> We could tell them no. I could at least

[28:59] argue for that, you know, until they

[29:03] >> right because I'm think because state

[29:05] code does allow us to say that it has to

[29:06] match the character of the of the

[29:09] primary.

[29:10] >> And so I don't think we can specifically

[29:12] say that this is the type of roof that

[29:14] it needs to have, but we can say like if

[29:16] it comes in it doesn't look like the

[29:18] house, I could likely, you know, push

[29:20] that back and say you've got to make it

[29:22] match the house.

[29:22] >> Can you say character and building

[29:23] material or are they making

[29:26] >> Yeah, it does say weekend. It says

[29:28] carrot.

[29:29] >> That's the tricky part, right? No one

[29:30] knows what the state code actually means

[29:32] there. And [laughter] that planning

[29:34] commission was actually a good idea.

[29:35] Just let's just copy exactly what the

[29:37] code says or the state law says that

[29:40] recover.

[29:41] >> But do we want to do do we want to

[29:43] change this to Mike's point? I think

[29:46] your said maybe can't remember who said

[29:49] that was it you Nate that said that if

[29:52] they do go two [clears throat] story

[29:53] that we do we want to increase the

[29:55] setback. I think I think we should

[29:57] almost more focus on that the setbacks

[30:00] and then that would kind of help us as

[30:02] far as what I mean there. So like so if

[30:04] you if you're in like a if if you're in

[30:07] somewhere that has a 6 foot 5 foot

[30:10] setback like do we want to say if you're

[30:12] going to do a twotory then it has to be

[30:14] 10 ft of the setback or something like

[30:17] that.

[30:17] >> You could literally take our ordinance

[30:20] right now going back to the accessory

[30:22] building. You could literally take that

[30:24] 45° angle and drop it down to a 26°

[30:27] angle and it would fix 99.9%

[30:30] of every complaint and height you ever

[30:32] see. But there's a reason there's a reason that they have

[30:36] it that high is because they want the

[30:38] upper room to have they want that upper

[30:41] loft to have more

[30:43] >> more room because that would push you

[30:45] further into the

[30:48] >> you drop that pit. I'm okay with you

[30:50] saying cuz I personally I don't like the

[30:52] second story as an ADU. Let's say they

[30:54] want to put a second story ADU in. They

[30:56] got to double the setback.

[30:59] >> That's obviously

[31:01] the formula of [clears throat]

[31:03] >> doubling the setback. How much does that

[31:05] >> be 16 ft instead of eight? So if youard

[31:09] >> from the sideyard or the rear yard it'

[31:11] be 30 instead of 15.

[31:13] >> Is that unreasonable? I think

[31:15] >> I don't think so because especially the

[31:18] >> 16 feet is a lot.

[31:20] >> It is a lot. Yeah. But we're talking

[31:22] like

[31:23] >> that would probably more be in larger

[31:25] lots like size

[31:27] >> for sure.

[31:27] >> They're doing a double story. You mean

[31:29] >> but does that penise people with smaller

[31:31] properties?

[31:32] >> Think it does discriminating against

[31:35] >> maybe it makes people smaller keep the

[31:38] single story.

[31:39] >> Yeah, that's what it for. It forces

[31:41] smaller lots to keep the single ideas,

[31:43] which is probably more appropriate for a

[31:45] smaller lot.

[31:47] >> Their house doesn't like it. I mean,

[31:49] it's going to look like a

[31:51] >> You don't want If they want to do that,

[31:52] they could just do an addition to their

[31:54] house.

[31:54] >> They could

[31:56] >> They want a twotory

[31:58] addition to their house and call it an

[31:59] interior ad.

[32:00] >> Just have a walkway, right? Bridgeway.

[32:02] >> We're going to get rid of that. Get rid

[32:04] of the breezeway.

[32:06] I think they should get rid because that

[32:08] was the breezeway was for the bigger

[32:10] garages.

[32:12] >> So, are we thinking that like a single

[32:15] story meets the the same step access to

[32:18] primary home or would that be less?

[32:22] >> Yeah, we've kind of got

[32:24] >> What would that be now?

[32:25] >> Well, depends on where you live.

[32:27] >> You're saying a single story makes the

[32:28] primary step requirements?

[32:30] >> Yes.

[32:31] >> And a second story doubles. Is that what

[32:33] you're saying?

[32:33] >> Double the sideyards.

[32:35] >> I would say double the sideyard. like

[32:37] 50% extra the sideyard. So if it's five,

[32:40] you add two and a half.

[32:41] >> Yeah. So So if we're talking about like

[32:43] if it's going to be a minimum 11,000

[32:45] foot lot size, then we're talking the

[32:47] R1LD all the way up to A5 or the the

[32:50] zones that we would allow because R1LD

[32:52] is a 12,000 foot lot size. Then we go 14

[32:55] 20 21 40 and then 210 which you know A5

[33:00] is heavy agricultural but

[33:02] >> but like the minimum rear setback for

[33:05] the 12,000 square foot lot sizes is 15

[33:09] >> and then it's it weighs at 15 until you

[33:12] get to RA and then R is 30.

[33:14] >> Yeah.

[33:15] >> So uh we were just saying that we don't double the rear the can stay.

[33:21] It's the side yards that would become

[33:25] >> double.

[33:25] >> Yeah, like Mike was saying that, you

[33:26] know, it's eight. Um, yeah.

[33:28] >> So, it' be 16 for two.

[33:32] >> And then they just be 15t off the rear

[33:34] yard, 16t off the sideyard, and the two

[33:35] store. I don't think people would

[33:36] complain.

[33:37] >> 16 ft from the fence or 16 ft from the

[33:39] other

[33:40] >> house.

[33:44] One and a half. I

[33:47] >> I just think like what you do with that

[33:50] twotory

[33:52] the twotory is going to feel much more

[33:54] intrusive to someone in their backyard.

[33:57] >> Absolutely.

[33:58] >> And so I think by doubling it, it

[34:00] becomes uh

[34:02] >> and and what that does is it probably

[34:03] forces the person to do a situation

[34:06] where they come into like maybe down a

[34:09] driveway and then they turn into a

[34:11] garage type of thing. Do you know what I

[34:13] mean? And so that it just changes the it

[34:16] changes kind of the nature. I do think

[34:18] it could end up making some weird stuff

[34:20] though if people are like this has to be

[34:22] so narrow so I'm going to have this

[34:25] weird narrow thing

[34:28] puts it in the middle of the yard as

[34:29] well.

[34:29] >> Well, right. But we do already allow

[34:31] houses within whatever however many feet

[34:34] because that's the original thing. I

[34:35] don't know. I like if you guys want to

[34:36] do double that's fine but I think one

[34:38] and a half

[34:40] makes more sense. If I'm walking if I'm

[34:42] walking on my like on my you know next

[34:44] to my in my backyard and I look over and

[34:47] there's a twostory house that's just

[34:50] literally only 8 ft away from

[34:52] >> Well, I'm not saying it should be the

[34:54] same.

[34:55] >> But I just don't know that 16 does much

[34:58] more than 12.

[35:00] >> I mean it's because it's the we have the

[35:02] 15t rear yard which is our minimum rear

[35:04] yard allowance.

[35:06] This just means that we're going to be

[35:08] right there where the rear yard is

[35:10] required. So it's

[35:11] >> What if we make it so it has to fit the

[35:13] rear yard? Then 15 instead of 16. 15

[35:16] >> 15. Okay.

[35:18] 15.

[35:22] » So you do a second story and you have to

[35:24] match match the

[35:26] >> Well, the problem with that though is

[35:28] already now you're 30 feet and you'd be

[35:30] toast.

[35:32] >> You couldn't do a second story. You

[35:34] couldn't do a second story on like one

[35:36] of the biggest lot sizes available.

[35:40] >> That's been the complaint of the people

[35:41] down there with their great big lots is

[35:43] they don't want people right next to

[35:44] them.

[35:48] » That seems

[35:49] >> I don't think you should have to match

[35:51] the rear yard on that one.

[35:53] >> And let's just say the rear yard for

[35:55] twotory has to be a minimum of 50. I

[35:57] think

[35:57] >> there you go. Yeah, that's fine.

[36:00] >> Don't make it so hard for Jim to fail.

[36:02] That's fine. That's fine.

[36:03] >> Okay. Okay. So, min minimum rear yard

[36:07] has to be 15 ft.

[36:09] >> If it's a twotory

[36:12] >> either way.

[36:14] I think we should be a single story.

[36:19] >> But that's No, but that's minimum.

[36:20] Yeah. You were saying

[36:23] that's

[36:24] >> okay. I thought it was less than that's

[36:27] so that that's what our code says

[36:28] already for dwellings, right? So like

[36:30] the minimum setbacks in our code for

[36:31] dwelling. Now most other cities if it's

[36:34] a single story they allow a lesser

[36:36] setback you know [clears throat] than what the dwelling case is. So what

[36:40] I've seen and like I put a a spreadsheet

[36:42] together. I looked at Brigham City,

[36:44] Clinton, Draper, Holiday, Leighton, Mil

[36:47] Creek, Murray, Riverdale and Syracuse

[36:49] trying to get at least cities that were

[36:51] comparable sizes to us but then also get

[36:52] some stuff up and down the blocks up

[36:54] front. there was like five feet for some

[36:57] but then 10 feet was another.

[36:59] >> Um but you know I I think for us like we

[37:03] would be the most restricted when if we

[37:05] were to say just on the two stories that

[37:07] it has to match the same setbacks as the

[37:09] house but all the other ones like

[37:10] they're they're less on the rear setback

[37:13] and side setbacks even for a twotory ADU

[37:15] than um than we would be wishing. you

[37:18] know, based upon the concerns from the

[37:20] residents that we've we've heard about.

[37:22] I think that establish this is just my thoughts that establishing these

[37:27] setbacks is like you have to meet the

[37:28] setbacks as the main blowing if it's

[37:30] going to be two story like I think

[37:32] that's a good base to start with and

[37:34] then maybe we discuss like do we want to

[37:36] allow some smaller setbacks if it's a

[37:39] single story or no not at all right

[37:42] >> more flexible in that regard because I

[37:44] just think it doesn't make sense for

[37:45] smaller lots to match the existing home

[37:48] as far as setbacks [clears throat]

[37:50] >> but yeah but I know that like there's

[37:51] varied opinions on that, you know, and which way do we want to go? Like the

[37:56] planning commission's recommendation

[37:57] was, you know, I remember commissioner

[37:59] Toller was was pretty adamant about like

[38:01] let's follow the setbacks that we have

[38:03] already established here. And so I want

[38:06] to be considerate of the planning

[38:07] commission's recommendation as well, you

[38:09] know, and what I'm also trying to do is

[38:10] do the research of like what everybody

[38:12] else is kind of doing um whether it's

[38:15] appropriate for us or not.

[38:16] >> So your recommendation is follow the

[38:18] setbacks for a second story,

[38:20] >> right? current setbacks for primary

[38:22] residence for a second story.

[38:23] >> Yeah.

[38:24] >> And then be less restrictive for a

[38:25] single or not.

[38:27] >> Well, I'd say let's discuss it like if

[38:29] we think that that's appropriate or not.

[38:31] I I would say that like

[38:35] totally fine.

[38:37] >> I just I would rather current setbacks

[38:40] for single story

[38:41] >> and then whatever kind of restricted

[38:43] setback beyond that we decide for double

[38:45] story.

[38:46] >> Okay. But look at the lot size though.

[38:47] So 11,000 square foot lot we're allowing

[38:50] [clears throat]

[38:51] people to build these can't do it

[38:56] for now now let's do this what about

[38:59] current

[39:01] let's say current what how does

[39:03] everybody feel about uh distinguishing

[39:06] between sideyard and rear yard setbacks.

[39:11] So we say

[39:13] current sideyard setbacks

[39:18] are the same as the

[39:21] >> primary Y

[39:24] >> okay that's as it is twotory it's [snorts]

[39:33] um matches the rear setback. Is that

[39:37] what we were thinking?

[39:38] >> Yeah. Okay. twotory matches the rear

[39:40] setback.

[39:41] >> So it's 15 ft on a twotory.

[39:43] >> So it be 15.

[39:45] Yeah. 15.

[39:49] >> But that's the only area where I think

[39:51] we should probably

[39:52] >> I think the 30 is too much.

[39:53] >> Maybe we should. So then let's just say

[39:55] 15. So twotory has to be twotory just

[39:59] has to be 15.

[40:02] >> What about the sideyard for

[40:03] >> two? That's what we're saying. Twotory

[40:05] sideyard has to be 15 and the rear yard

[40:07] 15. And then and the rear yard rear yard

[40:12] has to be 15 on two story

[40:15] >> and then on a single story it can be 15

[40:20] >> 15 on the rear. On a single story on the

[40:23] side,

[40:24] >> right?

[40:25] >> But if it's the sideyard, you're saying

[40:26] it has to be at least 15 ft for a

[40:28] twotory.

[40:29] >> Okay. But on a single 8t in the

[40:31] sideyard. Okay. And 15 back.

[40:32] >> That's easy.

[40:33] >> Is that easy? two story 15 ft all the

[40:35] way around and and a single story is

[40:38] whatever's not in that zone 8 ft and

[40:41] >> 15t it's 15 for the the back the

[40:45] backyard is what we said for single

[40:46] story

[40:47] >> yeah [clears throat]

[40:49] >> and then whatever the side

[40:53] want to be a little more restrictive to

[40:54] start so that's great good

[40:59] » doable for most I mean [clears throat]

[41:03] Yeah, it it really depends on how big

[41:05] the house is occupying one block, right?

[41:07] I mean, I think so. I think if you're

[41:08] doing a single story, you can make it

[41:10] really good size, you could still make

[41:13] it 12. I mean, if you let's remember,

[41:15] you could only do 12,200 ft max. So,

[41:18] it's not like I mean, if you decide you

[41:21] want to do a twotory, you're talking

[41:23] about 600 ft on each side. You're going

[41:25] to be able to fit that unit. And we did

[41:28] the same. So, if there's a garage or

[41:30] whatever, then that could be different,

[41:32] too. But, you know, to see it in actual

[41:34] pictures.

[41:39] » So, if you have a pool house, for

[41:41] example, and you've got all your

[41:42] equipment for the pool house on the main

[41:43] floor,

[41:44] >> right?

[41:45] >> Then livable could be two stories, but

[41:47] not to exceed 20 ft, right? I mean,

[41:52] >> 20 25

[41:54] said the height come up with the height.

[41:56] You need to really clarify is a height

[41:58] as it defined in in municipal code or is

[42:01] a height to bridge for these

[42:03] accessories. this ridge. That's what

[42:04] late night everybody else has done ridge

[42:06] to keep them build that big

[42:12] » to the very top.

[42:14] >> If we do ridge, if we do ridge, we

[42:16] should probably do

[42:19] >> 25, [laughter]

[42:32] right? It has to still match the

[42:35] architecture of the current house.

[42:36] >> Yeah, it has to match the architecture

[42:37] of the current house. So if your current

[42:38] house is a flat roof, fine. But flat

[42:41] pitch has to be a pitch.

[42:43] >> Chris

[42:47] does that need to be spelled out.

[42:50] >> That

[42:51] was

[42:52] >> the pitch.

[42:53] >> The house is pitch.

[42:55] >> Then it goes to the P.

[42:56] >> It's remember these are accessories. No,

[42:58] I'm just saying not saying the

[43:00] accessory. Does the ADU have to have to

[43:03] match the pitch?

[43:04] >> Not match the angle.

[43:12] » You see a lot of people I think they

[43:14] used to build

[43:19] 12 and 82.

[43:22] It just goes from like how steep it is.

[43:24] Oh, okay. Like a 1212 would start here

[43:27] very steep and a six or 412 would be

[43:30] less of an angle

[43:31] >> and then more expenses

[43:35] ridiculous. It ends up being more roof

[43:36] than now it's expensive.

[43:38] >> They won't do it anymore because they're

[43:40] so expensive.

[43:41] >> Okay.

[43:41] >> Can you guys explain to me like what the

[43:44] not because I disagree, but what what's

[43:46] the concern with like having the pitch

[43:49] versus a flat? Like do we just think

[43:51] that flat houses are unattractive?

[43:52] saying if we go to 25 ft like the whole

[43:55] point of going to 25 ft uh for a second

[43:59] story is the fact that like

[44:02] [clears throat] is that we think that

[44:04] most people if they're going to match

[44:05] their their existing house and they have

[44:07] something like this and if it's 20 ft

[44:10] then I mean you basically will have like

[44:13] this little spot up top for for you know

[44:17] because you're talking 20 ft you've got

[44:19] the 10 or more feet or I mean a A lot of

[44:22] the times people have to build up out of

[44:24] the foundation even sometimes, you know.

[44:26] But anyway, so you've got this little

[44:27] spot here for your living. Well, there's

[44:29] not going to be any space up here for

[44:32] truly a second floor. So, we're

[44:33] eliminating the second floor.

[44:36] >> Okay,

[44:36] >> that makes sense.

[44:37] >> Yeah.

[44:38] >> So, by going to 25, we allow we're now

[44:41] allowing an actual second floor. But if

[44:44] somebody went like this and went to 25

[44:47] like this and built a big

[44:50] box, it would be Yeah. Obnoxious. So

[44:54] >> question for Jim like the current um

[44:57] accessory structures the single choice

[44:59] accessories are almost all those the the

[45:02] minimum set back the one foot right now.

[45:06] >> Yeah. Yes, it is. The the minimum is one

[45:08] foot for accessory

[45:10] over 200 ft.

[45:12] >> Okay. So if we require primary structure

[45:14] setback on even single story VADUs then

[45:18] we're basically prohibiting almost

[45:20] anybody from converting their existing

[45:22] accessory even if it's a one

[45:24] >> closer than 8 ft if they're closer than

[45:26] 8 ft or 15. Okay.

[45:28] >> Yeah. I'm just saying that that's

[45:31] even if like you said even if they even

[45:33] if they are 8 ft and it's a garage and

[45:36] they want to put it up top that becomes

[45:37] a twotory. Correct.

[45:39] >> And that would mean they'd have to be at

[45:41] 15 ft. Correct.

[45:42] >> Yeah.

[45:44] >> I I just want to clarify one thing

[45:45] because I'm not I'm because we keep

[45:47] talking about these two stories and you

[45:48] keep guys want to go taller and taller

[45:51] but [clears throat] right now we're

[45:52] saying these things are limited in total

[45:55] or not. It was 1,200 right? Sorry, 1200.

[46:01] So

[46:05] if this is a twotory that's telling me

[46:08] that's only going to be 600, right?

[46:10] >> Yeah. Oh, I thought we had two, 1200 on

[46:12] the little

[46:16] » gray right here.

[46:18] The bottom floor could be a garage is

[46:20] what is what

[46:22] >> the garage [laughter] if that's still a

[46:23] garage then you're going to still then

[46:25] you allow them to go 1200 here and then

[46:27] 1200 second floor.

[46:29] >> Yeah, that's correct.

[46:31] If the world into a max of livable

[46:38] » livable. So it's okay to do a two story

[46:40] that's got 12,200 square ft double the

[46:42] size of the building.

[46:44] >> Yes.

[46:44] >> Okay.

[46:45] >> Is that really what you want to do? I

[46:47] don't

[46:48] think

[46:50] you have a two car you want if they want

[46:52] to put something it's also and also

[46:55] remember that it has to be that that

[46:58] would be

[47:01] the footprint of the house.

[47:04] So, whatever that building,

[47:06] >> that's a big deal because, you know, I

[47:08] was assuming that you were saying,

[47:09] "Okay, now you're saying I'm going to

[47:12] turn this into a garage." Now, this

[47:14] could be 1,200.

[47:17] Yes.

[47:19] >> Yeah.

[47:21] >> I really think it only fits on extremely

[47:23] large lots. Yeah.

[47:24] >> Yeah. That would only probably would

[47:26] only fit on an extremely large lot

[47:28] because you need a footprint that was

[47:30] 2400 of the original house. And so now

[47:33] >> that 12 foot

[47:34] >> now that house is going to be half of

[47:37] the size.

[47:39] >> You got to make it half the size of the

[47:41] front house.

[47:43] >> Yeah. Okay. So 50% of the footprint of

[47:46] this is as big as it could be though.

[47:49] Yes.

[47:49] >> So that's got to include the detached

[47:51] also, right?

[47:52] >> That that's correct. Okay. All right.

[47:56] >> What [clears throat] you're talking

[47:56] about that can that has to include the

[47:58] garage.

[47:58] >> Yeah, that includes the attached garage

[48:00] of the home. Yes. Yes, because you're

[48:03] saying, let's say this right now is is

[48:07] 3,000 square ft total, which would be

[48:10] includes a garage%

[48:13] of that. So, 15 is the max.

[48:16] >> No,

[48:18] the max 400

[48:21] >> whatever's least.

[48:23] >> So, like you look at my house is my

[48:25] house is a twostory. [clears throat] If

[48:27] you're if you're okay with a 12,200

[48:29] square foot second floor maybe is I'm

[48:32] not but I don't like them anyway but I

[48:34] want to move on. [laughter]

[48:38] » All right. [clears throat] So we're just

[48:40] to clarify where we're at. So we're

[48:43] saying two stories allowed with 15 foot

[48:45] sideard set back 15 foot rear yard. Yes.

[48:47] >> Correct.

[48:48] >> Right. So that's that's what I tried to

[48:50] show. Right. That's what we're saying.

[48:51] >> Yeah.

[48:52] >> It's single story 15t rear 8 foot set

[48:55] essentially matching what's here. Yeah.

[48:57] >> And then if it's a twotory 15 on both.

[49:00] >> And this is only on ADUs. This isn't if

[49:02] someone just wants to build a garage,

[49:03] >> right?

[49:08] » And you were saying 25 foot max height.

[49:11] >> Yeah. And the concern that Jason brought

[49:13] up is that like state code did say that

[49:15] like we need to provide a process to

[49:16] allow people to convert existing

[49:18] structures. But

[49:20] >> yeah, but I think it's simple to say

[49:22] that like yeah, we can allow you to

[49:24] convert it of an existing

[49:25] [clears throat] structure if you're

[49:26] still going to meet the setbacks of what

[49:28] we're proposing. So

[49:29] >> what state code said I don't think

[49:31] automatically pigeon holes us into

[49:32] saying well the structures one foot off

[49:34] on either side, we have to allow them to

[49:37] convert it. I think that we still can

[49:38] say

[49:39] >> if your structure doesn't meet the

[49:41] setbacks of what would be required for

[49:42] the DADU, then you still can't convert

[49:44] it.

[49:46] >> Perfect. Great.

[49:48] >> All right. Okay.

[49:56] » I think

[49:57] we did a little bit about already. So, I

[50:01] think we're good on

[50:05] this

[50:07] meeting I feel like. But what do you

[50:09] guys think about shaped glass?

[50:10] >> I think if it's odd shaped blocking

[50:14] commission city council.

[50:15] >> No. What? How do we find an odd shaped

[50:17] block? too. I want

[50:21] >> a minute.

[50:22] >> Our ordinance is very clear what a

[50:24] sideyard is, what a rear yard is. It's

[50:26] not It doesn't matter what the shape of

[50:28] the lot is. It's very clear. Jim will be

[50:31] able to determine whether that is a side

[50:33] or a rear yard.

[50:34] >> Have special consideration.

[50:36] >> We've actually

[50:39] had that. There's a nice graphic on our

[50:41] website that shows odd shaped lots and

[50:43] like how you determine sideyard and

[50:45] everything.

[50:46] Um, but that [clears throat] that could

[50:49] be useful. I mean that this is like gets

[50:52] in back into

[50:54] Yeah, maybe your house doesn't fit mold.

[50:59] You can't do it. It's just like that is

[51:01] just what it is, right? Like

[51:04] >> I don't know why we should make it so

[51:07] that everybody could do an edu. It's

[51:09] like if you can't do it, you can't do

[51:10] it. There's a reason you can't do it

[51:12] because you shape

[51:13] >> off.

[51:20] Defense that seems simple, right?

[51:22] >> I think so.

[51:23] >> I do. Okay.

[51:23] >> I'm not a building inspector.

[51:25] >> Yeah.

[51:32] » Okay.

[51:35] So, we're good with that.

[51:37] >> You want to skip that for now? Wait,

[51:39] what is that later on? Um,

[51:44] >> when we do the accessory structure,

[51:50] >> that might be what the staffing work on

[52:00] that anymore.

[52:02] >> I do like the idea of a frosted window.

[52:04] Yeah.

[52:04] >> Can we add that somewhere?

[52:07] >> So, if it Well, okay. Well, we're 15t

[52:15] cuz when you get a set of plans, it

[52:17] doesn't tell you whether a window's

[52:18] frosted. It tells you whether it's

[52:19] [snorts] vertical or horizontal.

[52:21] >> Okay.

[52:25] So, the next one is architectural

[52:27] design. So, the current code says it's

[52:29] got that weird language. It says what

[52:32] allows a D design to be consistent with

[52:34] the main building. So, we're just going

[52:35] to

[52:36] >> use that language. lift it right out of

[52:38] the state code, right?

[52:42] >> And that will probably be cleared up

[52:44] later on, right Katie? Sounds like the

[52:47] legislator is going to clarify what that

[52:49] means, but for now, we'll just use that

[52:50] language.

[52:51] >> Okay.

[52:52] >> So, we can't roof style. We can't have a

[52:54] say.

[53:00] I think that would be considered.

[53:03] >> That's at least how I would treat it. So

[53:05] I can

[53:06] >> if if a plan comes in at the AU and

[53:10] we've got a house that has a a pitch.

[53:12] >> I can't stop the double talking. I can't

[53:14] hear. [clears throat]

[53:17] >> Yeah.

[53:18] My understanding is that like if I

[53:20] were to have a permit that would come in

[53:21] and it had the single family home was a pitched roof and they wanted to do a

[53:25] flat roof with the DADU, I would reject

[53:28] that and say you have to be consistent

[53:30] with the with the primary drawing. This

[53:32] is inconsistent. you know, if they

[53:34] wanted to push on that, you know, again,

[53:36] like it'll probably get cleared up in

[53:37] the legislative session, but at least

[53:39] for now, that's how I would look at it.

[53:42] >> Jim brought a good point is would a

[53:45] singlestory home wanting to build a

[53:47] doublestory ADU, would that fall under

[53:49] consistent with

[53:51] >> um I don't think so, but that I also

[53:54] feel like

[53:55] >> single story,

[53:56] >> if it's a singlestory home,

[53:58] >> height requirement.

[53:58] >> Yeah. Would the height requirement come

[54:00] into play? Like is it that we would have

[54:02] a 30 foot singlestory home? Probably

[54:05] not. That'd be a really big

[54:08] we decided that the accessory the

[54:10] detached accessory dwelling unit cannot

[54:12] exceed the height of the main

[54:17] 25.

[54:20] » That certainly restricts some of our

[54:22] smaller homes. You know, we're on big

[54:24] watch. You know those those older homes

[54:26] that are they're very

[54:30] » 27

[54:32] the cannot exist.

[54:35] Right. Right.

[54:35] >> But you may have a singlestory house

[54:37] that's only 16 ft tall. So you can't

[54:39] build taller that.

[54:41] >> Yeah. And I think the importance of that

[54:43] is we don't want to have the massing of

[54:46] that second the the DADU be

[54:49] you know truck the single family home

[54:51] because it's accessory to the home. So,

[54:52] I want to make sure that it's it's the

[54:55] single family home is prominent on the

[54:56] property.

[54:57] >> Yes.

[54:58] >> All right.

[54:59] >> Agree.

[55:01] >> And yeah, we're just going to have to

[55:02] wait for clarity from the state of the

[55:04] rest of that meeting.

[55:05] >> Yeah. Okay.

[55:07] >> One more.

[55:09] I I agree with everything he said

[55:10] specifically.

[55:12] >> 100%.

[55:13] >> But what if it's a This is where Man,

[55:16] even Cameron couldn't answer this one.

[55:18] >> Yeah. So, and and and it'll get fixed, I

[55:22] think. But it says right now in the

[55:25] statute, you cannot regulate exterior

[55:28] cladding,

[55:29] right? So, if the house is stuck on this

[55:32] brick,

[55:34] >> and I say the city cannot reject it if

[55:37] they want to put vinyl siding on it.

[55:42] » Yeah.

[55:43] >> I want to say we can. I wish we could,

[55:46] but

[55:48] >> it's the language. We're just going to

[55:49] wait for the state to clean that up

[55:51] before.

[55:52] >> So, I think for me, at least in my

[55:55] experience, I would want to work with

[55:57] the person and at least push back on it

[55:59] as much as I can to be like, look,

[56:01] >> can you at least do something? Maybe if you're going to do vinyl, then

[56:05] add some brick somewhere. So then that

[56:07] way there is a way that ties them

[56:10] together. Okay. And that's I just want

[56:12] to make sure I want us I want as a

[56:14] council to know what your guys' policy

[56:17] is going to be doing that because if you

[56:19] do that you're now going to be enforcing

[56:21] covenants

[56:23] somewhat protected covenants which is

[56:25] what we always wanted to set set you

[56:27] want to set a city up to fail

[56:29] immediately start enforcing protective

[56:31] covenants but but that is defining what

[56:36] the structure is supposed to look like.

[56:37] No, it isn't because I think it's

[56:38] exactly the example he said. It's if you

[56:40] have a pitched roof on a house and

[56:42] whatnot and it's framed, then you kind

[56:44] of got to match a pitched roof and

[56:46] frame. I can't put a ConX box in.

[56:49] >> No, but but there are ones that say 50%

[56:51] has to be brick and 50%, right? That's

[56:54] what I'm saying.

[56:55] >> Because that is defining how it's

[56:56] supposed to be looking.

[56:57] >> Yeah, but I wouldn't be diving into the

[56:58] co need to do this. I would still be,

[57:02] you know, staying on the broad stance of

[57:03] like it needs to at least look like the

[57:05] house. If you have more restrictive

[57:07] covenants, then work that out with your

[57:09] HOA in your neighborhood. But I'm not

[57:12] going to be

[57:12] >> We do have a check box to say we know

[57:14] we're violating the covenants of our

[57:17] thing by doing this.

[57:18] >> I know you guys have talked about that.

[57:19] >> We should do that. Say, you know what?

[57:22] We're going to we're going to do a conx

[57:24] box and we know that this is not

[57:25] permitted.

[57:27] >> That might be good. Good. I don't know.

[57:28] What do you think?

[57:30] >> Not that we're enforcing it, but just to

[57:32] say, hey, we want to know that you've at

[57:33] least talked to your HOA.

[57:34] >> Yeah. What do you want to do, Jim?

[57:36] You're the one that's going to you.

[57:38] >> I absolutely do not want to be involved

[57:41] in design or cladding, right? That's a

[57:44] If you want to live in a neighborhood

[57:46] that has those kind of standards and

[57:47] strict guidelines, then move there and

[57:50] move into a neighborhood that will

[57:51] enforce it. I don't think the city

[57:53] should get involved in that because

[57:54] there's no way to enforce it is the

[57:56] biggest reason, right? and then you go

[57:58] down this rabbit hole of

[58:01] it would explode into something that

[58:03] we're just doing enforcement rather

[58:04] than, you know, our main objective which

[58:07] is getting people into homes. And so

[58:10] I just don't think it's a good idea to

[58:12] be in the design business and that's a neighborhood. Yeah. And and I'm

[58:17] not saying that like I would be

[58:18] enforcing any covenants at all. It would

[58:20] just be that like if I've got something

[58:21] that it it looks like it's inconsistent

[58:24] with the house

[58:24] >> Yeah. I would ask them to at least that

[58:27] would be my stance is like try to make

[58:29] it look like the house but I can't tell

[58:30] you what that

[58:32] >> but if you do neighbors that come in and

[58:34] are are willing to really push the issue

[58:37] the language is clear that you it

[58:39] doesn't mean it right and you have to

[58:41] defend that and you cannot defend that

[58:42] because it's you can't pick and pull

[58:44] what you're going to allow and what

[58:45] you're not going to allow either. And I wonder too like do we want to have

[58:50] the neighbors say whether or not they

[58:53] looked at the covenants or should we

[58:54] have something that's on our permits

[58:55] that say that like this the city's

[58:58] approval does not consider covenants or

[59:01] why do that isn't it already on your

[59:03] permit there's a big old I mean that

[59:05] past councils made the city come up with

[59:09] a when they sign that building permit

[59:11] it's got a statement there that says

[59:13] city is absolutely not responsible for

[59:16] any covenants that's up to you and you

[59:18] want to do your own in your subdivision

[59:19] and we do not

[59:20] >> Yeah,

[59:21] >> you have to sign that when you took out

[59:23] your building. Well, ultimately like how

[59:25] I approach this, like I want to make

[59:26] sure that I'm I'm approaching it in

[59:29] support of what the council's vision is

[59:30] on this. So, if if somebody were to come

[59:32] forward and the home is Stuckco and

[59:34] brick and they have a vinyl one, if you

[59:36] would rather have us look at it and just

[59:38] say we can't regulate materials,

[59:41] like it has to kind of look like the

[59:44] house. Like if the house has a picture

[59:45] roof, you've got a picture roof, but

[59:47] >> and just completely stay away from the

[59:49] materials, we can do that. Or if you

[59:51] want us to be like, hey, you need to

[59:53] look try to look more like the house,

[59:55] but then not get into the details of the

[59:56] commitments, which I we never want to

[59:58] do. That's like I agree with you 100%.

[1:00:01] Like that just

[1:00:02] >> puts us in a really bad bad spot.

[1:00:04] >> And when you want to sue somebody,

[1:00:05] cities are much easier to sue than

[1:00:07] private individuals.

[1:00:08] >> Yeah.

[1:00:10] So, is it wrong to have them check a box

[1:00:13] that says we have we are aware of the

[1:00:16] covenants and restrictions? We have read

[1:00:18] them.

[1:00:19] >> We're not going to enforce it. We're not

[1:00:20] going to know anything about it, but

[1:00:21] they can at least check a box.

[1:00:23] >> Check a box if they know their CCS or

[1:00:25] the HOA rules

[1:00:26] >> because they've at least looked at it.

[1:00:30] » We want to make sure you at least have

[1:00:32] acknowledged that you're aware and you

[1:00:34] >> and even if they say yeah and you're

[1:00:36] totally right, not on us because Yeah.

[1:00:39] Because if it ends up being like a civil

[1:00:41] lawsuit,

[1:00:41] >> civil situation

[1:00:42] >> then you know and they where the grandma

[1:00:44] requests that then it's like but they said that that that becomes part of

[1:00:47] their civil doesn't pull us out of it.

[1:00:50] >> I think that works. We actually did that

[1:00:51] dirty thing in my last city. We switched

[1:00:54] our application just check box. I

[1:00:56] acknowledge I I'm aware of my HA rules

[1:00:58] and I and then that's all we did. And if

[1:01:01] they violated them still or they lied

[1:01:03] completely then that wasn't on us and

[1:01:05] >> right

[1:01:05] >> there have been some litigation cases

[1:01:07] and we were completely you know um free

[1:01:09] of any

[1:01:10] >> they do that prior to submittal of the

[1:01:13] building permit as opposed to when they

[1:01:15] pick up the permit.

[1:01:17] >> Oh yeah prior to that prior to what's

[1:01:20] what works for you

[1:01:20] >> I assume that's

[1:01:21] >> you're the you're the one that's going

[1:01:22] to get the crap right. So, it's got to

[1:01:24] be a policy that you can deal with. I

[1:01:26] >> I just like this the verbiage on the on

[1:01:28] the permit that just says, "Hey, this is

[1:01:29] independent of any any other contractual

[1:01:32] agreements you've made with anybody

[1:01:34] else, right?" So, the box is fine, too.

[1:01:36] >> And should this be any box that's on all

[1:01:39] of our permits, not just DAD use?

[1:01:41] Because

[1:01:44] » for it's on there right now unless you

[1:01:46] change your

[1:01:47] >> I don't believe so.

[1:01:49] >> You haven't changed. It's there now.

[1:01:52] just

[1:01:52] >> probably Yeah. Could we add it to city

[1:01:54] inspect where it's like it's just a

[1:01:56] >> guess they're going [clears throat]

[1:01:57] through submitting the permit?

[1:01:59] >> As they as they as they apply for the

[1:02:01] permit.

[1:02:01] >> Sure.

[1:02:03] >> And maybe it's just a

[1:02:04] >> Yeah, they check the box regardless,

[1:02:06] right?

[1:02:07] >> Yeah, we have we have lots of checklists

[1:02:08] as we go through. We can we can add one.

[1:02:10] Sure.

[1:02:11] >> Add a checklist. I like it.

[1:02:13] >> No, it just says that you that you've

[1:02:15] complied with or Yeah.

[1:02:18] >> you've at least looked at

[1:02:19] >> Yeah. So someone can't say I had no idea

[1:02:22] when all their neighbors want to stone.

[1:02:24] >> Well and then that's civil too

[1:02:27] that's all civil and

[1:02:30] >> the less liability we have for that we

[1:02:34] just need to remove ourselves from any

[1:02:36] liability. Yeah, right.

[1:02:38] >> We're not enforcing it. We're just

[1:02:39] saying, did you check?

[1:02:42] >> Perfect. Um, good to move on to page

[1:02:45] five.

[1:02:45] >> I believe so.

[1:02:48] Discuss that. So, 11,000

[1:02:52] coverage. I don't really know that

[1:02:53] coverage matters anymore, but we got

[1:02:55] pretty generous or good setbacks. So, we

[1:02:58] good there.

[1:02:59] >> Yeah.

[1:02:59] >> All right.

[1:03:00] >> I think that

[1:03:02] and then existing [laughter] accessory

[1:03:04] structures.

[1:03:08] I think it's right under the sign. Mike,

[1:03:11] >> what's this paragraph right here?

[1:03:12] >> Yeah, it's like it says

[1:03:19] just like a loan make it really small

[1:03:21] and hard to read, don't they?

[1:03:23] >> I like the minimal rental.

[1:03:25] >> 90 days. Everyone go 90 days.

[1:03:27] >> Yeah.

[1:03:28] >> I think it should be six months

[1:03:30] personally, but

[1:03:31] >> state won't let us do that, right?

[1:03:32] states

[1:03:35] throughout the United States.

[1:03:40] » Yeah. Right here it says the granting of

[1:03:42] this permit does not give the applicant

[1:03:44] the authority to violate or cancel the

[1:03:46] provisions of any other regulation

[1:03:48] applicable to the property for which the

[1:03:50] permit is valid. Such regulations may

[1:03:53] include but are not limited to

[1:03:54] easements, restricted covenants,

[1:03:56] architecture review, and agreements.

[1:03:59] >> Perfect. Leave it at that. Is that one

[1:04:02] box? We can unbox. You just let us know.

[1:04:04] >> That's exactly my last. It was a minor

[1:04:06] thing, but it's like to physically have

[1:04:08] to check the box.

[1:04:14] » And that's easy to add on our

[1:04:16] applications at the time of application

[1:04:18] because that's something that they sign

[1:04:20] when they pick up your issue permit.

[1:04:23] >> Was so small. I feel like

[1:04:27] >> Okay, so we're done. Um actually a big

[1:04:29] picture. So one ADU period whether it's

[1:04:32] IDU or DAU you get one. Okay.

[1:04:35] >> Yes.

[1:04:36] >> Internal or external.

[1:04:38] >> Correct.

[1:04:38] >> And I do like that because I have these

[1:04:40] visions if we do allow two stories of

[1:04:42] somebody doing one above and below.

[1:04:44] Right.

[1:04:47] >> Right. And so that's that's what I was

[1:04:48] concerned about doing stack.

[1:04:52] >> That is a great idea.

[1:04:55] >> It'll happen. I know.

[1:04:57] >> Absolutely. So,

[1:05:02] and I'm thinking too is that like where

[1:05:03] this is going to be allowed, it's going

[1:05:05] to be in our single family, right? If we

[1:05:08] start allowing anything more than just a DAU or or an ID,

[1:05:12] >> then you've got three res. So, it turns

[1:05:14] into like a three family zone instead of

[1:05:16] a single family,

[1:05:17] >> right? Wild.

[1:05:18] >> But as long as you don't rent them,

[1:05:20] family members can technically, right?

[1:05:23] >> Okay.

[1:05:25] >> Real quick. So the parking was already

[1:05:26] spelled out in the state. If it's under

[1:05:28] [laughter] 650, you can require one over

[1:05:31] require two. So we'll just follow the

[1:05:33] state.

[1:05:33] >> Okay.

[1:05:34] >> U

[1:05:38] maximum amount of parking because I'm

[1:05:40] just envisioning in my own backyard half

[1:05:42] acre. If my neighbor builds one of these

[1:05:44] or myself and all of a sudden I've got

[1:05:46] three cars parked in my backyard. Well,

[1:05:48] it's their backyard but you know in a

[1:05:51] trailer like it's going to feel like a

[1:05:54] parking lot. I just wonder if there's a

[1:05:57] >> the alternative to that is that well if

[1:05:59] we do a maximum then does that then push

[1:06:02] parking onto the street?

[1:06:03] >> Yep. And then we have requirements for

[1:06:05] the winter time that that aren't allowed

[1:06:06] too. So yeah those cars

[1:06:09] >> can we do this too and I wanted to ask

[1:06:11] about this does this because the last

[1:06:13] thing I would want is [clears throat] a

[1:06:15] if you look at our definition of a

[1:06:16] family it's uh two or more bloodrelated

[1:06:20] or five who are not blood related. Can

[1:06:23] we just put it for ADUs? They have to be

[1:06:26] two or more blood related. Period.

[1:06:29] Can we do that?

[1:06:32] >> We got to be rentable.

[1:06:35] >> Yeah, but that's what I'm saying. It can

[1:06:37] be allowed to be rentable.

[1:06:39] >> But that means whoever moves in there

[1:06:42] has to be

[1:06:43] >> because this is whole thing for

[1:06:45] affordable housing for families, right?

[1:06:48] And right now our family, a definition

[1:06:50] of a family in Cable City is five

[1:06:52] nonrelated people. So you get five

[1:06:55] college kids living in one of these

[1:06:57] ADUs. That's five cars right there.

[1:07:00] >> Um so or you could say take the first

[1:07:04] half of that and say anybody living in

[1:07:06] the ADU has to be two or more related.

[1:07:09] So that' be a husband and wife

[1:07:11] >> or a lady of kids or their kids. So it's

[1:07:14] their family. He's not saying he doesn't

[1:07:16] he's not saying that the people that

[1:07:18] live in the ADU have to be related not

[1:07:20] people in the primary dwelling. He's

[1:07:22] just saying each other.

[1:07:24] >> They have to be related to each other

[1:07:26] and it can't be the five nonrelated.

[1:07:28] >> So it can't be a dorm room accessory.

[1:07:31] >> Meaning it couldn't be it couldn't be

[1:07:33] like a Yeah. a [laughter] house for a

[1:07:35] house or or or or even just like a like

[1:07:39] your common rentals that you would see

[1:07:41] down in Provo for like four four people

[1:07:45] living in the same place. I I think

[1:07:47] that's a great idea.

[1:07:48] >> You might have to look at the case law

[1:07:50] because there's probably a reason that definition of family evolved. Um it

[1:07:55] might discriminate. Is that the state

[1:07:57] definition too?

[1:07:58] >> Yeah, there's a state

[1:08:00] and even ours.

[1:08:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I like what you're saying

[1:08:03] though. I don't want

[1:08:04] >> because realistically that that that ADU

[1:08:07] mount could have [snorts] five

[1:08:09] nonrelated people living in it. Could

[1:08:12] you say could you say something too like

[1:08:14] I mean how do you make it so it's

[1:08:16] non-discriminatory is that each non like if there's a nonrelated

[1:08:25] I'm trying to think of like signing a

[1:08:27] lease or

[1:08:29] >> you can't you can't you can't rent to

[1:08:31] multiple nonrelated people parties or

[1:08:36] >> I don't know

[1:08:37] >> that' be a hard one to

[1:08:39] related.

[1:08:40] >> Yeah.

[1:08:42] >> I've never Yeah. I've never had anything

[1:08:44] successful where I've actually like

[1:08:45] tried to use code enforcement to to say

[1:08:48] like, you know, there's people that are

[1:08:49] living around that are above that

[1:08:50] definition because Exactly. Right. like

[1:08:53] it gets into me of how do I then

[1:08:55] demonstrate that these people aren't

[1:08:57] like, you know, what's going to stand up

[1:08:58] in court really?

[1:08:59] >> What if you focus on like the vehicles

[1:09:01] like no more than I mean vehicles for

[1:09:06] >> That's what I was thinking. just regular

[1:09:15] » make sure that people just sell and

[1:09:17] there's four people in there like

[1:09:26] that

[1:09:29] driveway

[1:09:30] trailer driveway and three cars

[1:09:35] are doing it. No, no, you can't.

[1:09:50] » We get a badge in the vest.

[1:09:54] >> Huh?

[1:09:54] >> What was the parking? Where was the

[1:09:56] parking thing that it said?

[1:10:01] » Can't require. Okay. can't require more

[1:10:02] than one

[1:10:04] >> for one that's under 650 and can't

[1:10:07] require more than two.

[1:10:09] >> Right. So, I'm just going to copy the

[1:10:11] statement on that.

[1:10:14] >> How many bedrooms would you say can be

[1:10:16] in a a structure this way? [laughter]

[1:10:18] Maximum two.

[1:10:19] >> Probably two. Yeah. Typically speaking,

[1:10:22] like if you're going to go more than two

[1:10:24] bedrooms, you're going to need more than

[1:10:25] 12,200 feet. Could be nice. Could we put

[1:10:28] maximum parking like maximum of two

[1:10:30] extra cars?

[1:10:32] >> Yeah, we could.

[1:10:33] >> Or or how do you do that when you've got

[1:10:35] your kids living at your house? I don't

[1:10:36] know.

[1:10:36] >> Mhm. [clears throat]

[1:10:38] >> Well, your kids doesn't like

[1:10:40] >> Well, I know. I've got a

[1:10:43] Those are the primary the cars.

[1:10:47] >> Yeah. And that's Yeah, that it's going

[1:10:50] to be hard to enforce. It might it might

[1:10:52] disent

[1:10:54] >> I think if we're taking care of like the

[1:10:56] minimum parking

[1:10:58] >> requirements

[1:11:00] >> I get what you're saying Jim I don't

[1:11:01] want I don't want a property to then

[1:11:03] become a huge parking lot on a property

[1:11:05] because then that becomes an isore as

[1:11:06] well

[1:11:07] >> but we don't have we don't have any

[1:11:09] status for like maximum impervious

[1:11:11] coverage on a property do we

[1:11:13] >> don't we have something that says they

[1:11:14] have to be running or something or they

[1:11:16] have to be

[1:11:19] » let me read this to you because you're

[1:11:21] worried about covenants. And actually,

[1:11:23] you guys have updated it and made it

[1:11:25] much more restrictive than it was. I She

[1:11:27] just happened to give me one that I had.

[1:11:29] But this is the new one. And it's right

[1:11:31] on the permit. When they sign the

[1:11:32] permit, it says warning.

[1:11:36] >> If you if your lot is subject to

[1:11:38] restricted covenants, you should review

[1:11:40] the same and make sure your plans are in

[1:11:42] compliance. Review by the homeowners

[1:11:45] association might be helpful. If you

[1:11:47] failed to comply with the restricted

[1:11:49] covenants, the homeowners association

[1:11:51] might require you to tear down or

[1:11:52] otherwise remedy the violation. This

[1:11:55] could be [clears throat] expensive and

[1:11:57] time consuming. So you already

[1:12:00] say homeowners association and so if you

[1:12:02] don't live in an HOA so people could

[1:12:04] actually think of that as I don't have

[1:12:07] to do it,

[1:12:07] >> right?

[1:12:10] I know even there's always

[1:12:13] >> I understand that. You understand that?

[1:12:14] I didn't know that till I went to law

[1:12:16] school.

[1:12:17] >> Yes.

[1:12:18] >> So, there's that. [clears throat]

[1:12:19] >> Well, you should

[1:12:21] have insurance.

[1:12:24] >> I read it all.

[1:12:28] » Are you guys ready to go?

[1:12:32] » If you convert a garage,

[1:12:35] um, you do anything to make up for the

[1:12:39] lost space. It's like if you take your

[1:12:41] existing accessory garage, turn that

[1:12:43] into a VAU, I would think the existing

[1:12:46] code would handle that because you still

[1:12:48] have to man have the primary structure

[1:12:50] off off street parking, right?

[1:12:52] Regardless and the dad off street

[1:12:55] parking I think this is a good thing to

[1:12:57] be able to have like if we if somebody

[1:12:59] had a detached garage and that was their

[1:13:01] main garage, then we should say you've

[1:13:03] got to replace that.

[1:13:04] >> You'll have to have the same off

[1:13:06] streetet parking that you did. Okay.

[1:13:07] >> Yeah. If you Yeah. If you remove off

[1:13:09] street parking from DA, then you got to

[1:13:11] replace it somewhere else.

[1:13:15] » Good call.

[1:13:17] >> Okay. And then the last one there is

[1:13:19] like if you have a a deck on your DADU,

[1:13:23] should that require the same setbacks or

[1:13:26] can the deck encroach into that setback?

[1:13:29] >> I think the deck can encroach.

[1:13:31] >> You think it can? Well, if it's Well, if

[1:13:33] it's facing your own yard, if it's

[1:13:35] facing your yard, I think it should be

[1:13:36] able Oh, never mind.

[1:13:39] There. Okay.

[1:13:40] >> Cuz you could make nothing. No,

[1:13:42] >> you could make Yeah, you'd make a 20ft

[1:13:45] deck that right

[1:13:50] somebody

[1:13:54] is it' be a covered deck. Percentage of

[1:13:56] that setback.

[1:13:58] >> What your own yard? I don't I don't

[1:14:00] care. So if you have 50, you can make it

[1:14:02] so the deck doesn't um exceed 50% of

[1:14:07] that.

[1:14:07] >> I think a deck facing a fence

[1:14:10] >> shouldn't be allowed.

[1:14:11] >> I mean

[1:14:12] >> because it's a perfect reason

[1:14:16] if you want you want people out there

[1:14:18] looking over into your backyard

[1:14:20] >> and super easy to see from a deck looks

[1:14:23] into like 10 different yards in that

[1:14:25] 15t.

[1:14:26] >> Yeah.

[1:14:28] >> That that keeps the setbacks. Yeah, I

[1:14:29] think that [laughter]

[1:14:31] it has a roof. It's not.

[1:14:32] >> Okay. But what about this though? What

[1:14:34] if it's a single story and it's not so

[1:14:36] much of a deck, but it's like a patio

[1:14:39] ground level, but it's connected.

[1:14:40] >> Your guys head

[1:14:51] to the required set require. [laughter]

[1:14:53] But say if it's set back further than

[1:14:55] this, right? Like say if it's set back

[1:14:57] 20 ft instead of 15 ft, then could they

[1:14:59] go all the way up to that 15t set back?

[1:15:02] >> Do we have to distinguish between a can

[1:15:05] or can we distinguish between a deck and

[1:15:08] a walk

[1:15:09] >> and a landing?

[1:15:10] >> Walk out a landing I think

[1:15:12] >> cuz landings don't bother me. 4 foot

[1:15:14] landing like that's just you're I don't

[1:15:17] think we should require them to set

[1:15:19] their setback.

[1:15:20] >> As long as it's not covered. As long as

[1:15:22] it's not covered. If you're going to put

[1:15:23] a porch or if you're going to enclose

[1:15:24] it, then it needs to be back to 15 ft.

[1:15:27] But if you're just coming out your back

[1:15:28] door at 15 ft and you've got a 3ft

[1:15:30] landing and you got three or four steps.

[1:15:32] >> Yeah.

[1:15:32] >> Like that would be allowed.

[1:15:34] >> That's fine. Okay.

[1:15:34] >> As long as as long as it's not a

[1:15:36] structure over that.

[1:15:37] >> Can a little porch be okay?

[1:15:38] >> Not within that 15 ft. Not the way not

[1:15:41] the way that we described that because

[1:15:42] that porch is in that 15. I think the

[1:15:45] biggest thing is like if it's a second

[1:15:46] story deck, right, footprint. I think

[1:15:49] those would definitely be those are

[1:15:50] going to be the ones that are going to

[1:15:51] be more opposing.

[1:15:52] >> What if we say no decks on second

[1:15:54] stories but singlestory?

[1:15:56] >> Yeah.

[1:15:57] >> Patio

[1:15:59] would be okay.

[1:15:59] >> That's true.

[1:16:00] >> Patio.

[1:16:01] >> Yeah. I think the patio is like so I

[1:16:02] don't think the patio is a question.

[1:16:03] It's just once you increase that

[1:16:05] footprint by covering it with the roof.

[1:16:07] >> But you're going to want if you have a

[1:16:08] patio, you're going to want to cover it

[1:16:09] with the roof. I know one story.

[1:16:11] >> Why can't they encourage a little bit

[1:16:13] more? I I don't think they should have

[1:16:14] to be 15 foot back. They have to be 15

[1:16:17] back on a deck or a patio,

[1:16:20] >> right?

[1:16:22] >> If they do that though, then they could

[1:16:23] still take it up on the roof.

[1:16:25] >> No. So, they can't take it up on the

[1:16:26] roof. It could just be a patio wash. It

[1:16:29] could be covered,

[1:16:30] >> but it shouldn't count towards their

[1:16:32] 15t.

[1:16:32] >> Sure. It should.

[1:16:33] >> So, it should be two, right?

[1:16:34] >> It's covered. Absolutely.

[1:16:36] >> But it's not covered. Placing is not

[1:16:37] covered

[1:16:38] >> on a one story. On a one story, you want

[1:16:40] to be able to Yeah. 15 feet. So, that

[1:16:42] could be a nice little porch walkway.

[1:16:45] Why can't you have it covered?

[1:16:47] >> Because now you got a building that's

[1:16:48] encroaching your

[1:16:50] >> Well, can't you make any

[1:16:51] >> Well, could we

[1:16:52] >> That's how it is now. You can't encroach

[1:16:54] your any of our yards. Right.

[1:16:55] >> Right. So, well, right now we've got the

[1:16:57] accessory structure setbacks. Right. So

[1:16:59] then like could you say to Mary to your

[1:17:01] point like would would we allow say if

[1:17:04] it's just a covered patio

[1:17:06] could that could that patio encroach

[1:17:09] into the 15 ft as long as it doesn't as

[1:17:11] long as it doesn't violate the minimum

[1:17:14] setbacks required for an accessory

[1:17:16] structure. Right. Yes.

[1:17:20] » There if they want to, but I don't think

[1:17:22] that you can attach it to the home to

[1:17:23] the or to the

[1:17:24] >> And the patio is on the ground level

[1:17:28] on the second level.

[1:17:30] >> Nothing on the second level. Where's the

[1:17:32] code?

[1:17:35] >> Unless it faces your

[1:17:40] » like a deck or a p or or a balcony might

[1:17:43] be okay if it's facing the interior.

[1:17:45] >> If you have a pool and you want to have

[1:17:46] a patio and you've got a twostory

[1:17:48] structure and you want to put a slide

[1:17:49] down it, you should be able to do that

[1:17:51] mirror.

[1:17:52] >> Or or you could have it you could have

[1:17:54] it on the other side. You could have a

[1:17:55] pool face I mean you could have it

[1:17:57] facing uh the other person's yard as

[1:18:00] long as you were past 15 ft with that

[1:18:02] stuff.

[1:18:03] >> Yeah.

[1:18:05] >> So we know we're going to allow second

[1:18:07] story.

[1:18:08] >> You can have a second story. You could

[1:18:10] have a second story patio but the patio

[1:18:13] distance if it's covered is going to has

[1:18:16] to be 15 ft.

[1:18:18] >> Okay. If it faces a fence,

[1:18:22] so you're saying like if they had a

[1:18:24] balcony or you know a deck that went off

[1:18:27] that second story, as long as that

[1:18:29] outside edge of that deck or balcony

[1:18:32] doesn't let them step back, it's okay if

[1:18:34] it faces the

[1:18:34] >> That's correct. That's good.

[1:18:36] >> But if it's but but then for a single

[1:18:38] story or or if if the patio is just on

[1:18:41] the ground level, that could encroach

[1:18:43] into those 15 that 15t area. But we have

[1:18:47] some parameters for that encroachment.

[1:18:49] >> Isn't there a state amendment that says

[1:18:51] anything 30 in or less is not regulated.

[1:18:54] >> It's not it's not per it's not a

[1:18:55] permitted.

[1:18:56] >> It's not a permitted.

[1:18:57] >> Yeah. So if somebody just did flat work

[1:18:58] but they didn't cover it

[1:19:01] as long

[1:19:04] has a exception that says it's not

[1:19:07] considered.

[1:19:07] >> Yeah. You don't have to have a permit

[1:19:09] for it. Yeah. But like they're saying,

[1:19:11] you know, if if we got if they poured a patio there and then later on they

[1:19:16] wanted to like have a covering that went

[1:19:17] over it.

[1:19:18] >> As long as it doesn't attach to the

[1:19:19] structure that attach to the house, you

[1:19:20] can do anything.

[1:19:21] >> As long as it's not, you're fine.

[1:19:24] >> Okay. You can have it attached awning

[1:19:26] just you could do that.

[1:19:28] >> Yeah. So, what if you did have like an

[1:19:31] attached awning that covered that patio

[1:19:34] >> um as part of the DADU? Would we then

[1:19:37] say that that has to meet the the 15

[1:19:39] feet or would we say that like that has

[1:19:40] to that could be the same setbacks of

[1:19:43] our as our accessory structures right

[1:19:45] now?

[1:19:45] >> If it's attached to the home, you

[1:19:46] increase the footprint of the home,

[1:19:48] >> correct? Yes.

[1:19:51] >> Yeah.

[1:19:55] So, we also say that like

[1:19:57] >> Yeah. So you're saying apply the same

[1:19:59] standard

[1:19:59] >> that attached to the house

[1:20:00] >> that we have for a home if it if if a

[1:20:03] single family home not talking DADUs if

[1:20:05] we attach those things to the home has

[1:20:06] to the same

[1:20:09] unless they're unless they're

[1:20:10] structurally independent.

[1:20:11] >> Yeah. So therefore to be consistent with

[1:20:13] what we do with single family homes use

[1:20:15] that same standard with the ADUs. If

[1:20:17] you're going to cover it then it has to

[1:20:19] still meet the same setbacks

[1:20:20] >> and be on its own.

[1:20:21] >> Yep. So in other words if that blows

[1:20:23] over it doesn't really affect the house

[1:20:24] or if the house falls down it's on its

[1:20:26] own.

[1:20:26] >> Right. So, so that way we don't if you

[1:20:29] want to have a DAU that has an outdoor

[1:20:31] space like a patio,

[1:20:33] >> that's fine. It can be in that area, it

[1:20:35] can be within that 15 ft, but you can't

[1:20:37] cover it

[1:20:39] >> unless you're already unless you're

[1:20:40] beyond that 15 ft.

[1:20:42] >> Stand

[1:20:44] alone.

[1:20:45] >> And how far does it have to be separated

[1:20:47] to be standalone? A foot.

[1:20:49] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[1:20:50] >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. From the house, it

[1:20:52] can it can actually it can it can hover

[1:20:55] over like this. Yeah, it could go

[1:20:59] to the attach

[1:21:01] because and the reason I as I'm thinking

[1:21:03] like well then people could get around

[1:21:04] that, right? So it's like

[1:21:06] >> you don't want to have it but if it just

[1:21:07] hovers it's

[1:21:09] >> doing the same thing.

[1:21:11] >> Okay.

[1:21:11] Okay. Because people are going to

[1:21:14] want those.

[1:21:15] >> Yeah, for sure. And we do a lot of those

[1:21:17] even right now. Like some some of our

[1:21:19] 15footers, they'll they'll put that back

[1:21:20] there and we just and there's there's

[1:21:22] lots of companies that do them and they

[1:21:23] just come in. They're really nice and

[1:21:24] they just kind of go on the back of the

[1:21:26] house and

[1:21:27] >> and the and the I would say the joist

[1:21:29] kind of come up over the roof a little

[1:21:31] bit. Most of them are the loudest are

[1:21:32] kind of open, right? Open joist

[1:21:35] >> to keep like the snow.

[1:21:36] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:21:37] All right. As long as it's

[1:21:39] going to be allowed in some some way.

[1:21:41] Okay.

[1:21:42] >> All right. Uh page n last one then.

[1:21:44] Flowers.

[1:21:47] So utilities. if you go through your

[1:21:49] backyard uh or in the obvious you can't

[1:21:52] build on that. Um it's somehow

[1:21:56] >> and right now in our ordinance, it's

[1:21:58] very clear in our ordinance because we

[1:22:00] because every subdivision in Kville

[1:22:03] almost has a 10-ft rear yard public

[1:22:05] utility easement and an 8ft sideyard

[1:22:08] public utility ement at least goes down

[1:22:10] one side of the sideyard. We have a

[1:22:13] thing in our ordinance that says if you

[1:22:15] build in this ement you do so at your

[1:22:18] own risk and if anybody comes in there

[1:22:21] then and you have to remove the

[1:22:22] structure that's at your cost and not

[1:22:25] the city's well it doesn't say that for

[1:22:27] dwellings we don't want for dwellings

[1:22:29] are a way bigger deal right it's one

[1:22:31] thing to move a garage but to actually

[1:22:33] move a dwelling so that is one of the

[1:22:35] reasons I believe the state statute the

[1:22:37] bill says no building in utility

[1:22:40] >> ements

[1:22:41] Okay,

[1:22:42] >> I agree. Perfect.

[1:22:45] >> All right, then.

[1:22:46] >> But quick question. So, but that utility

[1:22:48] can be part of the 15th setback, right?

[1:22:50] >> Yes.

[1:22:51] Just like it is now.

[1:22:53] >> Okay. And generally,

[1:22:57] >> the last one here, just a more of a

[1:22:58] caveat we've already talked about, but

[1:23:00] you can't have a de facto conditional

[1:23:02] use. Um, so be careful not to put

[1:23:04] anything in there that would create

[1:23:05] that.

[1:23:05] >> Yeah. So with that, we do have like a

[1:23:07] permit process like a a land use permit

[1:23:10] for internal internal accessory dwelling

[1:23:12] units. I would expect that we just add

[1:23:13] one for the you know detached accessory

[1:23:15] dwelling units as well. I don't consider

[1:23:17] that a de facto conditional use permit.

[1:23:20] It's just going getting an approval.

[1:23:22] >> What does that mean exactly? Deacto.

[1:23:25] >> Yeah. I think what it is is that like we start adding conditions to

[1:23:30] it that might be inconsistent you know

[1:23:32] or say like it's a case by case

[1:23:34] situation where it's like oh well here

[1:23:35] we're going to add a condition of

[1:23:37] approval for this and this one we're

[1:23:38] going to add conditional approval for

[1:23:40] this.

[1:23:41] >> Um it's pretty much from my

[1:23:43] understanding is that we have to we have

[1:23:44] standards and if they meet the standards

[1:23:47] then it's approved. Right.

[1:23:51] Special zone where that essentially is

[1:23:54] going to be used.

[1:23:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] Going to like an

[1:23:58] additional approval process than just

[1:24:00] meeting code standards,

[1:24:01] >> right?

[1:24:02] >> I you might have talked about when I

[1:24:03] went out. You can only have one. You can

[1:24:05] either have an interior or an exterior.

[1:24:08] Right.

[1:24:11] >> I did have one question that somebody

[1:24:12] had asked.

[1:24:14] Animals.

[1:24:15] >> Animals. Because right now if you have

[1:24:17] any sort of animals and they are they

[1:24:19] have to be so far away from

[1:24:21] >> Oh, that's right. Someone did a dwelling

[1:24:23] unit.

[1:24:23] >> Dwelling unit. Yeah. And if somebody

[1:24:24] puts a dwelling unit in their backyard,

[1:24:26] do they have to now the neighbor has to

[1:24:27] move their animals?

[1:24:29] >> No, I thought it was in their own yard.

[1:24:31] >> Well, so if I have an animal

[1:24:33] >> and you decide to put a accessory

[1:24:35] dwelling unit in your backyard, do I

[1:24:37] have to now move my animals?

[1:24:38] >> So that's not encroaching on my I don't

[1:24:40] think so. Because the way the ordinance

[1:24:42] reads, it says if you build a building

[1:24:45] >> housing farm animals, it has to be 50 ft

[1:24:48] from a dwelling on the adjacent lot.

[1:24:50] Well, your farm animal is already there.

[1:24:51] If everyone's building dwelling, you

[1:24:53] don't have to change. It's

[1:24:54] >> Well, it's if I was building the

[1:24:56] building.

[1:24:57] >> Yeah. And to to avoid creating, you

[1:25:00] know, potentially having lots of legal

[1:25:03] non-conforming situations where we have

[1:25:05] to prove that, should we revise the code

[1:25:07] to say from a primary dwelling? So then

[1:25:10] that way if you add a DADU, there's

[1:25:12] still enough of away that from that

[1:25:14] primary drawing. So then we're not good.

[1:25:16] >> Yeah. Right. I think that's fair.

[1:25:18] >> This would be kind of play if I'm

[1:25:20] building a building for farm animals.

[1:25:24] That's the only way place it comes into

[1:25:26] play.

[1:25:27] >> Okay.

[1:25:27] >> It does say at least 50 ft from

[1:25:29] dwellings on adjacent properties. So I

[1:25:31] think primary dwellings would be good.

[1:25:33] Yeah. But does that say a structure for

[1:25:36] the animals or it say the animals have

[1:25:37] to be at least 50

[1:25:38] >> structures for the careing of farm

[1:25:40] animals?

[1:25:40] >> Okay.

[1:25:44] But if there's already a structure there

[1:25:45] and it's already 50 ft away from there

[1:25:47] and somebody comes and puts a DAU there

[1:25:50] and now it's ft away.

[1:25:52] >> So we're saying from the primary

[1:25:54] >> primary. Yeah.

[1:25:57] >> They're not building a farm build.

[1:25:58] They're not building build

[1:26:01] >> to build a farm one and there's a DAU

[1:26:03] right there in my backyard.

[1:26:04] >> Yeah. I I'm just thinking that like in

[1:26:06] the future, right? Like if there ends up

[1:26:07] being a code complaint between them and

[1:26:09] then and the person that has the DADU is

[1:26:12] now complaining that their farm animals

[1:26:14] are too close to their

[1:26:16] >> structure and then we get into this like

[1:26:18] proof is on you guys to prove that you

[1:26:19] have that that structure before this or

[1:26:21] whatever.

[1:26:22] >> If I just put if we just add code

[1:26:24] language that says primary dwelling then hopefully that

[1:26:28] If Yeah. You shouldn't take over the

[1:26:31] right of your neighbor if they want to

[1:26:32] have a chicken coop one day.

[1:26:34] >> Exactly.

[1:26:36] >> So, primary primary

[1:26:41] uh

[1:26:42] >> quick question. Um now that we've come

[1:26:45] up with some of these things, is the

[1:26:46] moratorum still standing or can people

[1:26:49] have

[1:26:49] >> mortorium is totally centered and I did

[1:26:51] want to talk about it.

[1:26:52] >> Okay.

[1:26:53] >> Yeah. Go ahead.

[1:26:54] >> What do you want to say? That's our

[1:26:55] warning is if we can

[1:26:57] >> we get this in place, let's remove it.

[1:26:59] >> Okay, we can [clears throat] move it.

[1:27:01] >> But the moratorum was mortorium was on

[1:27:04] not just it wasn't on

[1:27:07] it was it was just accessory buildings,

[1:27:10] >> right?

[1:27:13] >> So it has nothing to do with with these

[1:27:17] >> unless we're still concerned people

[1:27:19] building 30 foot tall structures right

[1:27:20] on the which I think is still a concern.

[1:27:23] >> I mean I which I think we're avoiding

[1:27:26] that here with like what we're coming up

[1:27:28] with the setbacks. I still think we need

[1:27:30] to address some of we at least need to

[1:27:32] look into it.

[1:27:33] >> I think so.

[1:27:34] >> Have you seen that with Jim by any

[1:27:35] chance since the meeting? I mean, I know

[1:27:37] that it it was really a big deal for

[1:27:40] these guys to have that

[1:27:42] >> and it is a big deal. And so, we've got

[1:27:44] two applicants right now. And he says,

[1:27:45] Jim, he says, I didn't I submitted my

[1:27:48] application. I'm in waiting. If I would

[1:27:50] have done this eight days ago, it would

[1:27:52] be fine. He says, "I've got $15,000 in

[1:27:55] plans and engineering." He says, "I have

[1:27:56] a contractor lined up that I'm going to

[1:27:58] use. I have winter coming." He says,

[1:28:00] "Can we move this along? Can you just

[1:28:02] let us know?" Right.

[1:28:03] >> I feel like we do need to move it along.

[1:28:05] And I feel like

[1:28:08] two of those were legit. And then I have

[1:28:11] seven other ones in the queue and

[1:28:12] they're not moving as quickly. But

[1:28:14] >> yeah, they're not they're not wrong. I I

[1:28:17] think it's there too that so Jim and I

[1:28:18] met with Will and and as we talked with

[1:28:21] Will, he was like realizing that it's a

[1:28:24] lot better than even he thought it was.

[1:28:25] So some of this I think was maybe a

[1:28:27] little bit overdone. Um

[1:28:29] >> I I do have a question for

[1:28:32] only supposed to be talking about detach

[1:28:34] this work session. Okay.

[1:28:39] » Question though. What about like RVs? It

[1:28:41] was mentioned earlier. Do we need to

[1:28:43] specifically say that that should not be

[1:28:45] allowed?

[1:28:46] >> Yeah, I I I know I want to add language

[1:28:48] in there. We already have it stated in

[1:28:50] our code, but like reemphasize here that

[1:28:52] like camping trailers, you know,

[1:28:55] temporary structures, those types of

[1:28:56] things like a a DAU has to be a

[1:28:58] permanent structure. So, anything that's

[1:29:00] temporary, you can't use it.

[1:29:02] >> Good.

[1:29:04] >> I think that's it.

[1:29:05] >> We're good.

[1:29:05] >> Yeah.

[1:29:07] >> Just the thing, are we going to try to

[1:29:09] will you look into the family thing? Is

[1:29:12] that an agreement that people want us

[1:29:14] because you don't want to really rent an

[1:29:15] ADU to four five non that I agree with

[1:29:19] that

[1:29:20] >> we're trying to do.

[1:29:21] >> Remind me what you wanted to do with it.

[1:29:24] >> Tell me what the

[1:29:25] >> you find the definition of family.

[1:29:27] >> No, I know what the definition is. I'm

[1:29:29] wondering um what you wanted for the

[1:29:32] definition.

[1:29:32] >> Just the way the very first of our

[1:29:34] definition says two or more people blood

[1:29:36] related. So I just

[1:29:38] >> two or more

[1:29:40] >> what if there are people who cohabit

[1:29:42] like as a couple but aren't blood

[1:29:44] related?

[1:29:45] >> Write that in there somehow. I agree

[1:29:47] with that. If there's

[1:29:48] >> I know you know not everyone get married

[1:29:52] [laughter]

[1:29:52] you want to avoid is we don't want it to

[1:29:54] be a friend.

[1:29:56] >> Well so that's why I just want to

[1:29:58] clarify the langu but say two people who

[1:30:02] are

[1:30:02] >> well I don't know five people do two

[1:30:04] people. I'm not so sure if we should do

[1:30:06] that because I mean I rented my basement

[1:30:08] out to two gals and they had two

[1:30:10] bedrooms and they had their own bedroom

[1:30:11] and

[1:30:14] >> he's saying two is fine.

[1:30:15] >> Oh,

[1:30:17] it's five and it's ridiculous.

[1:30:20] >> Do you have an issue there?

[1:30:21] >> Or if you have two people are married or

[1:30:23] not married but they're

[1:30:25] fine child.

[1:30:26] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's okay. We just don't

[1:30:28] want to do like a college.

[1:30:32] >> The children don't count because they're

[1:30:34] children, not adults.

[1:30:35] >> What if your own kids, you're not

[1:30:37] renting. And if you're renting to your

[1:30:38] kids' friends, you're really not. If

[1:30:40] you're not renting to them, it doesn't

[1:30:41] matter. So the definition is an

[1:30:43] individual or two or more persons

[1:30:44] related by blood, marriage, adoption or

[1:30:46] guardianship or a group of not more than

[1:30:49] five persons who are not uh who are not

[1:30:52] also uh related living in a dwelling in

[1:30:55] a single housing unit. So five persons

[1:31:00] honestly I think that maybe we're

[1:31:02] already covered with with our standard

[1:31:04] here like two and then more than five.

[1:31:07] So we have five people have five to say

[1:31:11] I could have my single family dwelling

[1:31:14] >> and then also I'm going to run it to

[1:31:15] five 25 year old kids in the back. So

[1:31:18] he's wondering if I should lower it if

[1:31:20] the theme should be lowered so that the

[1:31:22] so that it's not five when it reads

[1:31:25] everything like you just said but then

[1:31:26] at the end of it it says but

[1:31:29] >> two or yeah or do we count it as like

[1:31:32] it's because it's accessory to the

[1:31:34] primary dwelling if you if you've got

[1:31:37] people that are living in the primary

[1:31:38] dwelling maybe they're related by blood

[1:31:40] but then they've got other people on the

[1:31:42] property overall the property doesn't

[1:31:44] have more than 500

[1:31:46] >> so property

[1:31:48] sentence at the end of something.

[1:31:49] >> That's still at the end. ADUs can have

[1:31:52] no more than two nonreated.

[1:31:54] >> I I think you got to be careful because

[1:31:56] if you're running these, you got to

[1:31:57] stand by the Fair Housing Act.

[1:32:00] >> That's why I'm asking them to look into

[1:32:02] >> I just maybe look into it. I I just

[1:32:04] don't want them building one next door

[1:32:06] to me and all of a sudden there's five

[1:32:09] nonrelated kids living next to me out

[1:32:11] there every night playing music and

[1:32:13] drinking beer and doing whatever they do

[1:32:15] up in Bear Lake every day, every

[1:32:18] weekend, [laughter]

[1:32:18] all night long.

[1:32:22] [laughter]

[1:32:25] » Yeah, we'll take this feedback and drop

[1:32:28] the

[1:32:29] >> Okay, THANKS SO MUCH ON THIS. THIS IS

[1:32:31] GREAT.

[1:32:34] people out there that want to say

[1:32:36] >> you can say your turn.

City Council Work Session Notice & Agenda

Agenda

Transcript