City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you, Jennifer. Hey, we want to welcome everyone here now to City Council being held here on September 15th at Centerville City Hall. We welcome those that have joined us tonight in person, by Zoom, or virtual, however you may be using, staff, and let's make sure that we can conduct business by doing a roll call with our council members.

Mecham, present.

Bangor, present.

Heeman, present. Hurst, present.

CLUMBER, PRESENT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL, FOR BEING HERE, ALL FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT. THAT ALLOWS US TO GET ON WITH BUSINESS OF THE MEETING. WE WILL FIRST HAVE A LEGISLATIVE PRAYER OF THOUGHT FROM COUNCILMAN RICK BANGITER.

JUST BEFORE I SAY A PRAYER, I'D LIKE TO IDENTIFY AND THANK THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED WITH THE With the service day, what we call the day of service, just last Saturday, at this time of year, 25 years since 9-11, we appreciate our first responders. We appreciate attention paid to our public safety people, our police officers, and the community for supporting that. And we live in a great city, and it's wonderful to have opportunities to serve each other and this day of service and other things and and Just wanted to recognize that I'll say a word of prayer now Our Father in heaven we're thankful this evening for the opportunity we have to be here and meet the City Council and With those participating from the public here and possibly online We're thankful for interest in our dear city of Centerville. We are grateful for many who serve so faithfully and diligently here, especially staff and the many departments who help and bless our citizens with their good experience and work to keep our city well and nice. We're thankful especially for our first responders and others who keep us safe and ask thy blessings and protection to be upon them. Upon residents of our city who have needs and special circumstances that make things challenging from time to time and pray that the city can appropriately support and help and serve well in all aspects of the needs of our citizens. We pray for this evening, an opportunity to converse and understand and identify ways that we can help the city further with items that we will be discussing. We can do so congenial and with respect and understanding and appreciation for one another's ideas, inputs, and suggestions to arrive at points that will be in the best interest of our city as a whole. We again thank thee for all we have and enjoy. We pray for this water situation we've been under to continue to have some help as we are in challenge with the drought we've been experiencing and that we can be blessed with more moisture. these and other things and situations and circumstances, blessings we need, we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

If you'd all rise and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Okay, now's the time for the open session. This is a chance that you have to come up and comment about things that may be on your mind. If you do, I suggest that we would like you to keep it to three minutes or less. And be aware that if it's something that's not on the agenda We can take it under advisement But we cannot really discuss it in detail because of the fact that we have to notice the public on those things now With that said we are having some public hearing matters tonight We're having a public hearing matter on the detached accessory dwelling units We're having a public hearing matter on boundary line adjustments. We're having a public hearing on fine schedule amendments in relation to virtual currency kiosks. So those are our public hearings. So if you're here to comment about those, you don't need to come up right now because you will have your opportunity to discuss those specific items when we get to those on the agenda. But anything else outside of that that might be on your mind, just state your name and where you're from so that open session is now available.

Board Council, today I just wanted to give some kudos. The first one is to Chief Ackerson, who's not here, so I get to embarrass him without him being here, but my daughter, special needs, was across the street, which is fine, but he didn't know that. He took her, brought her to our house. It's just one of those things that shows care and concern, and he jokes about my views on liberty, and he does it to my face, and I appreciate that. Also, I emailed Gina Hurst, and she called me back twice, tried to get me later. I called her back. She spent half an hour with me. Just I appreciate the concern and care and time that's taken, and I thought it was worth calling out. Thank you very much. I'm Trent Larson from Centerville.

We appreciate that. We can take those comments on open session. We can take any. Those are especially nice. Thank you. Others for the open session.

Seems to up front. I was washing my car over here and I had to wait in the bay and I looked at the city council. I mean, spontaneously. And I saw the America 250 something going on. And so I thought I'd come. And it's my neighbors who are going to probably get recognized. So that's kind of cool. But kind of a little bit more spontaneously, we had the America 250 celebration. There's a lot of good things that happened. But I was kind of wondering why certain things were never talked about, some of the founding elements. I know that the Whitaker Museum had something that they borrowed from the Fruit Heights Parade, something like the old chapel, the light. Old North Church. Old North Church, yeah, that. And that's a pretty important moniker. I don't think, I'm surprised that we didn't hear about this. There was the two gentlemen, Captain Pullman and Robert Newman, who were the ones who took that chance to go hang those lights. And somebody said it was one of the first computer codes. It was binary, on, off. And they made that happen with a lot of risk to their lives. That's pretty important. I don't know why we didn't hear anything about that. I didn't hear anything about Minutemen. And I remember the former mayor, forget his name, but he would often dress up at the reenactments as one of the Minutemen. He was right after Frank Hershey, tall guy. Anyway, he looked like a good minute, man. And I was also aware of some things that were happening in relation to our 250 was some issues that are going on in South Korea where they're having some challenges. They're concerned about their country. And one of the things that's interesting is the parallel with our nation. Okay, just taking my how many more minutes? One and a half? to cover this. We had a guy named Nathan Hale that said something like, give me liberty or give me death. That's pretty profound. And then another time he said, I have but one life to lose, but one life to give for my country. I didn't hear anybody talk about that during the, maybe I'm just not in the right places, but in Korea there was somebody similar, a young lady that is known as the Joan of Arc of Korea, who stood up during what they call the revolution after the Japanese took over, and she was brutally treated, and she said something very similar, and then she lost her life in prison. Wow, what an interesting parallel, particularly when the country's going through such commotion there in South Korea. Interestingly, because I'm aware of some other things, that they have... A lot of people protesting in their streets, and the flag, our flag, is being flown with their flag, their traditional, I pronounce everything in Japanese, but it's something like tai-goo-kee or tai-goo-kee. That's their flag. It has symbols on it, and it has meaning. It's not just some transitory thing. That's something very important. The challenge we have is we fought and bled in that country to keep it safe, and it's now struggling. So anyway, just a little bit of throwing at you a little bit of my observations. I think we did some good things during the 250th. We're missing a few things. Unfortunately, they were very foundational in my mind. And we have some interesting parallels with the champions that are there trying to save South Korea's country. So anyway, looking forward to seeing the presentation.

Thanks. That's Larry Smith from Centerville. Larry, we do our best with social media advertising. We didn't cover all those events, but there was much that went on throughout the county because I met with other mayors over the last few months and we discussed everything that was going on in our cities that you had. Yeah, you had a variety of things all through the county that you could see. It's been a good celebration.

Sorry you didn't hear about a couple of them.

All right, anybody else on the open session?

Mayor, can I just briefly state that I appreciate what Mr. Smith just stated and would like to remind everybody that this is Constitution Week. September 17th is the anniversary of the adoption of our U.S. Constitution. So it's just something to, again, remember during that. Although it was some years after the 1776, it's still something that we can remember in this 250 years of nationhood. Thank you. All right.

Anybody else on the open session? We've got one more. Come on up. State your name and where you're from. I don't think anybody knows you, so.

I'm one of your most favorite residents, actually. Brett Milburn, resident here in Centerville, and I appreciate each and every one of you for what you do here in our great community. Many of you do know me, often from my previous service as county commissioner. I have served previously as county commissioner It's been eight years since I've been in office, and you would think I would have learned my lesson by now, but I have filed to run again, and I will be on the ballot in November as an unaffiliated candidate. Previously, I had run under the banner of a Republican. Now, does that mean that... I have changed necessarily my general conservative values and whatnot, no. people ask me, so why did you leave the Republican Party? And I said, I didn't, it's left me. But in a more simple way, there's a couple of things that have really concerned me, particularly the last couple of years, and even more importantly, the last 18 plus months in regards to what's gone on at the county. And I look at it as, I'm not sure that the county commissioner really ought to be partisan in nature. You folks here are not partisan. You run to represent the citizens of Centerville. And the flak I've taken from some within the party, Republican Party, is, you know, they basically have labeled me the the other party, and that's not true. I'm unaffiliated because I'm running to represent all of Davis County. And some of my concerns have been one, particularly the lack of what appears to be some vision and strategy when it comes to the county and its direction and its budgetary elements. I, as a taxpayer, concerned at the 30% that was proposed last year with no real explanation other than it's inflation. And then secondly, the discord and dysfunction within the commission currently. And I believe that some experience and some background and knowing how the county operates, how the budgets work, the importance of keeping a solid relationship with the 15 cities in this county. And I have to say that Centerville has always been fantastic at being a partner. Know that was the case when I was Commissioner and there's several projects one of which I'll sit right up here on the hillside and that's the bill Creek Detention Basin and once again using strategy and partnerships and collaboration the county was able to Bond For recalls about 27 million dollars in and do a whole slew of projects within a short period of time. And it just so happened that it coincided with interest rates and bond rates being down in a time when our construction firms were hungry and needing work and were able to complete projects such as that, that not only benefited kind of the county as a whole, but in this particular instance, took a lot of homes out of a floodplain, which then allowed your residents, my neighbors, whatnot, to not have to purchase flood insurance. So those are the types of things that I would like to bring back to the county. And once again, just was here to introduce myself in that capacity and express my appreciation to all of you. Happy to report, and frankly, I was a little, Very surprised in meeting today that the fifth fifth passed on that sales tax and it passed unanimously, which really kind of surprised me. But I'm glad it passed because that's a benefit to everyone. So if you have any questions, I can reach you at 801-510-7170. And if you would like additional information, you know, it can be found on Facebook. And I have a web page, too. It's brettmilburn.com, Brett with one T, 2-S in Milburn. So thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Brett. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Good to see you.

Anybody else on open session? Anybody online?

Yes, I'd like to.

Yeah, introduce yourself, where you're from.

Kyle Green, Centerville.

Oh, yeah. OK, great, Kyle.

Sorry, I'm just barely being able to log in. There's confusion on which Zoom link. So I don't know what's been spoken of yet or not spoken of.

Can you hear me? If you're chiming in on detached accessory dwelling units or municipal code amendment or the fine schedule amendments, you'll have a chance to comment on those in a public hearing. If there's anything else, then take your three minutes.

Really quick, I would like to comment on the Ron Randall property next door to City Hall. I don't know if anybody else commented on it. I would like to... to encourage the city to take a good long look at taking that on and preserving the building as a historic site in our city as we've pretty much demolished just about anything of historical value, minus the Whitaker home and a few things that the historic district that are privately owned. And I'd just also like to thank the council for the hard work and dedication they put in every week and how many issues you have to cover. I realize it's a lot and I appreciate you do that for us. So those are my two thoughts for tonight.

Thank you, Kyle. All right. I think we've covered everybody that wanted to comment in the open session. So let's move on on our agenda. The first thing is a presentation. Always enjoy these presentations. We got a community mural recognition, and I think we're going to have Sean Hall from our Parks and Rec Committee come up and talk about this. Right, Sean? Right, yeah. All right, we're all excited for this. I am too.

Larry came just to see his neighbors do this. Wonderful, yeah. Council, it's great to be here tonight. Sean Hall, I chair the Parks and Recreation Committee. Yeah, we wanted to come tonight and do just a quick recognition. wonderful America 250 celebration and as part of that and on behalf of the parks recreation committee we put together two things number one was we did a time capsule if you recall that and that turned out really turned out great we got a lot of really fun submissions but then also we put together a community mural And I say we very loosely, I had no real like part in that other than I helped say, yes, let's do it. But we wanted to recognize some very special and important people in our community that did play a major role in that. So to my right, we have the De La Hunties. They- Get them up there, get them up there. Yeah, please, yes. For sure, man. They helped actually do the the entire girl and and they they commissioned that or they they uh they helped um kind of draw it all out and then they they coordinated the whole thing so we're very grateful for them and we'd love to present them with this little token of our appreciation but uh thank you so much for your help with that And that mural, if you haven't seen it yet, it's hanging right across in the pavilion there in the park.

Can you pull a picture on it? Yeah. As well, too. And then you can go see it live right after. You can walk over next door. It turned out amazing. It's beautiful. I did.

So what was cool about it, do you want to talk? Is that okay? Oh, yeah, sure it is. You betcha.

Yeah, I love these things. Take the whole next two hours.

I felt very honored and privileged that you asked me to me and my husband to help participate in the celebration. Wonderful thing to celebrate the birth of our country and Anyway, they wanted us to find a way that we could celebrate both Centerville, the US, and our community could participate. So we came up with the idea of a bit of the scenery of what Centerville looks like without the houses in it, but has some flags in there. But we had the two trees on the sides, or you see kind of half trees, that we had the community add leaves with their fingerprints and so that was a lot of fun we had little teeny babies fingerprints on there all the way to 99 year old babies up there so it was really fun everyone participated and we're really happy about it so thank you for letting us be able to be a part of that so

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. It's really cool. Everybody got to leave their mark with that. And then we also have, to my left here, if you want to come on up, we have our friend from O'Brien Glass. And so thank you as well. They helped us. Thank you. You're welcome. on the the parade they helped drive the mural down the street and got the word out there and then parked it when we had the uh the event that evening the the night before kind of the big big day we had the movie in the park it was there on display as well people got to go check it out and it turned out amazing so thank you for for doing that for us as well so we appreciate it

How you trusted us. Absolutely, yes.

Any insights from the O'Brien Glass people?

Yeah, we were just happy to volunteer to help out with the festivity of it. And it was nice to be able to get one of our new trucks out so everybody could see that we're still progressively trying to keep our business running. But I am actually the youngest son of the family, and my mother was Lois O'Brien. So we're trying to just keep the legacy going. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

We obviously had a ton of help in the community. It's a wonderful gift. I'm excited to display it now. And I think it'll be a treasure for our community here moving forward over the coming years. Thank you.

John, did Parks and Rec have this idea, or were you approached by anybody?

Yeah, so at the beginning of the year, we kind of, we brainstormed what could we do to celebrate America 250. We had a list of probably 50 ideas, and we whittled it down to these two. So, yeah, I'm glad we could contribute in a small way.

I just wanted that out there because I know you were one of our most active committees in putting something together. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for your leadership. Thank you. Thanks again. Thank you. All right. Thank you, everybody. Let's go to the second presentation. This is Davis County Animal Care Update. So come on up.

Is this the microphone?

It is. If you need to walk around, she can give you a portable mic, too.

Oh, no. I don't need to walk around. Thank you, though.

I appreciate that.

All right. Hi, everybody. My name is Michelle Hicks. I'm the current Department Director for Animal Care of Davis County. I've been there for a little bit over a year. My background is not in animal welfare, so I really rely a lot on my team. They hired me because I know how to talk to elected officials. Shocker. So I've worked in Salt Lake County for over 23 years and have a very diverse background as well. Been there for about a year and have really, really enjoyed it. Part of my point as director is that I want to get out in front of the communities that we serve, Centerville being one of them, twice a year to kind of go over our core services, what's going on with us specifically, and then giving you some data about your city specifically in terms of Davis County as a whole. So that's what I'm here for. Very excited. So our core community services are the following. Pet adoption, that's our big, obviously, driver to the shelter. I understand that there are some struggles with some people adopting from the shelter. The shelter is kind of sometimes a sad, hard place. And so we are trying to diversify where we go out and do adoptions. We also do pet adoptions out of the PetSmart in Layton. But we are also looking for other places to allow other people to come in and see the pets that we have available. We also do owner surrenders. Not every municipal shelter in the state does owner surrenders, but we do. We think that that's a community service that we should be providing. So if there's, for any reason, a housing situation or a health of a family member situation, we always take those owner surrenders. Sometimes we need to time it out just in case we're a little bit full. But we do take those owner surrenders and they do pay a fee for that. I am getting more specific in the data specifically to why people surrender their homes. Nationwide, it's usually housing is the barrier. And so we're trying to get some city-centric data and so that you guys can use that information as needed. But we are looking to do that.

So next time I come, I'll have some numbers for you.

Excuse me for you. Field enforcement, obviously, is our biggest way that we can kind of be out in the community and show that kind of our worth. We have 10 officers, one of them being specifically community cat officers, and I'll get into some data a little bit later. But they go, you know, all the way from South Weber to North Salt Lake to Syracuse along that 34-mile stretch. We do also have a robust volunteer and foster program. Last year we had over 7,000 hours of volunteers. That's four full-time employees, almost four full-time employees. And our foster program, we could not be doing anything we do without those two programs. Sometimes during cat season, there are some fosters that have 10 cats and they eat every two hours by bottle and it's a whole thing. And so we really appreciate all of our volunteers and fosters. That that take care of the animals of the community our community cat program And I'll give you some data on that here in a minute, but we do have a T in our program It's a trap neuter and release that is really successful the community cat officer traps specifically for people that have large colonies or some residents that need some additional help. We also allow residents to come up and rent traps from us, $30 for 30 days, if they would like to assist it or if they have kind of a colony that they they see is growing and we can vaccinate and spay or neuter them and then get them back out to kind of their home. So the last is emergency readiness, and this is actually new. Prior to my involvement or, you know, me being the director, we had a very basic plan and it was mainly for the shelter. There was an employee of ours, the field services supervisor, that actually has a large background in emergency readiness at the state and at a military level. And so what we're also hoping is to get our shelter good, but also be a resource for the community at large. If there's an apartment fire or a house fire and somebody needs to be able to send their animal somewhere and they don't have family involved or They don't have the means to board. Boarding is very expensive. And so we want to also be a resource for any emergency that happens within the county. So we're working on that. And when I come back next time, I'll have some more information on that. So the next one is our community pet support. So a couple of things that we do as a pet food pantry that is entirely based on donations. So we have bags of dog food, cat food, wet food, dry food, all of that stuff. So if somebody in the community or residents across Davis County need support, sometimes you just don't have $80 to spend on dog food for the month. And so we can be kind of that stopgap. Instead of them surrendering their pet to us, the pet gets to remain in the home and then We get to help them with something little like that We also have lost and found resources. So anytime a stray animal comes into our Shelter or honestly if if somebody just takes in a string and then lets us know that they have a stray We have social media. We have our website we partner with Petco love lost So as much as we can get out there that this dog or this cat has been lost and their owner can try you know to look at those resources come to the shelter and and look online and We'd like to do that. We also have the same network for found. So if somebody found an animal, they can keep them in their home. It's much more likely that the animal will go home when They are found in their, so say it's Syracuse. If they're found in Syracuse and they stay in Syracuse and kind of talk social media on those neighbor sites and stuff like that, it's much more likely that the animal will find its way home more than if they come to the shelter. So as much as we can, we want to make sure that those animals kind of stay in that section. But if they do end up coming to the shelter, we have lots of ways that we can get the word out that we may have your lost cat, dog, rabbit, turtle, snake, rooster, chickens, goats, all of those things. And again, county emergency management to help with that. Excuse me, I should have brought my water. All right, next is the Centerville City versus county service distribution. And this is mainly for you guys to let you know what kind of, there's our self-service and our field services we're doing. Currently, Centerville accounts for about a little bit more than 4% of the population countywide. And I'm hoping to get that percentage correctly. But your share of county-filled calls is about 4.5%. That's not bad. That's right around where we want it to be. And so I think we're doing really good with that. Your number one call to our facility is actually agency assist. So that's Centerville Police. contacting us to come and assist them say somebody ends up that they you know they're they meet an unfortunate accident in their home and there's an animal there and they don't have anywhere else to go we'll come up and pick up the animal we have a safe haven where we say they're going to the hospital we can keep them you know why they're in the hospitals as long as that communicate communication is happening or if somebody has died and there's nowhere for this animal to go or say Centerville Police pulls somebody over for a DUI and there's a cat in the car. We'll come out to those situations, give an animal and letter to the person so when they get out, they know where their animal is, they can come pick it up. Yes, there's usually a fee attached to that, but we do always try to do the right thing based on every single situation. So that's the agency assist. I'll talk about park patrols in a little bit, but we have done 15 park patrols Oh, I should have mentioned this is January to June data of this year. nuisance calls a lot of that is barking calls if there's you know a dog that's barking that's being annoying we can walk them through the process and what the ordinance looks like and how to try to alleviate that we also try to do community assist as much as we can whether that's you know getting those bark boxes where hopefully that kind of mitigates some of the noise but we're always trying to look for education and assistance instead of just enforcement Wellness checks, animal versus animal. I will say your adoptions, you guys, Centerville City has adopted 16 animals and only five owner surrenders. So that's great odds and we really appreciate that. Next is just our recommendations on park signage for your parks in your community. I had my officers go out to every park in Davis County and just look for signs, weigh stations, anything like that that could help us. You know, as you guys might know that, you know, when somebody is going to enforce or educate the 1st thing there's like, well, there's no sign. There's no this right? And I can't do it easily. I'm not going to do it. Right? And so these are just some of the recommendations that my officers had. The Porter Walton park had limited visibility with only 1 entry sign. SMOOTH AND FREEDOM HILLS PARK, WE ARE RECOMMENDING ADDING LEASH SIGNS AT THE SMOOTH WEST AND SOUTH PARKING LOTS, THE WEST AND SOUTH PARKING LOTS AND AT THE FREEDOM HILLS SINGLE SIGN BY THE PAVILION IS EASILY MISSED AND IF YOU COULD ADD SIGNS TO THE TRAIL HEAD OVER THERE. AND THEN WILLIAM R. SMITH PARK CURRENTLY FEATURES ZERO POSTED DOG OR LEASE REGULATIONS AND WE RECOMMEND BASELINE SIGNAGE AND A DOG WAY STATION. A lot of the times, specifically on the trails, we're seeing that owners are picking up the poop and leaving the bag on the trail because there's no place to throw it away. And my guess is nobody wants to take it in their car to throw it away at home. Not the greatest solution, obviously, but if there was a waste station there, it would hopefully alleviate this problem. So those are just some recommendations that my officers have. Next is just kind of we want to be involved. We routinely in the past there hasn't been many community events that the animal care has gone to and we want to go to your events. Whether it's a Founders Day or Heritage Days, Cops Night Out, I don't think it's called Cops Night Out, hold on. Night Out Against Crime, I think is what it's called. But any type of thing that you think would be appropriate for animal care to come and do a booth at where we can give information on licenses, we can give information on adoptions, play fun games for the kids, do adoption events, anything like that we would love to be a part of. And that comes into also employee snuggle time. So if you guys want an employee event or maybe it's budget season and everybody's at each other's throats because budgets are hard, we can bring in cats and you guys can hang out with the cats for an hour or two. We can bring in dogs, anything like that. We'd love to be involved in any of those types of events. And next is just some data on your volunteer hours and apologize. The last paragraph I kept Clinton in, but the hours are correct and the numbers are correct in here. So in 2025, we had 26 dedicated volunteers from center real city, and that made up of almost 250 hours specifically. Now this doesn't include our foster program. This is just our volunteers that come into the shelter, walk dogs, um, you do enrichment with cats and and the dogs and so we really appreciate all of the volunteers they're amazing and we could not do this work without them like i said there was the hours from 2025 were over 7 000 and that's for full-time employees that we don't have to charge residents for it's just time that people use to come and kind of better their community so we really appreciate that

Can I pause you before you move on to that slide? Yes. What is the sniff abouts and the weekend wags?

In two slides, I will tell you.

I will wait for you.

OK. Oh, actually, this slide will tell you. The next slide. Sorry, I spoke too soon. So the Snip Abouts and the Weekend Wags are some of our really popular programs. So sometimes people just want to be around dogs. They don't want a dog in their home or they can't have it because of housing. And so they come out and they can almost like check a book out. They check a dog out. So we just need a license and a form filled out. And you can take a dog for an hour or more. You can take him to Cal Ranch, you can go get a pup cup, you can walk on a trail, and it's just an hour away that the dog does not have to be in the shelter. Anybody can do this over the age of 18. Even if you want to bring in your kids, as long as they don't hold the leash and the adult holds the leash, we're great. But it's just something simple you can do any day of the week, as long as we're open Monday through Saturday. and go and kind of hang out with the dog that day. Weekend WAGs are a little bit different. It's a longer term and it's almost like a foster, but it's just three days, does not have to be the weekend, it's just a good name, where you can take a dog out of the shelter for three or four days. And what we really get a lot from this is information about how they did in your home, how they did with the resident cat, how they did with your kids. And so we're able to kind of pick or give more information to the adopters to be like, yes, this is the right fit. Is it a couch potato? Is it crazy and wants to go hiking? I don't want a dog like that. I would like the couch potato, right? And so these are opportunities for you to come and volunteer, but not come up every week or this is more short term. I will also say when we do adopt, you do have a choice to do a weekend wag first to see if it works in your home. If the animal, we do it for dogs, we don't do it for cats. But to see if the dog works in your home and if everybody gets along and there's an animal there. So we always want to make sure that we're placing it in the right home and the adopter has the option. It's like, oh, this is, the dog did this and I didn't like this and you can bring it back, right? And so we wanna make sure we're, these are long-term, family units, and we want to make sure that they're there a long time. Any questions with those two programs?

I just had a question. You mentioned the signage in the parks. Does the shelter provide any financial assistance toward the signage?

We do not.

Okay.

All right, and that, I think, is it. I think if I did it right. Oh, yeah. So that is it. That's my information on the shelter, the phone number. But I'm always happy to take questions or phone calls to my office if you guys need anything. If you're seeing an uptick in off-leash dogs or anything in a specific area. Thank you. I appreciate that. specific area, we're happy to take those calls and kind of update enforcement in that area. Just know that education is our goal. We try not to write NOV, or they're called NOVs, Notice of Violations for every single thing that we do. We want to educate first, and then if it keeps happening, we'll eventually cite. But anyway, that's my presentation. Any other questions? Okay, great.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate you guys. I appreciate it. Okay, let's get to the business items on our agenda. The first is one of three public hearing matters. This is going to be a public hearing on detached accessory dwelling units. Now this is something that the council is revisiting from two weeks ago when Mike Agate presented what Planning Commission had gone through on their four sessions and brought that to us and we took some time to gather comments to bring back to staff to try and bring us something tonight to Be able to go over this is something that We have to move on and do something by October 1st by state law so Mike, maybe you can give a little more fill-in than what I just said, but for those that... Oh, and we did do a public hearing on it then, but we're going to do another public hearing on it tonight as well, too. So, Mike?

Thanks, Mayor. I'm going to hand out a quick one sheet.

There's enough to go to Jim and Bruce. We'll just pass it down.

This document is just a quick document I put together over the weekend regarding some, I guess not really a weekend, yesterday and today, regarding some minor edits that I noted after the packet was sent out. Just items rather than read each one of them verbatim that I'm recommending to be looked at. If you have questions about them, please let me know. The fifth one down is also identifying that there is a statement that's a, it's kind of a duplicate statement that really isn't necessary. I think it's 1258 60 C is pretty much the same as 1258 40 C. So really it doesn't need to be in the document. So that all being said, backing up mayor. Yeah, this year, Senate bill 284 is the local land and water modifications bill. It was signed into law on March 18th, required that all, I think it's all first second third and fourth class cities fifth class that were not required to do it have a detached accessory doing it in ordinance with certain requirements there's a one-pager in your packet that outlines what those requirements are of three things you have to do three things you can't do and then a list of options that are available to you that is contained in in Utah State Code 10-21-304, which is in your packet. And obviously, members of the public can certainly look that up to see what those are, as well as the ULCT detached ADU one pager lists them in very summarized format. So if anybody listening or in the audience wants to see more about that, that is in the packet. But what the requirement is is that all cities establish standards to allow for detached accessory dwelling units to be available on single family dwelling lots in your community. So the minimum standard size-wise is 11,000 square feet. I'm trying to, I have them up here. 11,000 square feet need to comply with building health and fire codes, have a process for conversion of a legally constructed accessory structure to a DADU subject to dwelling and accessory structure setback requirements. You can't require a conditional use permit for a DADU proposed in a primarily residential zone. And then you have to allow for one parking spot for a DADU less than, excuse me, you can require only one parking spot for a DADU less than 650 square feet or more than two parking spots for all DADUs. So you can't be more restrictive than that, but clearly you could be less restrictive than that if a city felt like it. And then include design standards that conflict with 10-20-618, which is regulations regarding very strict design standards for a home, a DADU, other use buildings. And then there's other items, again, that are kind of levers you can pick and choose as a community, what you like to have and what you don't want to have. whether or not someone can have an internal ADU and detached ADU, which we discussed at the last council meeting. There were some council members, I believe, that were interested in that concept. Obviously, sizing, you can have it a smaller lot than 11,000 square feet. You can determine what the size of your detached ADU is. One of the requirements, you could even make it so that your detached ADU can't be any larger than your main dwelling. So there's a lot of, again, nuances to it. But yeah, this came before The council, two weeks ago, since that time, the document that's in the packet, I went back and listened to the recording, and it became apparent that there's multiple points of, I guess you'd say, plug and play or questions about what was the interest of the council. And so I try to create alternate options in the packet for you, at least to get the juices flowing of how you want to debate what you want in the code. Clearly, what I'm suggesting are just ideas. They're not a silver bullet. And so you can debate and discuss that, decide what you think is in the best interest of the council. The other thing I want are the community. I mean, those are all highlighted in blue as well as items that I've amended since the last version you had in your packet two weeks ago. The other thing that we did talk about and that I'm going to again bring up is this is a living, I guess you say living document or organic document in that obviously we have to by state statute have something in place by October 1st or by default we default to the state standard and the minimums of the state standards and then whatever codes from our city ordinances apply will apply if we don't determine what we want our detached AD ordinance to say. So what I guess I'm getting at is It's pretty imperative to have at least a starting point in the code for these. But with the nature of it being living organic, we can modify after the fact where we need to. to further refine it and make it more right. And even in practice, if in a month after we got it in place, you say, hey, community development, can you give us a report? What are you seeing? What are your challenges? Certainly, we can come and say, we're seeing these kind of issuances. We're seeing these kind of challenges with how they're being looked at. I will note to that point, too, I don't know that we talked about it as much. Last time, but a detached ADU would go through a similar process of a lot that is needing to have a permitted use review. So kind of like a mini site plan. So by code, it's set up to go through a similar process where it would have a little bit of vetting to make sure it's meeting the codes that whatever the will of the council is to make sure we're hitting all those requirements correctly working with the design review committee with staff leadership to make sure that then we can move forward with the building permit on the site. So I just make that point clear. But I think, Mayor, that's the long and short of it. I think that that's probably a pretty quick summary, but I'm happy to entertain questions or other things or however you like to proceed with the public hearing and then have me come up however you want to proceed.

Thank you, Mike. Thank you for giving us options as well, too. Is there questions for Mike before we go to another public hearing on it that anybody wants to bring up? If not, then we will go to the public hearing. This is a public hearing regarding zoning code amendments, detached accessory dwelling units. This is for your purposes, council. Ordinance number 26-20. So anybody that wants to comment on this, the public hearing is now open. Just as always, please State your name and where you're from for the record.

So my name is TJ Riley. My wife is Talia. We came here back in February, started going over this, and then we, I think it was August, we met with the Planning Commission, kind of went over some different things, presented to them. So really today, I just wanted to again voice, you know, our concerns. We own a home on 84 West Chase Lane. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak regarding the proposed accessory dwelling units ordinance. And while I appreciate the city comment to align this draft with state code, I urge you to maximize the local flexibility allowed by the state to truly benefit our residents and long-term community goals. Specifically, I ask you to consider the four adjustments, these four adjustments before finalizing the ordinance. One, allow flexibility in ADU placement. Restricting ADUs strictly to the rear yard unfairly penalizes homeowners with shallow, wide, or irregularly shaped lots. Placement should be governed by standard setbacks and safety, not an arbitrary requirement to sit behind the primary home. Two would be permit primary home conversion. Do not assume that an ADU must always be smaller than an existing house and homeowners should have the option to build a new primary residence in the rear and convert their existing smaller home into an affordable ADU. This flexibility allows growing families or aging residents to stay in the neighborhood they love instead of selling and moving away. Three, recognize management benefits. allowing a primary home to sit behind you and ADU can actually improve the property management, site maintenance and neighborhood stability by keeping the homeowner in a position to better monitor the property. And four, scale the ADU to lot size. Instead of a restrictive cap, an ADU maximizes, should scale proportionally with the property conditions. Smaller lots get smaller ADUs, while larger lots have the flexibility to build larger ones. You know, building an ADU is a massive financial investment in Austin, often costs as much as a traditional home, but yields lower rental returns. And if the city wants to retain long-term families, encourage property investment, and expand our tax base, we must pass an ordinance that is economically realistic. Please build these flexible options into the initial draft rather than forcing residents to seek amendments later So I thank you for your time and consideration And the info yeah, thank you I don't know if you guys

we're ever able to meet or not. But we appreciate you coming back because I would ask you from time to time. Maybe we can have Mike. Oh, before we go to that, I guess we should. We'll hear other public hearing comments first, if there's any, and then we'll get to some of your issues on this. Thank you.

We really appreciate it. Yeah, we've been trying since February, so we would love the amendments to be put in place now and not come back.

Thank you. I'm getting ahead of myself. I should allow others to comment on the public hearing, then we can try and address all issues. So the public hearing is still open for these detached auxiliary dwelling units, if anyone else wants to comment. Excuse me. Identify yourself and where you're from.

Yes, council members, I'm Rick Bangerter, coming on 50-year resident of Centerville, and also happen to be, full disclosure, a city council member myself. Mayor and council, attached in this thumb drive is a version of A DOCUMENT ENTITLED COUNCILMAN VANGUIDER'S PROPOSED DADU RED LINE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH GIVES A COMBINED AND INTEGRATED WHICH IS COMBINED AND INTEGRATED WITH THE DOCUMENT IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT FROM CITY STAFF CALLED THE PROPOSED DRAFT DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE IN TITLE 12CZC AMENDED COUNCIL VERSION WITH OPTIONS. First of all, I want to compliment staff for a lot of work under a short timeline to be able to try to put some of these things together after numerous considerations from our planning commission, which we also appreciate. The intent of this version is to consolidate the proposed policy considerations into a possible working document so the council can move more easily and evaluate and perhaps methodologically methodically work through areas of agreement, identify remaining policy questions, and discuss potential refinements to the draft ordinance language. Key considerations reflected in this integrated draft include preservation of neighborhood character and compatibility, appropriate standards for owner occupancy, parking requirements and impacts on surrounding properties, design size and placement standards for detached accessory dwelling units, long-term housing objectives balanced with neighborhood concerns, administrative clarity and enforceability of the proposed regulations. This ordinance could and likely, very likely will be considerably impactful on our city. I'm asking for three documents on this drive to be included in the public record. That's why I'm doing this in the public hearing. and I ask for them to be tonight previewed and I'll discuss this in detail as we get to the item in discussion as a city council. But what it's done is it's used today's proposed draft plan and inserted with anything that's in red, red highlighting and indented right underneath that particular item in staff's draft report is a recommended consideration. From my perspective, there are a number of them because it's a very long document. And so I saw it as an efficient way to perhaps include those instead of every time we get to it having to read that to you. This didn't make it into the packet for various reasons. So I want to include it in the public record. So I'll give that to Jennifer now. Here's the hard drive with the regulations for this. And here's a hard copy. Thank you, Council Member.

Thank you. Anybody else? Before I go to anybody online, is there anybody else here presently that wants to comment on the public hearing? Okay, I saw some people online. Is there anybody that wants to comment? Anybody that's online want to comment in regards to detached and accessory dwelling units?

Kyle Green, Central City resident. I have some great concerns on accessory dwelling units. While in favor of them in moderation, I have seen kind of the wildcat version of people just turning basements into apartments and multiple rooms and other things like that where parking has become an extreme issue. And we actually have this issue with plan development that we've done. I would reference looking at the MORRIS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS TAKING PLACE JUST OFF OF PARISH LANE AND FOURTH EAST, WHERE PARKING WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD BECAUSE THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE HOMES THAT THEY'RE BUILDING. I'M CONCERNED THAT WITH THE, PARTICULARLY THE OLDER PART OF CENTERVILLE, WHERE HOMES HAVE SINGLE CAR DRIVEWAYS with or without a single car garage, that if we start including accessory dwelling units, that parking is going to become the number one problem that will most likely be overlooked and under monitored as we've been historically a city that deals on complaint-based enforcement of code. We are starting to already see issues with people parking multiple trailers, cars, vehicles on lawns, IN AREAS, PARTICULARLY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE PROPERTIES NOW THAT HAVE FOUR OR FIVE VEHICLES PARKING ON THE GRASS, AND IT'S STARTING TO LOOK VERY LIKE WE DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, HONESTLY. IT LOOKS TERRIBLE, AND IT'S BRINGING DOWN PROPERTY VALUES, IT'S BRINGING DOWN THE WAY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS AND FEELS IN THE CITY IN GENERAL. is starting to look and feel like it's a little rundown and a little dirty and a little bit, just a little bit worse off. And so my concern is that as we look at ADUs, and I realize the state mandates these things, and I wish we'd push back against that. I think the state is way overstepping their bounds, dictating to cities what we have to do. But that's a whole other separate issue. But for tonight's purposes, I hope that you consider greatly what ADUs, what impact ADUs will have on a neighborhood because it does have an impact via parking, via traffic, via all sorts of things. When you exponentially add the number of people to a neighborhood, it creates problems that you can't necessarily see on paper. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Kyle. Anybody else online want to comment? Well, I'm waiting to see if anybody else comes online to comment. One last chance for people that are here that want to comment for the public hearing before we start responding. I see nobody else online or in person. I will close the public hearing. Let's come back and respond to some of what was said. I'll respond. Mike, you help me on some of this. First off, thank you, Kyle, for your comments. Like you said, the state has mandated it. And like Mike said, we got to do something by October 1st or we default to what the state has to us. So we're trying to do our best to come up with something that works for Centerville City. So it's a matter we have to do something. We can't just say jump in the lake. I mean, I guess we can, but let's see what penalties is thrown at us. So we're trying to do our best to come up with a good ordinance. Second thing, what Rick Banger said, thank you for his document. Council, you probably saw that and staff did as well, too. And I think that many of you have looked at that. So hopefully we can comment on that as well, too. And then the third thing is, and Mike, I'm going to have you help me. I appreciate the Riley's and the document they've prepared. Are there anything that they put in here? Was it discussed with Planning Commission? Is there concerns about what they're asking for and that type of thing? And how does that fit with what state's required and what we can do beyond that?

Yeah, so what was represented in the planning commission is actually in the packet. There's a document near the bottom that is their public commentary from the August 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting. And in the commentary, pretty much the same things that were shared with the council were brought up in that they were seeking flexibility in placement, flexibility in size, like having a more broad perspective of looking at a detached ADU is maybe not necessarily a subordinate structure, but if the lot in the size match it, allowing the property owners to have some flexibility on how they use those lots and what is considered the ADU versus the primary dwelling. And those were some of the comments that they were evidencing tonight. Again, I think I highlighted earlier a representation that the state code says you can make a detached ADU the same size as your main structure or smaller, but you don't have to. That's an optional thing the code is very clear on from the state. I think for purposes like what the Riley's were asking for, to be clear there. Obviously, a concern that came up from the Planning Commission is how do we, not control, that's the wrong word, how do we appropriately regulate who can have them in the front yard area if we were to allow detached ADUs to be in the front yard? How do we regulate that if we allow it? Is there a sizing metric? We had some discussion at the last city council meeting about that very thing. And I even evidenced as such in the grid on page eight of the draft document I provided that looking at sliding scales, even Councilmember Bangerter's version of the document evidences a sliding scale factor system in his document. And I have read that, so I am aware of what's represented in that document. The other thing that they said, which I kind of already alluded to, but kind of in a different way, is not limiting exclusively to rear yard placements, especially in irregular lot scenarios. Obviously, last time that we looked at this, I had not even looked at a corner or side yard lot, and I did the best I could with the code that has been provided to you, which even raised an issue in my mind, and I evidenced that on page five, Now on the flip side, if we go and we create allowances for corner lots to have it on the street side yard and maybe their rear, I guess when I say street side yard, to be their street side front yard, that's not their main front of their home, if that makes sense using the code. But then it has two side yards. So are we going to allow them in the back and even on the interior side and give them three areas where now your interior lots only get them in the rear area. Are we now giving corner lots a little bit more flexibility? And so that's a question that came up that I highlighted on page five. So the Planning Commission's concern was to bring it all back together was what you just said, Mayor. the animal is so large in scope and the state is asking a lot and all cities are i i've looked at so many other cities going through this exact same process and seeing it and they're having the same levels of debates whether it's at the planning commission or the city council level trying to figure out even cities that have detached ad ordinances the state has said you can't do it that way anymore so they're having to go and adjust their own ordinances and what i'm trying to get at is with it being such a large thing and we're all learning together independently within our cities and also seeing how it works with each other, we don't quite know what the right formula is for each of our communities, let alone what the impacts are of maybe other cities that might do it right or wrong. And so there's a great level of experimentation going on with this ordinance throughout the state of Utah. And I kind of think that that was the idea, is to push us all into something a little uncomfortable to explore other housing options and ideas to create new opportunities for families and individuals who are struggling to find housing opportunities in their communities. And so I think the Planning Commission's ultimate goal was to just get... ordinance that's close to the mark as close as we can get by October 1st but if we're not quite there and we see we have time and opportunity we can keep exploring that after the fact even if it's tight window even if it was hey planning commission and staff try to get us version two in three months or four months right with kind of a loose timeline but an expectation that we want to see some things further evaluated now that we have the time to do so One big gaping hole, which was evidenced in Councilmember Bangerter's documents and also identified by a public comment two weeks ago, is the Historic District. There's nothing in state code that gives any regulatory guidance on what to do with the Historic District. Now there were suggestions from what was presented by Councilmember Bangerter to staff of a way to approach that, but again that that is so there's so much in what was presented that it almost feels like that would be a good place for the planning commission to vet that for staff to look at the historic district and try to figure out what the best way is to bring that forward so you have a most appropriate or best a path forward along with what has been provided by Councilmember Binger as a resident of the community. That specific discussion seems much larger in scope than maybe what we're trying to accomplish by October 1st. So long story short, I think the Planning Commission is kind of in that same boat with the Riley's. The Riley's are bringing something forward which There may be other ways to even approach what the Rileys were asking for, and that was evidenced in the minutes with the Planning Commission. Some cities have infill lot or flag lot ideas, and I know that's kind of a thing that you shouldn't be saying because I know there's been a lot of history in the community, but it is a realistic approach when you have landlocked parcels and hard to access or develop parcels. is there maybe a need to look at and consider infill lot development? And that's something the planning commission also brought up as an alternative approach. And they made it very clear in the planning commission, like, hey staff, we're gonna do this because we're trying to hit the October 1st deadline, but the Riley's issues are a concern. And this whole concept about infill lot development or properties where people can't develop their lots to their fullest extent because of certain limitations, we really need to look at that. So even the planning commission is aware that there needs to be a little bit more of an open-minded approach to how we allow parcel development in the community to afford more housing opportunities. So I know it's a lot of information. I hope that answers your question, Mayor, but that's all I have to say.

So I propose this question to you, but even more so to the council for their consideration. So you don't have to be put on the spot on this. I want council to think about it as well, too. I think of a home a couple lots south of Reading Elementary School. This home was built pretty much as far back on the lot as possible. They got a massive front yard, okay? So how do we penalize somebody that wants to be able to provide for children to live at their home or an elderly, they have a massive front yard that can meet the requirement of putting a smaller home in the front, put in parking. And they didn't know that the state was going to come out of this. So maybe they would have built up near the front and then had that to do in the backyard. But I do get concerned about a situation like that. And everybody probably knows the home I'm talking about. that how do we disallow that type of thing. So just throwing that out there for you to think about. When you're doing this, it seems like you're, in some ways, I think that attached units can look really nice, okay? But that's to me a classic example of penalizing somebody just because, okay, now there's this, oh, maybe we would have built our home nearer the front, Because we had all that room in the backyard. So anyway, that's just something that I think about as I pitch our homes that are in our community. Further responses, council, what Mike said to one of the three.

Mayor, can I just bring one thing more forward. On page 12, There is a note I added, do we want to waive impact fees on detached ADUs? And the reason I did that is we waive them, and it makes sense in an internal, but the state will give you credit on your moderate income housing plan for things like waiving impact fees on detached accessory dwelling units. So that's why I kept that in there. It doesn't mean it has to stay in there. If we feel like we don't want to waive impact fees, we don't feel like that's a policy, We feel like homeowners building them need to pay their way that way. That's fine, but that is something that I will need some direction on if we keep it as it is or remove it.

But I do want to give some guidance on that. As waiving impact fees doesn't necessarily mean nobody pays. That means the city pays for the impact fees. So if you waive the fees, the city will pay. You can't just waive them.

And it may also be something that we should address in our fee schedule, in our impact fees, rather than just a footnote in a zoning code.

I got my directions wrong. It's actually a couple of blocks north of . I was thinking that, yeah. Yeah. All right.

Can I just say while Mike's up here, Mike, we do appreciate the enormity of this task for you guys and a very short window to work in. I would like to say that I think it's, it's advantageous to us to get as far along as we can uh... make as many decisions toward an end goal and understand that those two can be modified and tweaked we maybe not just neglect all these other items today because we're waiting for planning commission or or timing to look at them in greater depth. But that argument goes both ways. The farther we can get today and closer to it, all of those can be reconsidered too. But let's not shortchange the process to sneak in under the state mandate would be my hope. And, and it is going to take a while. There's an enormity of information here to work through.

Uh, and the only thing I would counter to that council member vendor, just as somebody is looking at, as I went through your full document and reviewed everything. there's a lot of information in there that might be of worth or value for the planning commission to review. I agree. For the refine to make recommendations to make more sound to match what Centerville is, because they are obviously residents of your community. So I do think there's some validity to that. I hear what you're saying, but I'm just saying, if we go too far in the will of the council without vetting it through the planning commission, you may miss some opportunities that way.

I readily recognize there's some of that in that document I've provided. I just hope we can compare them side by side. Working off of your draft and integrating that in, that slide of Jennifer will bring it up when we get to that, it really makes that concise, easy, and it's new. The council hasn't seen that document.

So, Council, like we have talked about, we'd have to do something by October 1st. We don't meet again before then unless we had a special meeting, so we have to pass something. You have an ordinance in front of you, so I think that we need to discuss the ordinance and what you see in there and based on what public comment has been made, what Mike said, not just public comments tonight but two weeks ago and maybe anything else that came in, if there's anything that you want to add.

I think for me, I think for me, I am very concerned about truncating the land use process with the planning commission, sweeping changes at this point would be in my mind inappropriate. I think it's really important to stick to what staff has prepared and what the planning commission has sent up. Not that we can't make some changes, but, um, I, I absolutely 100% want to make sure that we do address some of these issues that you mentioned as far as a large front lot or the Riley situation. I just can't see how we can get that accomplished in one night. There are way too many factors that play in. And the reality is that I want everyone to get to utilize their private property as much as they can, especially because of our constraints on land that we don't have anymore and providing affordable housing. But we also have to be very sensitive to the fact that this is a backyard and it will impact somebody else's private property. And so that's where I want to exercise some caution and move a little more conservatively I appreciate all the work that's been done. I'd be comfortable going through this document that Mike prepared and just working through some of those things, but, but the sweeping changes that I'm seeing in, um, council members bangers, I'm probably not as comfortable with. Tonight. I think it should, I think it needs to go back through staff and go back through the planning commission with some direction from council. I think we've overstepped on that.

And I have to say, I agree with that. Same. My other concern is when we say we can cut back. Well, there may be people, I've been told that there's a contractor right now that's looking at some. And so if we open the door wide open, and it isn't what's best for the neighborhood, we can't take it back. If they come in on October 2nd with their plans drawn up because they're watching what we're doing, we can't go backwards. But we can add to it, we can give them more, but we can't take away if they've already came in. Being on the council for a long time, I know that there's been a few times that we've thrown a moratorium out because we didn't want anything to happen right at that moment, and that's kind of how I'm feeling with this is. I want to go pretty conservatively until we have more time to look at what we're doing because, like I said, you can have somebody come in and they're right ready to, and they've got their things on October 2nd, and I don't want somebody coming in saying, look what you've done. You've really affected our life because you made this decision so fast. And me going, oh, I had no idea that's what it could do. So I would personally kind of rather stick with what Mike's got. I've got some tweaks that I'd like to talk to everybody about to see how they feel about it. I feel bad because I know the Wrighties have been working on this, but at this point in time, I don't feel like there's any way.

Here's a slight example of some of the concern. Like for example, like in, I know we don't look at these ordinances and just look at one specific law, but in the case of the Riley's, we do have a square footage limitation, 12, 1 250 square feet total upstairs and downstairs or 800 is it 800 square feet for one floor i don't i don't know what size their home is i but that may not actually even even if we did say well it we can flop it and have the adu in front That may not help them. I'm not sure. I don't know that we're discussing that at this point. I'm just saying, to me, I want to make sure that we're so conservative about making sure that these are... The point of an accessory dwelling unit, I mean, I guess I'm going out on a limb here to say, I think the state passed this because they're trying to create... affordable housing units and my own oldest child benefited from a city in utah allowing that and he was able to live in a single family neighborhood but that said that home looked and felt just like the rest of the neighborhood and so i want to make sure that we're remembering that that there is an expectation in these low residential areas that there is some privacy and I think we can get there with what some of these other things are that, you know, with these larger parcels that absolutely, I just don't think that we're going to get there tonight.

So Councilwoman Hurst made a statement and Councilwoman Heyman agreed and Councilwoman Mecum agreed. So let's work off of that. These tweaks, do you want to bring up those tweaks and then make a motion, or what do you want to do?

Yeah, I'll be glad to bring up some of the tweaks. I'm really interested to see how some of the others feel about it. I've been out on a lot of sightseeing. I've talked to a lot of other cities. I'm concerned with the height. And to start with, I'd like to take it at 16 feet, and that's ground to top of the roof. That's not how we do all of our homes now. We maybe need to re-look at that down the line, but for tonight, 16 feet, if you go higher than that, I've watched while I've been on the council what happens. I don't want people to build a 20-foot, then they put in there upstairs, but they don't finish it. And so then as soon as our inspectors are gone, we've got the top floor, which is what we're really trying to get away from, is we don't want the higher ones. And so I think right now if we go to 16 feet, There are other cities that have gone 16 feet. I would rather go 15, but looking at the other cities, 16 feet seems like you've got plenty of room for your first story, your roof, to do well.

When you say 16 feet, ground level to top peak of the roof. Yes.

meters we're saying that they have to have separate meters I don't believe that's true I think we need to remember this is an accessory dwelling this isn't a second dwelling this isn't an additional dwelling this is an accessory dwelling if I had my first choice would be to have them be on the same meter but I would be willing to give them their choice but I don't think that we need They need to have separate meters. That was a problem with ADUs when people wanted to do their basements and things like that. They were making them have separate meters and the state came back in and changed and said, no, you have to have the same meter to make it more affordable. So it would make it more affordable by sharing the meters. As we know, we have a neighboring city that's decided to take ADUs and sell them separately. And I don't ever want to see that happen in Centerville. So if they don't have their own meters, we're kind of making a security blanket that they're not going to be sold off in two years after they've been built, which is what Farmington allows them to do. So I would prefer that they share a meter, but if not, at least have the opportunity for them to share a meter.

Can I clarify one thing? You're talking about one meter. In the case of the sewer district, It's one pipeline going in, but they do charge for ADU. They do charge. Do you want a charge assessed for the ADU? I don't care either way. I would like staff to weigh in on that as far as how we continue. I don't want the burden of the cost of that to fall on other residents. So I'm not sure if it matters that much, but I would like to staff to weigh in on that one.

Maybe Mike could come up and talk to I know he brought that up last last me very Mike Well, he's coming up mayor.

May I may I just? Respectfully make a request can We've just brought up three issues heights definition of height metering now and we start sequentially at the beginning of the of the draft and go through and tackle these one at a time and give them the consideration and Because as Gina has some various points I'm gonna we all are if we go through in order we can resolve that issue we have to make some decisions on some options presented and And the order of the way Mike's established this those things at the beginning lead to questions We're getting to at the end impact fees and things it just seems like it would make some sense and

We can, but I heard a statement, and I heard two people agree, and I thought we were close to, maybe I shouldn't have said Council Mecham give some of your input, because I almost thought we were at a proposal. on a motion. But, you know, we can do that or a motion can be made and you can deny it and we can have further discussion on it as well, too. But I thought we were getting there when I heard three statements saying that, hey, they don't know that they want to make changes at this time. So, you know, so that That's up to you guys. If somebody wants to make a motion and have it shot down, fine, or we could start discussing every little item on it.

I'll make a motion that we approach these sequentially from the beginning of the document to the end, realizing it's going to take some time. Council members, I think our citizens and residents deserve that of us. And I do believe that it can go quicker and we can look at things in order and tackle them at a time. That's my motion. I'll second.

When you say the document, do you mean the proposed draft that staff has suggested with the alternative options listed in blue?

That is the document. I would prefer, so that you don't have to hear from me on so many items, if Jennifer brought up the one. It is the document with some red lines identified. I don't even have to speak on some of them. Council could see it in front of you when we're talking about height. I've addressed a proposal for height. We call it the definition, as well as a height limitation. You can see it there, and it's going to save a lot of talk, and it's so easier to see in writing. The draft is in there, just as Mike presented it, blue with alternatives. Jennifer, if you'd please bring that up and show them just what we'd be looking at.

No, don't bring it up yet, because we have a motion and a second. We need to vote on that first. So we have... Does everybody understand the motion that was made and the second to it?

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what document the motion is referring to. Staff's document in the staff report or your red line document that supplements staff report?

The red line document that supplements the staff report includes the entirety of the staff draft. They're integrated together. Just an easy to identify which is which in each paragraph identified. That would be my recommend and we do it sequentially through in that order. And some of it can quickly be, I agree, Gina, some of, or Council Member Hayman, some of the recommendations that I am suggesting for consideration, I want to hear a debate on it before we make a decision on one, two, or three option and maybe Bangor's recommendation too. But then some of them are sweeping. The historic sites, for instance. We talked about that and I mean that we wanted staff to look at that. Time didn't permit. But yeah, some of those are lengthy. Maybe that's an example that we could defer for later. But some are short. Some are word corrections. Some are that quick. Change a within to a with. And we just... I DID THIS. I SPENT HOURS THIS WEEKEND, WHICH ISN'T PERTINENT TO YOU GUYS, BUT I DID IT WITH THE INTENT TO TRY TO HELP US SAVE TIME TONIGHT AND UNDERSTAND. I DID NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE PURPOSES FOR THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. YOU'VE GOT DOCUMENTS THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE PURPOSES. IT'S THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION. SO MY MOTION IS THAT WE LOOK AT THAT TOGETHER QUICKLY. SOME OF THEM WILL GO THROUGH IN A SNAP OF A FINGER. And do you agree with that sequentially, Councilman Plummer, to look at it that way? Yes.

Mr. Mayor, may I speak to that motion before we vote?

You may.

I will be voting against that motion, and here is why. It speaks to two issues. The first is that there are extensive and sweeping changes that are made in this document, and I understand that many of them were prepared with the use of an AI program. And when it comes to this issue, I want staff to be able to have the ability to weigh in. It's a process issue. I respect the professional knowledge that our staff has, and they have come to us and prepared very specific changes, the ones in blue that were prepared in the staff report. So I think from a process standpoint, for the reasons that Gina articulated, I think right now we do need to pass something. I am comfortable debating and weighing in on and making decisions based on what staff has presented to us, but I am not comfortable and I will not be voting in favor of using the red line document that council member Bangerter has prepared, not to say that the things that the generated report are not worthy of consideration, but I don't think that those process wise and procedurally are appropriate for us to decide tonight. I think that it would be a much more streamlined process if we simply looked through the packet and the proposal that staff has made where options based on the options that staff has through their professional judgment given to us to consider and leave any additional considerations for another night. So I will be voting against that motion. And if the motion fails, I will be moving that we go through the staff proposed blue lined version.

I don't get a vote, but everybody knows where I stand. I'd like to work off the document that's created and not to work off the secondary document. That's the document we're working off. If the secondary document we can incorporate into it, great. But I ought to get a vote on it. Any further comments on it before I go for a vote? Okay, Council Member Meekum.

Nay.

Aye.

Nay.

Aye. The motion fails, three to two. So let's get back to the document at hand. I think that we had Councilwoman, Mecham proposing some minor changes, and we had called Mike up to comment on one of those changes, correct? Okay, so Mike, do you know what you're commenting on?

I think it's the impact, yes.

Yeah, not necessarily impact, but just a water fee assessed if there's an ADU. What is your opinion on that?

First thing you gotta remember too is if they come in with their building and their house, let's just say is 25 fixture counts. And then the other one comes in with 10 and when it goes over 32, they have to upsize the waterline. So they're gonna have to go down, dig down in the road, upsize it to a one inch meter. So, and there is a fee associated with the impact from going from three quarter to one inch. as well as the amount of the base rate for the water meter is higher so after that i mean if they fix with it sit within the fixture count that it is i mean what about a family that has two people versus 12 people it's the impact is about the same so i mean unless you want to have separate water meters you know I don't know where everybody likes on this as far as other cities. I really haven't found out much that way.

I think as far as the impact fee goes, yes, if they have to upsize, I think there needs to be an impact fee. That's my opinion. But I'm talking about just that monthly, like what we pay for water every month, the base rate of $37. Do you think there should be a base rate fee for the ADU and the primary home or

Well, and that'd be up to you guys on how you did that. I mean, to me, if it's the same fixture count, it's like, well, it's the same amount of water. It's just gone through the one meter. I mean, in my opinion, but you can do what you want as far as an impact fee, it is an impact having another dwelling as well, you know? So the other thing that is we're finding in our industry is example, somebody has a galvanized line. with the new lead copper rules, the city's responsible for running it all the way into the house. Go figure. It's not our property, but it's rules. So we get governed by rules. So we go into the first house, and then we go into the second house if any issue ever come up with a different material, so to speak. So I mean, I don't know what other cities are doing on that. I mean, this is kind of a new issue, right, for everybody. So I'm not sure. In some ways, I like it if it has its own meter, but that's you know, they're paying a lot more money too. So if it's, you know, mother-in-law apartment, what have you, I mean, let's just say a guy has a large family. It's what's the difference really.

Yeah.

That makes sense.

Okay. Well, I think the other thing, part of that is we pay for our usage of water. So if we add more people and they're using more water, they don't get the water for free. They're paying it anyway. And if they have to have a one inch line, they're paying for a bigger,

connection anyway.

So they are actually either way going to pay the extra for that. I've got just a couple other things on this. As I've called around, every city says you need to remember that this is accessory dwelling. It's not a second dwelling. It's not an additional dwelling. It's not a bigger dwelling, it's an accessory. So a lot of the cities, I know Taylorsville says that theirs can only be 75% of the size of the permanent residence, because it is an accessory. It's not trying to make these, we're not trying to double our neighborhoods. They say this was not supposed to help increase our density. This is to give affordable homes to the young kids that are starting out that can't afford it. So 75% of a primary home, because there's a little house here across the street. It's 720 square feet. We're going to let them build the same thing behind it or even bigger if we went bigger. So I think that that's not an accessory. That's letting people build two homes on one lot, which is not considered an accessory. There is parking. We talked about the parking. And we can require one parking spot for 650 square feet. We can, if it's over that, we can require two, but we can't require any more parking spots than that. So if you let somebody build a 1500 square foot house, they're probably going to have kids. They're going to probably have more than two people living in that. So they're going to need more than two parking spots because we won't let them park on the road. So then we go back to Kyle Green's. We're going to be parking on the thing. So that's another reason to keep these homes smaller is we cannot require more parking than two stalls, no matter how big. It doesn't matter if it's 4,400 square feet. You can only still require two parking spots. And then I hadn't talked to a builder and he said You look at bountiful. They've had this for years and they haven't had that many built But if you notice the ads the television commercials, this is the new It's a new thing instead of he said instead of going around asking to wash your windows They're gonna say to you can we build an ad you in your backyard and then we could actually have people coming in big investors that would come to you and say, we'll build one in your backyard. It has to be in your name. We lend you the money for it, but we get the rent of it for so many years, or we get part of the rent. So there could be a lot of incentives with building these, too, which could really affect neighborhoods. So for those reasons, I really like the fact that we need to Maybe look at 75% of the primary residents so we're not getting two houses on one lot. I mean, where I bought, I bought in a single family neighborhood. So it's not really fair for you to turn it into double that. So those are my concerns is the heights, the meters. I talked to another city that said, do you value the privacy of your backyard? Well, I do value the privacy of my backyard and everybody else's backyard that lives in Centerville. The only other thing is not for tonight probably but we need to look at when we say they can be a percentage of the backyard it has to concern that if it's more than a 30 slope it doesn't count because there have been some that were built could take your whole backyard if you've got a steep it wouldn't be a lot but up here on the hill we've got some with a really small backyard but then it goes way up the hill we've already had one that that was brought to our attention with that. And it really infected the neighbors, shaded their whole backyard because they had the hill and then they had this blocking thing. So I think we need to do that. But that's my concern, is the height. the size of it, I wouldn't want it to be more than 75% of them.

Councilman Maycomb, Councilman Hurst made a statement, Councilman Heyman said I agree with that, you said you agree with these things, so how would you uh change the ordinance and i mean uh is this is there a motion based on your your items that you did and uh or uh i'm trying to get to the point that that uh uh we come to some sort of sort of of motion on this

yeah i think there's a few questions that staff has brought up that needs to be answered but it one of them is about the meters i don't know computer is not mike can i ask you a question with regards to this proposed ordinance the blue line version that is included in the staff report as i read this

if we were to eliminate all of your alternative options, you've gone through and you have the original language and then you've given us alternative options to consider in various places. It looks to me like if we were to just eliminate every, just for purposes of, I'm not suggesting that we do this, I'm just trying to sort of tee this up. If we were to eliminate absolutely every alternative option and just go with what you've proposed, it seems to me the only blank that isn't filled in right now is the 040 number allowed where you put in XXX square feet or greater under 3A.

Yeah, and the Planning Commission's recommendation was 8,500 square feet or greater.

so that's so okay so that's what i was going to say so all of the so that to me it's like if if we wanted to just make it super easy without any further discussion whatsoever not to suggest that's what we should do but if we were just to say 8 500 square feet there take out every alternative option that would be consistent with what the planning commission recommended and we can push that through and then decide alternative options later

Yeah, that was the original version, and you can see it in your packet as a final PC clean draft as well. That is the recommendation.

So with that, I would be really concerned that we allow that height. I'd like to know how everybody else feels, but I think we'd really don't we're going to have two-story buildings if you do a 20 foot they're totally precluded i think you what they're totally precluded two-story buildings are totally excluded but they're not because i can build it and put the top floor in and just not finish it and after he's gone you're you drive around centerville we already have them so i would go to sit i don't i don't know what it would matter if we're not doing two stories i think 16 feet would be ample to do that. And then if we need to look at it differently, we can.

May I speak to the height a little bit? The language I've proposed precludes any extension of attic space being utilized. As a general contractor and a roofing contractor, height does bear a little on the size of the external ADU. If you want that ADU to meet some of the design standards of the primary home, that primary home might have a 6'12 pitch roof or an 8'12 pitch roof. On the size we're looking, an 8'12 is going to bring you up a little more than your 15 or 16. And I'm not saying I've decided yet on the height, but it has a bearing on that. And we've got to say height, we've got to get a different definition for height than our ordinance has. These things all intertwine. And so with respect to the height though, in a single story building with a 6'12 or 8'12 pitch roof, it would necessitate being nearly 20 feet tall. And that's just, the main height is right at that peak, but that's what you're talking about. So you're gonna restrict them to a shallower pitched roof. The ordinance says, pitched roofs only, but you might have one building with a shallow pitched roof and the primary structure, the steep one, wouldn't tie in real well. And the concerns that I think you've brought up, Council Member Mecham, are the second story potential. This ordinance specifically precludes that.

It precludes it, but it doesn't stop it, because you don't know what I have in my attic. I may have built myself six bedrooms up there. So you don't know what's in somebody's attic, so I'm trying to preclude it. And I'm also looking at the height. I'm also looking at the shadow on the neighbors. It's the urban shadows. It's the urban shadows that are really concerning. I can do this tonight. but I can't do it over 16 feet. I guess that would be depending on how everybody else is is is doing it and you know i have i have a eight twelve pitch on my roof but i have a couple of little outbuildings that don't have near that much if you put that on my little buildings they'd look like they had a cone head on the top of them so and every circumstance is different you you wouldn't want that pitch you'd want you know a slope but you wouldn't want the same pitch on a little building that you have on a big building so i i feel great with 16 feet If people can bring things to us that show us that we're wrong on that, we can change it. But we can't change somebody that builds a 20-foot one and causes a real problem with their neighbors and then say, oh, I guess we shouldn't have done that. So I'm 16 feet on that, and I would like to see maybe 75% of the...

house but okay so do you have something about i just want to ask you this mike let me let me ask you this uh i i wondered a lot about the pitch of the roof so if someone were to bring you something and the pitch wasn't i mean the house was an 812 and the pitch on the adu was a 712 do you view that that met the spirit of the ordinance yes I mean can it be the reason I'm asking is because there happens to be a little it's not a dwelling unit but a little accessory shed next door like it's in my backyard like over just over the corner and it's about three feet from the property line and I think it's about 15 feet tall to the top of the roof and that to me is not it doesn't feel like it's an invasion of privacy. And if there were windows in that single story, you know, little shed, it's just a shed, they wouldn't really be looking down into anyone's lot. It would just be part of, you know, the fence kind of would provide the privacy. So I guess I'm just wondering what would the spirit of that part of the ordinance, I've kind of wondered about that.

And 1258-060-H. is that this is all it says, and it's not really strict. It just says the detached ADU must have a pitched roof unless the principal dwelling has a flat roof, in which case a detached ADU may have a flat roof or a pitched roof.

The other thing is we're looking at flat. We're thinking of all flat lots and all lots aren't flat and everybody's, I mean, I may have a neighbor up here and I'm down here and now they're still going to be able to go higher. So that's another thought is we're not all built on an even ground.

And my concern with that is, you know, yes, all the lots are different. Sometimes you do feel like you have a two story house that's looking into your lot and That's part of you know property rights for everybody But these are these are going to be eight feet from the fence line And so I that's where I get a little more concerned about just being a little cautious I I do agree with Councilmember Mecham that you know if they if they can bring something to us And it makes sense and we didn't get this quite right of course we can make a change yeah it's a lot easier to start low and go bigger and

Jennifer, can you do me a favor? On this document on screen, will you put up the bottom of page seven? So right now this reads second story development of accessory building for detached ADUs is prohibited. No second stories. Robin, you're saying that as I read it, you would be okay with alternative option one if we change 15 feet to 16 feet.

I'm changing 20 feet to 16 feet.

In this alternative option one, you're saying the maximum height allowed, I thought you said 16 feet, and that second story development is prohibited. If you change 15 feet to 16 feet, does that address your concern?

Yeah, or I'm okay with 15. I mean, I'd love 15, but I could go 16 feet there.

Gina, are you on board with going 16 feet? Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I do, there are several things about this that I wonder how, we have to think about constructability, but that's really not our job to figure that out. That is the job of those working on these ADUs to figure out. You know, when we talk about 8,500 square feet, my lot's just over 10,000. I'm kind of moving to a different section, but my lot's just over 10,000 square feet. I measured it out. I could maybe build a five by five based on where my back of my house is and the six feet that's required and then the eight feet off of the backyard. I wouldn't be building a very large ADU based on. And so there are going to be some just natural constraints. And so I think we're going to have people maybe potentially struggling to make this work. And I think we need to be open to the fact that we maybe don't have this quite where it needs to be. But I do want to exercise caution on just making sure that we protect schools' privacy.

So for what it is worth, I would be comfortable with the language as drafted by staff. But in order to reach consensus, if Council Member Meekin and Council Member Hirsch are like alternative option one with 16 feet there, I can be on board with that.

That'd be great.

What about, okay, you said you're comfortable with staff's recommendation of 20 feet.

No, she's saying not taking staff. I'm fine with just saying no second story development period. I'm fine with it as drafted. If you both are more comfortable putting some height limitation on it, what I'm saying is that I could be on board with that too. And I think 16 feet is fine. If that's what other cities are saying for you, Council Member Mecham, then I think 16 feet.

there makes sense who are the cities remember that the planning commission recommended 20. what you mentioned that there are some cities who have said 16 feet what tell me do you know who they are like just off the top of your head taylorsville has it they have a variation they they in many cases have 16 they even have some lofts only allowed 12 feet is the maximum And then they have some kind of an allowance that allows them to go up to 16 in certain circumstances. So they're kind of different places. Kaysville is considering 16 feet. They're kind of in a weird spot. They're looking at 16 feet or 25 feet. They're trying to evaluate. I think there's some internal strife within their planning commission of which option is the right way to go or maybe even at some point in city council. I know South Jordan City had 16 feet, but in light of state legislation, they're looking at whether or not They want to go a little higher. So that's what I'm saying, that there have been some already previously established at 16. Taylorsville is 12 to 16, and then they have one scenario where it's 16 again with a special circumstance up to 20. So there are cities that do have 16. Taylorsville is 12 with special circumstances to 16. And then they have some loss or 16 special circumstances to 20. Right.

I mean, we can go higher, but I just, for purposes of reaching consensus tonight, just so that we're clear, for purposes of reaching consensus tonight, if we can get on board with 16, I can go with 16 and we can reevaluate that later.

All right, we're making some headway. So we're at 16 there, at least three of you are. The others haven't weighed in. Was there any other changes before?

The meters can be, we can either have separate meters or joint meters.

And that's on page four, alternate option two is separate meters are prohibited. Which section is that, Mike? It's under 12.58.060E. So alternate option two is just outright separate utilities are prohibited, and then alternate option three, following North Salt Lake, is letting the property owner make that determination.

Jennifer's pulled it in front of everybody there. Alternate option one, option two, option three.

I'm kind of getting confused about where we're going back and forth. And I'm actually really wishing we could have gone in a systematic order. You know, I feel a little X'd out of the conversation because we got three people that are seeming to be coming into consensus. But I really feel like, you know, the Riley's gave us a list of things that I'm in full support of. Councilman Bangerter had a printout that I'm absolutely wishing we could go through and go systematically and make the decisions like he stated, and we could have it all done. But no, we're gonna actually default to some minimal standards that the state's required, leaving people that actually had been wanting this done months ago to be waiting to see if we can get it done later on. You know, I'm tired of...

I appreciate, Councilman Plummer, that you're passionate about it, okay? I'm glad people are passionate about it. But a motion was brought on that, and it was struck down, so we're moving ahead with something else. So do you want to add something in regards to what we're moving ahead with that... that you feel makes this ordinance better?

I just said that I'm actually going and getting a little confused going back and forth. Can we have some systematic way of going through these alternative options?

Well, hopefully, obviously, Councilwoman Hurst went through and found some things that she, sorry, Councilwoman Mecham, that she wanted to change. Banger did as well too. We're just hitting a couple of those areas. Is there areas that you looked at that you want to bring up as well too to get this fixed so we can get a motion out there? Because we have to get a motion done on this.

Could we just start at page one though and just scroll through and just maybe Mike just quickly hit like say do you want this blue edit added or not and then when we see they have the alternates just say yes this is what i i do agree that i'm flipping back and forth and i feel like i'm spending a lot of time doing that i'm not necessarily getting to really be involved with everything.

Okay, so yes, we could do that, but we're kind of back to now what Councilman Banger proposed.

No, we're not, because he wanted to view his document, and I didn't want to do that.

Are we going to the start of the document or down every page then? I felt that we were getting somewhere with the two or three changes you wanted me to make. Are we now looking at the whole document?

I'm fine to do that, because I think we want to get it as accurate as we can. I do think some of these blue changes, such as on page two, when you look at section, it's 12.58.030 definitions. Mike, did you add, you added some additional language. I'm fine with that. Is that, I mean, did you feel like that was necessary?

That was per guidance of the city attorney, yes.

Okay, great. I'm great with those changes. Is everyone else here?

And it matches state code.

Okay, I just think it might be helpful to just hit, and I would like it to be clear to Mike when he leaves here that he's like, okay, I am accepting these changes, I am not accepting these. I think if we're going back and forth, I think there's some potential for misunderstanding of what was really getting changed on, especially if we're not going to vote on every single thing. So I am fine with the changes to Section A and Section C. Does anyone have concerns about that?

We're going sequentially. Ahead of that, I have a point on purposes. A week ago today, I presented some of this to staff, and our city attorney, Lisa, was in favor of including some purposes And they're suggested in here exactly as Midvale City has in their ordinance. But I think we aren't discussing that part.

I was only talking, I think we should only look at the blue text. I don't think we should. That to me goes back to what Council Member Heyman said before, which is that those are sweeping changes that are beyond the scope of, like that needs to follow the appropriate process. Back through staff.

On the blue text, we have options, right? Correct. Are we deciding on one of those options?

Those are policy decisions that I need guidance from. Okay.

So before this can be a working document, we need to narrow down if we have an Two or three alternates. What are the alternate options, right?

So to clarify, Mayor, there's two forms of changes. There's changes that are just blue that don't have alternate option. Those are just recommended staff changes that need to be made. Plus, I sent in the one sheet with further just minor refinements to that one. Those would be also blue. But where it says alternate option in blue, that I need policy decision guidance.

Okay, so to get this to where we could pass something tonight, you need on those alternate options decisions made. Correct. Okay? That is what I meant. So can we go to the top of the document, Jennifer, and hit those alternate options and make some decisions on those? Because Mike says that he needs that to finalize this thing. Is that the first one right there, Mike?

Yeah, at the bottom of page two, bleeding over into page three.

Yes. So we're going to need to be able to read the top of that, Jennifer, before we get the alternative.

I think she scrolled it up a little. We can see it.

Yeah. So where the X's are. And then the options that you had discussed, at least to start conversation at the last meeting, was the 4,500 or 6,000 feet alternatively from 8,500 for the .

I'm great with the 85 under the planning.

I'm good with alternate one.

Okay, so 85 Councilman Baker.

And the state is 10, right?

You're all free as putting in 85. 85, uh-huh. Okay, and Brian, your Councilman Plummer is alternate one. Where does everybody else sit?

I I'm probably 85 for right now for tonight. I think I want to go with planning commission and then investigate further.

Agreed. I'm going to defer to the planning commission on that and we can look at that differently. That would be my vote.

So I would have gone 6,000 other than I'd support six.

So, so what were you, you, uh,

Councilman Mayeron? 8,500.

Okay, so we have alternate option three taken care of for you, right? 8,500. Correct.

And just for the record, staff is also recommending that we be consistent with those state code language that it will be 8,500 square feet or greater.

Correct.

Yes. Okay.

Okay, great. Okay, let's move on.

Is it right down below? C, yeah, Article C there in the parentheses C. regarding whether or not to allow there to be an internal and a detached or external dwelling unit in combination, or to only have one or the other. That's the next policy decision. I support a combination.

As do I. Both a detached ADU and you can have an internal ADU.

How does that impact parking? That's my concern. Parking.

How does a family of seven have five kids with cars impact the parking situation?

It's really tough, Brian. I've done it. Exactly.

I'm sorry, but our city has changed. We have large homes with one or two people living in them in a lot of situations. We can absorb this. This is not something, I think this is some red herring, personally.

But here's the problem that I'm a little concerned about, and it goes right back to what Kyle Green mentioned, and it is that we do get complaints about parking. And so I think we have to remember they can't be parked

on the street in the winter and it's really i i don't blame people for being upset if they're parked on the lawns that doesn't seem okay can i make a suggestion the wording from my recommendation would be a qualifying owner occupied single family dwelling property may contain not more than one internal adu and not more than one detached ADU provided, each independently complies with the standards applicable to that type of ADU. And it satisfies all combined parking, lot coverage, utility building fire, and where both an internal and external are established on the same property, the parking required for each unit shall be provided in addition to the parking required for the primary dwellings. Yes.

Does that align with the state standard? I lost you about halfway through in that run-on sentence.

That's why it would be nice if it was in front of us and you could read it.

But the problem is exactly that. It's just too wordy and too long. It's difficult to interpret.

Mike, does that meet the state standard?

It doesn't. It doesn't seem to violate state standard because what I hear it saying and having read a version of that is the internal ADU still needs to meet its parking requirement and the external detached ADU needs to meet its parking requirement so that they fulfill the code. in other words you don't you don't just say well i only have to have two parking stalls and it covers both it's saying it needs to still respect both independently as there is because technically you'd possibly have three units on that lot correct correct so one thing sorry mayor we have two council members to say they're okay with uh

One attached and one internal. We just had to ask about parking. We didn't have anybody else say they were against it. They just inquired about parking. So do we have another one, council member, that's OK with the one detached and the one internal? Or do we need to address something with parking?

Can I just clarify, Mike? if let's just say that you have a thousand square foot two thousand square foot house a thousand up thousand down you can require two for the basement adu two parking spots right and then you have a building a dwelling unit detached and that is a maximum of 800 square feet that would require two right and then what does the primary dwelling require

I don't remember if it's a one or it's two as well. I think it might be per square foot. I'd have to look at the parking ordinance.

You feel like you can utilize that?

Yeah.

You can say we need six.

It probably would be. In a typical situation with both, you would have six parking stalls. And the state does say we have to allow them to be parked in tandem. So you could have them. Like this.

Yeah, that's fine. But we could, we could under state code require that they have in Gina's example, six, assuming that that was the correct number. You would have to require that they have a collective total of six parking spots, three units.

Yeah. So I could probably, I mean, I could write again, similar language to what council member Banger has evidenced and maybe even a more concise way and add that as another sentence on the end of alternate language option.

You can write it concisely.

Yeah.

Okay, right. I think we're good on that. Was that the direction? Yes. Okay.

Add the parking statement.

Okay. Yeah. As long as we can put those parking restrictions in place, then I would be okay with allowing a detached and an internal ADU on the same property.

All right. And I will be sure to work with the city attorney. Talking about that they're okay with that language. Okay. What else do you need help on? This next one?

Yeah, 1258.060A, we've covered that. 12.58.060C is redundant. Are we comfortable with me removing it because it is a redundancy of what we just covered?

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

Okay, go ahead, Jennifer.

All right. And then we're now to the utilities again.

Yes, we saw this one before when we decided to go back to the top. So did we decide on an alternate option here? I support.

Do we have a problem with offering either one, Rick?

I think we ought to offer either one within code. And that's what my document would have said.

That they may have separate meters. Right. Would be the word may.

Right. So alternate three, correct? Correct. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that.

Okay, it sounds like pretty much everybody is, okay. Go ahead, Jennifer, let's move down.

All right, the next one is F, and it's the setback standard. The recommendation was eight feet for an interior lot on all the rear property lines. AND THE ALTERNATES THAT WERE DISCUSSED WERE 10 FEET AND 12 FEET. OBVIOUSLY IT COULD BE 9 FEET, 11 FEET. I NEED SOME DIRECTION HERE ON WHAT THE APPROPRIATE SETBACK NUMBER WOULD BE.

WHAT IF WE DID A 10-FOOT IN THE BACKYARD AND 8 FEET ON THE SIDES?

WELL, THIS ONE, CURRENTLY WE DON'T ALLOW IT IN THE SIDE YARD SPACE TO THE SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE BECAUSE WE WOULD BE FALLING.

OH, THIS IS OKAY. I'M WRONG.

THIS IS THE INTERIOR LOT, NOT CORNER LOT. OKAY. I'M WRONG. WE'LL COVER CORNER LOT IN A MINUTE. OKAY. ON THE INTERIOR LOT. DO WE WANT A 9, 10, 11, 12? So I'm not sure. Tell me.

I'm fine with the Planning Commission's recommendation of eight feet.

Eight feet?

And what, tell me, I want a little more explanation.

We got two that are eight feet? Tell me. Three that are eight feet?

Yeah, I'm okay with eight feet.

Okay. All right. Let's go on to the next one.

All right, now corner, this is new language. This was per the conversation at the last meeting, which was a very, very clear oversight. And what I've done here, again, it's using the same numbers of eight feet. Corner lots are different in that you have two side yards, so you could have an eight foot and a ten foot that are kind of narrow, but in some circumstances, just like the mayor said, the alternative is you might have a home that's really far away that might afford opportunities for it, as well as then you're going to have a side yard that's on the corner lot, except that's from the front yard, but they're both considered front yards by the code. So I had to really be careful in how I worded this, and even then, you'll see the variation I provided to you. I had to add wall to make it more clear because there's a different definition in 12-12-40 that made that a little more difficult to employ the way I had previously written in your packet. So that being said, the interior lot line, which is again, not the one adjacent to the street this side, I had put eight feet, but the question is, do we want to allow it to be, a DAD would even be there and give them a little bit more of an opportunity that other interior lots don't have. And so that's the first, thing to ask. Then behind the home, I put eight feet again in continuation of what we had discussed with the interior lot. And then the corner lot or the corner side, I had put it 20 feet because the code for corner lot on any main building or structure is 20 feet already. So that's just a consistency with code. So this is a two-pronged question. Do we want to allow that interior lot to have the opportunity for a detached ADU if their lock configuration allows for it. And then do we wanna keep it at eight, eight and 20, or do we wanna be more or less restrictive with those numbers?

Can I ask on the 20 feet, is that to provide some sight distance with drivers and whatnot?

That and probably to create some relief to the general public as they're driving around those corner areas, because even the front yard setback is 25 feet. So it's to create some consistency of that relief.

Does that potentially penalize the corner property lot? I mean, I probably in alignment with that, but I just, I'm wondering.

And that's why I kept in, that's why I was thinking of maybe having three to give them a little bit more property opportunity back. But again, this is all open for discussion from my perspective.

I agree with the 28 and eight. I'm fine with the 20. I'd also be okay if that went back to the Planning Commission for further discussion if they wanted to bring something back.

We've got to pass that in the night.

It doesn't need to go today. We can approve it as something, and then if they want to weigh in differently, I would appreciate that at some future juncture.

So we approve it at 20 today? Okay. Let's move down.

I would have gone less.

I think for me it's the site distance potential issues. And maybe it doesn't play in, but I want a little further investigation in that before I go.

I'll just point out one of the purposes for doing this is so that we have an increased opportunity for people to have moderate income housing, a place to live. It is going to necessitate some compensations, some concessions on side yards and things to implement that. If the purpose is to help there, we need to understand. And the state said we have to have DADUs, fortunately. I don't want to go under their mandates exactly how, but I'm totally supportive. And there's got to be some leeway. There's got to be some concessions so that we can allow them appropriately, have them look right, and fulfill the need for people to build something less expensive that they're parents or their kids can live in affordably.

Okay, and I think we're doing so far a pretty good job of it.

I'm in agreement with that.

Three or four of us on all these are agreeing, so let's continue on. Wait, wait, wait.

I think we already covered the last one. Lisa, for purposes of a motion.

Did we cover all of them?

Yeah, I think so. Not quite.

I need a few more.

Let's finish them. We're getting close. Confirm that the height is option one at 16 feet. Yeah, I thought we had already.

That's ground. That's ground. I should say the definition is ground to maximum height of the structure.

16 feet.

The top of the roof. And the planning commission said 20 feet.

And following the accessory building ordinance, which is the average. of the lowest D of T at the tip of the roof. Because that's what the construction code standard is right now.

Which is lower. The Planning Commission approved it at a height that's higher than 20 in many cases, right? Correct. And you're going clear down to 16. Right.

On that one, I do.

And is there new language that says we're using a different height standard?

That's what's being discussed, I think.

Oh, okay, so it's not in this blue.

No, it's not. Council Member Mecham is suggesting it be measured.

So it wasn't 15, it was 16. But where on the ground? That's the problem, is that when you have a slope...

It says, Lisa, the average ground level...

So if it's sloping, you'd go to the mid. Right.

But anyway, are you talking about our current ordinance? No, no. Well, I'm talking about our current ordinance. If you change and just say, no, we want it 16 feet from the ground, not an average, you're not accounting for the slope.

Right.

It doesn't work. Then say an average. Well, staff and the planning commission were suggesting using your already existing height measurement, just make it lower.

No.

Okay. Okay.

I know we all agree with that we can't control yes because we can't control it as far as I mean we can change this once we figure but there isn't really anybody that can tell us exactly what that is and it's different on an every pitch roof and so I think we need more time to figure that one out and Because just like you said, an 8-12 pitch roof is going to be a whole lot taller than a 4-12 pitch roof. So I don't want, we need, we just need it.

You agree with Councilman Mecham, does at least three of you agree with that? Or do you want to go with what the Planning Commission said, which matches our ordinance?

Okay, I'm sorry, I might change my mind on this one. Only because I hadn't realized how much we were deviating from what our existing ordinances and that makes me a little bit uncomfortable.

Do you realize you could have a 24 or 25 foot?

I know, but you know what I think? I think I think I would be more comfortable going with the language as proposed and not the alternative option to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Sorry, I'm changing my mind on that one. I don't know, maybe I'm the only one.

Well, what I'm saying is you can lower the maximum height. All I'm saying is use the same calculation.

Calculate it the same way. That is what I am comfortable with. It still would limit the feet, but it would be consistent with the way that we calculated.

So that's all my point is. But instead of 20, say 16, is that...

But then are we going to want to have to go lower because that's only halfway up the roof?

I don't know. I cannot.

That's right. Nobody can.

Because we would have to look at the way we calculate it, give you multiple scenarios of different slopes and different properties because property is not flat.

So if you went 12, you'd give them all more than 16. If we changed that to 12, everybody would have more than 16. Okay. Is that, isn't that correct?

I can't call it. I don't know.

That's the problem is I feel like nobody knows.

It's so variable because of the ability to know the types of slopes that are on the floor. It's such a moving target. There's not a one-size-fits-all discussion.

Do we eventually need to change the way we measure this?

Well, it's a pretty typical standard with cities using the construction code for height evaluation.

Okay.

I mean, some trees I've worked in are straight to the height.

If that is the standard practice, I will get on board with that.

Okay, but so do you want to go 16 or do you want to lower that? I mean, you're allowing over 20 feet in people's backyards.

Well, I'm not sure. I don't know what... That means if it's mid, these are little buildings, so they're not, it's not a full, it's not like the size of my house that is bigger than 800.

But it's still got to be at least, it's still got to be four feet.

I said, to put it in perspective, right? A 350-square-foot home is not going to be very big and therefore not have a big of a roof, but an 800-square-foot home is going to have probably a larger span roof, therefore it's going to go higher in the air.

And if you're going to build it, you're going to build 800 if you're going to put that kind of money. Can I ask you a question? If I demolish my existing house, I'm not looking at an ADU, I'm just going to demolish my existing house and create a brand new house, how tall can I make that house?

35 feet.

35 feet.

35 feet.

But you're not building that in anybody's backyard. You're building that next to everybody's. Well, I could. I could build my house. You could. I could demolish it and put my new house somewhere else. So, yeah, I'm okay. I mean, I think that probably I would be even on board in light of that with the Planning Commission's recommendation.

Please understand, too, Shailene, it could actually be 45 feet, depending on where the midline of that roof height is.

Yeah, 35 feet would be the average point.

But Lisa, haven't we talked about changing that?

It's kind of the concern. And we've had several comments about the potential for the urban shadow. That's, I think, where I'm concerned about it. But I agree we want to give as many options as possible. But I do think it ought to be, it does need to be consistent one way or the other. If we're going to change this and this is not best practice, then I don't want to do that. If it is better to say a maximum height, then we should change the other part of the ordinance, I guess.

Right? It should be the same. Well, we are following construction code, so if we create a new exemption for a height standard that is solely to detached data use, then that creates... a harder to apply precedent that we then have to follow until we find out that may or may not be working the way we wanted it to so what what it what is staff's more professional opinion on this to to address what councilmember meekum is saying a more uniform way would be like 15 feet you're still going to have a peak though potentially on on different sizing now what will keep your roof elevation from getting higher or larger structures, like I said. So if you were comfortable keeping the floor size 800 square feet, your roof pitch and your roof elevation probably won't go as high. But as you look at the size of structure you would allow in the code, and maybe this is a conversation for a future discussion, that will affect your elevation and your pitch of your roof line. And then that height will move within that space.

some of the way that this works is if it does meet some development guidelines standards right like that it has the right feel it still feels like it belongs in the neighborhood and i don't know if you can help us but so we had agreed on 16 feet

And now we want to change that. So I'm saying, what if we just drop it to 14 feet? They're still going to get way over the 16 feet that we thought was OK. I mean, if you give them 14 feet, any house is going to be 18 to 20.

To be clear, they need about 10 feet. I mean, they need at least an eight-foot ceiling, right? And then you've got some two-by-fours and a roof.

But that's what I say. But now you're giving them room for a two-story if you go down. That's what I...

I don't know if you... And you know what? Here's the thing. There will always be people who will...

And the rules.

They'll bend the rules or they'll just frequently disobey them.

Right, but I'm just saying we all seem to agree on 16 feet. No, not all of us.

I got 14, I got 15, I got 16, there was three people that agreed on 16. Let's decide on one, please.

Wait, wait, my agreement to 16 was under the assumption that we would measure using our existing height measurement standards. And I understood you understood 16 feet to be total from ground floor.

Right, but so I'm saying if we dropped even to 14 feet, at least we're... Rick, do you want to go higher on that one?

I'm good with the Planning Commission, 20. I think that's reasonable. Especially, we haven't even considered the fact that we might be allowing bigger ADUs on bigger lots. And you're restricting them to a shallow pitched roof.

Where are you at, Brian Palmer? I'm with the Planning Commission's recommendation.

So I have a picture here. Can I send it to Jennifer and she can show you the difference between 16 and 20 feet in an ADU in the same building?

Let me send a picture. Okay. Let's see. Keep chatting.

Well, while he's getting that, I'm going to say that I think what I just heard you say is if we allow bigger ADUs, like at a future juncture, is that what you're referencing?

Yeah, you seem to want to punt to that. I think we could address it easy tonight, but...

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with that for all the reasons I've stated. But my point being, I actually feel like that's a different definition, and it should be a different tool. So that's all I'm going to say about that. I think there's a really, like there's a potential way to make that happen that is more like a flag lot than... I just think accessory, I've read several definitions, none of which came from a government resource. But accessory means smaller than the primary house. That's what it typically is described as, whether that's Fannie Mae, whether it's, you know, I'm trying to think what else I saw. And I do think we should, I mean, I think that's probably where the difference of opinion is coming from a little bit. So...

I like the idea of being able to designate the primary residence that is there now as the ADU, and then building something that would become the primary. That should be .

That might be very .

I'm fine with that too, but I don't know how many homes there are going to be that will qualify under this square footage of size that are already built.

It's got to be under 800 feet.

800 square feet is a pretty tiny house. That would be mostly, I would think, mostly old town Centerville. Oh, here we go.

OK. So you see, it makes a huge difference if that's on the other side of your fence by eight feet.

So the eight foot separation is trying to indicate that separation between the fence and the humps. So there's eight feet between the humps.

And by the way, this is an 800 square foot. Yeah. Okay.

So with a 20 foot frontage.

I think that's a fairly good idea of what these would look like at maximum size of 800 square feet.

Right.

okay for purposes of moving this thing along and i'm not saying that i might not be amenable to a taller building at some point later like i because i think the planning commission i think there are additional things that we're going to want to look at here and we can make tweaks but we have to have something in place to comply with the state code the new law so i i still i'm okay with 16 feet but i want it measured under existing height measurement standards i just don't want some new willy-nilly

But looking at that, you're not willing to go less than 16. Because you're over 20.

I want existing definitions.

That is existing. I'm saying to measure it that way. That's why I'm dropping it. Because if you're measuring it, you're going to give them four to eight more feet. So instead of 16, I'm saying go 14, and they're going to be 18 to 25.

Yeah, I'm still okay with 16, and it's still four feet less than what the Planning Commission recommended, so yeah.

Well, I find it interesting, those pictures we were talking about, no second stories, but the second story is in the 20-footer, right? That's what it looks like.

Yeah, there's going to be a second story if you go that high.

I'm not saying every 20-foot building necessarily would have it, but...

I'll confirm with council member Haman just to get the ball rolling. Let's go. So we're at six, we're at 16.

We got, we got three, six.

I will support. I'll support it.

Jennifer, let's go to the next one.

It may not be perfect, but we need to get something past tonight. All right.

And then in the grid, I have 8,500 square feet. I'll put in. Yep.

So for purposes of this motion here, Lisa, this Frankenstein document that we have just, I think, collectively come up with, how would you like us to tee up a motion? Do we have anybody keeping track of the changes?

I have. Do you want me to take this down?

We're almost there. We have one more. Two or three sections. Where do you need us at, Mike? Real square footage. Are we good at 350 minimum, 800 square foot on a single level with the basement option and 1,250 total?

Sorry, which page are we on right now? It's on the table.

Real square footage.

Jennifer's pull up on your screen.

I am I am fine with those.

I'm fine with those sizes I would increase that I Would go with a little bigger than on a bigger lot.

I mean we've got a lot of acre lots Yeah, it's gonna seem like a really small Structure on a large lot and there could have been a lot better usage Amen so

But I think that's the argument, what we've been discussing, right, is that's where a flag lot discussion come into play or other opportunities or infill lots. And I'm not, this is meant to be.

And I'm 100% supportive of what you're saying. I just think it's a different definition. I do think it is a flag lot. It's not an accessory.

I mean, why would you think that? You've got a home on the front of a big acre. That's not a flag lot. You can easily put an ADU back there, a detached ADU, and it doesn't need to be a little tiny thing.

But it's not accessible if it's that big of an ADU.

I don't want a big ADU. But now we're talking about creating a new parcel, and that's something that is totally separate.

And if they want to go a little bit bigger for two families, you're going to force them to do a basement? We want to get into that?

But now you're talking about two primary residences on one parcel, and that's different when we're talking about an ADU. And that's why I said there's just a little bit of difference here. You have two primary residences, two 2,000 square foot homes on one parcel. That's not an ADU anymore.

Those are two primary residences.

Well, unless you say an ADU can be 1,250. Right. So if it's 2,000 and one's 1,800, that is less.

But it's still really two primary sized homes. Two primary residents. In my mind, an accessory dwelling unit and exactly, that is no longer like super affordable. The idea here is the state passed this to get more affordable housing without impacting single family home neighborhoods.

We're not supposed to be building great big homes. This isn't to give people, you can build another huge home on your property. It's to build an accessory.

Do I hear three of you, four and two against?

I'm sorry, what? Yes, I'm for it.

The Planning Commission version.

I don't know who else was with, that was for it.

I can be with that. I can be with that.

Okay, what else do you need, Buck? Okay, we're almost there.

I need, probably the last thing I need is ways at the end on the impact fees discussion under 12.58.110, number three.

No waiver.

No waiver.

No waiver. No waiver. Okay.

Okay. The other alternative option we covered? We covered everything else.

I have everything else I need up to now.

Do you realize that if we go no waiver, would you explain that to them about the advantage that gives us?

Yeah. So again, like I said earlier, if we were to keep an exemption on impact fees for a detached area to use, then it allows us to have a qualification for our moderate income housing reporting requirements with the state to show that we're showing a progression towards it. And that is something that our draft general plan does identify as being favorable to the development of accessory dwelling units in our community. So that would be a favorable position for the city to take if the city were up in two examples. What would that fee look like on an 800 square foot? That's where I would look. Do you know, Mike?

Yeah, what's the cost?

On a... impact fee for a detached AD. Do you have any idea how we would figure that out?

$2,030, if I remember right. That's $5,080, I think, on it.

Depending on the meter size.

If they don't get an upsize from 3 quarter inch, and we've said they can just use the same pipe, that to me isn't necessarily an impact, right?

Don't they just connect on their contractor?

Am I not understanding correctly?

I do understand what you're saying.

I agree with you. I would actually change my answer and say that maybe we should say we can waive the impact fees and up to the point where they would need to upgrade to the house.

To a one-inch or, like, if it's a larger connection than what they have. I like that.

It's a little more complicated than that. We're simplifying. That's so weird. Okay, so let's just say it's a three-quarter meter, right? And so they have to go from the back of the pressure regulator. So you run three-quarter all the way into the house, okay? And then you come into the pressure regulator from the pressure regulator in the house to be a one inch to their water heater. So I don't know, I'm getting bad vibes here. Anyway, so that can be solved, but then you branch off. So it's the same thing has to happen to the second one. So as long as both units are below 32 fixture counts, then it would be fine. But if they get over that, then you gotta go out into the road Dig down, shut the cork off, tap a bigger line, and run it all the way into the first house, which would continue and go to the second house, the one inch. So that's on their dime if they want to do it. I mean, if you go over 32, it's the same thing with anybody that builds. If it's a three-quarter surface right now, it's a single home.

Does a washer... like hot and cold count as one fixture or two? It depends.

I'm trying to calculate in my head what this means. So the fixture count is all different. I mean, it comes up and you do groups. So like you have a kitchen group, you have a washroom group, you have a tub with a shower. So when I do it, I have to go in and look at each fixture count on the plan, and then I come up with that. But you do try to group it. Now, take example. If you have two hose bibs on your house, that's a total of five fixtures right there.

Two outdoor hose bibs?

Yep, two and a half. The toilet, I think.

Fair enough. I think a toilet is one and a half. I couldn't figure that out either.

This is one and a half.

To be honest, I'd probably say that we should, I would be comfortable not exempting the impact fees, not because I don't agree with getting the moderate income housing fee.

It's a little different. You're not exempting the fees, well... You wouldn't charge the fees. If they already paid for a three-quarter coming in and they tied off, and as long as the fixture count is below 32, then you wouldn't have to charge an impact

So I'd be okay with that.

Yeah. But now, if you add it up and it's 33 fixture counts, which I promise you they'll get down to 32 somehow. But anyway, if they go over the 32, then they have to go out to the main and run it in brand new. And they would pay one impact fee for... Or the adjustment, excuse me. They already paid for a three-quarter... impact fee they would pay the difference from three quarter to one inch plus they pay all the construction costs actual costs can i ask you this question okay obviously if we exempt the impact fees it's a boon for us under the moderate income housing benefit do we need it is that something our city needs i don't know if you can exempt it because are you exempting it if they push over the 32 fixture counts you're not Because somebody's got to pay the cost to do it.

So I say we do it up to 32. If they go over the 32 fixture, then we don't. It's not exempt. If they can stay under the 32, because that makes sense. You're an accessory. And if you're not going over what is legal for one house, you're fine.

and also a separate connection.

Right, then you've got to have a bigger pipe. There's a lot at that 32, so I say... Mike, would that qualify us for the credit?

It's softer, maybe. It's not as strong as if we just outright did it, but at least it's better than not seeing it at all.

Yeah, but we want it to count as one of our things.

I don't know how else to say it.

I mean, that's what it is. I would love to have another impact fee.

My concern about exempting the impact fee is Mike still has to be made whole for the water fee. But he's not.

He's saying I'm not doing anything. It's like if I build a shed out back and I add water to that shed, it doesn't affect Mike.

No, I know that, but regardless, if the city has to come in and do work, beyond 32, if we have to exempt them to get the moderate income housing credit, is my point, then if we have to do that and it's more than 32 and it costs the city more, I'm not going to have the other taxpayers have to pay for somebody's... I agree with that.

I'll weigh in one more time. Okay. So the sewer district has the sewer line coming into the house, okay? And so the next you do a detached unit and it ties into it, they charge an additional fee to tie into the sewer. So can you charge an additional fee on the water? That would be up to you guys on that. Cause I'm pretty sure that's what the sewer district did. Can you charge a little bit more for that? I don't know why you would charge another fee on that. They're using the same amount of water. Sewage you're adding, you're discharging, you're not adding water, right? Does that make sense?

Do you have something to say, Lisa? Why did the Planning Commission recommend with regard to this issue?

They didn't weigh in on it. They recommended it as you see it in your packet. but they didn't have this level of discussion with Public Works Department giving guidance either.

I was just going to say, I do think there's a lot of things to look into on this. I mean, there's a difference between impact fees and connection fees and then rate charges. I feel the same. What are other cities doing? And do we get credit if it's not on our list?

That was my question.

So I would say let's leave that alone for now. We can always change it later, correct? And when we have a better understanding.

I believe they're due a building permit. So when the first ADU comes in, we need to be ready by then to know, okay.

How would you, if you were voting on this based on what you just said, would you keep it drafted as set forth in number three here? Or would you change the language, Lisa?

I would take that out. Just remove it entirely for right now. Let's just take it out and then let's give Mike a chance to kind of maybe give us some scenarios. I'm all for...

impact fees are for development to pay their proportionate share of impact and that's kind of the issue that I think we need to analyze and what I think other cities are doing is saying hey ADUs are not it's not like a single family dwelling you know what's the impact like if they're just adding a connection it might not be that big of an impact and therefore we don't have the legal standard to charge it so I think there are a lot of concerns and issues both ways with, yeah, how we're going to charge this.

And then you and I managed this, right? So we did waive income verified those who benefit from it. So again, if you're going to waive that impact fee, I would recommend we income verify. And then it has to be deed restricted for that income. And that is a whole other problem that I don't think we want.

Now that gets kind of complicated, right?

Just assuming it's accessory makes it moderate, that's not necessarily true. Right. And I had people to monitor those things, right? And it requires a team.

So Lisa suggested we just remove it. We had two, I think, that were OK with that. Anybody else OK with it?

Can I just read you a sentence that maybe covers this? They shall be exempt from the payment of additional impact fees beyond the established primary family dwelling. This exemption does not apply to utility connection charges, meter upgrade costs, service line installation, or ongoing utility service rates, which remain the responsibility of the property owner. That way you've said you're eliminating impact fees, you're having to pay part of the cost. It's just an option.

I would love for the Planning Commission to consider that language. But for right now, I think that I'm inclined just to remove it.

I think I'm fine with having the Planning Commission review that. And also, I want to make sure that staff is weighing in on it.

I hope the Planning Commission reviews all of the ordinance.

I'm actually going to put a debrief on our next agenda. I was planning to do that anyway, knowing that there would be discussion at this meeting.

So I'd like the language that Councilman Banger read, but are we going to strike that paragraph for now and take that language back to Planning Commission?

The concern I have with that is all the things that Lisa just said. So I'm not sure I'm comfortable accepting it. I'd want to make sure that we've covered everything that Lisa mentioned along with I get what he's saying. I think it needs to be reviewed.

All of it should be reviewed, whether we say it or not. I mean, that's another step along the way.

Robin, Council Member Meekham and Council Member Plummer, you've got to get feeling because we've got two to one here.

I'm okay with it. Striking it? Striking it. Doing what Lisa says taking it out.

Okay, take it back to playing Commission Then the only thing like I said is just if one emotion is made someone notes my tracking changes entry sheet that I provided Just the scrivener's errors and those sorts of things you want me to take a stab at this Do we have any more discussion? I don't mean to let I don't have anything Thank you for your guidance.

All right. I am going to move that we approve zoning code text amendment proposal for addition of chapter 12.58 for DADUs and amendments to section 12.36.020 as recommended in the blue-lined version of staff report with the following changes. Number one, all of the Scribner's errors that Mike had identified in his handout at the beginning of our discussion and with the following clarifications. Jennifer, I'm just going down right now on this blue lined page. At the bottom, at the top of page three, we're going with alternative option three with 8,500 square feet or greater. In that section, the next one down, we're going with the alternative language option under subsection C, with the revisions that council member Bangador had proposed regarding parking restrictions as to the detached accessory dwelling unit and the internal accessory dwelling unit. We're striking C at the bottom of that page three, because it was duplicative and we didn't need it. On the subsection, keep going down E right there on page four, we're going with alternative option three. They can have separate meters, but they don't have to have separate meters. On F, keep going down, we're gonna go with as staff is drafted there at eight feet, we're rejecting all of the alternative options. And as to G, right there, we're going with, as staff has proposed, eight feet, eight feet, 20 feet, and rejecting the alternative options. And then scrolling to page seven, here on the subsection F, we're gonna go with alternative option one, but we're gonna do that at 16 feet, and the 16 feet will be measured under existing height measurement standards. And then keep going and right there on page eight for the gross square footage, we're going with what staff has proposed, 350 gross square feet up to the maximum of 1250. We're ignoring the alternate and keep going down. The other one that we picked was on page 12, we're just striking number three there with regard to development and impact fees. think i caught all of them as we were going through lisa um the only thing was accepting the changes on the definitions oh and accepting all of the other yeah every everything that wasn't proposed as an alternative to us just accepting wholesale there were a couple items on the table that we you did pull out throughout the text right with making corresponding changes to the proposal to what i just said

I was just going to say, I just want to clarify that you'd already said that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That just picks up the same things that we talked about in other sections. Okay, that's my motion.

Does she need to mention anything about the ordinance number?

I think she said it. And that would be for proposed ordinance number 2026-20. Okay.

She said the other two.

Oh, sorry. You're right. I apologize.

Council Member Haven, would you accept an amendment to include the purposes identified on the purpose line? You want me to read that again?

Yeah, read it again.

to give they, the Planning Commission, and us direction of why we're doing this. The purposes of the standards in this chapter are to, one, create new housing units while respecting the appearance, neighborhood character, and scale of single-family residential development. Two, provide more housing choices in residential zones. Three, allow more efficient use of existing housing and large yards. Four, Provide housing options for family caregivers, adult children, aging parents and families seeking smaller households. Five, offer a means for residents, particularly seniors, single parents and families with grown children to remain in their homes and neighborhoods. and obtain extra income security companionship and services. And six, broaden the range of affordable housing options throughout the city. That is the exact wording in the Midvale Code. It gives us direction and it shows that we are not doing this because we have a state mandate. We're doing it for some specific purposes.

The only problem I have with that one is it says creating extra housing. We're not just creating extra housing. I don't want somebody to build a 4,200 square foot in their backyard, which takes, shades my whole backyard. I mean, we have a problem here. Do we value the privacy of people's backyards? They purchased them. And if your backyard starts to take away my backyard, then that's where the problem is. So that would be the part I don't agree with is, I mean, we are trying to get smaller, affordable homes. We're not just trying to get homes.

I think, well, I actually agree with most of the things that you just said. I think for purposes of keeping things streamlined, I'm not going to accept that amendment. I think the purpose can stay pretty small, not to say that all of those things aren't important.

And I agree with most of them, too.

I'm inclined just to keep it streamlined and go with what staff has recommended. So, no, I will. I appreciate that they were classified. I think I'm going to keep my motion.

Okay, do we have a second? I'll second it. We have a second to that motion, okay. I don't know that we need further discussion.

Please don't.

So let's vote. We're gonna get this done in three hours. Councilwoman Meacham.

Hey, I had to go first last time.

Okay, Councilwoman Hayman.

Aye. Aye. Aye. I have a really problem with the height. I'm happy with everything. I just feel like one could ruin somebody's... I'm gonna go nay. I can't do the height.

Okay, Councilman Banger. Nay, I do not feel like we've looked at this far enough and the public deserves us to do so in timeliness and quit deferring so much for so long.

All right, we're past three to two. So thank you, everybody. I know it was long, but I do appreciate all the efforts on it. It's something that was thrown on us and we're doing the best we can. Keep your eyes and ears open to Make the changes. It sounds like we have some things going back to Planning Commission.

I will be taking it to Planning Commission for a debrief discussion.

You've made note of all those, right?

Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor, for putting up with all of us because that was not an easy one.

On the draft, can we put page numbers on the bottom just so we can follow it easier? Thank you.

Okay, let's go. Sydney, you've been staying up all night. Are you doing this next one? Yeah, sure. So this one, Gillette, ladies and gentlemen, is also a public hearing. This is Municipal Code Amendment related to boundary line adjustments. And I saw Sydney come in at the start of the meeting, and I thought, we haven't seen her in a while, but this is the one you're here for. Am I right? Yeah. So take it away to add to what we have in the background.

Thank you city council members for letting me present mayor, um, drop in for another three hours. Cause this is going to be lengthy and getting, um, so actually pretty straight. No, this is, um, very straightforward. This is us just adopting what the state. has required cities to do for boundary line adjustments and boundary line establishments. In about two planning commissions ago, I went into a little bit more detail. If you would like me to go into detail, I can about the differences between boundary line establishments and boundary line adjustments. If not, the best way to put it is that we are just trying to become compliant with what the state is requesting for the applications for boundary line adjustments, the definitions for what boundary line adjustments are, and the approval documentations that the state requires. Planning Commission approved this or recommended approval to City Council unanimously last Planning Commission meeting. So do you have any questions for me? I love it when you guys make it so easy.

Any questions for Sydney on that one? All right, if not, we'll see if the public brings anything up to bring some questions up, Sydney. Thanks for explaining that. So this is a public hearing matter. This is a public hearing related to what Sydney just said, boundary line adjustment, boundary establishment, and exchange of title changes. This is ordinance number 2026-21. That public hearing is now open to the public. Please state your name and where you're from if you're so inclined to comment. Do we have anybody hanging online anymore? Nobody was talking, they're gonna talk though, right? Okay.

I got two, I don't see anybody unmuting.

All right, so we will close that public hearing. Come back to in those moments, did you come up with any more questions for staff? If not, then we'll look for a motion on this one.

I'll move that we approve the Municipal Code Text Amendment for CMC 15.09.140 as set forth in, is this ordinance number 202621? Yes. Yeah. That's my motion. Second.

Motion to second. Councilwoman Hirsch going to the right for the vote. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Sydney. I had a request potentially for a break, but we have a public hearing on one more. Can we get through that one? Yeah. Okay. So the last public hearing is a fine schedule amendment virtual currency kiosk violations. Lisa?

yes thank you mayor and council we adopted an ordinance at our last meeting prohibiting virtual currency kiosks so we want to amend our fine schedule anytime we set a new violation in our municipal code we need to add it to our fine schedule and the state smart list of violations so that we can issue citations for that so we are adding a new violation to our local fine schedule for violations of Title VII, Chapter 10-070. The proposal is to have this be a Class B misdemeanor and a $500 suggested fine. So that is similar just in looking at our fine schedule, trying to make something similar. And so it is a similar fine as to violations of our tobacco product violation. sale of fireworks, nuisances, and cannabis production establishment violations. So in your staff report, it does talk about that our fines need to be reasonable under the circumstances and taking into the character of the offense. So I think this is a reasonable fine, and we recommend that you adopt this amendment to our fine schedule through Ordinance 2026-22. And I do want to highlight as we went, as I got into this fine schedule, I realized that some of the NCIC codes were missing. And I think this was because the last time we had made some amendments, I left those blank because I didn't know what they were, but I've done a little bit more research on those codes and have slotted those into what I think are appropriate NCIC codes. And so in your motion though, if you could, I'm trying to work with the justice court supervisor to make sure those are correct, but so just subject to those additional changes for those codes so that we have a complete fine schedule.

Thank you. Is there a question for Lisa?

And I did label this as a public hearing. I know it's not a fee schedule thing, but in light of adding a fine, I thought we would list it as a public hearing, although it's not required. Thank you.

Thank you for doing that. We do have it down as that, so we will do a public hearing. This is a public hearing on You just find schedule amendments in relation to virtual currency kiosk violations Ordinance number 20 26 20 22 that public hearing is now open As always just state your name and where you're from if you're going to comment I've had requests to give it a moment for people online, so that's why I'm stalling just a little bit. But this is seeing nobody commenting from online either. We will close that public hearing. I don't know that any thoughts or questions in your mind have come up for Lisa on this one. Any further? So if not, I'll look for a motion.

I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-22, amending the Centerville fine schedule to add fines and penalties penalties for the Centerville Municipal Code violations regarding virtual currency kiosks.

Sorry, you jumped to a motion. Can I just ask one question? Lisa, how does this affect the existing kiosk?

In accordance with our ordinance that we adopted, they have to remove the existing kiosk within 60 days. And so if they don't, so there's a transition period provided, but if they don't, then they would be subject to this. So we wanted to get this in place before the 60 days.

Okay, did everybody hear Councilman Hurst's motion?

Do you want to include that to say under CMC 7.10 and NCIC codes for other violations is set forth in staff report?

Yes, I will add that suggestion to my motion.

And I will second it.

Motion is second. Councilman Plummer going to the right. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

That motion passed unanimously. Do we need a quick five-minute break? You want me to? Yes. Okay, let's take a quick five-minute break. You okay? All right. We are going through the public hearing matters. Let's go through the municipal code amendment related to the justice courts. This order is 2026-2. 17. Lisa, tell us what we're doing with the Justice Court besides what we have in our packet.

Okay. Well, I noticed a change in the municipal, in the state statutes regarding notifying the AOC of the change in the Justice Court judge's compensation and realized we don't have to send that to them anymore. And I thought, well, I wonder what else has changed in state law. and it just kept going and going. So anyway, these are comprehensive edits to our Title IV, which is our Justice Court section, and it includes changes all the way back to 2019, various state law amendments. Also security surcharges and prosecutor modifications and small claims amounts. So these are very comprehensive, but I have not added really anything discretionary. This is just bringing our code into compliance with current state law. And I have provided a copy to our justice court supervisor and our justice court judge Miller. They didn't have any comments. Judge Miller did offer to come tonight to answer any questions. And I said, you know, I suspect that it might be late since it's item four on our agenda. So I told him he did not have to come, but it was nice of him to offer. He's probably more familiar with these amendments than I am, but I am happy to bring our code into compliance. And I also added some more specifics so we can easily find things moved a few things around. But so with that, um, I recommend we adopt these, uh, comprehensive edits to title four regarding our justice court and adopting ordinance number 2026 dash 17. I'm happy to answer any easy questions.

You're on your own with the hard ones.

Anybody have any softball questions?

I wish I could think of a really hard one.

If not, I guess looking for a motion.