Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to Centerville Planning Commission for July 22nd, 2026. I am Loray Patterson. I am the chair and I am starting the meeting tonight. Our chair, Mason, will be here in a little bit. He can take over. I'm in attendance tonight. It's Tyler, myself. Lane. Lane. Tyler's gone. Lane, myself, Gary and Paul and Amanda's gone and Michael Adamson. is also absent. Let's see. Oh, Gary is on the prayer or thought. So we'll turn the time over to you.

All right. So obviously, July is a month of celebrating our nation and also our state and community. And so I was just thinking, because this year is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, I was thinking about that document and the process that brought it about. This nation was founded on the principle of popular sovereignty, which means that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. We agree to certain things so that we can live in a society and a community. We benefit from having a governmental structure, so we agree to certain laws and regulations so that we can live in harmony with our neighbors. Because of that, the people have the ultimate responsibility for the success of our nation, our state, and our community. We don't always agree with the laws and regulations, but if we approach what we consider, as the writers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution did, with a spirit of accommodation, concession, and compromise, something that is largely forgotten in government today, our community will be well served. I'll just offer a prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we are grateful to be here tonight as members of the Planning Commission, and Centerville citizens. We're grateful for the opportunity to serve and to consider the things that are before us tonight. We pray that thy spirit will be with us, that we can do those things that would be best in the best interest of our community and our state. And pray that we'll be guided in those decisions that we make. And we ask for these blessings in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. Please rise for the pledge. I pledge allegiance. Thank you, and thank you, Gary. Okay, we have some business items. The first will be the discussion, the review of the draft code, just a continuation of last time. And so I'm just going to turn the time over to you, Mike.

Okay, perfect. So obviously you've all hopefully read over the summary. You've had an opportunity to read over the materials that I introduced at the last meeting. I challenged you as planning commissioners to look at everything, look at, The draft language is a good starting point. Look at what other cities are doing and think about if we want to push and pull some of the options that we do have, but also be aware of the state requirements, the things that have to be in the language. So even today, as I was reviewing what I had done last time, I recognize there's some things that I could further tweak that I could do between now and even the next time we bring it forward, for instance. But let me back up and tell you about an experience I had. I don't know if we have an opportunity to be on this call or not, but last Wednesday with the league, they held a lunchtime webinar on DADU establishment for communities. And ironically, The person who did the presentation that led out on the presentation was Mill Creek City's planner. So yay for us, I picked the right one of all the options I could have used as the starting point. His name was, oh now I'm not gonna get it right, something Lily. I can't remember his first name, but anyway, he's their assistant city manager and their city community development director. I think his name is Francis Lilly, now that I think about it. But he outlined a lot of the factors and things that needed to be in a detached ADU code, and as he went through it, I feel like we've done a pretty good job at least getting close and using what they have as well as our own standards. There's a lot of things in there that are optional that we can go over, like I said. One of the things that we probably need to soften in our code, as I've at least provided a draft, there's some language in there about willed structures, trailers, etc. that can't be used as DADUs. He said you can't really word it that way, but what you can do is state that any detached ADU structure has to be attached to a permanent concrete foundation. So that way you could still have a tiny home, for instance, that gets willed in, but it needs to be able to be attached to and anchored into that permanent foundation to give it permanence and security. So I'll have to figure out a way to reword that so it says something to that effect. One other thing that he talked about that was really interesting is this whole discretionary perspective on how windows and doors should be placed next to neighboring properties. It's a really gray area that the code doesn't address as well as maybe it ought to. There's even a feeling that the legislature may bring that point back forward as a minor tweak in the future in February with a little bit of adjustment because it is so unclear. Some cities talk about opacity and translucency of windows. Obviously, you can see the one that I put in there is whether or not it can be open or closed if it's fixed, right? Some cities outright don't even have window openings on that side unless they're really teeny. So that's kind of an unclear thing. What they said is you probably can't regulate out the windows, but you certainly probably can talk about transparency or opacity, at least for right now, unless the state legislature wants to regulate that even further one way or another. relative to the window placement. So just be aware of that issue. One thing they did talk about was the setbacks on DADUs Some cities are as restrictive as saying the setbacks match the primary dwelling. Others do kind of what we did, and others do kind of a hybrid. They set a standard like 10 feet from all property lines. Some say whatever the accessory dwelling unit is, that's what we have in there currently right now. Or excuse me, accessory structures is that's the setback. Again, others say setbacks for the safest primary dwelling. The caution was that if we go overly restrictive to where we're trying to make them regulated out of the community as much as possible, the legislature will cue in on that and hammer us even more. So that was a caution. And I hate to say that bluntly, but that's how I felt like it was shared with us by league staff, actually, who made that comment. And it's even indicated in the the two page document I shared with all you and that's including the packet from the league. They warn about that. Like make sure you're doing it with the right spirit of intent to allow for discretionarily some of these types of uses to be able to be accomplished in your community without over-regulating them out in your community. Cause that, that sends a different message. So those were the cautions and comments that came by and large from that meeting outside of what we've already included. Um, One thing, too, that I've noted in the document I handed out two weeks ago, but I don't know if I made it really clear, we are allowed, if a structure is 650 square feet, to require two parking spaces on site. And in talking to the streets supervisor for the Public Works Department, he would hope that we add language that says that, that the state code does allow us to do. So if a unit is less than 650 square feet, we can only require one. but we could add the code says if it's more than 650 square feet, we can require two. And then again, what is also discretionary is, is how big a size the units are and, and how tall they are and all those factors. That's all discretionarily in play. Even to the point where I was kind of surprised by this, but having a restriction about occupancy is actually allowed right now. Now that's good. Again, one of those things, if we hammer down on that, that could be maybe variable in the future. But where Mill Creek has two adults and their children, that is an allowance that right now state code allows you to have. So if we want to, again, if we do want to worry about that, we can, or we don't have to because right now a family by city and state code is four unrelated persons living together. So in some ways that defines out how people even live in a DADU.

more legally sustainable to just go with the state.

That's what I think too.

I thought you were talking about the owner occupancy. If we can do the owner, the owner has to live on the property.

Yeah, that we can. And so the other things, obviously short-term rentals, we can require 90 days or more for occupancy. Owner occupancy can be a requirement. We can, as you've seen, eliminate having multiple accessory dwelling units. You can make the accessory dwelling unit subordinate to the main unit, which obviously by the nature of being an accessory structure, we already do that. A lot of coverage is in game. Anyway, those are things that are there. I've said a lot, but I just wanted to share that with you. What's different again? from our last discussion and presentation is I've included the ULCT detached ADU one-pager to it. So hopefully you had a chance to see what their legal guidance is there from them of what we can and can't have. And then I've added the code variation ideas from other cities. So I'm not sure what the best approach is for tonight. I have up the Word document. I'm trying to be as efficient as possible to do edits or take notes. of ideas or comments from you. I'd like to get your thoughts and feedback and guidance. I have even some internal commentary if we want to get any of my internal commentary. I am looking for some quite a bit of direction. I know that, but I'm kind of given a lot of optional conversation points that I wanted to get vetted. Before I turn it over back to the Planning Commission for discussion, I will note I have a better feel of where they have this request for compliance determination. I personally am looking at it, feel like unless Lisa tells me it has relevance that it doesn't need to be there because we have other procedural processes for non-complying structures. AND WE ALSO HAVE APPLICATION PROCESSES OTHERWISE LINKED TO 1221.60 AND 1221.90, WHICH ARE USE REQUESTS. AND ALSO, I REALIZED TODAY WHEN I RUN OVER MY REVIEW THAT THE MATRIX WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED TO ADD DETACHED ACCESSORY DOORING UNITS. I DID NOT DO THAT.

WE GENERALLY DO NOT PROVIDE COMPLIANCE LETTERS. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, TOO. REAL ESTATE TITLE CLOSINGS ASK FOR THEM ALL THE TIME. WE DON'T GIVE THEM BECAUSE It's staff time and there's, you know, it's not something for us to review. We just do a complaint basis. So you'd be okay with deleting that? Yeah, I prefer not to have something like that.

So with that, that all being said, I'll turn it back over to the Planning Commission and see how you want to go forward, hitting key points or sharing your thoughts.

Thanks, Mike. you know you reached out and asked me to read you think that i read you know i read and i researched the crud out of it for the last couple of weeks i'm not exactly sure how to go forward with this i have i have points all over like from different cities and then going through different points things that i liked things that i didn't like so how

Kind of what I would be seeking for today is some even narrower consensus. And obviously, what we're working with is we have to have it to council. We have to have it to the state or ready for the state by October 1st to meet the deadline, which means we have to have the council approval at the meeting before October 1st. So it gives us two meetings with council would be both meetings in September. We're shooting for public hearing in some format of language, hopefully for the, I think it's August 12th, planning commission meeting, which means it could go to the August, what's two weeks from that? Is that the 26th, 22nd? So the 12th, it's not August 12th, the other meeting.

Oh, 12, yeah, 12, I'm thinking city council.

I don't know the date. What is it, Sydney?

So we have August.

August 12th and then 26th. Yeah. So, you know, it would be nice to get some kind of document that's recommended to city council on the 12th, but if we're not quite there yet and the 26th to refine it further to make it what we think the council should have to review. Um, I just want to make sure we give them what we need, where they would have at least two meetings to review something and make decisions.

And we also have to have a public hearing. And at some point before we have the public hearing, we have to have the ordinance ready. Um, One idea, and I apologize, I didn't talk to Mike about this, but I was trying to grapple with all this as well and reading through things, but one thing that might be helpful is, of course, I go through the statute first and then just say, so there's things that we can add, the things that we have to add, so we make sure that's in, things that we cannot add, and then things that are discretionary, and then just kind of go through those and say, do you like the one parking spot do you like do you like the two parking and then let's just say yes yes yes and then i also really like this one sheet that you put out of hey here's some other ideas that other cities have done that are not in all of this and i just kind of said yes no yes no because i think for centerville we are not going to be pioneers in this um we want to comply with the law and Generally comply with the spirit of the law and if you know, but I really liked like I was wondering because a number of cities said Oh, yeah, it has to be a concrete Now that makes sense what you're saying. It has to be on a concrete slab But anyway, that might be better to get from the Planning Commission these topics. Yeah, and then Mike will know Oh, yeah, I already covered that but we can go back if you know, yeah, so it keeps us bigger picture and for now with the ideas and make sure it's in there.

That's the other thing is if we meet the minimum requirements, we can clearly go in and the things you really like down the road, do a version two or enhance it. So we meet the deadline, but we can come back and add stuff that makes more sense. It's like caging the animal, right? We have to try to keep it within the kind of confines we need to to get it to October 1st. That doesn't mean we can't go back and then do more to it to make it more to what Centerville should have it be. I guess is what I'm saying. A key thing I need to know right out the gate, maybe just to tip the iceberg and look at it, is the size. The size maximum for a lot is 11,000 square feet, but some cities have as low as 6,000 square feet. So, I mean, those are kind of some of the things I want to start looking at that we will have to dial into. Wasn't this the state's requirement, $11,000? $11,000 is the max. You can't make it smaller, but you can make it larger.

So we need to have a minimum and a maximum.

The lot that you're eligible.

Yeah, the lot size. And then... you can further regulate the actual size of the detail. Right, and the size of the cell. Some have 1,000 square feet, some have 650 square feet, some have 1,300 square feet. So these are the kind of things that are pushing pull factors that I need to understand.

OK, so along with that, if we have size for maximum, we need to come up with a minimum. But I had a question on the size. So you had talked about 300, and then it can be maxed out to 1,250, depending. Right? So I need clarification. We do not count basement as a level, right?

Well, in a detached accessory dwelling unit? Yeah.

In any, but yeah, most cities are prohibiting them from having a basement. I'm not sure why, but I say let's just go with that idea. No basements, because I think they're... I don't know if they don't want more structure or it makes it too big because they're trying to say, look, this needs to be accessory and they limit it to two bedrooms or, you know, they require a kitchen, two bedrooms, and at least a three quarter bath. You know, I kind of like those ideas, but I think with a basement, now you're doubling the size. So that's probably why they're saying concrete slab, no basement. You get here.

We could also reference gross floor area, because I know that that's referenced in variations of the code, and that is pretty defined in our city code, too. So that is something that we might be able to do. Or an ADU, it's defined already? No, just in general. So for commercial units, when it says the parking count or if there's an identification, they always do gross floor area. So we reference that quite a bit. It's defined in our definition, so we could say, gross floor area of an ADU can only be maximum this amount. So it's not like a loft situation.

Like that's... And you won't get a loft if you don't go higher than 20 feet. Like if we keep it as it currently is with accessory buildings at 20 feet, which we can do, you won't have an upstairs. If you don't want to be so permissive to let there be upstairs DADUs, we don't have to.

I kind of like it because it seems more

accessory how come we wouldn't want them let them excavate a basement I don't understand that I don't know but other than it double you you can't you know it doubles the space sure but now you could have six to eight people living there do we not have the ability to limit the number of occupants we do yes we do but we can't define what a family is right right right but as

I can't remember who. We could get more information, but yeah, and just reviewing this, a lot of cities, some cities do 20 adults with children, two with children. But if you look at my family, there were two adults and there were 12 children. So obviously you don't want that many.

Well, there's a definition of family that says two adults and their children and their children, meaning that that is one of the that is one of the core definitions of family by state code.

So I called my brother in law, who is the What is this title? City building official in the town of Jackson. And said, how do you define? Because they were having a lot of problems with that. So he said, obviously occupancy, you can't limit the size of a family, but they, because they were having a lot of problems with it, he said it's limited by the amount of bathrooms. So they have four people per bathroom. that are allowed to be there because they were having so many problems.

I don't know. We have to be real careful. There was a big debate and argument about the definition of family here about a decade ago, and it led to some pretty rigid language from the state. So we had to be careful with that.

Well, right. So again, you can't say what a family is, but he said we limited it to bathrooms.

I mean, I guess I don't know if we want to limit bathrooms. I guess we could get to that granular of a discussion.

Well, my concern is that, you know, people in Utah and Idaho like to have babies, and that's freaking awesome. That's fantastic. But how many people do you want in there, either in your backyard or in your neighbor's backyard? Do you want six children or eight children or whatever it's going to be in this little tiny unit? Maybe because it's all they can afford. there has to be some parameters.

Yeah, I don't know. I guess I'd look to Lisa on that because of the definition of family being two persons and their children. It's one of the core definitions in state code.

Well, I think we're going to have more success in just limiting the total gross floor. And I would rather have... a 350-foot square foot basement with a 350-foot ground level than a 700 or whatever sprawl on a slab.

A bigger building. Yeah, on a slab. You'd rather compress and not be so big.

Good point.

So when you're talking about the gross floor area, that is foundation and above, right?

Gross floor area defined, I think, I think it is livable. It's not like livable area, but it is the area with any use.

So that would be, if there was a basement, like Mason was suggesting, it would be basement and the first level.

Yeah, you calculate both floors.

It would be gross. And I don't think they'll get to, like you say, Mike, a second. unless it's one of those houses where they half excavate or whatever.

Yeah. Yeah.

Some kind of daylight scenario. But I agree with you. I think gross should include anything that is considered living space. Yeah.

You can see the definition on here, which evidences all any floor basically.

We don't even like saying we have people argue commercial or residential. Well, this is just a broom closet. Like, no, it's total space. Yeah. Livable. Not, you know, it's just total space. Okay. I agree with Sydney. If we already have definitions that would work, but we want to make sure they work for both residential.

So you'd say like, like maximum size for DADU is 1300 gross square feet.

That would make sense.

Well, that exceeds. the other maximums that are currently written. Like the most that I ever read was 1,250. Right, I'm just saying. You're just throwing out a number.

Yeah, a number. Or 1,200 or 1,000, but you'd use gross square feet, whatever your number was that you think is realistic and attainable.

Even 1,000 square feet on one level is pretty darn big. Yeah. That's a lot. That's a lot of space. You're right, it is a house, so it's a house behind a house.

And to Mason's point, then you'd have 500 and 500 if you allow for basements. That could work.

And then you're preserving, hopefully, permeable surfaces, green space.

Neighbors.

Distance from neighbors, maybe.

Yeah, right, right. That's a good suggestion. That works really well.

So I do like that measurement. What were you going to say?

So I guess I'm just curious. I know, obviously, we want to follow the law, but... for you guys is your goal to try to kind of restrict this a little bit, make like de-incentivize people or we want- That's not our goal.

That's- Right. I guess I'm asking like, what do you prefer? It depends on what school of thought you are as a resident of Centerville. That's the best way I can answer it.

Having worked here 20 years, if I were drafting this, I would draft it to the level the law requires. And if the planning commission says, Staff, nope, we want basements, although basements isn't one of those, but we think it should come down to 9,000 square foot lots because we don't have any 11,000. We had our 10,000. So 11,000 isn't gonna hit any lots. So that's where the planning commission kind of comes in and says, hey, let's make this more attainable but I think the closer to the legal limits is likely where the council may come back. But again, that's just me. I think planning staff is typically more like, no, let's make this available and maybe planning commission. You're certainly welcome to do that. But that's why I like starting at the law and then picking these areas where you say, but we realized in Centerville at 11,000 square feet, when that came out in the law, I was like,

We're done.

We don't have, I count how many 11,000 square foot residential lots you have in Centerville. Well, our whole neighborhood is 14 and above.

I can tell you much.

I'm just saying it's not going to get much.

A quarter acre or higher is about what you're talking about. Because I know mine is 13,000 feet.

Anyway, it would be interesting. Maybe we should start there and say,

You know, I suspect it. I mean, I was talking to Sydney just really informally. This is just a really errant approximation. Maybe 15, 20% of lots in Centerville at 11,000 square feet might qualify.

So 20% of residential lots.

And most of them, if they're new. And so that's what I'm saying.

The Planning Commission may say, well, we want more of the city to have this available. Yeah. Yeah. Which is why each of these topics is an interesting question in itself. But yeah, you know. I think it's drafted here, but the Planning Commission can certainly push on some of these or like the basement issue. That's a great point. I don't know why other cities are doing this or the parking spaces. Maybe the Planning Commission says, no, we don't want more hard space.

I want to just put something to you guys' forefront. I review internal accessory dwelling units or when I review building permits, what I look at and I get pushed back or not even pushed back, but confusion on a lot is the height, the impervious surface slash hard surfacing, the setbacks and then the parking. So when I'm looking at thinking, okay, how am I going to review detached accessory dwelling units? No matter what the size of the lot is, they need to meet the impervious surface. They're going to need to meet the parking. They're going to need to meet the setbacks. We do not allow for accessory structures in front yards or side yards. So they're going to be limited to the rear yard. On top of that, we do not allow for parking to be in the front portion, so in the front yard. So their parking stalls need to be either in the side yard or that can be tandem, that can be side by side, but it needs to be in the side yard or the rear yard. When we're looking at obviously setbacks, depending on what we want to go for, that will be something that will also limit it. while i know that 11 000 square feet sounds really really like very giving when you look at the other requirements that people are going to have to meet there there's going to be a lot of that have 11,000 square feet but cannot qualify because the impervious surface or because the lot layout just doesn't work with what they want, where the parking needs to be or where the setbacks are. And then if we also add on layers of, hey, we don't want windows on this side or this side because you can look into your neighbors, that's also another limiting factor. basements or we don't want loft situations we don't want to be able i think we have to allow for conversion of detached garage but you know just things to keep in mind that the lot size oh it's there's going to be maybe like out of those 20 that lots that meet that qualification probably only about 50 of those or 50% of those are going to meet the rest of the qualifications. So just keep that in mind, whatever side you wanna fall on, that's just something to remember.

Yeah, I mean, if you look at my internal comments, that's why I had 22 internal comments. These are those squishy areas that there's flexibility and I need some guidance on you representing your interest, representing the community members, you. participate with, where do you want to go with those squishy items? That's where I need some guidance.

Well, can we talk about setbacks then for a minute? Because people have different setbacks, right? Five, 10, 15. When I was reading through and then when I was also talking with my brother-in-law from Jackson, and he's done this for almost 30 years and he kind of knows his stuff. asking him what has worked and what hasn't worked. And he gets a lot of what hasn't worked, and they've tweaked and retweeted through the years. And he just said, I mean, if you do 10 and 15 feet, you're just knocking people out of the ballpark. It's not going to happen. If you do five feet, that's practical. Again, five feet practical. How high? That's 20 feet. Are you looking over into your neighbor? And so I asked him, what do you think about the windows? And he said, well, do you want to be peering down at your neighbor or peering up at your neighbor? I mean, you don't want that. And so we suggest that they have windows, all the windows are workable, not non-workable, but the windows are actually workable, but on the fronts and the sides. So he said that's what seems, has through the years, what has worked, that has worked for them. the the five feet setbacks the working windows and just kind of not having it on the back but also depending on the sides too because you don't want them looking over so he said you just have to be careful how you word it you know but what's their minimum lot size requirement uh their minimum lot size I don't have their minimum lot size and he may have that would make a difference because if they're allowing it on smaller lot sizes than the five feet would be necessary but yeah they yeah and they don't allow big um adus either they just allow the smaller ones

And this comes back to what I was talking about. The cities are grappling with the windows. That's why they talk about opacity, right? You can make it, you could screen them darker. They can't open, but you can still then allow for windows to be on a side that's adjacent to the neighboring property or the property owner in the back. Because at least that lets some light come into the house, even if it's not workable, right? So at least it's kind of trying to, mediate, hey, you can have windows, but just understand because of the proximity to a residential structure, it's like this. Same reason why they don't have stairs and openings on certain sites too, right? And you see that in the code I provided, because Mill Creek is more in that's how they like to do it. Stair openings and door openings have to either face the street or face internally to the lot. They can't be anywhere adjacent to the rear or the side, depending on where that is.

Right. I'm kind of curious how I think people are used to on their side yards. We have the eight foot side yard setback, but then, you know, like the cities that are saying, Hey, it's the same setback as the primary dwelling, I think is too restrictive because I agree it's not going to happen. But what if we keep the side yard setbacks, but allow them in the rear? So we extend the rear yard so that, I mean, you could almost allow more windows to make this a livable space, more windows, because you have the same side yard setback, but allow them to go further into the thing. So it won't feel as invasive on the neighbors. And I know it doesn't always work with lots that are not just side, but for many of them, you just keep that side yard All the way back. Easier, but allow them to go a little bit further into the back, you know, maybe just a 10 foot.

So what would you do?

Then everybody could have windows because it's not that invasive, as invasive as five feet. I just think five feet is, we get complaints about five feet on an accessory structure.

Yeah. Yes. Imagine someone living there. What are our accessories? I should know this, the accessory structure setbacks.

400 square feet or more is five feet. And then 400 or 400 square feet or less is three feet. So if you can do like 401, you're going to be a five foot setback, um, rear and side, and then 400 square feet or less, it's going to be three foot. I will say though, now that like easements, they are not going to be allowed to build with it.

And all easements on like

think lots past i don't know what date it was passed but typically side yards are seven feet so that is something oh yeah yeah so that's why if we just have the the eight feet and then bring the rear in just a little bit but obviously they can go back further and see if that works on 11 000 But I mean, it's not going to work for some because on 11,000 square foot lot, someone may have a huge home. So that means you don't get a DADU. So we're not being the bad guy. It's just that they've used up all their space.

You could just do eight foot setback period for the ADU. So from the rear lot line and the rear side lot line, it's just eight feet instead of five feet, which is what. milkery chasm where I just kept, we do it to eight feet and then you're outside of the... And it's easier to say, look, this is no different than your side yard.

And a lot of people's side yards go up to someone else's rear yard. So you can make that logical argument that, It's the same side yard as a primary residence, depending on how...

So you mean eight foot back from the fence and eight foot back from this? Eight foot away from any property. Anything.

But you can only go in the rear yard. Right, right. And I agree with that. I know we've already had a question. Oh, I think... Rear yard only, eight feet from any property. I like it.

Yeah, that works. Unless there's an easement back there, then you would have come back. Yes, even more.

Unless there's an unknown non-PUE easement, I guess, to your point.

I guess there is. I know some subdivisions in the city have Z&Rs associated with them, which probably prohibit accessory dwelling units.

And there is some code. It's on there. It talks about pre-existing HOAs and CCNRs. Do you have legal precedent in light of the DADUs? So there is, I think it's the second to last comment on that two sheet from the league where they make a comment about that.

Well, and HOAs can always make private covenants. You can live in an HOA that says you can only have a tan house. The city can't regulate that, but HOAs can.

Maybe it's on the, maybe it's on 304.

And HOAs can say you can only have your air conditioning in the back.

Maybe now I think about some 1021304 right at the very end. Both the very first one, Sydney. And it's like one of the very last standards. I just read it today. Where is it there it is this section does not supersede prohibitions or restrictions on detached accessory going it's in development agreement signed municipality honor before May 6 and A land use regulation that regular so I guess it's saying from the city.

It's not necessarily saying HOA Discriminatory things and they can't regulate and restrict solar certain, you know, yeah solar panels, but

think i'm not aware of them you know they can even live in a hoa that could restrict this again the other reason that one story feature is better than two story is this issue with windows and staring at your neighbors it goes way down because it's going to be really hard to see even at a 20 foot structure over a fence real easily right so 20 feet is one story is that how you okay so 20 foot height limit yeah sorry go ahead what are you just going to say

Your neighbors still have the same problem with my two-story house, looking over at my neighbors.

Oh, yes, we do.

Even though I'm not clear back to the property line. It's kind of a funny discussion, but the same thing with windows.

We all do it. Yeah, we grow lots of plants and trees back there.

I don't know. It's interesting. My opinion is we try to draft something that's meets the state requirement as was mentioned and not go much beyond that so the question is things like 11 000 square feet do we think there's there's a demand within within the city for accessory dwelling units on smaller lots it depends on who you talk to there is a council member that believes very strongly yes that there is

I've had a few residents, like since maybe the past year, maybe about 10 residents have given me a call saying, where are we at with detached ADUs? Where are we at with this? So only 10, not very much, but over the past year, that's about one per month. You know what I mean?

And did they give you any indication about what?

Some was conversion. A few is converting. This is where I think that we need some clarification too. Like a detached garage, they want to convert the upper portion of their detached garage. Another one was simple, like a mother-in-law kind of sweet situation where they want to have a spot put in almost kind of like a prefab home and just place it on there. And then there was, I think, two that wanted to have renters and have it be a of size of their house, pretty darn big. So those two, though, Mike's aware of one of them. The other one, it was actually in an agriculture lot, so it had a lot of space.

Can we go back to the height protection or height projection? I kind of like protections too, but height projection. In Mill Creek's, And what they have in 18.72.040, it talks about the height projection. And like in A1, it talks about, maybe she can pull it up. Maybe you can pull it up. Which one are you talking about? It's under Mill Creek.

Go to Municipal Code Analysis document right there. Scroll down.

No. Because it's 18.72.040. So that's not going to be in this document.

Keep going.

Now that goes to 19.

That's Salt Lake County. It's right after this one, I think. Oh, okay. What's the citation?

18.72.

There you go. So 18.71 dot what?

18.72.

Oh, so it's a different city?

Dash 040. I thought that it was under note, but I just have the reference number.

Those are all 18.71. Hmm.

Anyway, it's the one that talks about the height projection of 20 feet. And then it says, then I was a little bit confused on it, because then it provided some exceptions, such as towers and theater lofts and a bunch of different things in there. And I thought, well, I don't like that. I don't like that wording, because people will define things as different, you know. It's going to be different to me than it's going to be to Mason if we're going to be building. Can you just put in the number?

Yeah, I've been trying to, but it's not pulling up. 18.72. And all of them, they don't pull up.

You must have gone online because that's what it says. Roof structures for the housing of blah, blah, blah.

Oh, on Mill Creek.

Yeah, on their own website. Oh, okay. Skylights, steeples, flagpoles, chimneys, smokestacks, water tanks. Wireless or television mass theater loft silos may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title.

And so I thought, Oh, maybe that's what I did. Cause I went from one and I clicked on it and it took me over here. Oh, okay. Maybe that's what it was. I, I just want to be more clear in our code than that. And what is the theater loft and why are we having a smokestack and what, I mean, what is happening here? And like in Greece, all their water heaters are on the top because the sun warms them and then the water comes down. That's great, but I don't really want to be looking at that.

I think we should keep the height calculations that we have that we do for primary residents and just keep it the same. And if we need to improve that with other things that Mill Creek is clearer on, we could, but I don't. for staff ease of implementing this, we just use things that are already in our code to measure, either square footage or height. And our height is, if it's on a hill, we have a different calculation than if it's on flat ground and it does cause some consternation, but I think we need to use the same calculation. Otherwise it's going to be confusing. We'll make mistakes. Yeah.

Oh, you think that what we have is clear enough?

I mean, at least what we could do with what we have right now, but again, this goes back to what I said earlier, we can get the code in place, see how things are going, see what kind of barriers issues having a report to the planning commission. six months down the road, for instance, right? What are we seeing? And let you know if we're seeing issues or things that need to be further dialed in. Because we're kind of, we're going to be in a position where we're running out of time to get everything done by October 1st anyway. So I guess what I'm saying, Larry, is we can talk about that stuff more effectively and more dialed in down the road, but we need to get a basic code in place now and then figure out what it is and isn't working and dial it in later.

And that's why I think the council is going to want to start with 11,000 feet to see how it works. Let's get a few of these in and see what the issues are. And then, but we can keep those arguments and certainly the planning commission can recommend if you want to go down to 10,000 square foot lots and say, Hey, we had staff calculate and you're only going to have, you know, 25 lots in the city that could even meet all of these standards. And that's not really opening up the doors like the legislature wanted. You could recommend that, but I do think that just sort of, yeah, letting this go and then making tweaks as scenarios come along or as we realize that not very many people are able to use these.

Are we allowing for detached ADUs and ad lots?

Well, it is interesting. I think the statutes talk about primarily residential zones. Yeah, right. And we will need to clarify that because if it's primarily residential zone, you have to allow it. Others, we could make it a conditional use or something like that. But that is a question that I had too, like which, do we just leave it in,

In my mind, when I look at the agricultural low, it feels like a residential zone the way it's established. Agricultural medium, I think we would not allow it.

But you could have a lot more lots, and is that really what we want? Because those are our undeveloped areas where you could be putting, I don't know.

Well, you can only have one, obviously, with a primary dwelling. So that's going to be controlled. Yeah, you do already have to have a dwelling. Yeah, so that will control that scenario with a large lot.

Well, I just meant. You're prohibiting future, more planned future development by allowing use of ag, because now there's less of an incentive once you have two dwellings, and so if we can, prohibit it.

But on the contrary, the resident that's there may say, hey, I'm in a residential lot, why are you taking that right away from me to pursue it?

So question, did we get a count of how many detached ADUs there are in Balfour? Is that a data point that we can get?

I mean, I suppose I could call, their community development director and ask for that number. Curious, right?

They're a neighbor. They're a lot like us. They've got standards that I think are fine.

And they already have a DAG ordinance in place. They already got it in place.

How's it going? We clone it. How's it going? Get some pictures. Then the decision is not based on, oh, no, we're opening up the floodgates. Yeah, but our neighboring city only has 10. Yeah. yeah i think that's a really good point their standards are different than what we have right 8 000 square feet 350 square feet 8 000 might be too low but i think 11 000 would be not something i would recommend i think that it is it's too high it's far too high yeah and so you know i would recommend that i know but i'd go by 85 i'd say 85 that's pretty small what's a quarter acre Quarter acres. 10,000, 10,000 or something.

So it's not even a quarter acre. It's like a fifth acre.

Yeah. Quarter acres is a large lot though.

Yeah. But what's the point? The whole point that we, this has, the decision has been taken away from us because of the auto clenching, the, towns have engaged in.

Your average lot size, I would say, is somewhere between 8,000 to 10,500.

Layer on top of that. This is the way my mind's going. Layer on top of that, permeable surfaces, setbacks. If we don't go to eight, good luck getting much on a 0.2.

It'd have to be a particular shape.

It'd have to be a particular shape along with permeable surfaces.

Even your permeable at 60% makes it hard.

So if we're trying to show good faith to the legislature and where the league has asked us to do so, I feel like 11,000 is... I've said my piece. That's why I was headed towards what does Bountiful look like? Because if they've got 3,000, that'd be great to know. If they've got 10, that's a different story.

But your feeling is that if we recommended smaller than 11,000, the city council would say... You may get overturned. But that's fine. Well, sure, I understand that. But your feeling is the city council won't go for it.

Well, no, I don't want to enter the Planning Commission's. Sure. Really, if you're saying this is our recommendation, we think we should allow more of these and it has some beneficial, you know, aspects and we'll get more people in homes. Yeah, I can see that. Yeah.

You have five unique perspectives.

And it's not that hard to change because if you say 8000 and they say 11, it's one text change.

I could see some councils being OK. Other than the setbacks, because at 8000, you're probably some council members being OK with 8000 others. Not so much. Yeah. Oh, I'm sure. I'm sure.

something that might help you rationalize this is that for residential low lots for one acre, we allow for four units per acre. So that's, you know, even though it's going to be a detached structure or a detached living unit, it's going to be smaller. So I think that like that is that does play to the favor that 11,000 square feet lots for building might be, um, much more limiting than, than you kind of think it is. So, when you're just something to think about.

Well, and as you read through the purpose of why a lot of these cities that you gave us, are doing this, it says over and over, like this is for people who maybe need extra income. And a lot of those people can't afford huge lots. So I say that to say, I agree with Mason that I think 11,000 is just, I mean, I feel like I have a huge lot and I think mine's only a quarter acre. So I don't think I would even qualify.

That's right. That's where the legislators is going is what you just said. There's people that need housing and this is trying to open some doors to that.

They need housing and there's people who need money.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. And even even if you went to ten thousand, you're you're starting to turn the dial down to people who can actually start to take advantage of it. You know, now you're getting a higher percentile. Maybe you're going from where I said 15, 20, maybe now you're at 25, 30, right? Each time you ratchet down a thousand, you're getting a larger sweep of who can qualify.

So when you call bountiful, will you please ask them, um, not only how many, but the size of their lots that these are being put on.

What they typically see? Yes, what they typically see.

What's their minimum? Because, no, their minimum is 8,000. Oh, but what are the size?

What do they typically see and use?

Yeah, what are they typically being put on? What size of lots? I'd be really interested to know that. Distribution. Thank you. Yeah.

Yeah. See if they have that information. Yeah.

So to put a fine point on where I'm at, Bountiful seems like a really good direction, depending on the data, It's persuasive enough to a town council or a city council that could say, I'm afraid of X when we at least have a litmus test that's happening next door.

Yeah.

And then that gives you direction. It potentially gives town council or city council members some reassurance.

Yeah, and Bountiful has the minimum and they have a maximum. Again, we don't have to match their number.

Right. We've looked to Bountiful before and had some antagonism from it. For example, the Main Street ordinance. Right? The response being, we don't want to be Bountiful in that regard. And maybe that's going to happen here. But at least I'd like to know.

And you can see on there is on that feature that's pulled up. Now, they are one of them that do not allow windows to be on any adjoining property.

Can I wade into that? just i think that we should probably just say no windows if it's within x amount of feet or something like that no windows at all mill creek mill creek personally um having a window in my bathroom that faces onto the eight foot side yard into my neighbor's backyard we are constantly trying to keep that window closed it just feels weird i would rather just not have a window there could we

With that, can we do something with the distance from their home? For instance, like my house, my neighbor, I've got almost a quarter acre between my house and their house.

New Creek standard, to your point, I was going to say that is 15 feet from a neighboring residence.

Yeah. I mean, even if it's 20 feet, I don't care, but I would hate if I wanted to do this and I've got this huge lot next to me. Nobody's there. I'm not spying on anyone and I can't put a window in it.

That's a fair point. Yeah. Yeah.

You don't want to live in a unit where you can't have sunshine.

No, you want sunshine. I would agree with that. But there's other methods by which you can get sunlight. But at the same time, we're putting in increased housing. We're putting people closer together. And I think additional restrictions ought to be put into place. That's just my gut from the head.

How do you guys feel about opaqueness? So if I was to do the review and I saw that on the plan set maybe they did have a a window there but i said a terms of condition that you have to have the window be 80 opaque or you have to have one of those like opaque windows and then when we do the site visit the building inspector says that's an opaque window or that's not an opaque window a non-operable as in a permanently fixed you can't open it yeah Um, well, I have one in like our rental unit right now where it is workable, but there is, um, there's like a film over it.

Yeah. That's the opacity opacity.

So, so maybe that, that might, I can't see out of that window. Nobody can see into that window and light still gets in. Um, it allows for. let's say somebody had a prefab home and they're trying to save money instead of getting it professionally redone or to get it redesigned, they just say, okay, you need to slab on a screening for that. That might be something to kind of meet in the middle. It seems better.

I couldn't live in a unit that didn't have windows or that didn't open.

In Mill Creek's ordinance, it's in there 18.71.090. They have a statement. It's sub article 5 windows on a facade located 15 feet of an abutting property containing a single household twin home or duplex dwelling shall be fixed non-operable and Translucent or shall be installed skylights and so I looked at what translucent means Translucent materials allow light to pass through them but scatter the rays so much that objects on the other side appear blurry or distorted Oh, okay. So that's how they address this.

Almost like a block glass sort of thing.

Like frosted?

Maybe. Frosted. That's exactly what I have.

That's how they address this discussion. How do they deal with fire restrictions on really having non-operable windows on some of these? That's a really good point.

It is a great point. John, the building inspector?

Well, so operable but frosted within 15 feet.

Okay.

I mean, I don't know what the fire department would say about that.

Yeah, I don't know either. I guess I'd be a fire marshal.

You do have to have two exits, don't you? An exit or an entrance. So a window has to be one.

You could have, obviously, all your other windows that are operable on the other side.

Oh, you're just talking about the sum. Yeah.

Okay. You could still do that. I mean, I think the fire code or fire inspector probably would say, well, as long as you have other windows that facilitate that within so much proximity to this room, it would be a code. That's what I suspect you would say. Okay. But I could mirror something like that. I mean, if you like that language, that was one of my questions. Does that seem generally where we want to go? Do we not like that? Do we like 15 feet? I like the idea of 15 feet from their house. That's what it is, yeah. Well, within 15 feet of an abutting property is what it says. So do you want it to be you? Is that a property line? From a neighboring home or a neighboring residential structure? Or do you want to say like 20 feet from neighborhood? This is where we get the squishy areas, like I said.

Yeah. So here's a thought contrary. I would say that we just do it to the line. It's easier to measure. And because the abutting property owner can also put in a then. They're at 15 feet as well at that point. At what point do you evaluate the distance between structures? Is it the second one that goes in? And then by then you've got a structure that's not opaque or translucent.

I think to your point too, Lane, if you think about it, it's going to be in the rear yard. It has to be six feet removed from behind the home minimum because that's what building code requires. So you're already got a structure that's placed six feet behind the imaginary line from the rear of the home, right? You're going to be, if we keep eight feet inside eight feet, their side yard setback is also eight feet for their home. So by the time you're, you're already at 16 feet even at that from your structure. Yeah. That analysis. That's true.

Hot tub right there.

That's really uncomfortable.

But even then, I think that that still comes back to, if it's within 15 feet, we're already going to create eight feet that's required. So that window would start to be seven feet further away to not be translated and be functional in that scenario. what we're talking about yeah even at 15 feet from a property line i think lane you have the right instinct yeah i'm just i'm just looking forcibility well applicability yeah agreed and can you clarify that because you said from the line what what do you mean the line the fence boundary parcel part of the line yeah that's how it's written here yeah so it's agnostic as to the neighbors um whatever they've got the neighbors have the same right yeah right yeah but the same restriction okay i'm going to leave that statement then and then one right under it similarly talks about entrances parking and stairways within 15 feet shall not be visible from the abutting property they may be done with the fence along the side and rear property lines landscaping that is dense enough to obscure activity or by placing the entrances and stairs out of view of abutting properties. And that says corner properties with ADU entrances facing your right-of-way are not required to screen the entrance if not facing the same right-of-way as the primary dwelling entrance. It's on page seven. You're almost there. Go down. Right there. There it is. Article four. There are article six. Yeah. Do we like that language?

So is it the same standards?

As the windows?

No. Is it the same standards as for our homes? Are we trying to make it different, different standard?

It is because in theory, I guess from the side yard of a home, if we do eight feet, which is our minimum, it wouldn't be.

Because I'm trying to figure out when I looked at this and looked at it and looked at it, why we're trying to make it different.

I guess it depends where do you want your stairways in your entrances and your parking to be located relative to your neighboring property owner? Again, it's this discussion relative to that access. It's one thing to have your windows, right? It's another thing where you're going to let it access. Yeah.

Well, I'm, I'm thinking about when we do like conditional use permits, right? We think about the health, safety and welfare.

Yeah.

So, Would an entrance really that whatever side would it really impact the health, safety or welfare of the neighboring lot if we allow for that door to be abutting or facing their neighbors? I don't know.

Slamming door noise at two in the morning. I don't know. Maybe that's the concern. I don't know. I'm trying to think why they have I mean, they have it in there and they have an ordinance that they're they're using. This is active code.

do they know something from experience that we don't i don't know the answer but well and we in our internal adu if if they are closer like they the door for the internal adus if they're closer than 15 feet to the property line then they have to face another way i have it there in my internal comment on the right you can see i have location that's from the internal adu code i like i like that code i like that read better than

And I could even replicate that here and then just to have it be, you know, four sub i sub ii. Four is the first paragraph similarly and then i and ii for one and two. I thought that was good.

Yeah. I also thought that was good.

In place of their Article 6. I could easily do that. Correct. Yeah.

That works.

I mean, if we don't have upper story, then I'll eliminate even number two. And then obviously just one stays in for ground entrance at that point.

I'm a hard pass on upper stories. Yeah, 100%.

Yeah, I agree with that.

My question for that, though, is what when somebody wants to put a structure, a ADU in their detached garage, we allow for that because can we prevent that from happening?

Well, if it's an existing structure, then we have to do the non-complying evaluation and they could convert an existing structure. But it's going to be very typical that it's above 20 feet tall unless it's, again, non-complying and they prove non-compliance. So in that scenario, if they somehow were higher than 20 and they can prove non-compliance, they would be entitled to conversion. But it's a very rare scenario if that exists in the city.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Which I think I would be fine with. Existing structures. They wouldn't be able to incrementally build a detached garage after this ordinance passes.

Right.

That's what I thought. They would not be able to? They can build a garage, but they can't.

So what if they build a garage and genuinely decide, oh, now I want to turn it into this. They just can't do it?

They have to convert the garage at that point, too. Right. Not a second story. Not a second story above the garage. Okay. Okay. or or let's say it has two two garage bays they can convert one bay obviously to the housing and then keep the one and have a door attachment to it as long as they meet the other requirements at that point okay so that's how that conversion would go yeah would garages be set back less than eight foot garages would be the five foot setback five foot in a tip in a a typical accessory building scenario plus yep yeah So again, if you convert, this is again an elimination, right? if we allow accessory buildings as we currently have them at five feet, you're now not able to eat the eight pack setback requirements. So you can't convert that garage at that point. You couldn't, that's okay. That's allowed by, by the state. We can do that, but that's what the scenario would be created. Okay.

So anything that has, even if you're doing a conversion, you can't change the set.

No, I mean, that's coming in there unless again, you can prove some kind of legal noncompliance that your grandfathered into, but that's the, I think that we can just solve that with a grandfather date.

Yeah. Say as of the date of this ordinance, any structures that are non-compliant?

Yeah. Can be. Yeah.

Can be or cannot be. And then any structures built after the date of this ordinance? Good job. I like that.

Sure.

I like it.

Okay, let's see if there's any other squishy that I need help with.

I was going to say this was supposed to be really easy.

This is not really easy.

The next one's really easy. I promise you guys, that one's pretty straightforward.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, I already know this one. My second comment, which is on page five, I've already checked with Public Works. They absolutely want separate utility metering and separate utility lines. That's what I thought I understood. You mean power as well? Everything. They want it completely separate. Perfect. They don't want any of that entanglement and confusion.

Yep, and because somebody doesn't pay, that can be a real big problem.

Yep. We already got setbacks, I think.

Do you have addresses in here?

It's at the very bottom. It is one thing I need to check with the public works director to make sure this language would work. But yeah, it's in there. Yeah, it's new.

It's like when you get to it, I have comments.

No, it's okay. Let's see. It's maximum heights. We got that. Okay. So. This is article, this is on page 5. It's article 6. The state code says you can have some statement about the accessory dwelling matching the architectural style of the main building. So what Mill Creek does is they say 20% of the exterior materials must match the structure facade of the existing structure. And that's on all, so like obviously if there's a home that has a certain color brick, all facades of the detached accessory dwelling unit must have 20% meeting that same material. And then they go so far as even on color, it's 50%. So if you look at 6, detached ADU shall maintain the same color primed drawing for at least 50% of all facades. So what it's trying to say is, hey, if you're detached ADU, you want a little variation, that's fine. But you need 20% on every facade to match the main structure. And you need 50% of the coloration to match the main structure. That's how Milking's addressing it. Some studies go right out and say, The building material of the detached accessory building unit shall match and reflect the main structure. You can be that. dialed in if you feel like it. But it might be harder to prove some of those structural elements and colors that are part of the main home and find analogs to it. So that's where that gets a little tricky. So I think what Mill Creek was trying to do is say, hey, we understand some of this may be hard to replicate, but find analogs and get close so we can be OK with that. So that's the question. And do we like that analysis that they've created there? or do we want to be less or more restrictive?

Did you run across any analyses that don't use percentages, that use mushy words like substantially?

I mean, you can look at the coverage. A lot of them just say match up or they're more creative like this. I didn't see really any middle ground. It's either a percentile measure or you need to match as closely as you can the main structure. I guess the easiest way I can say it.

I kind of like the percentage because you can calculate that. That's something that can be calculated. You've got this many feet, whatever, whatever. And this much of it, of your facade or the front needs to match. My home is older. So trying to get that brick. So first I thought, well, it should be 50%. It should match. Right. But then when I was talking to my brother-in-law and he said, good luck, that's not going to happen. You're not, but you can take 20% and do that. And that's a realistic thing. But if you use words, then people interpret the words differently, and then it creates, it could create greater problems.

And that's the other part for Steph, right? If it's squishy words and not percentiles, then it's hard for us to discern, well, this is close enough here, but not close enough here. Right. Yeah, yeah.

That's true.

Too much judgment involved. And there's a similar conversation, it's a little further down, but roofs even, it talks about having a similar roof line. That's one of the things they've required. So it has a flat roof, you have a flat roof.

Except we don't allow flat roofs.

We actually do have a few homes with flat roofs in the city.

Right, but do we allow that for new build?

It's a newer home. There's a modern home up on, it's up kind of on the southeast end of the city. And it's slightly pitched, but it's a flat type roof. It's not a...

I think that's also regulated by IBC, the international building code versus our zoning code. Cause I don't, I don't think there's anything in our zoning code about the pitch of the roof besides the height.

Yeah.

Maximum.

So I guess their, their code basically says that the roof line needs to match the roof line of the structure. Right. Which makes sense. Yeah.

I like that.

Um, parking, let's see, is there anything else? Just, uh, They have, there's our internal ADU standard on parking. It's still on page five, Sid, at the very, very bottom. It's the last one. That's our internal ADU parking. Sydney's really familiar with this one. The question that I only have is, are we comfortable with how that's worded?

Which one are we at? Sorry. Number eight. Thank you.

Yeah, parking. Or do we want to use a little bit of a different standard? We want to tweak it right now. You can see exactly what she's saying, that it has to be located behind the front yard setback line of the lot, that it can be tandem, but it needs to be established in a place. And if they in this case, If what that like remain in place, restored if missing, that kind of matches state code. State code talks about with like a conversion. If you take out parking stalls, you can still require that they put those stalls back in and place on the property somewhere else and show where they're gonna put that. So this code seems to match even what state code does there. But if you feel like this language needs to be bolstered or change a little bit different than the IEDU, that's kind of what I'm seeking.

so i noticed that some of the cities have um provisions of the size of the home right yeah it's 600 like i think you mentioned that 649 feet you have to have one 650 square feet you have to have two yeah yeah and that's what our public works director our public works street supervisor wants us to do is meet that standard we're not required to so then we need to state that

So, yeah, and I could add that statement in there real easily that it says any unit that is less than 650 square feet shall have one parking stall. Any any structure larger than 650 square feet shall have two parking. Yeah. Something that says that state I can add that into that paragraph. Yeah, I can add that up and then it could. Yes.

And do we allow tandem?

We have to by state code and it's in here as well.

Oh, I thought we had the choice right here. Okay. Yeah.

Can parking be gravel?

It has to be... No, I'm pretty sure it can be gravel.

As I say, I think it's considered a legitimate surface.

It's compacted.

Let's just follow whatever the city does.

Yeah, yeah.

It's compact that it has to be on a compacted surface. And typically if there is, yeah, if there is gravel, then we count it as impervious surface because of how compacted it is. So yes, people can actually park on gravel.

It's still counted as impervious though. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay. I'd gone back to page seven. I just have another follow-up question there. Lighting. They have a lighting standard to provide an elimination directed downward.

Yeah.

do we want similar language obviously wouldn't have the code citation but we could just keep it as where are we on this oh yeah shout and we could say and shall follow other similar standards of the city period yeah yeah that works light sources shall not be visible from a budding properties do we want that second statement yes yes perfect that helps me Then they have a table, which I could replicate a similar table and bring that back. And if we need to further tweak the table, we can. So if you at least like the direction of the table, obviously we still need to figure out minimum property area at some point. And then we need to figure out if we're going to see, they even do gross square footage in their table, like Cindy was saying. So we need to figure out if we want a minimum and a maximum. Setbacks, I think we've heard it's eight feet and stay off the PUE. So I can update that. Height, I think we're at 20. And then there's the occupancy limit statement earlier. In their case, they have two adults and any number of children, which again, going back to family, family definition, you can't be more restricted than the state's family definition.

Right. Which, and again, going back to what my brother-in-law said, which is why they changed it to bathrooms.

So I guess, I mean, yeah, I don't know how many people per bathroom. I don't know. I don't know if we can or can't do that. That's where I might need some legal guidance on that. Yeah.

I feel like also in the an IBC, there's like an occupancy limit for the square for like the size of your store. Fire code to set. So that might be something that I could reach out to Colin John.

It might already be regulated as fire code.

Yeah, fire code might be enough.

Yeah.

If it just says look for a 700 square foot home, you can't have more than five.

But we can do I mean, I could do with occupancy limit. We could, in theory, replicate what they have here because at least meets one category of family. well can you check can you please check with the fire code and see what how it's regulated yeah um let's see here short-term rental this is probably a little bit more for you lisa on page eight Code 13, I might just have to have you look at if we can do that or not. It talks about notice what days kind of requires office. It's very clearly an internal way to use that they have regulations that allow for that, but there's not similar guidance in detached ADUs the same way. So I don't know if we could have that similar language or not. It'd be nice, but I don't know.

I mean, given what the lead has said is you just can't do these things, but you could have a lot of other stuff. As long as there's not something conflicting with this in state law. That's all.

Okay. So we'll follow that same. I don't know the reason for C or exemptions. Detach ADUs. I know it's language that I brought over from internal ADUs. I don't know if it matters one way or another. So I can leave it in there. I guess if we have an internal ADUs, there's probably a reason we have it. But... but it was just kind of interesting statement.

You want to know what it is? It's when you do a subdivision and it's like one acre and then we allow for them to subdivide into four units and then each unit can have an internal AD.

So it's saying for that don't count. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well then that makes sense. Do you think then it's okay keeping it in for detached the same way? Okay. Let's see. I'm all the way down now to page 11. Um, So this is, let's see, I was just saying that we could use similar language for conversion, but I'm not sure that we need this comment. I'm just trying to remember why I said that. I mean, again, they would have to meet our nonconformities determination. I don't know if it hurts or helps anything to keep it in there.

Is that a Lisa question?

It might be. I think...

That could be where we put in the grandfathering statement.

Yeah, it starts a little bit here. I just don't know, because then they go in more, and I think all it's trying to say is following nonconformities, which we hit again later under 2, where we talk about applying CZC 12.22. I'll have to look at that. Let me talk to Lisa a little bit more about it.

I have a question about that, about a guest house. By definition, a guest house may not be rented out or leased. So I could build something, a structure in my backyard for my children that will live there forever. No, I wouldn't want that. But I'm just saying, my mom, right? My kids or my mom or something. And so then do we have different standards as to what a guest house?

That's true. I guess you're right, that second statement.

I don't know if we allow guest houses. I think that is an accessory dwelling.

Yeah, so I could probably rip that out.

Yeah, I'd have to look.

So then anything that they want to build would have to go through these restrictions. It's going to be habitable. Yeah, it's going to be a dwelling.

So that's helpful. This dialogue is helpful. So what I would strip at a minimum is from a property with an existing to the end of that. That at least I would strip from that paragraph.

I think this is trying to address something different.

Yeah. That's interesting. Guest house is defined in our code. Does it live anywhere else?

i don't think so yeah i think it's just in the definition so we probably pulled it from somewhere else i'm going to assume that at one point we had guest house defined and then we stripped it from the code and we just didn't strip it from the definition well and sometimes we leave the definition because if you have a definition but it's not in your list of permitted uses then it's not permitted correct and we can't get away with that as much anymore but right so it's defined so we don't allow it anywhere okay okay okay that's good okay thank you

All right, let's keep going down. Yeah, on 13, page 13, there's a weird statement. I'm trying to, I put it in there because I know there's two legal minds in this room, so maybe you can help me or maybe the other plaintiffs can read this and see if they can make sense of what this is trying to say. For all properties located abutting a residential zone boundary or legally established residential dwelling, the detached building does not protrude higher than the measured height of the existing non-compliant structure being expanded. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT APPLIES OR WHAT IT'S TRYING TO SAY RELATIVE TO A CONVERSION OF A BUILDING INTO A DETACHED ADU. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PURPOSE IS OF THAT STATEMENT.

WHAT IS IT EXPANDING?

I DON'T KNOW.

IS THIS FROM AN IADU?

NO, THIS IS MILL CREEK CITY'S DETACHED ADU CONVERSION LANGUAGE.

So I read this three different times to my brother-in-law and I said, does this make sense to you at 30 some odd years of doing this at all? He said, no, read it again. Read that one part again. Read it again. He said, I don't know what to make of that.

I'll just delete it then. Unless we can find any legal relevancy as to why that is in their code.

Can you, Lisa? No. No? It just didn't make sense to me. I mean, I have to read the whole, I haven't read this section.

Right.

right and it's tied specifically to a conversion of an accessory structure it's weird a non-conforming structure maybe at that point maybe what it's saying is that there's a non-conforming structure already existing and what you're wanting to do is that you're wanting to expand it this is a subsection of two and two is very restrictive it talks about non-compliant structures legally established blah blah blah may be converted or expanded We're enlarged.

But I'm not sure we want to allow non-conforming structures to be converted. I think non-conforming, we're not, anyway, so I don't know that we would want that. All of two, not subsection two, but all of Yeah, yeah, the two, two, where I accidentally made a mistake, but that sub two, we might want to convert an existing permitted accessory structure or garage or building, but

it's non-conforming i mean it could be non-conforming as to setback as to all kinds of things and then we get but again you wouldn't be allowed to convert it because now it doesn't meet the setback yeah i would i would possibly delete everything from that blue two okay like the whole section yeah this yeah i think that we could probably come up with something better and in part they have that um other section we were looking at either before.

I think I might need to keep something like one or an analog to one. One, yes. But the second two I could probably remove in its entirety. Okay. All right.

I'll just take the rest of that whole thing. I don't know what, I don't, again, a lot of these codes had some discretion or I don't think we start our code with discretion. I think we're just going to have the rules. There's no go ask for this or go do this. We already have variance requests, so I also wouldn't copy any of that kind of language.

AND THEN 14 IS JUST CARRYING OVER OUR INTERNAL ADU LANGUAGE AND MEETING ALLOWANCES THAT THEY PROVIDE TO US. I JUST NOTE THAT, AGAIN, THERE'S A STATEMENT ABOUT FILING WITH THE OWNER OCCUPANCY, WITH THE COUNTY WHEN WE FINALIZE THE DETACHED ADU, THEY HAVE TO RECORD THAT AFFIDAVIT. SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN DO THAT. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY GET THEIR LICENSE AND HOW THAT WORKS. Again, meeting the internal ADU. And that's the same comment even on page 15. Anything that's pure in red is straight from IEDU that I'm just converting over for detached. There's the addressing one, Lurie, on page 16 at the article four. I just need to see if that's still the same language we would want to use for detached like we do with internal.

Yeah, this is the one that I have comments on. then lisa maybe it's a legal question but on violations and enforcement area i've highlighted at the very end right there wait wait did you just jump to to violations and enforcement yeah go back to we can go back yeah we can talk about addressing street addressing so it says it will not be given a new distinct address by the city well It has to have something. It has to have A or B. It would have A or B.

It would have an alphabetical reference.

Okay. Some other codes just said they will be addressed according to the city's addressing policy.

We could, I mean, we could do away with it. This is just what's an internal.

I think, oh, oh, this is the way we handle it.

This is our language right now, Lisa.

I don't know, because I agree with Lorraine that we're not going to, I mean, we do give it a distinct one.

Yeah, it has to be distinct for emergency services, for its Census Bureau, I mean, so for many things. Where is this?

It's at the Amazon delivery. Let's get that. Like, let's just be honest. It's for the Amazon delivery.

It's all the Amazon delivery. That's the obvious.

Come on. Really, that's going to be the real friction.

All my packages.

we may need to look at that i'm not sure and for mail right yeah yeah that's interesting yeah because i have seen a number of other cities address it i think i've seen some better examples but if we want because we could amend our internal as well we can talk to mike because he mike carlson does that addressing yeah i just wanted to make sure that that was no matter what that was going to be I see, so yeah, they still want it the same, but that's internal. This is a building in the back.

That's why I don't know if they want a similar policy or not.

I see, so this is why this works for internal.

Yeah, right, right. But I mean, you could have a similar thing for a detached, because it's about the same coordinate location, and you might confuse it with a different number. That's why I need to talk to Mike and see what he would prefer.

does the post office have a say do they say what happens or is it giving it usually they do have a say but typically it's what is approved by the that's what i was going to say yep we drive that conversation okay yeah okay okay

So that addresses all my squishy stuff. I can go back and listen to the recording. So that at least addresses my question. So now, yeah, what are your thoughts?

Well, we didn't finish the violations and enforcement because we jumped back.

Yeah, and we still need to come back to size and lot size. Anyway, yeah, go ahead, Lori.

So on this one, I was a little unclear on the language, but I think that, and you were asking, should this be included? You were seeking guidance from Lisa.

Yeah, because it's referencing, the 10-2303 is technically an internal ADU. It's direct from the state code, or it's linked to the state code, that reference. see how it says city may utilize enforcement provisions of utah code 10 2303 there's not something there's not an analog to it in 10 2304 that i can look to so then the question becomes what what would we do or how do we have more language there yeah it is interesting i guess i should probably look at that but i mean i think they do allow

you know owner occupancy requirements and if they allow us to do that they should allow us to add other things but i'll have to take a look at that why they didn't put it or talk to the league like why didn't we add that here yeah it's weird that one was weird to me so that's why i was asking the question can i ask a question that's rudimentary and i should know this how far away from the primary structure does a dad who have to sit

Six feet. Six feet behind it. So you have the rear of the home, right? All the wall or roof eave to roof eave? It's the wall. Oh, it is the wall.

Yeah, it's for like the fire.

Yeah, there's a fire break at six feet. So you imagine a line. No structures technically could be within six feet, even an accessory structure to protect from coals jumping and embers and all that stuff. Okay. And I would add that language in our code. That is in some other codes. You'll see that it's not Mill Creek's, but they probably just let building code do it. That's why they don't declare it. So I can declare it or not. But building code will require either way.

Yeah, I'm specifying.

So should we talk about the two big issues and figure out what we want to do?

Yep.

I need to figure out minimum lot size allowance, and I need to figure out if you want a minimum size of structure and a maximum size of structure. for these that's what I need from the commission at this point. So I guess I'll turn it over to you to tell me what you think or discuss it internally and let us know what your consensus is.

So that's just something that's going to have to be discussed between us.

Well, my opinion changes if we allow basements or not.

Exactly.

So we need to make that decision first.

I feel like there was more direction in favor of that, but yeah, feel free to give me some consensus.

Do we have any restrictions from having basements in there? Like, is that some way going to jack up the neighbors something? I mean, you're going to have to obviously change maybe sprinkler lines or some sprinkler lines.

Most likely the sprinklers would be in the easement, though.

Or elsewhere around the property.

Or realigned. Do accessory dwelling units get basements? They don't.

No. Well, yeah, it would be internal. They could be a basement, but.

Yeah, I mean, we allow conversions of a basement to an internal ADU.

Sorry, accessory buildings, especially buildings. They don't get basements.

They could. There's no restriction on that.

Yeah, there's nothing says they couldn't hold up. Really?

Yeah.

We don't require slap on grade.

I don't think so.

We're just. I don't know. Put a pin in that.

Let me ask John about like if you build a garage.

I'm just trying to visualize a full on garage. Like, can you put a basement in a garage?

I don't think there's any restrictions on that.

It might be, but yeah, it might be per building code. I'll have to put a pin in it, and that's something I have to do homework on. I'll have to find that out.

Anyways, I'm not going to reiterate too strongly what I said, but I think I'd rather stack than sprawl. Yeah.

Well, I would agree with that, as long as it's not adversely affecting anybody, right, or anything.

And I ought not to. I don't know. I can't imagine where digging... that isn't already restricted by something else would have an adverse effect on a neighbor.

And there's going to have to be digging anyway because they have to have their own sewer line. Yeah.

They'd also have to have footings below the frost line even for a slab, right?

Yeah.

Oh, yeah. True. So you're, what, 20 inches down? What's our frost line?

I think it depends on maybe the areas of the city and the topography of the geotech. That's what I would suspect. I think it, yeah, it depends on your soil substrate.

But give or take what? I don't know. I don't know. I think in the geotech.

And then did you say the basement doesn't count towards the square footage? Is that what I heard you say? No, we could. We could with the gross square foot use.

That's the language we'd use. And that's what they have in their table in the exemplar as well.

So I've been broke along this already, but I'll just say this would be my proposal. Basements allowed gross square footage be the limit, the maximum, that we really don't need, a minimum. I think that there's going to be too many constraints on that as it is. And then we just say for the lot size, make it 8,500.

And what gross square footage maximum?

Great question. Like, I don't... think we want another house. No. No. We don't want a second home. Anything sub-$1,200. I'd say $7,000.

OK. So Battlefield City has $1,250.

That's just too big.

Eagle Mountain has $1,200. And I think Mill Creek's is $1,000. Is it $1,000? OK. So that's not out of the realm of possibility?

North Salt Lake is $300.

As a minimum.

As a minimum, yeah.

And their maximum is $1,200.

$1,200, yeah. $1,200.

I just put it into perspective. The first home in Centerville was a Hal Harrison home. at a basement, main level, 1,100 square feet. So that's what you think if you drive through Casa Loma, that's 1,100 square feet.

That's a good size. That's a lot of house. That's a really good size.

Well, I'm thinking more along the lines of if you stack a 600 square foot.

Well, yeah, especially when you're stacking.

It's pretty constrictive. Would there be, it looks teeny.

which is what you want, right? Yeah. Would there be any use to like having language that says, you know, single level is 600 square feet, but you can go up to 1200 if you have a basis. You're kind of going to hit that restriction with lot coverage.

Yeah. Gross total could be one level cannot be more than X. Yeah, exactly.

I mean, we could, we could do that. Just know that a lot of coverage is 60% of the entire lot with anything that's hardscape and or structure. by code currently. So that would include a DADU. So if you have a really big home, and you use up most of your percentage, you're not gonna have very much for a DADU in your backyard. Or if you have a really big driveway and a really big home, and you're at 56% or 57% coverage, you're not gonna have a lot left for a DADU. So that might already regulate some of the sizing that you're talking about, except for a big AL lot or a big RL lot, like that's half an acre, right? It kind of favors them over someone who's got a smaller lot coverage to work with. So, but just take that into account as you think about that.

That's a really good point. Maybe, maybe we don't like there, there's going to be enough restrictions.

We could try it even with the lock coverage and see how it works. See how things are going. I know try it as experiment. We're experimenting literally with people over years of the code, but we could, we could then see what's going on. And if we need to hem some things in or tighten some language, we have always have that expression.

Okay. Can you also ask Bountiful what a typical size is that people are building?

Oh, yeah. And whether it has basements.

I'm sorry? Basements. Oh, basements. And whether, yeah, they allow for basements.

That should be in their code I provided, but we can...

Well, I don't recall. I know, that's fine.

And I don't remember now because, yeah, I don't remember if Bountiful says they allow basements. So I can ask them specifically.

They do do a gross square footage.

Yeah, they do.

Should be the lesser of the gross square footage of the existing main building or 1,000 square feet.

And that's on Mill Creek, right? Oh, yeah.

So gross square footage, are we thinking 1,000, 1,100, 1,200?

What are we thinking?

I'm thinking I want more information from Bountiful, but if we have to... For now, just to have some... For now, you need a number?

Obviously, if we said a public hearing, I want to have dialed in information. You can always adjust it after hearing public hearing comments.

I'm surprised to hear myself say it, but I would say like 750. Oh.

As your maximum for square footage?

Yeah. Wow. I do not like the idea of a big old house behind someone else's house.

At that point, would you just round it to 800? No.

I'd say no.

No way. I'm just saying 800, I mean, 50 feet give or take for orifices and utilities. Not even a bedroom.

But 800 square feet on a two-level? Gross. Gross. So they could go 800 square feet out and it could be some big old rambler.

If they can hit their coverage, which is going to be pretty hard.

Right, if they can meet all of the things.

And even in that case, then they have a really big lot and they're not going to be impacting people anyway, if they can go that big.

Maybe, if they put it in the corner, they're way out there in the North 40 and it's over by these guys.

Minimum, all right. I mean, yeah.

It's pretty sprawling and big.

800 is a lot better than 1,200.

We would be more restrictive size-wise than most cities that I've surveyed. So just be aware of that. If you're comfortable with that, I'm just letting you know that is pretty restrictive compared to other cities at 800 square feet. So if you like that, then that does create some of that community care or protection that we have been talking about from a size aspect.

In a good way.

In a good way, if that's what you're trying to accomplish. Yes.

Bountiful, 12 city. North Salt Lake, 1,200. West Valley City. Oh, 800, see? 800. There you go. Salt Lake County. I want to be like West Valley.

and i think that's a good place to start yeah we can change it if we have some different thoughts between now and member council may ever change it anyway too yeah that's right you know yeah exactly so but i agree with lane yeah having a whole big house in my backyard doesn't seem right yeah 1100 is pretty big filling it's very big yeah yeah yeah yeah you want it to be you want it to be reasonable actually do you want you want if there's a need there for it to have something that's livable but not expansive right and then is everybody good with 8 500 lot size minimum that's yeah i have no opposition to them okay

Okay, I think I have everything I need unless you have special requests or expectations.

One more thing. When we were talking about tiny homes, I know they're not allowed in some places and I know that they are allowed in other cities. And then you had said something, I don't want to quote you because I'll get it wrong, something about tiny homes could be a possible foundation.

I was saying, yeah, I was saying we can't restrict willed. the placement of wheeled DADUs, but we can require that they be permanently fixed to concrete slabs.

Okay. So in regards to that, I called my sister who is an insurance person and she said, tiny homes are only built to an RV standard. They are not built to the international residential code. So therefore should not be allowed as

We might have to, at that point, do some legal research with Utah Legacies and Towns to see if we can restrict. Or, this is why you have minimum DADU size restrictions. So if your minimum is 350, that's probably bigger than most tiny homes, so that right there would restrict them out.

And it does say that we can require a detached accessory dwelling unit comply with all applicable building health and fire codes. So if we're calling it a dwelling, applicable dwelling code is international.

if we call it a tiny home, but it has to be.

Yeah, I think it would be worth asking who said you can't prohibit.

Yeah, yeah.

Tiny homes and other mobile homes.

So it was in the seminar with Utah Legacies in Towns last Wednesday.

Well, you say that, but in this under Mill Creek, it says a detached ADU shall be a permanent structure. Trailers, mobile homes and other portable structures, especially structures with wheels, shall not be permitted.

He said that that's the one area of their code they probably have to adjust in light of the legislation.

Okay.

Yeah.

with this most recent legislation? Yeah.

So then what do we say about that?

Well, I think it's okay to do a minimum because, and then you'll, get around the tiny homes.

And we can keep this language in there and see if it gets challenged too, if we want to play that that way. But yeah, the other way is just give a minimum and then it probably restricts most tiny homes from even coming in.

I'm comfortable with a minimum of like 350 square feet.

And I can still add too, tiny homes must be affixed to a permanent foundation attached to concrete per building code standards, which matches what these are.

One of the cities had to have skirting covering. And I can require that language as well.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. That almost becomes like a mobile home court. Yeah. Well, right. I mean, that's... Yeah.

Which is what we don't want.

Yeah, exactly. That's what they do.

Because what it comes down to, it's not this, I know where it's going. My brain's starting to go back to it with the wheeled vehicles and stuff. There's a standard talking about manufactured homes and there's manufactured home regulations and protections that the state legislature approved about a year ago that is coming into play crossing over with this. That's what it is. I remember when he was talking about it now.

So then what does that mean?

You can't overly regulate manufactured home placement as a traditional dwelling unit in your city because it doesn't meet certain typical dwelling unit standards. And so that similarly applies even in a DADU scenario. Yeah. That's what some of the conversation was. I remember him talking about that. so i mean we could always seek more league guidance on that one but again another way to do it is to have a minimum that's probably why a lot of cities have 350 square feet as a minimum i like that yeah let's do them that's my opinion because it probably just regulates amount of being able to be placed in your city at that point anyway or 400 square feet if you want to get a little even yeah i don't know mason are you looking at typical sizes yeah i'm concerned that we're being

Our maximum size is too low.

The maximum size is too low?

Yeah, I think 800 is too low for the gross.

Well, is there a way to say if it's basement plus that your gross square footage is this? Because we don't want a 1,000-square-foot rambler. No.

I agree with you.

So how would we fix that?

I think there are enough restrictions with permeable surface restrictions and setbacks that you're not going to get ramblers.

Yeah.

And even if you were to see a lot where you're going to get 1,000 square feet, you're going to be on like a one acre.

Yeah, that's what I was saying earlier.

That's the only reason. And I think that we should say, look, if you can fit a 600 and a 600 on your lot, great. Do it. Because I'm looking at a 600, like a floor plan for a 600, that's like a 1-1, maybe a 2-1 if you're lucky.

And that doesn't sound like a very happy place to live.

No, for a mother-in-law, great. 1-1.

One person.

Or if you're just like you and your kid.

Or if it's a single couple or something.

A single couple with a new baby, a 2-1, great. But a 600-600, I think you're not going to get more than one bedroom on a level.

Yeah, right.

Maybe two. Maybe two. Too small. If you were like Asian-style cupboards or New York-style cupboards.

I definitely would prefer some language that allows for bigger, for more space if you go underground, but does not allow for more space above ground.

Yeah, above ground.

I think that's a concession I would totally love to make. I'm really discomfited by a limit of seven or eight. gross total like that regardless but i think that if we build something in like that that would work yeah something i would totally go for i agree yeah you can say 800 square feet yeah or up to 1200 square feet with a basement basement use basement application i'm not sure what it exactly would say but something like that i like that that could work i would i would have gone out of the other direction where it's the gross is 1200 and any one level cannot exceed x

Yeah, I could do that too.