Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we're all set.

All right, welcome everybody. I apologize for being late and for starting late, but I guess it's under five minutes, so the students don't get to leave. Growing up, what was it, 15 minutes was the culture pretty much? Yeah, I think so. I mean, it's not a real thing, but... Anyways, welcome everybody to Planning Commission for August 12th, 2026. We'll start with a quick roll call. We have an amazing panel today. This looks so fun to see everyone. No, really, it's, gosh, I don't know, when was the last time we had a no absence? It's been a while. It is such a pleasure to have you all here. We'll start with a thought by Commissioner Adamson.

Yeah, I was thinking about what to share today and thinking about it in the context of the different things that we were wanting to achieve today. And one of my favorite recent books that I've read is The Devil in the White City. I'm not sure if anyone's heard of that. It's essentially about the Chicago World's Fair and it juxtaposed against kind of more of a true crime understanding of what was going on in Chicago at that time. My background is as an engineer, so the architectural aspects of the World's Fair really caught my attention. I found it very enthralling. There's a quote in that from the architect in charge of developing a lot of the buildings and structures for the World's Fair, Daniel Burnham, make no little plans, they have no magic to stir men's blood. And so I was thinking about that quote in this context, and I think it's a good reminder to us that uh our job as planning commission is not just to think about the near term but to think about the long term what are we leaving behind for the community what what structure are we setting a lot of the code edits we're talking about today focus a lot in on that and making changes and creating a structure that sets a good precedent for the future that's my thought that's awesome make no small plans

Can you say one thing no small plans because it's not enough to stir men's blood.

Yeah, make no little plans They have no magic to stir men's blood. Well done.

Okay We'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or sorry Commissioner Addison. Did you want to offer a legislative prayer? Sure

Our Father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity we have as a commission to gather and to discuss the needs of our community. We're grateful for the efforts of staff and ask you to bless us now to be enlightened by thy spirit that we might be able to make good decisions in representation of the community we serve and that we might be able to provide recommendations that provide the proper level of guidance and structure for counsel in the future. And we ask for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. And we'll stand for the Pledge of Allegiance now. All right. Business items. Let's start with number one on the agenda.

Mr. Agate. Actually, this one would be in the past to turn it on. Excellent. All right.

It's Romney.

Oh, exciting.

Please take us out.

Thank you. We have before you both municipal code amendments and text amendments to the zoning code regarding our landmark commission. and we are trying to transition the Landmark Commission to a new name called the Historic Preservation Commission and assigning the members of the Whitaker Museum Board to be the members of the new Historic Preservation Commission. So this project was really requested by Mayor Wilkinson We've had a hard time keeping members on the Landmarks Commission because they meet so rarely. They were quite involved a few years ago, but they do meet for some zoning things, some incentives in the Dual Creek Historic District. They may also meet if they need to document a historic landmark or site that is going to be demolished. They have the right to take some photographs and things. it's been hard to get members to sit on that and to have it functioning. So his request was for the members to try and make the Whitaker Museum and the Landmarks Commission maybe the same, but this is sort of the idea. Let's keep them two separate public bodies, but the Whitaker Museum Board will wear their hat when they're meeting as the Whitaker Museum Board, and then they'll change their hat to the Historic Preservation Commission when they're meeting as that board. very similar to what the city council does when they're sitting as the redevelopment agency. So they sit on two different boards, but they're, you know, single members. So these code text amendments are basically to rename it to the historic preservation commission in the, in title three of our municipal code, and also add some duties to the Whitaker museum board so that because the qualifications for the museum board actually tied in quite well, but we wanted to make a few changes there so that they're qualified for both. And then make it clear that there are separate bodies that will be having two different sets of minutes and that sort of thing. So, and I have met, the mayor has worked with the Whitaker museum board. And then after these code text amendments were prepared, I met with the museum board and they could ask any questions and how legally this would work. And I think they are, gratefully for us, they're on board with this and wanted to know how much more work this would be for them and also for the museum staff. We do have a museum director. And so we've kind of said, look, if the Historic Preservation Commission requires more, we could also look at making maybe some staff from community development or the city recorder that could assist in that. But again, they meet so rarely. I think this is a really good fit and hopefully a win-win. And so I will just go through since the planning commission only reviews and makes recommendations on zoning text or subdivision. So basically land use ordinances, but I decided to just bring both of these together and let you have a combined public hearing on both. So anyway, we're just, we're just creating these changes to title three of the municipal code and then chapter 20 of the zoning code. If you want to just make a motion on the zoning code, you can, or if you want to make a motion on both, you're also welcome to. by statute, you have to review the zoning amendments. So, um, and then once we renamed it, I searched for landmark commission throughout our zoning code. And that's why your zoning text amendment, not because of me, it is, um, 20 pages because we just 21 pages. Cause we had to just make those amendments to the, the title throughout. So we fixed all those and yeah, we're looking forward to taking this to the city council. So it is a public hearing.

Yes. All right. Thank you. Any questions for our staff before I open it up? Okay. So I'm going to open this up for a public hearing. And if you're here to speak on this, we would love to invite you to come to the podiums, state your name, your address, and give your comments. All right. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and take it back to the Commission for any further discussion.

it's pretty seamless to me yeah it seems like it makes sense it seemed right you did a great job yes we've been working on it for a while so i'm glad if the if the um museum board is willing to do it i'd say yes yes yeah right that took a few a few months yeah right

OK. So would anybody like to start with a motion? And well, I should actually say I have no qualms personally in saying that we should just forward a recommendation on all of it, though our authority only sweeps in land use. And we just let them know. Makes a lot of sense.

if you pull it up i'll make a motion to accept it yeah do you mind go forward this is all that i have for um recommendations oh it's right there okay yeah okay so i would like to recommend approval of the proposed centerville municipal code and centerville zoning code amendments to appoint whittaker museum board members to act as historic preservation commission members ordinance number 2026-10 and ordinance number 2026-11

And if you would like some findings, you can just reference the whereas clauses in those ordinances.

And I'd like to reference all the things Lisa just said.

I will second that motion. That was beautiful.

So I have a first and a second. We're going to go ahead and do roll call starting here. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. That is unanimous. Thanks for your hard work on that. Okay, moving on and somewhat more interesting. I mean, not to say that wasn't interesting.

It's an important thing.

It is important. It's actually really important. I mean, I was on the Landmarks Commission and I think I was around for some of the very last efforts they made and it was six years ago or something. I think one of the very last things we did was make a commemorative cutting board for somebody who had been on the Landmarks Commission for forever.

And you didn't get one?

Well, come on, no. I've been there for like eight months or something. That's nice. It was great. Anyways, let's go on to item number two. Who will be? All right, Ms. DeWeese, please.

So we are proposing a zoning or not a zoning, a municipal code amendment to the section 15, which is the subdivision ordinance for the current exchange of titles. But what we are proposing is to change that to the boundary line adjustments, boundary line establishments for the boundary line adjustments. This was brought to the state to change in October of 2025. And now the city is hoping to amend our code to meet those to meet the state code. So we've talked about this for about two meetings now. So, of course, if you have any questions, please ask if you want any more background. I'm happy to give you some more background, but Staff recommendation is to approve the municipal code text amendments proposed in the staff report.

Very succinct. Well done. Would anybody like to ask questions of staff?

I don't have any.

All right, we are going to open this up for the public hearing phase. For anybody here to talk about the item number two, boundary line adjustments, boundary establishment, and exchange of title ordinance changes, please come to the podium, state your name, your address, and provide your comment. Hold on, because you have to be, to create a record, we have to capture it on the microphone. This is not the accessory dwelling unit. Okay, that took care of that. For clarity for the audience, this is when there's a shift between parcels, to put it simply, that needs to happen. Maybe there's a gap, maybe there's an over, maybe the fence line has been there for 60 years and it's not on the property line. That's what this one is. All right, so opening up the public hearing. we've sort of discussed our way through it i'm going to close the public hearing having received no comments can take it back to the planning commission for further discussion i think it's well written yeah i think it's i think it's i think we just discussed it the last couple of meetings so it covers all of the material that need to be needs to be covered so all right i will accept a motion

I will make a motion to recommend city council approval of the proposed code text amendments to the Center for Municipal Code section 15.09.14, boundary adjustments and boundary establishments, and section 20.030, boundary adjustment fees based on the following reasons for actions findings one through three. Excellent.

I think you said one four instead of one four zero. But Scrivener's error, and we'll go for zero. So I've got a motion on the table.

I'll second the motion.

And I've got a second. I'm going to start down here. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. All right, unanimous. And finally, the most interesting item on today's list, accessory dwelling units, detached and, I mean, attached, we can also talk briefly about, but this is ordinance changes to that. And who will be heading that one out? Mr. Agate, please proceed.

so from our last meeting um obviously we talked about this a lot and in different variations of it and questions that i had and went through everything to itemize something here hopefully you were able to pick up that and either reviewing the minutes or looking at the video to remind yourself or learn about it so Some of the homework that I was assigned to do as part of this was to get information from Bountiful City. I did provide an email to all of you. Hopefully that was helpful and we're there. What I found was interesting, they've had detached ADUs going back to 2008. I thought that was pretty fascinating just statistically that they've just been doing it since that time. And obviously then they have 8,000 square foot. Is there a minimum lot size? They do allow for basements or other configurations. There's not a lot of restrictions on that, which I thought that was an interesting finding. And then their typical range of DADs that they do have are 800 to 1200 square feet in size. So some interesting information that way. I also did research information from our building official and the fire marshal relative to occupancy limits and windows and all that good stuff a DADU concept, and they said that as long as the building is built to building code and fire code as far as window egress and access and home ingress and egress, then you can have windows that are inoperable, basically. So if we want to stick with that, that's fine. They just, when they would develop the DADU, will have to meet those regulations as part of that construction standard. The other thing that I asked about was the occupancy. They said that they don't really regulate occupancy, that they just want to make sure, again, that it's safely occupied and safely utilized and meeting building code and fire code. But beyond that, they don't regulate occupancy. So I think we probably figured that that might be the case, but that's what they said. One thing that was interesting when I talked to the building official that he did say about the windows as I asked him about that, he said, well... you're the eight foot setback and your minimum limit for a typical home is eight feet. So do you really need interoperable windows? He said, I don't have an opinion either way, but just think about that for what that's worth is what he said. So I just wanted to share his opinion there. The other thing that he brought up when we talked, I talked to him about the basements and about anchoring a DADU, if it had some kind of mobility, the modular nature of it, to a foundation for permanence. And he said in other codes, more relative to a traditional modular home or mobile home, there's an axle removal requirement. And I could find a similar code that aligns and put that into the code if that was the will of the planning commission to further make the point that we want this fixed. So what I would do is where I'm talking about having it anchored on a permanent location with skirting, I could even add that removal of transaxle so that it's not modular on any level. That would make it so campers won't qualify. That's kind of the way to get to that point if that's what we're trying to do. So that's a good way to do that. So I can find language that says that and include that. So those are his recommendations. I did note in my own review today three minor things that are to be noted or recognized that still probably should be, I guess, identified as maybe amended depending on whatever motion may come today if there is a motion. in 12.58.040 b2 there's a a citation to internal adu requirement where sorry mr can you read that one what is it it's 12.58.040 she's right on it b2 and um it says i guess it's just b not b2 sorry but it says REQUIREMENTS OF CZC 12.60.090, THAT SHOULD BE 12.58.100. OH, OKAY. BECAUSE THEN IT LINKS TO THE DETACHED AD ORDINANCE AND NOT THE INTERNAL AD ORDINANCE. OKAY. IT'S A LITTLE SMALL THING, BUT IT'S THERE. 12.58.060C, THIS IS, IT MIGHT BE OKAY. I MEAN, IT READS OKAY. I DON'T KNOW, 12.58.060C. I know it's tricky at the red line.

Yeah, it's a little bit hard, sorry.

Page 104 of the packet, for what it's worth.

Oh, go back up, it looks like. Keep going. Come on, keep going. You're almost there. That's 70. 70. on that's i think the red lined one right there and then i have it see yeah but oh that's right because in here i fixed it in the right one i'm looking at the black line which is i don't i don't know how yours is organized okay it's three it's three here okay so it says a property may have a detached ad on the lot or parcel that word may was like kind of weird to me It might be better for it to say, I was thinking like permitted to have or allowed to have rather than may. May seems kind of confusing just in the way, because it almost makes it sound like there may be an alternative or the detached ADU can be in a situation where it isn't on the same lot or parcel share with the primary dwelling. And I don't know if that's what we're intending it to say, but I kind of read it that way at first today when I was reading it cold. And so I was wondering if maybe it needs to change. It might read okay. As a property may have, because obviously right before it in the clause above it says shall not be sold separately or subdivided from the principal dwelling unit or property. But I thought if we wanted to clarify that word may, permitted to or allowed to could be a good change.

So how would you read that? How would that read if you were using?

A property. Permitted to? Is allowed or is permitted to have? Is can to problematic? Like can? property can well then you probably would still use me i know because it seems the property is permitted to have and it's probably okay as it reads i just don't want any confusion like somebody thinks well does that mean i can have them on it on a separate parcel away from a single family dwelling to me it's not confusing how about a property may be permitted and i don't want to over confuse it oh that's right yeah and that's fine too i was just thinking maybe like make it a little more clear with permitted be permitted to is what what mason just said was good i thought yeah property may i mean could be maybe maybe and i can do that change yeah if that's if that's that makes it a little more clear a little more decisive what we're trying to say it's not saying you know there's alternative you just have that option if you have a single family dwelling on the same parcel yeah And then the last one was 12.58.120. That's way at the bottom. And it's already a comment I noted as something that is literally the very last paragraph of the thing. Go up just a little bit now. Right there. Go down. Yeah. Yeah. And I put, should we cite a code here or delete and remove from a Utah code 10-2303, da-da. I read that over removing it, and it still kind of read funny to me even with that. So I thought, additionally, the city may utilize applicable enforcement provisions regarding violations and holding liens against the property. If we can't, if we don't want it and we're not able to keep that citation in there, that sentence would be sound at that point. That's what I was thinking. Again, if you want me to reread that additionally, the city may utilize applicable enforcement provisions regarding violations and holding means. Then we're not making a ref because that reference is to internal ADU state code that I look that references like this long and it basically just the city is allowed to go on your property and also enforce liens and will write enforce on the property. Yeah.

yeah so and I don't know maybe that's a legal question Lisa how that might read it be a proper construction that citation I don't know that we can cite it in detail yeah I like your new provision I still think there's you know legal issues I'm hopefully they'll fix that with the legislature I know we worked hard on those lean provisions I know the Salt Lake City attorneys were involved in that lean provision language in the internal so I don't know why it was left out of

Okay, so I would amend it to say, may utilize applicable enforcement provisions regarding violations and holding liens against the property. Okay, that would be my recommendation. And I think with that, that's everything as far as outside of what we talked about from the last meeting. I went and listened to the entirety of the last meeting and felt like I captured all of your comments, but clearly, even as I note in my presentation, in the actual staff report. I added a statement and I did this on purpose to signal both to you as well as the public that there's still discussion here. Further, staff supports the planning commission making additional efforts in refining the proposed language if there's interest in further providing modifying the provided draft dadu zoning language proposal prior to taking any formal action and providing a recommendation to the city council so i guess what i'm trying to say is if there's any still gray areas that we need to discuss or further identify we can one other thing i wanted to note there was some commentary from from commissioner patterson earlier in the week and I tried to provide clarity to those comments as well as provide you all with the information I had talked about, like we can't regulate modular homes off of single family dwellings. I was able to find the code. I provided it to you. I tried to give you definitions of family, both in state code and city code. That city code definition of family was what I was referencing. I couldn't necessarily find the same matching code in state code, but it has been there. But that state code definition of single family might be an update to that. And so our city code might be a little bit more historically correct to a previous iteration of that before they modified. Or it may still be in there. I was researching. I couldn't find that older definition. But I remember in my career when they did that transition to a definition of family. And so that's why I wanted to identify that state code, because it matches exactly what old state or city code, because it matches what the old state code, or at least it may be still current. I just couldn't find it. Definition of family is, but then I found that other single family designation, which makes it clear for persons together is your minimum limit you can establish as a city.

I appreciated you referencing that and sending that because I read it and it was very clear. Yeah.

Yeah. So we have clarity on those points. I did update, as you see here, the table of uses showing that. I put a question mark by agriculture just because there was a little bit of a discussion there. But from staff's perspective, if you look at internal ADU, it is permitted. So what I'm getting at is on an agricultural lot, in order to be consistent, probably staff would say to do permitted also in agricultural low, but clearly that is something that can be discussed as a recommendation to council if you feel differently. The other option would be probably an N. I don't know how we would do a conditional use permit in agricultural, unless you guys as a commission want to talk about it and tell us how that would look. But again, I guess that's a tertiary option if you want to go there. And then see is that everything commentary response I believe that that's everything but if they're yeah, and then there's still direction from the Utah League of cities and towns and relative to ADUs, which we covered at the last meeting. So I believe that covers everything additional from our last discussion and getting all the research information and fulfilling the homework that was directed by the Planning Commission. And I guess I would defer to you if you have questions on the year or if you want to proceed to the public hearing and then go from there, however you want to proceed. And with that, that's my presentation.

Excellent. Thank you. So we're going to bring it back to the Commission for questions. And I'll kind of lead off on that one. Agricultural low. What are the, I'd like to just sort of brainstorm with you, Mr. . What are the impacts that an ADU would have that would need to be mitigated?

for conditional use permit. That's why I said I don't, right off the bat, I don't mean to chuckle, but- It's true, no, it's almost backwards.

It's almost like it would be the addition of the ADU that would have to then deal with the agriculture uses.

Yeah, what kind of harmful impacts come from the detached ADU on an agricultural lot that would justify conditional use permit application? Yeah.

I think for a large agricultural lot, it might be an underused use, rather than subdividing later or preventing future development. But the CUP doesn't solve that.

No, no, that's not a CUP.

And they're allowed by law. Exactly.

Yeah, exactly. That was my one question there. The conversations that we had in the email, did they make it into an amended packet for the record?

I think we should do that. That's fair, because it did go to the whole commission. It went to the whole commission.

So I think all of the conversations we had since Monday should be included, including the one from Bountiful.

We've identified them, the record here, and we've summarized their contents. I didn't even think about that.

No, no, no, no worries. I'm just keeping track. So for the public that are here, to summarize what in essence it was, were questions that were coming up on how other definitions, how certain definitions were being used. We just talked about it. We're gonna put it into the amendment.

I will include it in the packet. It'll be reflected tomorrow in the same packet once I go in and amend those in.

Right. Of special importance, or at least not importance, special interest to me were Bountiful's responses. And if it's okay, I would rather just read that into the record so that the public can comment on it. That would personally, all of the definitions were just definitions and it can be helpful. I thought that it might be helpful to read that one into the record. Are we okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Let me see if I can find it again. Okay. So this is correspondence between Mr. Eggett and Mr. Astorga? Astorga, Francisco Astorga. Francis, who is... He would be my counterpart for Bountiful City. Okay. Good morning, Francisco. I've been trying to contact you by phone regarding your car's warranty. No. I know. I've been trying to contact you by phone regarding an inquiry I've been...

by the Central Planning Commission.

We are working on a detached ADU data ordinance, and the Planning Commission has requested some data information from you and your PZ department. They're in Bountiful relative to data use. Therefore, could you help me out with providing approximate answers to the following questions? Number one, how many registered detached ADUs do you have in Bountiful City? Number two, what is the typical housing lot size you see for the use of data development? Number three, do you allow for basements of any kind in a data establishment? Number four, what is the typical size you see constructed for a data establishment? uh i would greatly appreciate it if you could answer these questions for me by or before next wednesday evening august 12th and when i have when i have planning commission i would like to report the answers to these questions to the commissioners i also understand that some of these numbers might be harder to get so in that event just let me know a comment like indeterminate or something like that again thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide in this inquiry sincerely mr eggett and then his response mason would you slow it just a little bit please sure thank you sure yeah much slower a little slower attorney a little slower so that everybody gets it response um and that is uh august 10th michael and sydney we are happy to help below our responses to your inquiries regarding detached adus and battlefield number one How many registered detached ADUs do you have in Bountiful City? We have 27 registered detached ADUs dating back to 2008. There may be additional detached ADUs that predate our current records as Bountiful has historically allowed ADUs in some form for quite some time. Number two, what is the typical housing lot size you see for the use of DADU development? The minimum lot size in Bountiful is 8,000 square feet. We have not historically tracked the lot sizes associated with our approved ADUs. So I cannot provide a reliable typical lot size. I do think this would be useful information to track, particularly when creating or amending ADU policy. Number three, do you allow for basements of any kind in a DADU establishment? Yes. Assuming you are asking specifically about detached ADUs, we do not regulate the particular form or configuration of the DADU in that manner. For example, it could include a basement, be located above or behind a garage, or take another configuration provided it complies with the applicable development standards. Number four, what is the typical size you see constructed for a DADU establishment? Detached ADUs are typically in the range of 800 to 1200 square feet. The maximum permitted size for a detached ADU in Bountiful is 1250 square feet. I hope this information is helpful for your Planning Commission discussion. Please feel free to reach out if you have any follow-up questions. I am generally easier to reach by text on my cell, and I'm not going to add that, even though it's probably going to go undirected. If you want to redact that, I have no qualms. And then there's a response where Mr. Agate sends it to us, and LeRae said thank you.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Well, it's all part of the, the reason I felt it was important to read into that is because I found it fascinating that they only have 27. Yeah. And it's been around for how many decades? 2008, yeah. Almost, yeah, 20 years. Okay.

Well, Farmington has been doing it for quite some time as well, and they don't have very many. And I was doing research, which I found fascinating.

Yeah. I mean, that will accelerate with Farmington's new programing.

But they've been doing this programing for quite some time.

Yeah. And quite a few cities actually have.

Yeah, I thought that was fascinating and probably will be a point of information we may or may not use in today's discussion and or decision if we get to that. Questions for staff?

Yes.

All right, Lorraine, jump in.

I want to talk a little bit more about windows. You were talking about that. First of all, I didn't catch who you were speaking with.

John Hanson, who is our building official, our contract to build.

Oh, okay. Okay, so I guess I just need more clarification on the windows. I just sort of wanted to open it up again so that we could discuss it.

So specifically what he said, his comment, and just kind of in passing from his perspective is, If your setback minimum is eight feet from property lines, even in the rear yard, that's your setback for a dwelling. That's the minimum side yard setback in a dwelling. So why would you eliminate operable windows on the side of the building that's adjacent to a property owner if on a home it's eight feet? Now the counter to that is that a home doesn't go that far in the rear yard setback. So, I mean, the home, you know, it has to be set back, I think it's 20 or 30 feet as we are, 20 feet as we are set back minimum. So that's the biggest differential to counter his comment. But the idea is if you do it on a home, a main unit, do you really want to make them inoperable? And you could still even keep the translucent and just eliminate that statement about inoperable in that scenario, even at that.

I think the reason what I recall from the last meeting is the concern of overseeing your neighbor, right? Nobody needs to be looking at somebody else's bedroom.

And maybe if your window can open sound can emanate out of it.

That was also part of the discussion, right? I just thought that that was a good, I mean, I liked what he said to operable, inoperable. And then I had mentioned in my notes as well about, you know, you have to have an entrance and an exit for a bedroom, right?

Yeah, and if you did, and as I noted for the record for those that are here, if you have it as inoperable, it still works because now the burden will be on the property owner, the student, the DADU to make sure they meet fire and building code for appropriate matters of egress and ingress into that structure. So you still, they will have to build it to meet building code to provide for that if the code restricts them having that access on those sites.

So is that a higher level of kind of overseeing the windows if we're going according to fire and whatever building code or less?

Basically, you're creating a zoning restriction that goes above what typical building code would otherwise allow.

If it were to say, if you were to keep it the way it's written, it goes above and beyond standards.

That's what I'm saying.

I see.

Yeah, correct. Okay. Can I ask a question that I probably should know? For it to be an operable fire-compliant egress, is there a height level at which we say it's no longer operable? That I don't know. Here's my thought. You're in bathrooms, and we see windows in bathrooms all the time, and they're set five feet above the floor.

You can't use it anyway.

Right, right. But is there a possibility that rather than say, hey, inoperable, we would say something like, hey, it has to be a minimum height off the floor?

Yeah, I mean, I would have to do research. And obviously, depending on what the direction of the planning commission was, I can bring it back to the planning commissioner. whatever that one recommendation was city council the only thing i worry about obviously is a little bit of timing crisis but but i can see the the logic and what you say i just i don't know until i ask the specialists it's a thought and maybe yeah depending on where we go it can be afforded with a recommendation that yeah i can see what you're saying that wouldn't make sense yeah it would ameliorate a lot of the concerns i personally had about opening up a window and then just staring

Right. Don't want that.

If it's high enough. Yeah. Aren't you, when we say that you're eight feet off the property line, so that's a total of 16?

16, right.

I mean, is it under? 16 feet. Wait, explain that to me, Paul.

Because it's eight feet on each. You got eight feet off the property line on both properties.

From the back.

And the side yard.

I thought side yard was five.

it's eight feet on a single family dwelling. If it's an accessory building, then it'd be typically five feet, but we're talking about DADUs, which now are eight feet. Okay, so we're eight and eight.

So we're talking distance potentially of 16 feet.

So fair question, and I think it's a point well taken. The reason I am concerned is that we're injecting additional units that weren't planned for when other homes were designed.

Right.

That was my concern. And, yeah, it could have been designed originally in such a way that the homes could have been staring into each other's bathrooms. I have one of those. My bathroom window looks into my neighbor's backyard family window, family room window, and I don't like it. No, it is 16 feet.

So how do we...

i mean we need to further discuss it yeah i think we should discuss it when we get to that item i think we should discuss it and figure out what everybody's feeling about that okay so when it comes back to us after the after the hearing okay the public hearing um any other questions for staff i had a couple questions um and this is mostly just me not understanding but

There was a section, well, actually you're already on a page of my second question. So on D right there, it reads only one additional entrance may be located on the wall facade that can be viewed from the public street. So is that saying you can have two entrances essentially like on the front of your.

Like a detached ADU could have one entrance facing the street and one like on the interior lot side.

So this is reading that you can have two doors facing the street, right? Is that how I'm reading it? Am I wrong? you have one additional entrance maybe located on the wall facade that can be viewed from the public street. So that's saying one more, right? I see your point. Yeah.

So if you just took additional out, it could be removed.

So only one entrance. Yeah, you should say you can have one entrance.

Yeah, that could be removed to clarify that.

Yeah, that's a good point, though, for sure.

Okay.

Yeah, super good.

Um, and my first question, there's a couple of times in there, it mentioned something about like, essentially, if you're not using the DADU anymore, then you have to like remove your kitchen. I just want to understand that better.

Kitchen sever connections with utilities. So that's an internal ADU ordinance. that we require that. So if anybody wants to disconnect, let's say they have a... And then internally, do we actually have one of these? And Cindy's actually become a little bit of an expert at this, because we did one not too long ago. But you have to sever some basic service that gives it legitimacy as an ADU. to then turn it back to like a basement that might have a kitchen in the internal. So we use that same language for DADU, because what if you had someone, which I don't know if this could happen, but maybe a previous owner converted it to a DADU and the new owner wants to put it back to more like a garage or a family room slash garage, right? So what do you do? that turns it back from dadu so they don't have to meet the compliance standards of a dadu you you reduce some kind of utility connection or kitchen or something and you make them show proof of it so would that like say i built a building and i just absolutely hate it i don't want to do anymore it's such a pain

I want to use this as like a guest house for people who come and visit. Does that mean I like am I not allowed to do that?

Not by that code. Not not at least. You at least have to show some severance of that DADU allocation.

So it can't be it cannot qualify under the definition of dwelling because you can't have two dwellings on a lot.

Yeah.

And so you have to take something out that makes it not a dwelling.

So to that point, what does the verbiage say? Because I know Jackson, we talked about this before, and what does Jackson have to do? They make a motion for that. But what does ours say? Because I don't remember exactly what it says. There's a few different things. Is it just options?

Yeah, it gives multiple options on the list. I'd have to find that right off the bat. But it is in there. I read that earlier today. Okay. Let's see.

It's towards the end, I think, but I can't remember. Excuse me.

12.58.8, yeah, there it is. And you're good with that, Lisa?

I have not spent a significant amount of time on this.

This is what is in the internal ADU ordinance.

So we're just basically copying and pasting.

But I do agree with needing a provision so that the guest house doesn't occur. That's the whole point. Right. Okay.

We'll say that when a building permit comes in and there is a kitchen identified, what I do is that I look at the applicant or the application and make sure, okay, if there is a second kitchen, then they need to sign a waiver that basically states, Hey, there will not be, we will not be renting this for anybody. This is a internal because obviously internally to you, This is a internal family use and there was actually a form that was created by Lisa a couple of years ago that they still have to sign. So what we would do most likely is that once that this would be passed, we would just bring that same form back to Lisa and she would just amend it to be a external ADU form as well.

That makes sense. And I think we may record those secondary kitchen. We do. Because we don't want them to sell it and have the new owner think that it's, you know, two dwellings.

Yeah.

So they have to get it notarized as well. Decommissioned.

Yeah.

Do you have some?

I have a couple more nitpicky questions, and then I'll have a few more things, you know, recognizing a product of me not being here last time, a few other thoughts that make more sense for the discussion piece. On the definitions portion, section A, I'm just curious, reading through this, At least to me, it didn't feel clear that the definition was specifically saying detached other than in the name itself. I don't know, maybe this is just me, but unit created and located externally to me could also read as an attached ADU. rather than being detached. But maybe that's just me.

Well, externally on the same property is what makes it detached. Yeah, so maybe. And you see that consistently in other city codes as well, written that way.

Okay, yeah, so that's probably just me.

That's the key term that says it. Otherwise, I mean, it is an analog to internal ADU, but the key is located externally on the same property. It's the located externally there, okay.

And the definition also requires a single family dwelling to be existing. Yes, right. Start with a.

Yeah. As long as that's consistent with other codes, I think that that makes sense. Um, and then the other question I had more of a procedural one is the other applicable regulations and codes section at the very end, 1258, one 10. Um, I just wonder if that's a section that's better served at the beginning because we reference a lot of the dependencies on those applicable codes throughout. Um, I just wonder if having at the very end, if it would make more sense to have that be more of a beginning thing to reference, okay, everything needs to be consistent with these codes and then break it out further from there.

I don't know. That's how it is, I think, in organization as far as order. I believe it's in a similar position in the internal AD ordinance. Okay. Position here. It's kind of like... All these permanent things and then this other stuff that's more basic needs to also be applicable. But I don't know that it, has to be that way it just this is just mirroring the internal adu to try to be an organized consistency as much as possible with its structure okay yeah no and i i i originally noted this as like i see it as perhaps a little redundant because we reference these codes throughout but i think redundancy as long as it's consistent serves well in this case it's kind of and it's a catch-all of a lot of things are already said before it's just a reminder that hey there these other basic expectations with utilities and with impact fees and with um yeah your codes that are going to be applied that you need to comply with also i did note in there that i need to check with public works director i'm just going to quickly address that address the address i did talk to the public works director and he's good with it as it's worded with that system that is the system that he consistently applies and while we're on this section just one uh question perhaps correction um

Is it construction code or is it building code?

They're synonymous. I mean, it's building construction codes.

I can answer that. If we capitalize construction and code, it is defined in Title 10 of our municipal code to include all. The building code, the plumbing code, the electrical code. So it's a defined term in our code. And that's what we mean. So I see here construction and fire codes, but essentially we just say construction codes and that means everything. And it's defined in that Title 10 as to which ones we've adopted.

Okay, I'd seen elsewhere in the code building, so then I can assume building is under the umbrella of construction.

I thought we searched all those. Maybe that was just one of our things to do, but we would like to eliminate those, unless it's specifically talking, but

building code doesn't you know you still need to go are we talking about residential code and you know and even here i could scrape where it says regarding the building construction and fire codes i could scrape building lisa and just say regarding construction and fire code would be an easy amendment yeah that would take out that word building right there it's only capitalized construction fire codes yeah rather than say building construction and fire right and it needs to be capped

I would say, yeah.

Should I capitalize construction and fire?

Construction and fire codes, yeah. Typically the term is construction code.

Make them a term. Okay.

Building code.

Good.

Yeah, that was something we talked about fixing so that we all know. And we could also look at saying, you know, as defined in Title 10, if it's not defined in the zoning code. So let's see. Sorry, now it's trying to search for building code. I don't see a definition of building code, so let's see if we define construction codes. is defined and it's the construction codes adopted by the city in cmc 7.5 which is the fire regulation and cmc 10.3 which are our construction codes they may also be referred to as building code fire code or safety code that's how we solved it so if you use any of those terms you better go back to this definition and then it tells you where to go

Okay. Yeah.

So then it's already taken care of.

That's a good point.

I'll just demand a building and then capitalize construction and fire codes. Yeah. Perfect. Good.

And I'd probably say construction codes and fire code. Okay. So that if you're searching for construction code, it'll come up.

Yeah. guess one other question uh as well with regards to the uh parking requirements uh under section 1258 060 i um has staff done any research on on other comparable cities in terms of requirement of spaces for we don't have a choice this is state that's state okay that's the state we are

Even the tandem is state-required, so I can't take that out. We have to allow tandem, and we have to allow up to 650, have one, and after 650 they can have two. Interesting. It's state-required. Perfect. I think that's all on my end.

That's all.

Lane, what was the code section? It was... No.

additional entrance oh that one is 1258.070d the additional entrance link thank you all right additional question round two from anybody

Okay, so having sussed that out, let's go ahead and proceed to the public hearing phase. I'd invite any and all of you to come up to the microphone, name, address, and then provide your comment.

Good evening, my name is Carol Hendricks. I live at 740 North Main Street, just down the road here. Anyway, I did listen to the entirety of, well, almost the very, until the very end of your last meeting. So that was really helpful for me. We are hopeful to do a DAUD or, you know, but I don't know that we will even be approved. We'll have to get a conditional use permit. We have a very narrow, deep lot. It's like 0.9 acre of an acre. but we have a flag lot and we'd have to put that detached unit like almost 400 feet back which for utilities for our neighbor that we share the driveway would be terrible and i know we're not talking about that today that will be after it all gets approved right yes so anyway i'm just putting it out there that you know in centerville we don't all have the same type of law. And so just please kind of put in the back of your mind that maybe everything is not going to look the same, but can still be beautiful and still be nice and a benefit to our community. I really kind of agreed and thought what you decided last time was really good. the one thing i had issue with or and it may not even be an issue but um if we are supposed to do up to a family and at the very end we were talking about how big the the unit could be and we were thinking oh 1200 is so big but if you put a family of four in an 850 square foot place That's the kind of place you go to for a weekend or maybe a week on vacation. It's not someplace you live for a year or two years renting. I looked up, because I'm thinking about this stuff, I looked up the floor plans for 800, 850 square feet. Your bedrooms are 10 by 10. You have one bathroom with one sink. You have a kitchen and a living room, but not really room for a kitchen table. I would just respectfully ask you to consider following our neighbors. It isn't going to be terrible. If they have allowed it, I think we can do it. And just because West Valley City says they're 850 square feet, when have we looked to West Valley City? for us, you know, that is not who we should try to emulate. And as far as the windows open or closed, I mean, for sure, I would suggest that bathroom windows be obscured, you know, with film or whatever. And the reality is we live close to each other. You know, I kind of have a little benefit because I, got in a long time ago and got a lot. I'm from Wisconsin. This is still small. What I have is still smaller than I want. But if you go by our house, you won't even see our house because we have planted trees. But in front, we have a lovely lawn area that one day, I hope, will supplement our retirement income for a detached unit. That is really it. I appreciate what you do. I appreciate the time and intelligence it takes to do what you do because I do not have that ability. I just know what feels good and I just respectfully ask you to remember that things are not going to be cookie cutter for everybody and that one day when I come before you asking for a conditional use permit, you will consider it. And we understand if you say no, but please consider. Thank you.

Before you're done, usually we don't have dialogue between members of the public, but I need to ask you a question because I'm not quite sure I understand your comment. So I'm going to veer out of the norm. Totally understand. You're saying that the flag lot causes an issue and that you've said that odd lots need to be considered as part of our discussion. I'd like to understand that. And I'd like to even just look at your lot later. Can you say your address one more time?

740 North Main Street.

All right.

And my neighbor, who we share the driveway with, is 720. If you look at those two, you will see You know, in fact, we have our garage in front of our house, which is totally against the rules, right? But when we came before asking for the permit to build it, it was easy to see that, you know, we had so much space in front, it just made sense. So. Thank you. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Next, please.

All right. Well, my name is TJ Riley. This is my wife, Talia Riley. Um, yeah. If you don't mind passing this out, hold on.

So what are these things?

Basically everything I'm going to talk about tonight, you're going to get a copy of.

Okay. We'll need to make sure that a copy gets into the record. So you'll need to make sure that there's a copy for Ms. Delise.

Yeah. Originally I was going to, um, well, let me, let me just kind of introduce myself. So, uh, We have lived in Centerville City for years. We've raised our family here. We border, we're on Chase Lane. So we border the school, we have an acre lot, kind of like you. And anyways, I've actually come to city council before talking about the ADU ordinance.

Sorry, I'm gonna ask you to pause. I wasn't able to listen. I don't multitask very well.

I'm so sorry. You're fine.

I'm so sorry.

You're good. You're good. What I was just saying is we live on Chase Lane. We have an acre lot, kind of similar to her. And anyways, I actually work for a city. I've done it, North Salt Lake City, for 23 years now. So I understand a lot of the process. Involved that long you get to know certain things and how they go about so originally I was going to take this to City Council Which I have before on the ADU thing and then I've been Kind of watching because I know that it would come before Planning Commission before I would go to City Council on recommendations of this new ADU Process that's going to be taking place throughout the state and so I'm just going to kind of read through this and kind of let you know you guys will have everything that I'm going to be talking about. So I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide input regarding the city's proposed accessory dwelling unit, the ADU ordinance. I understand the community development director has indicated the draft ordinance will follow the requirements of state code. I also understand that state code provides cities with options in how those requirements are implemented and I would like to provide feedback on those choices before the ordinance is finalized.

So are you just going to read through this whole thing?

Yeah.

I mean, normally I would not allow this, but I'm, we've got, we've got some time here. Yeah. And I would prefer if you could summarize.

Okay. But some of it is, I'm not the best at memorizing. either, so I'll kind of go through it.

I want you to have your opportunity to provide your comment, and we want to hear it.

Yeah, so I mean, a lot of this is to do with our particular situation. We have an acre lot similar to her, and we've raised our family in it. We want to build, and I have an acre lot, so The land's expensive. I want to stay in Centerville. I want the opportunity to build on the back of my lot. And really that's kind of what this is about. I think when ADUs are talked about, they are talked about in the sense of an ADU is behind the home, the front structure. And that's the biggest thing for me.

Why don't you read, I mean, number two pretty much addresses that point. I'd love to hear that.

Yeah, I think number two and number four is going to be a... Feel free to address those how you like. Yeah, so really I don't want to be limited to have an ADU in my back. What I would like to do, because everyone is in a different situation, is... I don't think ADUs should be at the side yard or just in the backyard. I would like to turn my front home into my ADU. And I want my back home or the back property to be my main home. I think that things are getting to be more expensive over time. And I have four kids. I have two parents that will need, at some point, I want them to be living closer to me so I can take care of them. Yeah, so I don't really I can't kick him down here Other than sisters, right? I'm not that's not my opportunity stuff And I'm not going to put him in a home. So they they will be mine and That's what I plan to and so I I'm really just hoping that Planning Commission can be open-minded to all situations and whether you have a big front lot or or A side lot. I think that... I think that... I'm just trying to summarize this the best I can.

You have to read a part that you'd like.

Okay. Do not limit ADUs based solely on the rear yard placement requiring an ADU to be located only behind an existing home creates unequal opportunities for property owners. Any lots are not deep enough and accommodate a rear yard ADU, while other properties may have wider lots or homes that have already been positioned farther from the street. A property owner with a shallow but wide lot or a home with a different existing layout should not lose the opportunity to create an ADU simply because of where the current home sits on the property. The primary concern should be to ensure appropriate setbacks, safety, compatibility, with surrounding properties, not requiring every ADU to be placed in the same location. An ADU can be successfully located in the front, side, or rear yard as long as the required development standards are met.

Can I ask you what your address is?

84 West Chase Lane. Very good.

All right, excellent.

And then number four kind of talks, and I just want to hit on this, and I respectfully request the city avoid over-restrictive limits on ADU size. The maximum allowed ADUs size should not be smaller than what many existing homes in the city already provide. A more balanced approach would be to consider the size of the property when determining the appropriate ADU size. Smaller lots should have appropriate sized or scaled ADUs and larger lots should have the ability to accommodate larger ADUs. And that's just kind of You know, that's kind of my thoughts. I mean, there's a lot more. So I haven't given this to the city council, but I've given another document to them. I had really good responses. I feel like there was a ton of support when I came in. I believe I came in in February. Talked about ADUs because I knew they were coming. And I just feel like it's the appropriate time to bring this stuff up now. There's no sense... you know, drafting things and then having to revisit and draft something over and over again. So I feel it's just important this is the time to talk about it so they can be addressing and catch things early on in the situation.

So what I'm probably going to ask staff to do later in this meeting is we're probably going to pull up your lot and talk about it because here's what happens. And, and, and Ms. Hendricks, you should also know this and I'd invite you to have an opportunity. We're going to be talking about your lot. If you want to tell us anything about it now, that'd be fine. But once we close the public hearing, your commentary is not going to be accepted anymore. You just have to watch us bumble our way through it. Is there anything you'd like to tell us about the lot when we consider it later, perhaps in the meeting?

Well, I think there's been talked about, you know, maybe a flag lot would be better. I don't really want a flag lot. It doesn't make sense. I would like to upsize my utilities that I have that are already in, and so I don't have to cut into the road. I don't have big impact fees. I would rather do what I can with utilities that are that are already there. And then I have a side little, it's a gravel road that I access to the very back of my lot. So I think those are probably the things that I would want to know. Thank you.

It borders the school. And then the other property has, what, two acres where she has sheep? OK.

Thank you so much, you guys. Wonderful comments. We appreciate that. Thank you. Mrs. Hendricks, if you wanted to come back, we're probably going to talk about your lot, too, if there's anything you'd like to tell us for our consideration. And remember, we're not approving your guys' lots. I know you know this. I know you know this. We're just using them as potential exemplars as we consider everything.

All right, you've pulled us up.

740. Go down just a little. Right there. Right here.

Thank you.

Okay, so yes, we have our dear neighbors. We love them and we're so grateful to have great neighbors because we, there's no way to really fence this off from each other. Okay, so our driveway comes right in here. Our home, this is the garage and then this is our home and there's a parking pad over here. So why? And You know, it seems like, oh, we've got quite a bit of space back there. But like I said, we would have to take utilities up through our driveway all the way through in front of our neighbor's home into this back, which is almost 400 feet. It goes 400 feet. It would have to be there where the garden is. And that would be. We don't really want to irritate our neighbor. We don't want to make their lives worse. And you can maybe see that. Anyway, here from the sidewalk to our garage is over 70 feet, like 78 feet, 75 feet, something like that. Can you figure that out? Oh, 87 feet from the sidewalk. We were being generous. And then from the driveway over to our property line is like 90 feet, 80 feet. I don't know what you think. 74. 74 feet. So that is plenty of space. We could pull back 30 feet from the road. 30 feet from the road, use the shared driveway so that they would be going in this way to park, and we could have a nice little entrance. As you consider the unconventional d-a-u-d whatever it is anyway as you consider that um i think for centerville we want to think about how it looks you know we've all seen things that have been built that have been like how did this ever happen it's such an eyesore i bet you all know who i'm talking about and it's like how did that happen but i don't know if you guys can who does that but when we put forth our plans you know we should be able to say is does this fit the community okay thank you anyway thank you

All right. Great public hearing. When we close down the public hearing, then at that point you guys are observers and no longer have commentary from the audience. I just want to be clear. Anything else you guys want to say before I close? Okay, so I'm gonna close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Fascinating. I mean, this is a good example of where it's just, you have just sort of an inherent, it's not inherent, is it implicit or inherent bias? Can't remember, I always get those confused. Implicit bias, inherent bias, that you don't even think about ADUs in the front yard. Fascinating.

Well, we did speak of them last time.

But not in a configuration like this. I didn't even think of something like this. And this is a question I have for staff. That would be considered Ms. Hendrick's front yard, correct?

And that's an accessory building. And basically, if it's being used as an accessory building, there would have to be probably some kind of legal nonconformance established for its existence.

Is that per state code or even city code?

Because technically it's not even complying as it currently stands.

You're talking about the garage?

Yeah.

Well, I mean, my understanding is not using the garage as a conversion. I had understood her to say that.

Well, I'm saying even with a conversion, which they're they're all because she's not conforming. If they could prove the legal nonconformity, then they could actually convert that existing structure to a DADU because state code requires us to allow for those kind of situations.

my question though is if you build a daddy in the back who's to say that my myself as the primary residence i don't move to the back unit right and then put tenants in the front the code actually lets you you do that smaller accessory tends to be something that okay so the back house the daddy has to be smaller than the main primary well it doesn't it's whatever you regulate whatever you decide is as a city right city as a planning commission and city council right

But currently, one of the issues and and I have talked to the writers on the phone as well and talked about this is the definition of accessory building as it currently is established is rear yard structures. Yeah, they can't be placed in the side yard or the front yard in current code. So you'd almost have to create an explicit carve out of new accessory structure that's unique from accessory structure and then define it differently if you wanted to. allow them to be used in the side yard or the front yard.

And then that opens up a huge can of worms.

The question becomes, yeah, what would be the perspective of that? Where is that applied? How would that be utilized? Do we now have to create new regulations? So, I mean, if we go there, that's what that discussion looks like. What does the regulation for that look like then? Because now you're not attaching it to that definition of accessory structure. You're creating a brand new carve-out. One of the other alternatives, and I'm going to kind of clarify a statement that was made about coming from me. I had a conversation with the city manager about this. And we have some timing deadline. And his commentary was with the timing deadline that we need to get a code to the council and in place by October 1st. And if we get too caught up in... creating all these external special circumstances or new regulations that slows that down to where we probably will not hit our compliance timeline. And so the comment in here about the community development director indicate draft ordinance will follow the requirements of state code. That's from the city manager trying to protect the city's interest in getting an ordinance in place by October 1st.

For the state.

Yeah, for the state. His comment was then we could still go back and look at the regulations and further tweak the ordinance thereafter. if there's some substance to what we heard tonight. We have that opportunity, but we need to get something in place at least by October 1st that we can then reevaluate thereafter. Even to the point where, as evidenced by the Riley's, there's some discussion with the city manager and even talking to legal about Do we even dare talk about flag lots or infill lots? Is that something we want to even think about? As the housing nature of the city evolves and we have property that's kind of, as you can see, internally landlocked and hard to develop.

When did we ban flag lots? I know that we did allow them and then we didn't allow them.

Then we did, then we didn't.

Yeah.

Do we know when the last... Lisa probably is the one with the institutional memory. 2014. 2014.

It would be in the legislative history, I think. And you define a flag lot for me.

And I don't want to put it on the spot, Lisa. I just don't obviously know right off the bat. So maybe we'd have to do some research.

I don't know. I can look while you chat, but it's been a while.

So, I mean, those are some of the layered implications of the commentary that you received during the public hearing.

Loray had a question, if you don't mind.

Define a flag lot.

Flag lot would be, again, you have a stem, right? Just like...

This is a flag lot.

There's one right there. You have a stem that's legally existing and typically has to be wide enough to accommodate some kind of fire vehicle or emergency vehicle if it needs to get back there. And then you have it still be wide enough and big enough to be developed for a housing structure, right? That's a flag law.

Thank you.

And in other cities I've worked in, the stem can be as narrow as 13 feet. I think that's the minimum size that allows emergency vehicles to still get back there.

We see a lot of these on Main Street.

Yeah, and that's what's interesting, right? When you think about the history of what we're talking about, and I don't want to step in this because this is definitely a different discussion, but there's been, right? But you were saying, though, maybe... Allowance, not allowance.

Maybe we get this through so we hit the deadline and then we can go back and discuss.

That was just a conversation that the city manager suggested could be a way to look at it. Or again, you go back in and modify it after October 1st. Even if you got something to improve, October 1st, we meet the state deadline. Yeah, we just don't want to have conversations and further now modify and refine it to get it right again for situations like this. If that's the desire of, you know, planning commissioning council to have those conversations.

Thank you.

I mean, I wish the timeframe wasn't as tight as it is. And I know the Riley's have been asking for these kinds of conversations since February. So, yeah.

Mason, I think the code from the state envisions subdivisions in the typical, they really don't look at older communities that have different types of lots and configurations. I'll take my subdivision. This works really well in my subdivision, but it does not work well on Chase Lane, where there are a lot bigger lots, and on Main Street, which those lots have been there forever.

And they're definitely big enough to accommodate. They are. They've got the space for sure.

But I think the code, the Utah code is envisioning more, I don't want to say cookie cutter type subdivision in some ways in the way it's been written and in some ways the way we've addressed it. but it's good to hear that there are all there. There are other issues out there that we haven't even thought about. Yeah.

I just see as a real estate broker, I've seen home prices get higher and higher and like literally starter homes are gone sadly.

Yeah.

And people are often resorting to renting indefinitely. And it's, I I'm a firm believer on the American dream. And I started at 21 with my first property and it literally changed my entire life. just having that opportunity. It wasn't a big place. It was like 800 square feet, you know, but from that spot, I was able to build equity and just go from there. So.

Which is good, but you also realize that these can't be sold, right?

Oh, a hundred percent. Yeah. We're not doing what Farmington. Yeah. I'm just saying, just getting a start, you know?

So what do we want to do?

Yeah, great questions. Great questions all around. I think we should explore a little bit more in case people have sort of differences of opinion about any particular things. From what I'm hearing, we've got at least two of those to discuss, and we're in the midst of talking about what do we do about odd lots And as a corollary, do we do we do that now or do we do it later? The other one is windows. We sort of circled around that and I've I've heard different opinions. So let's start with that. What what anybody have a really strong opinion about windows that would be facing the closest boundary from the ADU?

We leave it to the discretion of the person that's taking occupancy as far as window treatments or things of that nature.

Or is that... No, we're talking about like whether the window... It couldn't be the discretion of the renter. It couldn't be them.

Are we... Who would like... Let me just do it this way. No, no, no, you're great. Who does not like the restriction that we had been discussing, which is that it be frosted of some sort? Or inoperable? We'll do inoperable next. Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Does anybody not like the translucent requirement?

I think it's fine.

I think that's good.

I mean, yeah, I have, that was an all my podcast.

Okay. So translucent is not really a point of code. Yeah. Operability. Where are we at?

Um, I think people should have windows that should open. That doesn't mean all of them, but you need fresh air. You need that circulation.

Well, and if it's an egress for a fire egress, then that definitely would happen.

That's a safety.

That's another fire code, right?

That's my bigger concern with inoperability is the egress side of it. But in addition, yeah, I guess I don't see the purpose in having them be inoperable, particularly if we have the correct spacing. So it sounds like eight feet is the minimum spacing.

I think that last time, did you watch our meeting? I didn't I just read the minutes okay so I think it was part of the discussion was if you get renters back there you don't know like for example I mean I have six kids if I were to get some of some of my kids back there I don't want to hear what's coming out of their window right like I don't want to hear that music the neighbors don't want to hear it that you can't control that I mean the city has limits on you know 10 p.m. or whatever But other than that, you can't do anything about it. So it was just kind of about that and noise and different things. Am I... Yeah, my primary...

I don't know if... I can't remember if I was the primary engine on this, but I was trying to address the discomfort that I... feel could occur when you're putting in additional housing so close to potentially somebody else's housing and then just staring at each other. If that's not a big deal, then it's not a big deal. But I find, personally, some discomfort in that regard. And the inoperability was my attempt to address that. However, there may be other ways to skin this cat. And it could also be that operability, this isn't as big a deal as I may feel. Because I'm hearing a fair amount of you that are pretty much, it's okay. And that's fine.

Well, I think it's good, but I think it also needs protection too, right? Like we bought our home and we have a fence and we have our neighbors, but we're closer than I'd like, you know, in the back lot, but it is what it is. And then if they were to add something, that's a whole new level of noise, sound, whatever. So I don't know how to... come to a middle ground with this?

Well, the height that I had suggested earlier might be, but that's going to include some redraft. And we're on a time clock. I would say that one way to fix it is allow operable windows at a minimum, at least with a minimum height. But I also wouldn't want to take us out of the... allowances that fire code would require for a fire exit. Because bathroom windows, those little bathroom windows, ain't going to qualify. And they're also mostly not operable. I was thinking something more along the lines of four or five feet up, potentially, but I don't know if that's going to qualify. I don't know if that's going to qualify for fire egress.

I don't know. I mean, can we require some sort of screening that can only be seen, like you can't see through the screening?

The translucent glass.

The translucent glass would be fine.

No, I'm talking the screening. So you can open the window, but then you have a screen that can't be seen through either. A ridiculous suggestion.

No, Lane, that's a fair point. Funny enough, I actually am more discomforted by starting to micromanage in that regard.

Yeah, I agree completely.

I'd like a simple rule, but at the same time, it may not be ruleable at this juncture. Mm-hmm.

mike or lisa do you guys have any thoughts or input you know regarding legalities and city codes just your honest thoughts really well i do agree with the building official you know if you're putting similar setbacks to primary dwellings why are we regulating that i think airflow and light is important to the quality of life i think a lot of these structures can have lights you know like a little higher those little lights that you just put up people aren't actually looking out of them so i think it's problematic to regulate windows but that's my personal opinion not a legal opinion i should say no no fair enough that that strikes a chord with me actually and now i'm going to like any good attorney argue the other side um against myself um

If Bountiful only has 27 that were injected over the last two decades, are we really all that afraid that we're gonna get a flood of these? Probably not.

No. Well, however, there wasn't so much of a need 20 years ago, right? Sure. There's more of a need now.

But it's also more difficult. Yes. It's still prohibitive.

You still have to figure out the cost of building one of these. They're not cheap. I looked into it. It's like $120,000 for 850 square feet. That's a lot. 850 square feet, you're maybe gonna get $1,100. It's going to take you a minute to pay that off.

What was your comment? If you look at even the state ordinance, it's pretty prohibitive. This is pretty tight on how you can build it and what you can build and how many people are really going to jump on that to do it. It may surprise us. I don't know, but in some ways I'm not too concerned. As far as attached dwelling units, do you know how many we have in the city?

We have 24.

I think we have 24. 24. Attached dwelling units, which is basically basement apartments.

Pretty much all of them are basements. 24 that you know of.

that we were already, they did what they're supposed to in our register.

Can you remind me, Mr. Agate, in the code, did we draft it to include a provision that the windows be inoperable?

Yeah, it's right there in front of you.

Sorry, I've got my computer.

It's fine, it's fine. But we could, if we were to amend it, we could say shall be translucent or shall be installed skylights. It would be a simple amendment.

I just, I really have a hard time internally telling someone they can't have operable windows for a living quarter. And I understand all of our reasons, and we've talked about it till we're like blue in the face last night. I just feel that's like super restrictive.

Let's move on, and I think we've circled this one enough, if that's okay.

What?

Oh, sorry.

Are there any other topics that we would like to talk through before we open it up for a motion?

I do want to hit still. I do still want to talk about occupancy limit. I need to know, are we just going to keep it as two adults and any number of children? Are we going to do per city definition of family? I mean, that can be easy. Are we going to do per state code, whatever that I reference? What should I put in that cell?

So I wrote notes of single family designation to talk about that. Can we, can you pull that up or can you tell us exactly what that is, how that is?

It was in that email.

This one from a legal standpoint, it is a lot easier if you just stick with our definition of family. Yes. I think it gets very tricky when you start trying to define number of people. But I do get, you know, it's a smaller home, but many homes used to be smaller.

And so do we match? I'm trying to remember now. Do we match state?

The state?

Is that what you sent me?

Well, C does, right? C matches what I sent you. But there has been, and I don't know if it's still enforced, the same definition. I think we can still rely on our city code because this was required of all cities to match this definition. I don't know. It was like six or eight years ago, maybe even 10 years ago. So that definition is very evergreen from city to city for a definition of family. But for whatever reason, I couldn't find it in state code when I did the research, but I found that one I provided, which again matches term C.

Well, I'm comfortable with that, and I like what the city already has. And I don't think that we should try and micromanage that more.

Okay, so I just put per definition of family in 12.12.040. Okay.

My opinion is yes.

Is that a word? Consensus? Yeah. We've already defined it, I think. I think that works well.

Makes Lisa happy? Yeah, that's what she said it did.

That's all we want.

That's all we ever want.

Okay, and then I have a few things that I can probably refine with you, Lisa, just some terminology things relative to, again, those continual inclusions. I guess I could just modify them where it's referencing state code 10-20-303 or 10-20-10-21-303. Just take those out, but then try to wordsmith it in so it still works. Is that okay with you? Is that okay with the council or the planning commission if I did that? We'll see.

I think we do need, I need to do some research on, are you talking about the lien provisions? Yeah. Okay.

That is exactly what I'm talking about. Okay. And then my final one is right there where it's at. existing building and detached adu conversion i left it in pink because i believe that was the will of the the planning commission to excise all that stuff except for that brief statement just saying hey if if we need to verify an existing building as a non-conforming structure we have that that opportunity after or if it was permitted prior to october 1st 2026. yes that's what i remember the discussion being that's right and taking out guest house and all that craziness yes that is correct okay That's all I have in this clarification. I need administratively.

While we're on this page though, should it be 1258-090? Yes, that's a typo in there.

Okay. Yes.

That's why you're an engineer.

Okay, perfect. That gives me what I need.

I feel like I just want to speak up a little bit about the configuration of lots after just talking with residents who asked me giving me phone calls and sent emails. I want to just put this out here that I think conditional use permits. I don't know whether or not they would be the proper tool to regulate, I don't know what health, safety and welfare standards we could regulate with conditional use permits, but Ms. Hendricks and I have talked and one of the reasons why she brought up conditional use permits is because I said the possibility of like where the ADU would be placed, that should be something that she could bring up. So I wanted to clarify for Ms. Hendricks as well as the Planning Commission that during our discussion if it came out that i said that it would be permitted as a conditional use permit okay okay just wanted to make sure and put that on the record with that being said though my feelings as a planner still go with i think that it would be great tool for the Planning Commission as well as residents and the planning staff to have if we could look in the future at tying a conditional use permit to the placement of ad use in rear or inside yards and or front yards just based on how old the Lots are in Centerville I think that Paul you hit on it really well that the state is generalizing for subdivision lots. There are a lot of lots here in Centerville that are not part of the subdivision. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Whether or not that sticks, that's okay. But the reason why we are allowing for a detached accessory dwelling units is to allow for residents and homeowners to have that additional income. And I think that we are cutting a big, big portion of the population out for that.

Okay, thanks for that input. As I understand it, and Lisa, this is a question for you, conditional use would not be an allowed tool for that because it would be more of a variance than a conditional use. Is that fair to say?

Yes.

Because what you're doing is you're using the conditional use code to violate the code is what it would essentially be doing. And in that way, you'd need a variance. But I don't like variances either.

I hear what you're saying. Okay, no, that makes sense.

So the reason I mention that, and Lisa, I'm curious if you have a difference of opinion on that.

No, I think that conditional use permits are problematic, and I prefer other tools. Yeah. Either regulate specifically or... Not at all. Yeah, or a variance or allow for flag lots. You know, there's a lot of other tools that address...

that's exactly why I asked that so pulling it back to the Commission with all of that said I'll lay out sort of just my position and then let's just go from there I love the idea of expanding our definitions and regulations to allow for oddballs like we've seen today and at least in in both of those I could definitely see the utility in allowing an ad you in the positions as proposed I do share Mr. Agate's reservations about creating a subcategory of an accessory building, given that accessory building is already defined to exist only in the rear yard. However, I wonder if we couldn't create a carve out in the DADU ordinance that something along the lines of, not withstanding definitions to the contrary, DADUs may be allowed in front and side yards, something like that. So we don't create a new category. We just simply say that even though the definition has limited it to this, we are expanding that to say that notwithstanding definitionally, daddos may be allowed in front and side yards. And then you have to create a list of regulations that regulate that. True, but I would just say that you're going to regulate it sort of in the same way except for, I mean, Never mind. You're seeing my stream of consciousness. You're right. There's a problem in front yards with all of the setbacks and everything else. Because some front yards may not accommodate it.

Correct.

For sure.

And not only that, but the law of unintended consequences. Which then you have to create certain lot distinctions, which maybe both their lots would meet that lot distinction. But this is what I was talking about earlier. You have to figure out what that is. So there's certain criteria that match.

them allow for those allowances Sid will you pull up our variance ordinance please and thank you my concern is that if this were to come forward on a variance stat standard I think that it would be rejected both of these potential use that we've talked about and obviously we're making no adjudication or anything on these particular homes I'm using this as an example only

Why would it be rejected? Because it doesn't pray.

Well, so my understanding of our standards of variance, where's our standards of review? Right there.

I mean, they could, yeah, they could put it elsewhere.

Yeah, so the literal enforcement of the provision would cause an unreasonable hardship that is not necessary to call out the general purpose. There are special circumstances attached to the property that generally I could see that passing. The granting of variance is essential to the enjoyment of substantial property right, enjoyed by others, maybe. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan, fine. The spirit of this title is reserved. So here's the analysis as I see it. If you're putting something in the front yard, and because it's too expensive to put it in the backyard you're not going to pass this standard it's not the little enforcement would cause an unreasonable hardship cost in the case laws and i'm not giving legal opinions i'm just saying it from my position well yeah look at clause two yeah i know it says what you just said cost is cost is not a sufficient hardship clause two says that so um if you have alternatives then you're supposed to take those alternatives before you get a variance yeah Right. And think of it this way. If it can't fit in your backyard, but it can fit in your front yard, then the ordinance as written has already written you out. So you can't invoke, I think, essential to the enjoyment that is possessed by other property. Just because other properties get ADUs in their backyard doesn't mean you get one in your front yard. At least strictly. According to that.

Yes.

That's why I don't know if variance is the right tool.

It is not. The variance is not in Jackson? I'm going to go back to that again.

No, it would completely defeat the purpose of state law mandating that we allow DADUs and it would, yeah, I think the city would regulate more strictly. So Lisa.

Is there, do you think, and shoot from the hip, right? We're just shooting from the hip. Is there a tool that we could use potentially to address these oddball situations?

Yes, but we don't have time right now. No, no, no, no. I think staff can certainly, oh, well, the tool on one of them, well, yeah, I don't know.

Without commenting specifically on these two.

I mean, I think Centerville has a lot of very long lots. Very narrow. And the tool that's needed for those is infill flag lots. And staff has supported, I will say, supported flag lots. I would love to look at that. Because we have a lot of underutilized properties. And that would be a reasonable way to do it. And a flag lot is not a tool mandated by state law. So we can say, we want it this big. We want it this far from the, you know. I mean, we can still do that with DADUs. But you're also not restricting the size. It's not an accessory. you know so and you can actually build a single family home essentially if it meets all the requirements right and so they want i mean this would help with the rileys because if they want a bigger they'll have to be a 1200 square foot home a flag lot would allow that so you basically have two homes or two properties right and you know and i think that the flag lot may be more persuasive now that with one acre lot you can have two dwellings so you're not prohibiting Anything by allowing a flag lot created. And then you do. Although you have two larger buildings. I would love to. But again, it's the any of these are, you know, building in the back and how you're impacting your neighbors. But property develops and you could have someone eight feet away from you, depending on if somebody can get a road in, you know, so having that expectation of privacy in your backyard is not necessarily realistic. I know. It's not a popular.

Yeah. Yeah. It's it's good points. OK, so going back to sort of my list, the occupancy I'm hearing, we're generally mostly aligned, at least on the definition of family being incorporated from city code. the MIPS that we talked about earlier, the capitalization of construction, the 1258070, the phrasing for additional entrance. I think that was it. No, there was another one.

And then my comments, my three comments. Sure, sure. I meant like that we had. Okay. I just want to make sure my three comments at the beginning, I would request that those be included.

And then there was also the may be on the 2-3 thing. Is that what you're referencing?

That's one of them.

Okay.

The other one was where applicable enforcement provisions and the other is changing the citation of minors.

Of the .4 instead of 4-0? Yeah, 12.58.0402 or 3.

I'm going to have to. Has anybody been assembling these? Because mine's spread out all over my notes.

We want to see your attorney's scribbles. I have my own scribbles over here.

Call of .58.040B2 has a wrong reference.

And also in regards to the tiny homes, we were going to add your extra. Yeah.

And if you want me to add language regarding the removal of an axle.

Yes. And it has to be permanently attached. Yes.

And there is language that I can easily get from pretty much any city. Yes. We just don't have it currently.

All right, we're doing it live. We're going to start. I'm going to make a motion. And my motion is going to be constructed together. And I'm going to make a motion eventually that I will move for, but I'm not making it now. We're just building it. And it's going to be something along the lines here. where it says detached dwelling units amending, blah, blah, blah. But in addition to what is in the staff report, we're going to say number one. And, Sid, I may need you to pull up these as we go. Let's start with 12.58.070. 12.58.070. 070. Yep. Where's the entrance? Article C. Oh, the entrance is D. There's only D. So sub D. So I'm going to propose that sub D modifies its language such that it removes the word additional.

Right, that's what we agreed on.

That it removes the word additional. Number two. that the occupancy definition in, which, where's that section, guys? Right, it's that table. She was on it. Oh, go back. Table 12.58, what was it? .0701. That's one. Occupancy be defined to incorporate The city's definition. Well, I'll just say the definition. Count in 12.12.040. 12.12.040.

That's currently written.

Family. Right. Okay. Number three. The scrivener's error on 12.58.190 should be 090? Yeah. And what did we, did we make any other changes inside that substantively? Nothing I have noted. Okay. And 12.58.110, sub C, down, or sub 1 maybe.

It is sub 1. Construction fire code. Is that it? Yeah.

That the language be revised to say, a detached ADU shall be subject to all related regulations regarding the capital construction code as adopted by the city and state.

Codes.

Oh, codes. Thank you. The capital C construction, capital C codes striking the language

Do we need to have fire code, too, or just construction code is fine?

It covers it.

It covers it?

Okay. Yep, as long as you capitalize the construction.

Okay. Should we also be adjusting the title of that, then, construction and fire codes to just say construction codes?

Oh, the title of one, yeah.

Well... Yes and no. I mean, it seems like we've seen Lisa.

And you can say both if you want. Construction codes and fire codes. Because we're talking about dwellings and that's fine.

The problem I think could be run up against is some creative lawyer is going to say, yeah, but they took out fire codes deliberately and that means something.

Yeah.

So we'll just say construction codes and fire codes. but it's gonna be capital C's. Are we gonna capital F and C the fire code?

Yeah, and I only say that because I think the fire code, I'd have to see if we reference in Title 10, but we do adopt it in a different section. I think our public health and safety, let's see, fire regulations. Yeah, in Title VII, we adopt, okay, yeah, the International Fire Code, as more particularly adopted, oh, in Title X, okay. So we're good, so it is included in construction codes.

We'll catch it eventually. Okay, so construction codes and fire codes is what that's gonna read, striking building construction and fire codes. We did the occupancy limit, we did I'm sorry, I don't know what I'm missing. Someone jump in.

You're missing windows. We're missing that two to three maybe. We're missing the tiny house privilege.

Okay, let's go through those slowly. Where's the window section?

12.58.070C, removing the term fixed inoperable. So we'll say shall be translucent is what the recommendation was.

but you're the one constructing the motions. I don't want to put words in your mouth. They'll be translucent.

And just drop everything else?

No, keep the skylights. We're just taking shall be fixed non-operable.

Yeah, I was just saying just drop everything else. Sorry. Fixed non-operable and will be stricken. Okay.

Okay. And then you leave it in translucent or shall be light. Okay, good.

What was the next one? Thank you.

You're welcome. We had the tiny homes for extra verbiage, and we also had the 2-4.

We were changing it from just May. Which section should we go to?

I'm trying to get to the establishment.

Hang on.

It's basically that they have to be on a fixed foundation.

That is... I think it's in 1258. Found it.

Okay, A.

there it is which one is it oh you got it yeah so it was in a but he's going to be adding i would add a new yeah i would add a new i guess it'd be probably new b and change the numbering that would talk about removal of an axle for any modular okay i'd like to workshop the language though um it doesn't have it all

Isn't that correct?

I don't have one, but I can try to find one right now. Well, then, OK, so give me broad parameters to do in the ordinance. Or would you like that? How about this? With a direction to staff to add a subsection in zero seven zero to address tiny homes removing axles and which will then be considered by the City Council.

Yeah. Yeah, I would say I'm not wanting to say tiny homes I would say modular homes such as tiny or other similar modular homes And and the language the building official gave me say he said add language the axles are removed and when the structure is fixed in place for any DADU that is willed into location.

Are the words permanently affixed to the ground something that we should be using?

It's already there in A, so we could use similar language if we wanted to count on it, but it will already be established in A. Well, then what do we need? The removal of the axles from, so if you will, in a tiny home, right, you have to anchor it into the ground. But he's saying that you can then take it a step further and put language in that says removal of the axle. So it inhibits stability to be even more modular.

All right, so then it's a permanent structure and not a coming and going.

So create a clause, new B, that would say that.

I don't know why we need a new clause. Why not just one more sentence in A that says something along the lines of if the detached ADU is capable of being mobile, that any such mobility.

Wield into location was the term. Yeah. but whatever, you could say that.

Willed into location, but that would mean something different to me than it would to you.

Yeah. If the DADU supports mobility. And like I said, there are codes. I have one in my last city. I just have to .

So then here's what I'm going to put in my motion, is that rather than a new section be added, that a sentence be added to clause A. that would prohibit, or no, would require the removal of any axles or similar mobility capabilities. Okay. Sure.

That's fair. They get affixed. Yeah, they have to be affixed.

Yeah. I could certainly find someone's code that reads well and says that.

Because it just says, well, any structure fixed and anchored.

Will you change that to a fixed?

Yeah, because anchored, I mean, you could anchor it like you anchor, couldn't you? Like you anchor a boat with just a post coming out, right? I feel like that's a little flawed.

The word fixed?

Any structure fixed and anchored. I'm just... If we're not adding more like he was talking about, I feel like there's room for error there or cause for a question.

I mean, with the building code, that's what it's called when you hook something into a foundation, you anchor the structure into the foundation. That's the terminal. Is the word fixed a defined term in the building code? No. I mean, if you want to use a fixed, if you want to use, I don't know what else.

A fixed in real estate has to be screwed in. That's how we do it.

You could say affixed, or you could just use anchored and take out, or affixed and anchored, shall be a permanent structure anchored to a foundation. That is building terminology. You do anchor structures to concrete slabs and foundations.

That is the right term. Do you have comments on that, Lisa?

Well, just if it's only fixed, sorry, where's the language? If it's a permanent structure and anchored, you might be taking out this whole category of you know that they're bringing because they are going to bring things on and so anyway that was my concern is that you are eliminating these manufactured and you can't it may not be allowed yeah we can't do that i'm okay with the language as it is especially with the addition that you have to take any axles off okay okay let's go with that so we'll leave that at is so so it's adding a sentence

Commanding the removal of or requiring the removal of any axles or similar mobility capabilities. Yeah All right Vice chair Patterson, what are we missing?

We are missing the last one. It was the 2-3. We were gonna add maybe instead of just a But that was my bad that I did not write down.

Maybe permitted to.

Maybe permitted. Yeah. And where was that?

It's 12.58.060C. And then it was two down there.

There were two numbers he renumbered. To have a detached ADU.

Yeah. That's when I said that it was a little weird.

Are you sure it was this? Yeah. Did you redline this on a different one?

This is the blackout.

Okay. Okay.

You're right. It may be permitted to have a detached ADU.

Maybe. I'm not sure what that is trying to get at. Because isn't that, by definition, a detached ADU? A property may have a detached ADU on the lot or partial Are they shared with the primary dwelling?

Give them a right to have it when you say may or may be permitted.

Oh, I see. We're just saying, oh, you can have, okay, you can have one.

It's trying to create more clarity, so it's not saying, in other conditions, you can have two on a lot. I get to see how it's a little confusing. So clarify it may be permitted to have, then you're categorically allowed it.

Would an appropriate edit there just be to remove the first sentence of that, since in my mind the clear message for C is... Yeah, it is the second sentence. Yeah, it is the second sentence. We've already established the first sentence elsewhere.

Very true.

So just go with no single family. Oh, yeah.

I mean, if you need it in there, I...

It doesn't matter to me as long as it's clear that a single family dwelling, a primary dwelling, affords a detached ADU to be on it if they can meet the other allowances. I'm not sure if it says that elsewhere in the code.

But I like the definition, or stated affirmatively, if you have a single family residence, you're eligible to also construct an ADU, provided you can only have one, either internal or detached.

Yeah, I think that's what it's trying to say. But I'm not sure if that first sentence needs to be rewarded. That was the point I was saying when it may be permitted to, it's like, there's not another category. It's just you have a right that permits you to do this if you meet the criteria.

I think that an example of this would be we're experiencing this with a agriculture property who wants to have a, who wants to put like an accessory structure on their farm with a barn. They already have a barn, but there's no single family house. And then they want to put another detached structure with a rental unit in there.

Um, so with this being put in that, that might say, Hey, no, this, there has to be a single family by definition, but yeah, I would rather just say it affirmatively, as I said, a lot or parcel with an existing single family dwelling is eligible to, you know, for a detached ADU.

And then the second sentence.

Yeah, provided you can only have one. Yeah. Either detached or... Yeah, because you do have... I would make it one sentence because you don't want to... We can work on that. Just direct staff. We'll make it better.

Okay. That's what we're going to do.

Because I do think, but I think in the definition we say it has to have that, but I want to make that clear as well. You have to have it.

Yeah, because the key point is the second sentence. That's why C exists. Right, you can only have either internal or detached.

I guess the question I would have is we've defined the eligibility in 12-58-040B. Do we need to also define it in the first sentence here?

That's a great point. That's a good point.

Sometimes because staff likes to just point to this. I think that's what they're saying. We just want that if you don't have a home already on there, you can't have a DADU. And then we don't have to argue. I can see that.

Yeah, okay.

They have to enforce it. But I think we can make it, state it that clearly, combining it with the second part, though, that you can only have one or the other.

Got it. And then there's a small Scribner's error on 12.58.040B2, where it's referencing the wrong code with the internal ADU, and it should be referencing its own code further down, which is 12.58.100 in place of that.

Instead of 090? Yeah.

Or, yeah, it even says 12.60. So 60 and the 090 error should be 58.100. Very good. And then the last one was at the very bottom, way down in enforceability, I recommended taking out the citation and just having it say, may utilize applicable enforcement provisions regarding violations and holding liens against the property. And the city attorney seemed okay with that. Okay. Slowly, sorry.

We're taking out the red highlight completely?

No, just where it says, we're adding the word applicable in place of the, so may utilize applicable. And then we're removing of Utah code section 10-20-303, internal accessory dwelling units, and then keeping regarding violations.

And I do think what your comment was referring, I think it's 10-21-303 where the lien provisions are. But we don't want to refer to the... Yeah, we're removing it.

I mean, we may, but... Until state code gets updated, which it probably will, and then we'll have to reinsert it in.

All right, so I've got the mechanics. My motion is probably also going to carry a recommendation that the city directs staff to evaluate and build out, suggest solutions. No, I'm not going to do it part of the motion. Never mind. I'm going to point out. we do it with a separate i know what you're thinking about yeah you know where i'm going is that i i want a tool to address the oddballs yeah right oftentimes after a motion you have in the past given direction to staff as a comment yeah and that's that's what i'm probably going to do the problem is we didn't notice this up as potentially developing code for flag lawns

That's why I was scared about talking about it too much. And that's probably why we should come back and do it separately. Okay, okay, okay, okay. All right, friends.

Can I ask you a question before you go forward?

Please.

So in your motion or all of your notes that all the things we've gone through, you're not suggesting conditional use permits?

No.

Okay, perfect.

Oh, that are very clarity on agricultural lower. We keeping it permitted. In essence.

Oh, we need to discuss that one.

Yeah.

Yeah. In essence, my motion is going to say, I'm so sorry. Thank you for your comments, but I'm so sorry you don't qualify potentially because we're not going to allow front yard adios under this code at this time. Yeah. Yeah. This time. That's what I'm going to be making a motion for.

Did you hear Mike?

Yeah.

about the about the agriculture it doesn't qualify i mean it's consistently it's p and internal but again i don't want to tell the planning team we talked about that last time like if somebody just has all the ag right you've got a home over here and they can have 10 acres 100 it doesn't matter and then they just want to put something that's where you have size restrictions by code of how big it can be then they can only make it so big So then if they have a big parcel, they can't have a mini McMansion or pool house in the back that's rented out because you're regulating it by size. That's why we had that conversation.

Well, it seems fair because if I had a lot of money...

people completely out but I also don't want neighborhoods dotted with things in the front or side yards which I think too unfortunately for for the the resident that commented but I think by keeping the the unit size to where you have it or somewhere like that then it it kind of addresses what Lisa was talking about and that those large units still have subdivision and development potential and they still get the ADU out of it it creates this kind of a Push-pull compromise that benefits everybody interested. I think yeah, okay, so sorry just for my clarification.

Are you recommending? Dad uses a permitted use in a oh, that's my guts probably gonna be my motion.

Yeah Hold up a second though if it's agricultural low

do they have any buildings on them at all they have to still have a home that's what my question is okay yeah they have to have a single family yeah right cultural law got it okay right we won't even look at it okay perfect right because yeah when i was thinking agriculture i was thinking for sure there would be a primary structure at that point and they are building the primary structure yeah in all fairness to what you're saying i guess it would be

to recommend that the City Council, well, to forward a positive recommendation to City Council that they approve the proposed zoning context amendments to the Centerville Municipal Code by adding new chapter 12.58, detached accessory dwelling unit, DADU standards, and hold up. standards and amending Section 12.36.020, Table of Uses for Residential Uses, based on the following reasons for action. No, no, no. Hell's bells. Strike that. Let's take it from the top. Hereby make a motion to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning code and text amendments to the Centreville Municipal Code by adding new chapter 12.58, detached accessory dwelling units, DADU standards, and amending section 12.36020 table of uses for residential uses as indicated in the staff report. However, with the following additional modifications. 12.58.070 sub d remove the word additional 12.58.070 sub c remove the phrase fixed inoperable and 12.58.070 a that staff be delegated the authority to draft an additional sentence to add to this subsection A that has the effect of requiring the removal of any axles or similar mobility capabilities for the affixed DADU. No, for the fixed and anchored DADU. That 12.58.070-1, the word occupancy be defined to be family as defined in 12.12.040. That 12.58.190 is a Scrivener's error and should be changed to 090. 12.58.110 sub one, eliminate the phrase building construction and fire codes and replace it with capital C construction, capital C codes and capital F fire, capital C codes. That 12.58060 sub C. Did I already say that one?

No, no.

Okay. Ah, yes. That staff work on rewording these two sentences into one sentence to clarify the intent that a single family residence may qualify to have one ADU but no more than one ADU.

Is that fair?

Avoiding the word may. or at least the singular use of may without qualifiers. I think city attorney Romney had a really good articulation. Let's direct staff to perhaps consider that and then forward it that way to the city council. That 12.58040 sub b sub two be modified that the code reference therein, instead of 126090, or 12.60.090, be modified to 12.58100, that 12.58120, I can't read my handwriting, ah, be modified as we have discussed, which as I understood it was, to, yeah. say something along the lines of, words to the effect, additionally, the city may utilize, applicable is an addition, strike the, and then going back to the original text, enforcement provisions, and then strike of Utah Code 10-20-303, internal dwelling, internal dwelling units, my handwriting, and then resume with, brr, Regarding. It's either regarding or... Thank you. Let's just get there.

Yeah, it's regarding.

Okay. So for clarity, we're striking the, replacing it with applicable, we're striking of Utah Code 10-2303, internal accessory dwelling units, and then resuming with regarding violations. Then... The table of use is 12.36.020 instead of P question mark for RL zones that the table of use is just be P permitted for dwelling single family with detached accessory.

I'm sorry. Yeah. What did I say? You said RL.

Oh, definitely not RL because it's already a P. Yeah.

Did you, for the reasons, wait, did I miss it? Did you address windows? Yes.

Yeah.

He got that code.

For clarity, 12-58070 sub C, remove fixed inoperable and. Okay.

All right.

For the reasons as indicated in the staff report. I'm trying to think of any other reasons.

Just findings on our own.

Yeah, we'll go with the findings as indicated in the staff report. That's my motion.

Man, I second that hard.

Okay, so I've got a motion and a hard second.

Hard second.