Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have a hard time with cry baby. Yeah. You know who I'm tr what I always struggle with with basketball is the college. I like college because all up bad threes and now the NBA is starting to trend that way and it's driving me nuts too. Mine was like all the way up. Andrea is it way was it way high for you every time. Lauren love that. He's got to sit up. He likes to be high. He says he sits next to two taller guys. So it's it raises

but give him grief. I do agree every time I see it's a multiacre property. Is that your envelope from the developer?

The bribes that I hear about on Facebook

on Facebook. I'm still waiting for mine. You got to be No, it's if it's different. I'm almost there.

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started and Clint is going to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Uh, repeat with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay. Um, we have a full quorum. And are there any conflicts of interest today? No. Perfect. Okay. Um, approval of minutes from the December 17th, 2025 meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. We have a motion by Andy, a second by Heather. All in favor?

I.

Okay. Um, we have a couple items on for a public hearing. So, I will read that policy. Um, the purpose of the public comment policy is to allow citizens to address items on the agenda. Citizens requesting to address the commission will be asked to complete a written comment form found on the back of the room and presented to the deputy city recorder. In general, the chair will allow an individual three minutes to address the commission. A spokesperson recognized as representing a group in attendance may be allowed up to five minutes. So, our first item 4.1 review and consider a recommendation to amend Herman City's official zoning map from A143 to A110. Okay, good evening. Uh, this request is from Roger Duke for a reasonzone to subdivide his property. Uh, property is um 7411 West up on High Country Road. It's highlighted here in the image. As you can see along that street along High Country Road, um several of the lots have already been subdivided to include a deep lot or a flag lot as we call them. Uh Mr. Duke is requesting to do a similar thing. Current zone right now is A143. The applicant is requesting that it be reszone to an A110 zone. Uh that will create two lots of uh 1/3 acre and about 34s of an acre or yeah 2/3 and 1/3 acre. That's better. Um so this is the current general plan map. Um it is currently shown as neighborhood residential one. So, the request to reszone to the A110 zone does comply with that um that general plan uh land use condition. And um as part of the requested reszone, we would just recommend that uh that the

applicant only get two units per acre, which will satisfy what he's trying to accomplish and also keep his development kind of in in line with every in character with everything else that's happening on that street. And this is the zone that's being requested is the A110. Uh this is kind of a conceptual look at what the subdivision might look like when it comes in for approval. This will come back to the commission for approval, of course. And um it does comply with the again with the general plan uh future land use map. And then our recommendation again is that it be approved with that zoning condition that two units per acre be allowed. Any questions for me? The applicant is also here. Would you like to Okay. So, let's go ahead and do the public hearing.

Do you want to hear Yeah, I was going to say you want to hear from the applicant. Okay. If the applicant has anything they want to add. No, I think you pretty much pretty straightforward what we're trying to do. Thank you. Okay. Um, so let's go ahead and open the public hearing. Come forward and state your name if you have any comments. My name is Roger Duke. Thank you. Okay. And then seeing no other public comments, um, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Motion by Andy, second by Heather. All in favor?

I I Okay. Um, do we have any questions for the applicant? Nope. Seems pretty straightforward. Okay. With the condition to keep it at two lots for that that area. It seems to make sense. Like I say, the condition to two lots is key. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Which is in the staff recommendation. Yeah. So, okay. Um, if there's no discussion, a motion, what would be a little bit of discussion? So, the the A110 that's to create a smaller upfront lot to fit the improvements that are already in the back. Correct. Yeah. Because it can't have two half acres. Yep. Because of the placement of the current home, right? Yep.

Yeah. To me, make makes sense to make that adjustment, but keep it at two lots. I maybe have one question for the applicant if you could come forward. Does the property to the west of you have animals? No, they have no animals. No. Okay. Thank you.

I'm ready to make a motion. Go for it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I um make a motion to recommend approval to the city council um for item 4.1 to reszone to A110 creating two lots. Yeah, I'll second. Okay. So, motion by Brody or motion by Daryl, a second by with staff's recommendations. That was the staff's recommendation. The tula two I didn't see anymore. Oh, you need to say it with Oh, you need to say it with staff's recommend. Okay. In addition, I recommend following the staff's recommendations. There you go. I'll second that again.

Thank you. Um, Broady, yeah. Jackson, yes. Heather, yes. Preston, yes. Daryl, yes. And Andy, yes. All right. So, that passes unanimously. All right. Item 4.2. review and consider a recommendation to amend chapter 10-21 fencing and other chapters in title 10 land development code.

Good evening. And as you've stated previously, this is also a public hearing item, a series of uh minor amendments to our fence regulations in the city. This is um kind of just orienting you to the code structure. So, title 10 of course is our zoning ordinance. Within that title, there's one specific chapter that focuses on fencing, chapter 1021. Um, and as you can see in your packet that that was the main section of the ordinance amendment. I included that whole chapter. But then we have fencing um references throughout the zoning ordinance and they're typically specific to certain zone types. agricultural, residential, commercial, manufacturing. Now, in analyzing all of these references, um we initially had wondered about could we possibly just move every standard back into chapter 1021. Um but we discussed what how do our clients, our applicants, and typically we're working with developers, what do they typically like to see when they're looking at our zoning ordinances? and it was advised to us that they do like to see uh zoning specific standards in the zone regulation. Um so what we found is that in these other references outside of chapter 1021 that that's typically what we have. We have something that's unique to that particular zone. And then we also will have references that just say basically, hey, when you're spitting a site plan, you have to include fencing or screening as per chapter 1021. So, it seems like the structure of our ordinance is actually okay. So, we're not proposing to modify that structure, but we did

want to look at any opportunities to clean up language. Um, initially I thought maybe there might be some redundancy. It didn't seem like that was really an issue. It was just more like clarification uh and then making a few um modest changes to some of the standards. Um there's also some regulations or uh adopted by the city council certain fencing related standards in the engineering standards and in fact that is one of the references that you you've seen in the materials before you. None of the engineering standards are being proposed relative to fencing. None of those are being amended by this proposal tonight. So these are uh kind of a highlight of the features. Again clarifies the language. We are maintaining current um height and location standards. None of that is changing. Uh you may recall that we do allow um so 6oot um fences like in rear yards um that's permitted. They can also go above that to to 8 ft. Um but it does require some additional building permit review for um wind loading. Um we are proposing uh some modifications to materials including some wood fencing materials. We have had some of our um master development agreements and PUDs successfully use wood materials. Um the language that I inserted into the ordinance is making sure that it's a durable you know dense wood that the wood that's being used is intended to be used you know exposed to the elements. So it is designed for to be fence you know fencing. Um also looked to clarify uh vinylcoated chain link fences are permitted for the recreational land uses and this is where we potentially have

taller fences to control like balls and other types of objects. Um sometimes we see people want to you know for like batting cages or whatever. Um so we do have a a height exception that allows for that. We want to specify that that's a vinyl coated chain link fence. Um we also um we we typically require solid uh walls for outdoor screening. Uh but in uh this chapter 23 102313 it's called landscaping and screening. It did allow as an alternative chain link with vinyl slats in these zones RMC1C2 as you can see that list. Um, so in the draft that's before you, I propose that we remove that. But that can be a little bit problematic uh for some of our larger like manufacturing users. If they want to have screening, we're saying very clearly that it has to be a solid, you know, wall. It can't and it can't be the chain leak with slats. Um, most of our development partners haven't been doing that. Um, but I've wondered if that might be a concern to require that for all of these different zones like our manufacturing zone. But, but that is uh something maybe for discussion. Um, so again, we are recommending uh uh approval. Um, I also mentioned um I think I failed to clarify. I was relying on some other standards within the city when we do city projects, but I think we should clarify further in chapter 1021 that when we're dealing with a public utility and there is a need for security, often times that solution is a chain link fence with security uh with security uh detail. uh

you know razor wire or some other kind of um feature that discourages uh make you know that is climbable. Uh so we just wanted to clarify that we want to be able to do that when it meets those administrative review standards. So, we're still looking to mitigate any impacts on adjacent uh properties and it may not always be the appropriate solution, but we wanted to have that flexibility uh for for security of public utilities. And then if you have anything else, of course, you're always welcome to identify any further modifications or amendments to the proposal. Um, of course, uh as the public hearing, your role is to hear the the public on this. Um, you may close the hearing following this discussion or you can continue it if you want to continue the item and bring it back for another night. You have both options that are before you. Um, any questions for me at this time. Thank you, Michael. Okay. So, I guess our first item is do we hold the public hearing and then um continue it if we decide to continue this item?

Correct. Yeah. I just want to know what the what does the commission want to do? Do they are we leaning towards continuing everything or I'm not leaning towards continuing personally move I I don't have any concerns with being questions on Okay. So, should we do the public hearing and and then close it? Yeah. Okay. I guess I guess her question is if we if we do the public hearing but then we close the public hearing, can we choose to continue the public hearing after the fact if we vote to continue the item? Oh, no. No. Okay. No, but I don't know if we need any additional

but I don't know if we'd need any additional public input personally. Yeah, I agree. I I mean hopefully they've got the notice. Those that have concerns are here tonight and we'll hear from them. We continue. Um but we can continue it with a closed public after closing public hearing as well. I would have to double check Robert's rules, but it's easy enough to readvertise because this is a um where we post we post it in three places and then we also uh mail a postcard to there's about 20 different entities that are registered with the city on our public hearing notice list. So, it's it's easy enough to do.

I guess my my thought is we've noticed it, the public has an opportunity. I don't know if this is I I guess we can decide upon what comments we may hear tonight, but personally I I think we could close the hearing even if we continued the item. That's my opinion. Okay. So, I will go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. Okay. And seeing none, can we get a motion to close that? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Okay. So, a motion by Andy, a second by Heather. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi. Okay. And then a discussion.

So, I think my heartburn is with the um the wood fencing allowing it. Yeah. Being able to getting Yeah. We've always had that in our So, what's what's I guess what what is your concern with the wood fencing versus I mean, when I look at examples online, it's got like the dog ear that's that is I don't know. There's some wood composite that could look nice, but I mean then do we have to regulate the material that they use for the wood? I I don't know. I think Jackson had mentioned something about the I think you bring up a great point. because you forget the look of wood with it.

But with sorry, but with wood, uh, it's the maintenance that I have. It just doesn't maintain. That's a little true of vinyl also. It it weathers. And how many panels of broken vinyl fences have we seen? Yeah, they get brittle and they break. They're they get brittle. Baseballs go through them. Kids go through them. Kids do go through them. Yeah. There is a requirement to maintain as well, which would be the case for wood as well, right? That they need to m make sure that

to Daryl's point, like my kids play baseball and I hate having a vinyl fence in my backyard because they put holes in it. So, I'd rather have wood and Yeah. Go. I don't know. It goes to maintenance. Like there's certain types of wood like redwood is Yeah, they're both restrictive up uh where I live. Mhm. What do we do with lots that back against um hillside hillside? I mean, that's there's some big lots. It would cost tens of thousands or more to fence those lots. Again, this doesn't require that you install the fence, right? It's just saying that you could allows the option.

Yeah. Yeah. So, but there are requirements for what type of wood could be plywood can't throw up a bunch of plywood, right? No, I know I'm material, but it specifically says that. Well, that's what I'm saying is that within the code, it says there's you can only use wood that's intended for fencing. Fencing on the recreational sites, you allow post and wire. What What does that look like in your mind? So this is what you might typically see like uh on uh public lands, you know, it's just it's just kind of a demarcation, you know, simple simple wood posts and and and a wire. They they do uh the

sorry wood posts, not metal Tposts, right, is what you're saying. You're showing wood postbed wire is what I'm hearing. Yeah. It's like cattle fencing basically. The the top I know what you mean. Yeah, the top line is um smooth because they don't want animals to be injured if they are going over that fence line. So that that is a standard, but the lower ones can be barbed, right?

So that would be like a a park setting or recreational property. This is in that forest uh recreation like the natural um yeah the the native um topography right side that makes sense instead of the great herman wall. Yes could have done that. Yeah. Yeah. What do you have behind your Now let me now Andrea let me throw out an idea here and get your thoughts on it. What if we allowed wood as an accessory? Say 20% of the fence could be wood. So you

some of these that I'm looking at like even the um the modern composite that looks like wood with the metal. I think that would be more along the lines of what we would I'm just worried about like these the cedar planks. The if we were only 20, we wouldn't get those. We might get something like a a a stone wall with a wooden top rail or some other things that would be more decorative. And so if you had a 20% wood allowed, then you could get some more options that might be interesting.

I I brought this to you because over the years I have had a number of residents who will ask what our requirements are when I say we don't allow wood. That's just it's unusual and it's often they're disappointed, of course. They're trying to get But I think the appearance is So would we do we would we currently allow a fence that looks like wood but is actually a composite? Yes, we do not a wood composite but a synthetic composite. And that's why I was kind of clarifying that language in the ordinance that we're talking about a synthetic or a wood composite just to be clear.

I don't know. For me I I don't mind 100% wood. Um I don't know. I feel it's really restrictive not allowing a wood fence and I hate I don't know I don't really like making ordinances around people not taking care of their things because we don't want to do code enforcement. So maybe a question I have is the removal of this and allowing the fence. Is that coming from city council? Because this is recommendation again going to city council. This is just something that staff's looking at due to public uh requests that have been coming in. there were some other items um relative to some of the city projects that we've been working on uh relative to like you know type of fencing and fence maintenance and

so we were just thinking is there something we can do to kind of clarify some of our standards make it so again I guess for us tonight it's a recommendation city council that may change it as well but but I think this is still good hopefully they do listen to us I think they do and and want to make sure I was just curious if city council was requesting this change or something like that. Yeah. On the wood. The wood was just a response to resident feedback over the years. Got

I was going to say in general I I really like the idea of bringing all the fencing to one loc one spot. I think that just clarifies it and makes it easier to use and administer. So I think in general that's good. I think my only concern is allowing too much wood. That's why I throw out the idea of you know if we allow a percentage. I guess I'll complicate it a little bit by saying do does anybody have an opinion on the wood based on zoning because like there's there might be some zoning like maybe not obviously in the certain residential zones because of what you're saying like that it starts to look bad but then if you're in some of these agricultural zones that are out in high country that don't have like are do you have a still have a problem with the wood fence in those areas? Is that where a lot of our requests are coming from or are they coming from more of the neighborhoods?

I I would say it's just residential development. We do we did make a change several years ago to allow some wood to be used when it's when you're creating um an enclosure for animals. So that's already in the ordinance for agricultural purposes, right? I mean, Daybreak has wood fences all over the place. Yeah. Yeah. And it's a maintenance thing in my opinion. I I I like a wood fence better than white vinyl. I think it looks cheap. I wonder if it's a certain type of wood though. Like do you think that it's just any like a cedar or like redwood? Like those are

again, excuse me. The ordinance does say specifically for fencing. So it just can't be any type of wood. Okay. Pine. Yeah. A bunch of pine planks. That's not Well, I just worried people would get just random scraps of Yeah. It's specifies you can't do that. Yeah. Okay. Well, just like we don't allow sheet metal like it has to be materials for fencing. Yeah. Correct. I like the wood fencing. I think it gives people more options and especially where we've had complaints from the public about the Great Wall of Heramin. I think something like this and allowing this will will help. But again, hopefully people are taking care of their property

and I think that's where I'm at as well. I'm okay with it. Just uh if we can enforce it, right? Enforce the code, enforce the requirement for the maintenance so that it looks good. You know, I know it's there's a lot of burden on the city to do that. So, um that that really would be my concern is I'm okay with it because wood fences do look nice as long as they're maintained. It's all down. That's my opinion. Well, that's code enforcement, right? Code enforcement. Yeah, that's the key. Yeah.

I had a question, Michael, for also in the uh the vinyl fencing material of being beige white or neutral color. Do you get requests for other colors? Pink. With the growing popularity of like the synthetic um materials, I would say yes, we have seen people who've wanted to do more like the darker grays. Is that not considered a neutral, a darker gray?

I I guess I'm I'm kind of pointing out the vagueness of that a little I think at one time we had proposed like more earth tones and of course you could say well you know some rocks are dark and so um I think that could be earth tones is good a change if you wanted to make that I guess I I think neutral color can be kind of defined loosely and so I wonder how okay we are with that being loosely defined I mean I I'm of the opinion I I don't I don't think it it's necessarily a bad thing to have those options, but I don't know what the rest of the

I I think because we don't have the wood that means you're doing vinyl. It seems like most people have been doing of course the whites and the beiges. It's it's occasionally when somebody wants to do like a TX fence or something like that that we see maybe a darker material. So perhaps an earth tone might be a better descriptor than neutral or I'm okay with neutral. My question is is what if they put up a wood fence and paint it purple? Is that allowed the way it's written? You know it would be right would be would

anyhow they they need to maintain the natural I guess I actually don't I don't I don't know why we especially if if the wood is opened up. I don't know why we would want to uh limit the color options because yeah I mean I you get a a dark gray a nice dark gray look. I don't think that that would be problematic. I could see it not matching your neighbor, but if if the entire purpose is to always match your neighbor, then that leads to a very boring environment. Well, and I would get a little concerned with overregulating private property, too. So, I'm good with it just saying neutral colors. Let it stand like that.

And as long as that applies to all fencing materials, right? Not that they can't paint a wood fence a non-neutral color. Do we regulate color of houses? Neutral colors? No. Not unless it's in the like in an MDA. Yeah. So, somebody could paint their house purple. That's right. So, why are we regulating it? If someone paints their house purple, but they want a gray wood fence. Not saying that that works, but it might for them. We're more concerned about the fence color than we are the house color. That's a fair point. Should we be concerned about the fence color? Well, I mean, it's shared. You can have a double fence. So, there's a little bit of that perspective, but you paint your side one

color and the neighbor paints it the other. Double fences aren't allowed. Yeah. Right. Correct. That's one. They're not. But if it's again a wood fence, you can paint one side like you said. Yeah. One can be purple, the other one. That's That's true. You and your neighbor go have these and one paints it one color, one paints it the other. She could paint violet. Oh, what if what if they decide to paint a mural on it? I mean, it could look really pretty. Like, why do we want to regulate that? I don't know. Yeah, I No, I agree with that. I guess my opinion. Yeah, I'm I'm good with this. I'm I'm okay to move forward with the way it is uh to city council. Same here. That's my opinion. All right. What What do you think about wood as a 20% accessory instead of all wood?

I'm okay with it about all wood. Again, it gets back to enforcement. You know, some a nice wood fence. I'm I'm fine with it being 100% wood, but it has to be maintained. That's my only concern. But it's in there and it's a requirement. I'm sorry. Sandy's maintained. I understand. Any fence needs to be maintained cuz you're right. You get some vinyl fences that have been beat up. Beat up pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. So, we just need to maintain it. Looks like motocross was run around the entire fence line. It's like splattered with small rock holes with small rock holes and

so I'm okay to make a motion for would specify what Jackson said where you could have a portion of fencing as different like you could have a wood and a metal fence just to let people know that that is an option in there or is that already it does increase the so per fence permits unless unless there's an engineering requirement or a public safety requirement, we usually don't see those, right? Okay. They're they're just able to put them up some, you know, we get inquiries obviously people asking what are the requirements, what can I do? Yeah. Um so as long as it doesn't say 20%. Okay. I mean, yes, you could put it in there, but Well, they could do that anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm asking is you've covered vinyl and you've covered wood um wire. Is there any caveats for block or may Yeah. Or pre-cast? We Yeah, we do obviously allow pre-cast. Yeah, we have a standard cement block, would it? Yeah. No cement block as well. Yeah. Is that allowed? Or stone, right? If you want to build a stone fence, stone masonry.

How have we, Clint? How have we interpreted block? I don't know that we've had block wall requests. Straight black wall. Yeah. Finish it with some other surface. It is a It is well 10214A. It is a permitted fencing material. shall be allowed in all zones except as otherwise provided. And it says right here, decorative pre-cast concrete or indigly colored and textured block, brick, stone, or other masonry walls. Colored or textured or textured block. So, it's not a smooth face. Smooth. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, brick. That's allowed. Brick. That's what it says in there. Says brick. It's already in there.

Brick, stone. Yeah. No, no, I may have said it too fast, but specifically it says brick. Yep. Brick, stone, or other masonry wall materials. So, it's covered. Okay. All right. I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve recommendation city council to approve item 4.2 with staff's two additional recommendations. I'll second that. Okay. So, we have a motion by Andy, a second by Brody. Andy, yes. Daryl, yes. Preston, yes. Heather, yes. Jackson, no. And Brody,

yes. Okay. So that um one opposed. Okay. Item 4.3. Review and consider a recommendation to amend Title 10 land development code to permit detached accessory dwelling units.

Okay. This is an item that we have talked about a number of times trying to feel our way through. Um, as we've discussed in some work meetings, it we've been hearing that this particular legislative session with the state, we're anticipating seeing a proposal and possibly an adopted an adoption uh discussing detached ADUs. We currently allow internal ADUs, but not detached. A lot of communities have been adopting a detached ordinance, so it's not unusual. Um but this would be the first for for Haramman if if this were adopted. Um one thing of note this is an objective within our moderate income housing plan is to study the appropriateness of detached ADUs in the city and um so by doing this we are fulfilling that element of our our obligation with the state. This is a quick summary of those amendment features. Uh looking at uh allowing ADUs citywide. Now that's general just meaning wherever those conditions, the requirements of the draft are met, then you could potentially have a detached ADU, but we do require it to be a single family home. And as you know, we don't allow uh residential uses like in commercial zones or manufacturing zones. So, we're we're always talking about our zone types that are intended and regularly used for residential occupancy. Uh, a minimum lot size of 6,000 square ft. Again, this was a number that we were hearing uh from the state that that was the number that they would likely be using in a proposed uh code with the state. Maximum size was 1,000 square feet or 50% of the size of the dwelling and that's occupiable space. Maximum height in the current draft is

20 feet and that's measured to the ridge line or the top of the roof structure. Um all of these things of course are subject to um further amendment and recommendation to the city council. Um there's language in here that is encouraging that the design match the single family home. As you know, we are very limited as to regulating the design of single family homes outside of our development agreements. Um but you we still can regulate the design of of accessory structures or detached ADUs at least currently. Um there is an owner occupancy requirement. Again this is another typical requirement of that other cities have used to make um uh these detached ADUs um be acceptable and function well within their communities. We do have a clause in there for um a temporary absence. Um that clause is is also one that's been used in other cities for like military health reasons um or uh you know if somebody is is engaged in some type of religious service and they need to leave. It does require that there would be some type of um on-site property management though to maintain that property in their absence. And then again no short-term uh rental. We currently don't allow short-term rentals in uh pretty much anywhere within the city. Um and that may be, you know, subject to further discussion uh whether or not that that ordinance would change, but currently we're saying that no short-term rental, which is anything less than 30 days. Anything more than 30 days is not considered to be a short-term rental of a of anything in the city. Um, I just threw this in here not really to go through, but if you wanted to look at anything in specific, I do have those three pages from the proposed draft that was in your packet.

Um, in our work meeting, we talked about um the possibility of of proposing a recommendation to approve the draft to the city council. In your staff report, I had recommended that if you found this draft to be acceptable, I would like to combine this chapter with the internal accessory dwelling unit um section, make it all one chapter. And then of course, anything else that you might identify. Alternatively, you could also um motion to close the public hearing and continue the agenda item. I would really like to bring this back at the next meeting, which of course requires a quick turnaround on my part. So, if you can be very specific about what you'd like to see in a second draft, um we'll make that a priority and make that happen. You can also motion to continue to um hold the public hearing uh to the next meeting, but we should uh have be date specific. If you're going to continue the hearing, let's target February 6 for that hearing. or if you simply want to have another hearing on this item, again, it's it's easy enough for us to revertise the hearing if if that's your direction. So, okay. I guess I have the same opinion on this one for the public hearing that we go ahead and open and probably close it. I I based on discussions we had in the uh the work meeting. I don't think there was a whole lot of issues. There was a couple things that we talked about, but I don't think that's something that would whole change what is being proposed today. It just maybe is some tweaks that we may need to make. So my opinion is we hold a public hearing go ahead and close it.

But but okay. Okay. Okay. So, we'll go ahead and open the public comment board and state your name, please.

Beautiful evening. My name is Clint Underwood. I'm a resident of Herman. Um, I'm generally against this. I mean, if if this was considered and passed and and implemented, it would kind of turn item one discussion non-relevant. Okay. all of a sudden you're throwing away a lot of your zoning planning and it's not up there anymore. But I'll touch on a few points. Some of them have been covered by the gentleman here already. Um minimum lot size, vertical height so you're not overlooking neighbors. Parking considerations. Okay. No impact on neighbors, no cars on the street, adequate parking for whoever's living there. Limit the number of occupants. Again, no commercial Airbnb kind of stuff. Um, clear access for utilities, emergency vehicles, and so on. Uh, can't be tucked behind a house if somebody's having a heart attack or there's a fire. Emergency vehicles need to be a be able to reach that and utilities need to be able to service the building. And kind of relevant to your uh fence discussion, um, who's going to maintain the state of good repair? Okay. So that might have something to do with clear access also. So I'm just registering my my discussion that I am against this as a resident of the town. Thank you.

Thank you.

Joe Darger. I'm a resident of Haramman and uh I want to couple things. I'm I'm in support of of an ADU. I think it's long overdue. I think it's coming. We have a lot of issue with affordability. And so I like the way this ordinance is written. There's a few things that popped out to me as I looked at it. The height doesn't work very well. Um it should tie to the house or you couldn't even do a twotory. And I think if you want an issue, the ones that I've I've seen done well have a garage you come under and then you know an ADU on top. So I I would definitely look at the height uh element as this is written. Um I'm not sure about the owner occupied. Does that mean the house and the ADU? Because I don't I would I would guess it means of the two that the owner's occupied. So I I just wasn't sure on that. But overall, I think um I'd love to see this uh get done and um I think it it is long, like I said, long overdue. And um but overall, I think this is well thought out and I like what I saw in the proposal. So that's all I have.

Thank you. Okay. So seeing no more comments, a motion to close. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. A motion by Heather, a second by Andy. Andy. Oh, actually, do we do We can just do it. Okay. All in favor? I Okay. Um, and then discussion.

We let Michael kind of address some of the comments. Let's let Michael address some of the comments maybe first. So, as we talked about in the work meeting, there is some concern about the feasibility of that second story being limited to a 20 foot height. Um, certainly that is something that you could modify easily in the draft. Um, I do agree. I think it was suggested that it should at least be no taller than the principal dwelling. Um, that might be something you could consider. Um, also on the owner occupancy, um, it's as long as the owner is occupying either of these spaces. It doesn't matter if it's in the main dwelling or the accessory dwelling. Um, it's interesting. Years ago, when I say years ago, like 15 so or so years ago when other cities began adopting ADU ordinances, they did start out with occupying the main dwelling, but I found a lot of cities quickly pivoted away from that. said it doesn't really matter where the owner lives as long as they're living on site.

Can't run them both. So that allows someone to kind of age in place and potentially kind of downsize into the ADU, but they're still living on the property. Right. Makes sense. So that Yeah. Okay. So So to Andy's comment, they can't rent them both out. Yep. Right. And the owner occupied, we're talking about the owner of the primary unit. Either one. Either one. Right. Yeah. Because we're not separating the ownership of the ADU, right? The lot can live in the ADU and rent the house out. Correct. And that owner occupancy provision is what we already do for the internal ADU as you know. So,

so there was a comment about um short-term rentals. Maybe just clarify that that that's not allowed in the city, right? So, it wouldn't be allowed with this as well. Right. Right. Um Right. Anything less than 30 days is considered to be a short-term rental. We currently Okay. The first gentleman referenced uh emergency vehicles and parking and all that. So if if the ADU is way out in the back 40 um are they obligated to provide access to an emergency vehicle?

There is but admittedly that is one of the common concerns. Um cities have still been adopting these because there are other concerns to be you know cognizant of and so what is required is there has to be clear addressing and and uh demarcation of how to access that ADU and it's not it's not as ideal um but it is what other communities have been uh requiring and our emergency services have been adapting to it. Um, again, we are anticipating receiving a mandate from the state of doing some type of detached ADU and we're just trying to kind of get out ahead of that a little bit and knowing that like we see in a lot of our other new ordinances, we'll adopt something, live with it for a little bit, and then we're back making some changes to it.

But we need to start somewhere. Um, at least that's that appears to be the the ground that we're at right now. Could you also address the comment about parking? The requirement for parking. This this uh has uh a requirement of adding one off- streetet parking. Um, the internal accessory dwelling unit ordinance um does not allow us to require additional parking if there's already four on site, but the state code does not have that exception for detached ADUs. Now, I anticipate that the state, if they were to adopt one, that was probably something we're going to have to revisit, but right now, it looks like we could require off-site parking for a detached ADU.

So, it say one stall, they're required to have one, but they could technically have two or three vehicles that may be using that, but we're only requiring requiring one, right? Which and then there was a question about occupancy as well. there's there's no way to really limit the number of occupants that may be in in that unit as well. Is that true or it's possible? Um then it becomes something we have to enforce that occupancy limit is difficult. Um

a lot of times you end up regulating the secondary impacts of occupancy. Um, and there's there are health standards for ratio, but it's a pretty low, you know, per square footage ratio per um occupant as some of our architects know. So, usually I think most most codes you don't really see that focus, right? You're always just looking at the secondary impacts is what you're enforcing. No. And I appreciate that. I'm this is more to help educate those and inform me as well. Yeah. Well, in a in a in an an overview, um you're allowing it on a 6,000 square foot lot. If we have to add potentially

Yeah. Addition eventually if they have to meet all the requirements all those additional parking then it becomes problematic as to who can actually they may have the desire to build one but they can't qualify right to build one. So, uh, it could be this passes, but we don't see a whole big impact if you can't qualify for it. What I have seen in other cities is these are typically like an owner builder and you have a lot of people who are interested, but it's not cheap

and they'll start the permit process and it it it's difficult. It's not that the standards are really burdensome, but it's just costly. You're building a a whole unit. It's not like building a shed. So, I I haven't seen communities get overrun with this option.

Well, that can be useful for those individuals who have the means and the opportunity. It can be very impactful, but it's not something that works for everybody. There was additional comments about utility access and things like that too. That's all a part of this, right? Obviously, they got to have the utilities in the unit, but then also to uh the utility easements and whatnot that are that are out there. They cannot be encumbering those as well.

Right. Right. We would all of that would have to comply with standards. Now, what we often see is that these smaller units um may be uh joined to the existing systems, utility systems. Um, and I think this is an issue that we're we would need the city council to really weigh in on where do we want to collect potentially an impact fee and require separate meters versus, you know, just allowing um an extension of of existing services because of course if we're doing a separate meter that's a road cut and we're dealing with other issues. We want it to be affordable. Affordability is a big issue. Right. Right. So,

yeah, there's some financial elements there that I think we'll still need to work with uh with the city council on. Yeah. So, if we approve this, it goes to the city council. They're going to debate it all over again and make recommendations for us to relook at or

they could uh but they don't have to. Typically the threshold is um if they are essentially expanding the proposal what is being considered that may warrant uh a reversal or a rehearing by the commission but they have a lot of latitude as far as what they can change once it's forwarded to them. And I would say an expansion might be like increasing I don't know something that would generate maybe greater quantity or greater impact. Um I I wouldn't anticipate that happening. I think if anything there would probably be a more narrowing

um you know consideration, but because we're already you can see I'm already started pretty you know permissible with that 6,000 foot limit. Um I guess they could expand maybe the the building envelope maybe. Um but that wouldn't increase more units, right? It would just make a potential an ADU a little bit bigger than what's in this draft.

I've got kind of a separate line I want to qu. Okay. So, I've got a kind of a kind of a what if, but it's something I could see coming. Um, so, for example, we have a a developer that comes in uh buys up, you know, a section of a neighborhood or a neighborhood, and I'm thinking of uh the rental single family rental homes. Would they be allowed to do ADUs along with the single family rental homes? Only if you have owner occupancy, right? You can't have a rental. So, the corporate can't say these are our owners and they're coming in and they're going to it has to be owned by the occupant, right? It can't be owned by a corporation couldn't

can't have two rentals on the same property. So maybe maybe a suggestion on my part might be something where we make it very clear these these rent rental single family rental groups can't come in and all of a sudden double their occupancies by adding ADUs. I don't know if there's a way to make that maybe even more clear. I mean obvious as we've talked about if you identify any particular issues you want me to research and bring back to you I'm happy to do that. Yeah. If you could do that because I Yeah. Well, Black Rockck's the name. If there's something that we need to add to that. Yeah. Yeah. I think we could identify it and say this is the zoning. You can't have double the occupancy, you know, by adding ADUs.

Yeah, the language that's here is pretty typical, but I'm happy to see if there's maybe a need to strengthen it or Right. But rental neighborhoods are a more recent one, I think. So, yeah, I have I have two two points or questions or whatnot. I one which was discussed in the work meeting a little bit and that was the maximum height. I do think we need to address the maximum height that instead of saying 20 feet that it that it say states I think we said 25 25 ft or no higher or than primary residence whichever is lowest. Yeah, I was that makes sense. I think that that would allow for that's kind of what I'm looking

I don't know if we want to say whichever is lowest because you know if if you've got a house that's 23 but you want to have a residence over a garage. Yeah. you know, when you're sitting on a third acre, I I don't know how that would you think just 25 ft. I would say 25 uh or height of the residence or height or height of the residence because if the residence is like 30 30 foot tall residence, you're okay with being a 26 foot tall. Yeah. Is what you're saying? Yeah. And I'm almost thinking um just limit it to two floors, whether that's the garage and one above it or that gets tricky. It's like that picture I was showing in in the how tall is that was only two floors. I think that was 30 some odd.

Well, if my garage has a 14 foot ceiling if it's an RV garage, you're starting to get closer to it can get out of control really. So 25 ft or the height of the 25T primary structure. I like that. So that that was my first point. My second question I guess from for you Michael that is I is is it possible for a person to reside in the house have an internal ADU being rented and then construct an external ADU and rent that as well? I don't see in here any restriction of a single ADU total. It says only one internal and only one external but it does not say okay

either. I thought I had there was only one, but maybe I've overlooked that. So, we can clarify that. I know at one time we talked about potentially doing both. I don't think council right now was uncomfortable with that parking. I think I was the one that wanted it initially and I still stand on that. If you're living in your house, then you're obviously going to make sure it's So, you're okay with having allowing both? Both. Yes. If it's owner occupied, but if we can't specify how many parking spaces, then you have So you have to have one one additional one additional for the detach. Just for the detach. Oh, but not the internal.

Internal. It does have a requirement, but if there's already four on site, then we can't require more. Okay. I don't know. So, I think that's the item that the parking, especially on a 6,000 square foot lot, is you might already be having issues providing, right? Can we make it a requirement that all individuals that are living on the lot has to have off- streetet parking? Can we state it that way? Because you'd have to do that by age. And I'm just I'm trying to figure out a way because I agree. I don't want a bunch of on street parking if

it's a it becomes a bigger issue because I know around my house when I had all three teenagers at home we had six cars and even then you know we were just one family in one home and well and that's my concern is you get you get six cars from the you get six cars from the owner you rent out your basement then you then you build an ADU behind you you got I mean potentially 10 cars on this single lot. So let me clarify. So if you are to do an ADU, you have to provide an additional. So the So if you have four, say for my lot, I I can fit six comfortably, right? The threec car garage and three on the driveway.

I only need four. But if I put on an ADU, then I would have to have five. But so am I accommodated because I have six or do I need to additional? Okay. All right. I want to make I think part of the parking comes back to the size of the lot. Yeah. 6,000 cuz I've had 6,000 foot lot and you know we fit well almost fit six cars. We really had five and one that we would kind of float around. Again, if you can't meet the standards, then you can do it. Then you're not Yeah. Right. I think that's all. Yeah. I just want to make sure that just by adding the AD doesn't require an additional. If they already have that accommodated, they don't have to provide an additional which I'm I'm okay with. It seems to me that where we run into parking issues in the city is really the the townhouse. Yes. Absolutely.

That's where it becomes a real problem, right? Where you got four already. You don't have to have any ADUs going into town houses. Correct. And on a lot where you already have four Mhm. they would have to be required to get a fifth to be to build an ADU. And that's where Yeah. The way I'm reading that. Okay. So, in the work meeting, I guess I have one more. Um, we had quite a conversation about privacy. Um,

some of these small lots Herman has already, there's not much privacy, there's less than 10 feet from house to house. Um, so I don't see there's a big difference between having an ADU at these setbacks and some of these smaller lots, but um, I don't know if that was ever resolved with my architect friends here. you you're correct in that from house to house we have some smaller lot developments already, right? And there's not maybe a lot of privacy between those two, but it's it's already anticipated and seen. You you understand the the the building typology that you're you're moving into, right? This is introducing an an ADU in a rear yard, which then you would in theory think, well, that's adjacent to somebody else's rear yard. And that's where that heightened sense of privacy comes from. Maybe it wasn't anticipated that there would be occupiable space in that rear yard. Um, and again, this is just uh something that I've seen where we've tried to mitigate that. Not saying that architecturally or maybe personal freedom there shouldn't be reasons to simply allow it. Um, but it is something that we could do, you know, just restricting where those windows are placed when there's an adjacent yard right within that certain proximity.

For me, I don't have a problem with the way the windows ordinance is written, that part of it specifically. And it also talks about, you know, uh, but shall be designed to protect privacy. I know he talked about going ahead and allowing, uh, windows on the lower first level. That is designed to protect privacy. if you have a fence or whatever. So, yeah,

personally, I I think the way it's written, I don't have a problem. Um, I do agree that we don't want to have a bunch of ADUs that are allowing an upper level with a window looking into a backyard. I again, for me, it's a if you're buying a lot where you have small homes that are right next to each other, you know what you're getting at that point. Um, but if you buy a lot and your neighbors there and it doesn't have an ADU and you put in a pool or a p spa or whatever it is, they come in and put in a an ADU, I don't want them looking into my my area. So, personally, the way this is written, I'm okay with. So, I wouldn't change that if if again my thought

my my thought because I go back to a lot size is a big deal to me because it's like if I had an half halfacre lot and I put an ADU and it's like 20 25 ft away from my lot line and I want to put like full windows or like on the second level. I don't I don't see a problem. I think I think where it's like quarter acre and less is where it gets problematic on a second level where it's that close to another person's backyard. But again, you can still have windows. They just be elevated. You know, you can still have windows on two of the four sides. Well, that's that's the part we need to clarify cuz it's like towards your neighbor's property line.

If it is it just the rear or is it the sides? You know what I Because if you have it pushed up to the corner, is it if it's in the middle of the backyard, then it's just the back rear that No, the way this is stated, it's to provide light and air, but shall be designed to protect privacy. So, it's kind of interpretation. There is some interpretation there, but again, I think two of two of the four sides Mhm. right, you got a sideyard and a backyard that it's facing. You don't get don't have big windows look because essentially you're looking into

Well, maybe to elaborate maybe to elaborate a little further, Brady. Uh what if the it was a you know on 8,000 acres and smaller went closer than 20 foot to a fence then the window restriction kicks in like that. That makes sense to me. So it's scalable based on Yeah. Like I like that based on location setback you're on smaller than you know you're on quarter 800. I guess if you have a greater setback I'm okay. these the minimum setbacks if it's only eight feet that's that's the concern I have I agree with that setback but if you have a larger setback I'm okay with that yeah I'd be okay with that okay I can work on that I I would I would recommend that we just eliminate that that piece that's one recommendation because

no I know we all have recommendations so it's it's

exactly and you know privacy for the larger lot versus privacy for the smaller lot let's say it is on 6,000 square foot and you have a smaller home, so you have room for that ADU. Is there an expectation that you weren't going to be 30t away from your neighbors yard? No. Because you're already in a small lot, right? So, there's an expectation that you're going to have some visibility and less privacy. Now, if you're on a 5 acre lot and you put this ADU right in the bottom corner of your 5acre lot, were you expecting people to be able to see that? probably not. But then you have room for trees. So I that's where I like

that's where the step back the step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step set step back. Right. Right. And I and I like that that approach. But I I I'm one for not limiting possibilities just for the sake of someone else's privacy when it's your and that's where I get I your property. Yeah. And and I'm okay with not limiting opportunities for for property owners, but if it does invade privacy, that's where I have a concern. Well, maybe it's maybe maybe it's simpler than lot size. Maybe it's just simple setback setbacks. I'm okay with that. If you're 20 foot or more and set back, there's no window restriction,

right? I mean, because I can envision a a smaller lot where you have a great view of the mountains over your neighbor's house, but because that's on the rear lot line, you're not allowed to have full height walkout windows on your second floor to enjoy that view. You have to have the bathroom one inch or one foot tall windows that or if you wanted a deck destroy your view. Maybe they bought the property for the view. And so it's it's and that's fine. They can still have the view, just not the ADU wouldn't have it. Well, what if that's where the primary owner is going to live?

So that's that's the restriction that's there. Restriction on on architecture and and for the sense of maybe someone might not like it, you know, or not like their privacy. Yeah. It's a balancing act trying to balance all the rights, right, for everyone. I get it. I get it. Yeah. So that's why I say eliminate it. Yeah, I like this. And that's why I say keep it. So I mean Yeah, it's we're I see it as well. I I get it. I mean, I like the setback, too, because it's like, okay, if if it's set back, you're not looking in the yard. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Okay. Well, I've got some good direction. I was going to say, do you have direction? Do you need more direction?

So, Michael, the other thing that we had talked about is a fencing requirement. Um Oh. Oh, yeah. What does the commission think about that? I don't think we should. Well, I'm sorry. What was that? I don't think so. You don't think you should require fencing? No. I mean, if the other resident doesn't like the ADU, they can put up the fence. We're allowing wood fences now, so maybe it's okay. I'm just saying, right? There are some more equitable I mean, uh, you know, little cheaper opportunities to put up a fence now. So, I'm serious, but yeah, maybe we don't change that to gauge um fencing. We're not going to worry about that.

Well, no, let me let me bring up a scenario on fencing. And because I think one thing, it's one thing to know your neighbors, but it's another if your neighbor has unknown residents rotating through their through their yard. It might be good rental and Yeah. rotating and they're the ones introducing that respons. Exactly. Yeah. I I agree. I think I think we maybe should require a fence. That's that's a valid argument. That's kind of what I'm think, you know, that's a valid argument. I can see that because because it shouldn't be the responsibility of the neighbor who's not the one that's choosing to rent the space to to build the fence just because the one next to them is like, "Well, I've decided to compromise your your property safety." Sounds like a window, too.

That's almost the same. So, wait. You're saying that it's the responsibility of someone else to protect someone else. No, I'm saying what I'm saying is is if if you're the owner Yeah. and you're deciding to build an ADU, you're introducing another entity, a renter into that environment and then you're just saying to the neighbor, sorry, your problem if they're if they're going to trespass on your property. So, so if they trespass on the property and you want to like what what's the what's stopping them from doing that? So, what's stopping the city from saying that every house that's built has to be surrounded by a fence? Because that's the exact same argument.

No, it's similar. No, it is. You're saying if it's rented similar, but not the same. Doesn't matter if it's rented or not. The ADU doesn't have to be rented. But aren't the ADUs much closer than your neighbor's house? Well, let me make it more fun. What if the sides or not? What if one of the new rent one of the new renters brings a pitbull? Who's, you know, and they didn't, the neighbors never had one up to that point. Does that mean the neighbor next to them with the little kids all of a sudden has to pay for a fence? Pit bulls are nice. They get a bad rap. So, don't use pit bulls are good dogs. I mean, it's it's a it's a valid point, but I guess the issue is they never had to do it until the ADU was there.

Yeah. But where do you put the line where it doesn't matter what your neighbor wants that you have to put up a a fence between the two of you? What if they both don't want a fence? I I go guess I land back on the same argument I did with the windows, which is to me the ordinance of an ADU is a privilege. While while yes, you're the property owner, the city doesn't have to allow a second dwelling, a secondary dwelling on that property. Well, I think it's a I think it's a privilege in that aspect that you're creating this ordinance to allow for yet a second opportunity to use that the land that you have when you're already using it for a primary purpose and that is what the city's responsibility is is to manage that aspect of it. So from that viewpoint, managing it as a privilege, well then there's going to be certain requirements that come along with that, including a fence and including certain window uh restrictions and things like that for privacy of your neighbors.

Passed this is exactly the same. What is once this is passed, it's no longer just a privilege. It's a right. Yeah. If somebody complies with all of the standards, right, it's you're obligated to issue permits. Yeah. But it's but it's we're creating this in that aspect that Yeah. I mean that's that's the case with everything, right? I mean, but it's still I view it as more of like a privilege perspective. Yeah. I just bouncing. I'm kind of stuck in the middle because I could see Yeah. What if what if having the ADU is more of a nuisance for the neighbor? But what if they don't both don't want a fence and it's like, well, I'm recording this fence in but we don't want a fence. You can get a variance to anything

for that. So come before us with uh both parties and show us that yeah we don't want it then we do it. Then we you'd have to build in some type of right exception process like a variance exception what whatever an exception for something you don't like to do or don't want to do. Yeah. I think we're going away from our original intent too which was to make something affordable affordable. Yeah. Yeah. You know, because you look at the cost of a fence and you know third 10 grand. Well, no, it's like 20 grand now. Oh, yeah. True. So, for a third of an acre. Yeah.

So, considering that, we're already pushing those prices back up. And granted, we know not a lot of people are going to utilize this. I think I would push more for the fence on the 6,000 square foot lots personally is where I would see more of a need. If it's 2 acre lots, I don't there's that buffer. But when it's these 6,000 square foot lots and you have an ADU and no fence, that's

Let me do some research on that. I I must admit it's not a requirement that I recall seeing typically in other ADU ordinances, but maybe I wasn't looking for it. So, let me let me just, you know, look at some best practices and kind of what is typical and give you a recommendation the next time we meet. And maybe on that too, Michael. So on existing lots that build an ADU that already have a fence, um maybe requiring them to have an emergency gate instead of like a like a mandor, I guess. Yeah, they definitely will have to have a Okay.

That actually brings up another point though because if we are putting a fence like are they going to be able So consider we're putting this unit in the on the side of the house where you have your um RV pad. and we are required to put up a fence. Are we going to have to, you know, we're not going to account for the pitbull? Because if you're having to completely fence off that whole part in front of it and then you have that other issue of emergency access. So, are we just going or is what we're asking is to just put up sides of a fence, sides back

going to have to fence the entire property. Maybe Michael, you can answer this. Is it required that emergency vehicles are able to access the rear of residences? Is so how does how does that like walking like a Yeah. people. People because that's a big difference. People and and cars are very different sizes. So

currently, for example, if there's a walk out on a home, we do require um a path, which is defined as concrete, asphalt or professionally laid pavers um for emergency access to that rear yard area. So something similar probably will instituted for access for the people who live in that dwelling as well as emergency services, right? But not vehicular. So, we're not trying to get fire trucks to the back of a lot. No fire doesn't require that. They have long hoses. Yeah.

Yeah. The goal is for gurnie and to eliminate tripping hazards for EMS that are coming to help. And is that part of this ADU? is that there is required path to the ADU. It's not in the current draft. Okay, that might be we might want to add it. I don't know if we can rely on other sections of the title 10, but we could add. Right. I like that. Pretty straightforward, you know, requirement. Yeah. You don't want them having to go through someone's house to get to the ADU anyway. Right. Right.

Unless it's a, you know, a carpet. So, might I say, Michael, you've done a great job in putting this together and getting ahead of what legislation will be coming from the state. We we recognize that and so I appreciate the work that's been done to get us to this point and I appreciate the discussion, too. I think it's been really good. So, hopefully you've got plenty of Is there any other input to add? Um, so under the owner part, I think legally we're going to have to look at how we're writing that out as far as owner occupied because a lot of people have our houses in trusts or potentially an LLC. So, we may need to have legal look at how we're wording that.

Yeah, I have dealt with that issue before and and I can provide more information on that because we definitely don't want the investors coming and and Right. Yep. Yeah. I And I like what Jackson was saying too, the renters, right? The corporations coming in and buying the properties and double renters that way. So clarify that too. I like that. Is there any potential for someone coming in once they have something like this built and then asking to subdivide the property? Currently, no. Um, oddly enough, Farmington is a city that has entertained that, but they are an anomaly. Yeah.

Um, it hasn't been as um, effective, I think, is what they're anticipating because of our if you have a mortgage, quite likely you have a really low interest rate and if you're doing a subdivision for an an ADU, it requires a refinance. Nobody wants to refinance to the higher rates. Mhm. So again, that's a really unusual situation. U I think in this ordinance, if I remember right, we have a phrase that saying you can't subdivide it, right? So that's not what we'reating. Yeah, probably meet the zoning requirements anyway. But yeah, you never you never know. Yeah, true. True. Well, because California does has allowed that where they can make it a separate parcel and sell it off. Yeah, that worries us.

Well, like our item number two though, right? an an ADU is a part of a larger lot and they be decide to come in subdivide it as a flag lot and it meets all the requirements. Okay. Yeah. Right. Are we looking to continue question one last uh so under ownership a family member could live in the in the ADU and then they could rent the front out. So say for example I could have my kid live in the back and then and then take care of it. That is yeah you you have to be a direct rel right that was spelled out I think in this origin sorry I didn't see so your kid rent both at that point you could have

I guess if he's a part of the trust and you know so technically I guess you're renting to your kid and you're renting to the other individual too I guess that is a double rental but I guess it's a direct family so direct it's family so that's the difference okay so do we want to continue this and have Michael bring back. I think we need to continue it. Yeah. With all those I'd like to see the changes that Yeah, I'm here. Sounds good. I thought I'd like to figure out how to write a proposal for that. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. How do you document all that in I like Daryl Darl? I'm joking. Sorry. I I have I have the notes. I don't think you need to be specific. You could just with staff direction, you know. Motion to continue with

Yeah, I motion to continue. Is that a motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion that we continue this discussion until February 4th. Right. You want a date on this, right? You want to bring We'll bring it back on the until February 4th. I'll second. Okay. So, motion by Jackson, a second by Andy. Andy, yes. Daryl, yes. Preston, yes. Heather, yes. Jackson, yes. And Brody, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Michael. Thank you, Michael.

All right. Do we have any um commission comments? I have one comment. I just want to make it clear that we do not want more density and the way that the state has made it so we have to we essentially have to have all these things that we have to do to meet requirements for the state. And so rather than having an area with more density, what we can do is we can allow these ADUs, which a lot of people still won't be able to afford them. It will probably have a better impact on our communities than having more density everywhere else. So I just And it is say that

No, I was going to say and it's going to be mandated by the state to allow the ADUs and so we're trying to get ahead of it and control what we can do. So, anything we can do to lower that, we will. Yeah. To to I'll I'll make a comment to that, too. Um, research that I've done. I mean, an ADU versus an apartment complex Yeah.

allows uh younger families to grow up in a subdivision, a neighborhood. Also, age and place. There's some scenarios where older people can move into the ADU, rent out the front the bigger house to a newer family and there's some maintenance because you get into some neighborhoods where you know there's just aging aging neighborhoods and there's nobody to take care of the yards and these ADUs kind of open it up and revitalize the neighborhood like where the parks are getting used again because there's younger families in the neighborhood and the lawns are getting maintained. All those things are benefits that I've read and seen.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so our next the next city council meeting will be January 28th and the next planning commission meeting will be February 4th. Motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. You going to call for a vote? I. All in favor? I. Thank you. Thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you. Charleston. Yeah. Well, and they windows manners windows. I mean