Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

two, three days here.

You still No authority for a while. There's a couple balloon payments coming up. Other than that, it's like a month.

What's that? Pay off. Oh, got I got the truck. I got my cell phone. I'm retired.

My lot is so big, so up and down. Basically just like I did this one.

You're okay to do it? Stay involved.

Well, the price Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. And um Angie will lead us in the pledge of

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.

Okay, it looks like we have a full quorum. Are there any conflicts of interest? Okay, seeing none, um, approval of minutes from the January 7th meeting. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for January 7th. I'll second. Thanks, Brody. Okay, so we have a motion by Heather, a second by Brody. All in favor? I.

All right. Um, item 4.1, reconsideration of a final building elevation and landscape plans for commercial development in the Copper View Plaza Building 7. Okay. Sorry, making sure the clicker was working. All right. So, we'll be looking over um an amendment to this building. Um it has come in before. Um so, we'll kind of go through that process. Uh this is up in um Mountain View Plaza, which is now Copper View Plaza. This is the area that's in. All right. So these are the new proposed elevations. Um they have stayed at majority 20 ft tall with those peaks being at 24 feet for architectural features. Then these are the sides. The lower image is the one that has the patio off of it. This is an overall image of the site including the landscaping intended for these areas. It is consistent with the rest of the site and the overall plan. Uh all zoning standards have been met. Same with engineering. And this is our list of approvals. Um I did want to call out number four uh asking for the updated parking study. Um, we've asked for that and then any amendments or TI finishes going forward. Uh, making sure that we have a parking study that shows that they are still compliant with the new uses that are coming in. Any questions?

No. Thanks. Awesome. Does the applicant have anything they want to add?

Thanks so much. Aaron Osman with the Copperview Plaza Group. Um the only thing that I wanted to add is that you may remember as a planning commission that we had originally um looked to have a two-story building here to have an event center on the top. We tried for a full year to find a tenant that would be interested and unfortunately we were unsuccessful. We were quite disappointed about that. We would love to be able to you know expand but there's just no logical reason to do it without the demand. Uh and then we we just don't feel like office is an appropriate need right now. And so we have come back with a you know a plan that is consistent with what's working for our complex over there. And I think most of you have se seen it or been over there. Um we've got a really nice thing going and we'd like to just continue that that trend. Uh any any questions from from you guys for me? Okay. Wonderful. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Okay. Discussion or a motion? I would say it appears to match the language of the rest of the facility.

I'll make a motion to approve item 4.1 with staff's four recommendations. I'll second that. Okay. So, motion by Heather, second by Jackson. Brody, yes. Jackson, yes. Heather, yes. Adam, yes. Daryl, yes. And Andy, yes. Okay, so that passes. Um item 5.1 that's been continued from January 21st. Review and consider a recommendation to amend Title 10 land development code to permit a detached accessory dwelling units.

I was about to say this is the star of the show, but when Aaron Osman is on the agenda, that's the star. So, we have really appreciated uh his development team as a good partner in the city and has brought some beautiful commercial buildings and some nice uses and I'm sure we'll continue to do so. Um so, as this item, the commission is well known is something we've been talking about for a long time. We had a formal discussion and a public hearing at our last meeting which was closed and we continued it for further discussion tonight. I've made a number of adjustments in the draft. Um that seemed to be the majority position of the commission at our last meeting. Um I'll just quickly go through a presentation. Um but in based on our conversation in the work meeting, um it appeared that we will continue that conversation in this this formal meeting tonight. So, as the commission knows, this is one of our elements of our moderate income housing plan is to study and to identify uh the appropriateness of a detached accessory dwelling unit ordinance. These um mother-in-law apartments, granny flats, you know, they've been around for a long time. Typically, they've often been done uh kind of with without permits, right? They just happen organically within our communities. We've been in very sensitive in the past about having a second dwelling unit in a place that traditionally or even legally requires just a single family dwelling. With all of the changes in our economy, uh that trend has changed so significantly since I began my career as a city planner over 25 years ago. Um and uh this is something of course that we were required by the state to address in an internal accessory dwelling unit. Um

but now we're looking at this detached component. Um so just a quick overview of these features. Um it uh we are identifying that this use if compliant with all of the standards would be permitted would not require a conditional use permit. meaning that someone could come to the city and apply for a building permit as long as they meet all the standards. They have an expectation of approval. It's all administrative. We're proposing that the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. Now, we recognize that that is a very small lot and typically in Herman, we see larger homes on small lots and what is left is often a very small rear yard. And so the proposal is anticipating that we have all of these different standards, these different requirements. And if someone cannot fit the ADU in their backyard because they don't have enough size on a 6,000 foot lot, then that's that's the result of that process. Um, it may also be that we might see a very small ADU and as long as that ADU again meets all of the health standards, all the building permit requirements, I'm not sure where the drawback is for the city and having a smaller detached ADU. In fact, those are the units that would be obviously more affordable. And that's why the state has really been looking at this is trying to create some micro affordability in a very gentle way within our communities. And so at one point in time we had even questioned as a commission you may recall do we even need a minimum and I mentioned to you that it looks like at least a draft proposal that the state is considering doesn't have a minimum. Now that doesn't mean that that's going to be adopted. In fact they may not adopt anything at all this year. Um but our proposal is that to have that threshold at 6,000 square feet. Certainly that is something that

that um you have the opportunity to modify further uh and the council as well um and and that's appropriate. Um, we we did also indicate that we have a preference from the administration to try and keep the size of these ADUs down a little bit smaller, thousand square feet or 50% maximum of the size of the um of the existing home that's on the property, the single family home. Last draft had a 20 foot maximum. Um, it was discussed that the commission would be more comfortable with a 25- foot maximum envisioning living space over a detached garage. And that's a classic form for a detached ADU as you know. Uh, so that was adjusted in this this ordinance. As we talked about the setbacks, uh, 10 foot rear, 8 foot side. Um, and there is already in the built in our codes what that what the separation distance is between an accessory structure and the principal dwelling. um that is as a flat rule um that's larger than what we require for accessory structures. And as far as like administrating this code, there is some rationale for saying why not make the setbacks be the same as what we require for an accessory structure. The converse to that is thinking well now we're talking about an accessory structure that has occupancy, right? Not just even occasional occupancy like we see sometimes you'd have like a maybe a home office or a workout or a craft room or something that's in an accessory structure, right? It has some degree of occupancy but not not a dwelling space. So the thinking is well maybe we should try and move that further away from a property line now that we have maybe more likelihood of impacting um uh privacy on an adjacent property. So that's that's kind of the rationale for

that. But I can also see the other like from an administrative point of view, if you allow an accessory structure to be six feet from the property line or five feet, why not a detached 80? This has the same kind of bulk impact at least on an adjacent property. Um we have this requirement here that essentially design should be compatible with the home. We introduced um a provision in this draft that would give some flexibility with planning commission review and this was something that we have done and is in our current code for single family dwellings and it's been used not very often but when the commission has seen these requests I think we've seen some good results. Um, but with the change by the state statute and not really allowing a lot of standards for single family homes, we haven't seen this kind of request come before the commission. But it is a tool we've used before. And so this draft would say, how about if somebody wants to consider a modification of these standards under the uh detached accessory dwelling unit ordinance, they could come before you. They have to justify their request. there needs to be some type of architectural uh rationale or justification or enhancement that goes along with that request. Um again, the owner occupancy that was in the previous um requirement. A lot of cities um do have this as a standard and we beefed up that language as to what an owner occupant means. How is that enforced? How is that um if there's a challenge, what are the documentations that are required to be submitted to the city? Um again, we've maintained that um no short-term rental and that's anything over 30 days. So any the any type of rental in these ADUs has to be longer than 30 days and that's the same for internal uh accessory dwelling units. Now I threw just like last time I threw in uh the presentation just for reference. We're not going to read

through everything, but if you want to look at a specific section of the code and talk about it, I have all of these images uh that were also in your packet. Um, from kind of our quick discussion we had in our work meeting tonight, I just throw out some of these potential options that sound like the commission may be interested in in discussing further. So whether or not we want to limit or allow an internal uh and detached ADU on the same lot. Um, it isn't, and I apologize, it does say in this draft you can only have one detached accessory dwelling unit. Um, there's a recommendation that we combine the internal and accessory or the detached accessory dwelling unit into one chapter. And I think in my mind I was thinking that that draft would also have that provision. But you can specify if you only want one ADU of whatever type. That could be a recommendation from the commission. Um or if you want to allow I know that one of the ideas that happened uh or at least internally among our team was perhaps smaller lots only one but if it's a bigger lot like maybe was mentioned in the work meeting um what that threshold is but a bigger lot could accommodate a larger you know having internal and and detach potentially. Um, again, from this uh state draft that we looked at just quickly today, um, it does allow two off- streetet parking stalls uh for ADUs that are larger than 650 ft. Um, our current draft has just one off- streetet parking stall for the detached ADU. So, this would potentially increase parking for that larger that larger uh detached ADU. So, that's an option. um if there are any further design um standards or you know guidelines that the commission would like to see, we we certainly have some expertise in um uh architects that

are on our commission tonight. So if you feel like there's something additional you'd like to propose, that certainly is an option. Um and as mentioned earlier, is it an option to modify the uh uh setbacks to mirror the accessory structure setbacks? Is there some rationale that would support that? And then of course anything else that you want to continue talking about tonight. Uh like last time, the recommendation is that the commission make a motion to recommend approval to the city council of the draft. Again, we'd like to still uh combine these two sections of the code into one that will improve our administration of the codes. And again, if you have anything additional that you would like to add um as a motion. Um, alternatively, again, if there's still too many moving parts, if you would like to re see this again, we can bring this back to you again with any additional modifications. Um, our goal is to staff's goal is to at least have a briefing with the city council as to where we are at uh in a work session uh in their uh their meeting on the 25th of February. Um, so whe whether or not you um provide a motion tonight for recommendation to approve or continue, uh, I wanted to keep the council up to date on as to what work we've been doing. So with that um happy to take any questions or if the commission desires to have discussion uh you know deliberations among yourself, however you would like to proceed. Uh Madame Chair,

um let's open it up and see what the commissioners have to say. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Michael before he I've got one. I have one, too. Hopefully, this is an easy easy question. I just don't remember how everything works, but is there uh on the short-term rental issue, are there any places in town where short-term rental is allowed? And would there be an overlay issue? So, as I recall, our office professional zone, it's actually the only zone that allows for it, and it's in a we only have one area in the city. It's very small. Um, and we don't have any short-term rentals in that area. There's been no request for it. However, as you know, could be built in that area.

What's that? So, no ADUs could be in that area.

Uh, no. So, if if there's a an existing single family home, so it it's it that's a good question because it says for residential use and that's a commercial zone. We'd have to look at that. But still, so that's where short-term rentals uh could be, but we don't not not by code or at least not by permit. And then I think we allowed some in the um the Olympia MDA, as you recall, there was some interest in doing something like that closer to the mountains in their later phases, part of their recreation amenities or or development uh concepts. But again, nothing's been developed that would permit a short-term rental within that MDA. Now, if you go online, we've done some studies. We know, of course, that there are short-term rentals in the city. Um, and at this point in time, it doesn't appear that the council has had an appetite to change that, but it's a new council. I don't I don't really know where we are at, you know, from the legislative point of view right now. It's just not allowed.

Okay. I just don't know if it needed to be written to account for that. Yeah. Okay. That was the case. Yeah. Michael, um, real quick, so the two off- streetet parking stalls for the ADUs larger than 600 ft. 650 ft. That's the in the bill that you had referenced, right? Um, does the state have a requirement for a number of parking stalls for a single family residents? They said, again, this came up relative to the internal accessory dwelling unit ordinance, right?

And it said essentially that if a city has four off- streetet parking stalls already that we couldn't require an additional one for internal. So that's the cities, but does the state have That's what the state said. So the state said that and so we've had to mirror that essentially. Okay. So the state says you can't add additional ones to the four for an internal, right? But do they have a minimum parking stalls requirement? Uh no, that that would be Yeah, that would be left up to the city. Yeah, Herman has a higher threshold than probably what the state is thinking. And so but we can't require more than what the state has said. Right. Right. Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah. Just

so again, we looked at that issue because we wondered, well, are we okay to require anything for the detached ADU? And right now, the way the current state code is, it is silent on detached ADU parking.

Is the u the council anxious to to get this information? They are. They They certainly have heard from residents um that they're interested. At least some we we did take uh public testimony last time. We had one resident who was concerned and did not feel like this was necessarily appropriate or or the best solution for the city. We had one that came before you and said that they were very supportive of it. So obviously there are different opinions, different positions within our city. Um, I think the other thing was often times when the state legislature is looking at enacting uh a mandate, they look at, okay, how many cities are allowing something, you know, what what are the cities doing? And I think we wanted to report that we were actively proactively working on our proposal. So, we didn't necessarily need a mandate from the state in order to at least bring it forward, you know, for commission and council consideration. That was that was our desire, right? They're in session right now and we just wanted to respond to com citizen requests, have this before you and the council and do our due diligence. Right. For me, I I I like what's been done. I don't have any concerns. I do like two things. Um, so I wouldn't limit I I think it's fine to have an internal and a detach, but we can't have more than one detached, right? is the way it's written right now. Correct.

Correct.

Right. So, I just want to make sure that's clear. So, I have a problem with number one, leaving that alone. Um, and then we talked in the meeting. It'd be nice to get rid of the requirement where uh the height of the structure would be tied to the primary structure just to allow it 25 ft. And I'm okay making that change. So, I would change that on that one. Uh, I kind of like the idea of the two off- streetet parking stalls for any ADU larger than 650. A lot of times you get something larger than that. It's, you know, it's maybe a young couple or young family. They might each have their own vehicle as well. So, I personally don't I I like the idea of maybe requiring the two where ours is only requiring one. So, I would I I kind of like that idea. Um, the rest I I don't think we want to modify the setbacks. I I agree that with the 247 residential use, I think you need to have those setbacks from your from your neighbors. it. So for me, I would leave it as is. I would uh remove the uh requirement for uh that would tie in the structure to the primary structure and then require the two off street parking. So for me, that's my idea. That would be my recommendation.

Sure. Let let me just understand what what you just said. You're okay with a maximum 25 ft, correct? Regardless if the uh primary unit is shorter than that. I think that's a cleaner way to present. Otherwise, it gets too messy. Yeah. And then uh the the two off streetet parking become problematic. It it actually will serve to limit those that can gain a permit for this. Yeah. But again, if it's like like a home like mine where you got a threecar garage and you know, you're going to meet the two two requirements because I've got six and the requirement right now is four and so you have to have six. What were you saying about the setbacks?

Not changing them. Leave it. Leave it as is to have a greater setback for the uh detached when they're a dwelling unit to have this greater setback than just the the lesser regular. I don't know. I'm just thinking about different exceptions if there's a way for them to come in and say, "Hey, actually, I back a hill or something like that where it's like that's always that's that's the part that I like where there's an exception. Exactly. Okay. You back a hill and no one's building behind you. There's no neighbors. You know what I mean? Yeah. So, what I see there is uh you have an existing garage that's much shorter setbacks and now you want to put a ADU up on top of it. Yeah.

So then you have to come back in for variance. Yeah. Correct. We did address that again. We the proposal is any accessory structure that predates the adoption of this ordinance, even if they don't comply with the new standards for a detached ADU. If the homeowner wants to convert that to a DA D ADU, they could still request that and and that would require um commission review. So there is a at least a pathway for a non-compliant pre-existing structure to be converted as long as it meets, you know, I think that standards of the code. Yeah.

And I like that it's not just shutting the public down. It's saying, hey, you'll have your opportunity and if it plays out, then not opposed to it, right? Because yeah, we have passed some stuff that were said it's like an ADU, but they can't rent it out yet. Hey Mike, maybe it's somewhere and I just missed it. Do we have anything on the connections like water connection, sewer connection? So I haven't specified that. Um because I know the council is will want to weigh in on that and perhaps the administration. The concern is um if we require separate meters um then we're doing road cuts.

Yeah. And that's up. There's also question of impact fees. So, as you notice, this doesn't address that. I think that's going to be more of a policy issue with the council. It's interesting at this point in time, there hasn't been a strong preference given by at least among the staff and and when I've done this code in other cities, I saw the same thing. I was the engineering department, public works, they didn't really take a strong position. um because it just impacts costs and they kind of left it up to the homeowner like do you want to

pay all those fees and and you know anyway so right now it's silent. It doesn't say but I I suspect the council will weigh more definitively on that issue. So I'm with Andy. I actually don't really care about the setbacks. I'd lessen them. I I personally don't have an issue with it. My bigger concern is the roadway cuts. I think we should limit it should be very difficult for people to have to add another meter and another sewer line in my opinion because then it starts to impact the city's infrastructure. So that that that's more my concern and I know that's that's

that's that's my only concern that I think council needs to really think about is if you're doing a roadway cut once you cut a road and every civil engineer and surveyor up here knows that that permanent bump it it there is no there is no coming back to that and so to me that degrades the roadway and I know a lot of people are like well we got to meter it and I would just argue I would prefer prefer to have it be a little more let it all be handled on the lot issue. It should be the owner's issue, not the not the cities, which is what it is right now. As long as you're making that clear for council. Yes.

Right now that I I think we should make it clear in my opinion that it needs to be a a very difficult lot or there's an extra fee if you cut our roads. Yeah. And of course the impact I think the council look at it as a source of income. What that source of income comes with cost is a lot I know we look at that from a permit fee but the roadway never comes back.

Never comes back. So, I mean, I know when I've been a public works uh when I used to run a public works team that did inspections, it was it had to be a big deal for it to even be replace a curb because of the sheer impact of cutting that road. And I know has a standard on that as well to try and minimize those cuts. But I've noticed in our city,

we don't do that and our roadways are suffering because of that. So again, that's something you could either include in a motion or if you even want to make it as an advisory recommendation, however you would want to communicate that to the council. Okay,

it's your pleasure. Well, and there is the option of having that reviewed by us, like if someone does want to add another meter because they're already maxed out on, you know, their gas or or electric or whatever and they want to add ADU. Or if you have a farm and you're already maxed out, you know, they can come back to us and say, "Yeah, I'd like to do a meter, separate meter, separate water, separate sewer, whatever." And I would rather have that be the exception rather than

Right. Right. Right. So, so that would be my recommendation is to actually include the requirement that they keep their current connections. Some folks may do it for convenience because their EDU is on the opposite side of their meter and everything. Well, and for rent purposes, too, if they want to separate everything. Increase your rent, cover it. Yeah. And I again I only am looking at what I feel that the city would be dealing with the impacts longer term before. Yeah,

I can see that. I think I could be advisory to the council. Huge, huge issue. I mean, if you're able to build something bigger than 650 square feet, you're probably going to have that second spot anyways. Hopefully. Do we need to require that? I am worried about that requiring two rather than just the one. You don't think we should? I don't think we should. Isn't it already in the proposal for the legislature for two?

That would be state code though. So if I'm just asking what if here what if the state does go through then we would have to do that right so maybe I guess we could maybe be silent for a minute until the state does but right require it I did not catch that and again you asked the question how much weight does this draft have I don't know yeah well well maybe it makes sense not to even mention it in our aspect and let that be worked out city council And

you know, when they go through the permit process, if they have to get a, you know, a second meter, a second sewer line because they're already maxed out, then that's part of the process. Yeah. I almost wonder if you said you have to have two unless you can prove why you don't need to. I like that. Yeah. Cuz like in my neighborhood, it's wide open parking on the street. Yeah. Whereas I know there are other neighborhoods where it's not the same. So if there's something where you can say I have tons of parking out front that can justify it.

Yeah. You're saying on a bigger lot there's a lot more frontage. So why not take advantage of that area versus on a small lot where it's like six. That's where we're definitely not having the we're having more of a parking challenge, right? Or like in the case of like my lot, it's corner lot. I have a lot. I have almost 240 feet of potential parking along my my frontage. So, well,

if I'm just I'm skimming this draft, excuse me, the the state draft that is under consideration. It says a land use regulation described in saying that cities can have land use regulations uh for these detached ADUs. Um, it says that we may prohibit a detached accessory dwelling unit if essentially the detached accessory dwelling unit will not have adequate access to required services or um that the services to which the detached accessory dwelling unit is required to connect does not have sufficient capacity to support the addition of the detached accessory dwelling in it to the utility service. So, they're thinking like if there's not capacity, then that could be a hard no. But if the capacity does exist, it looks like they would say that we would need to have an ordinance that would allow the connection. But again, this is just a draft. But we could be in there and just really uh well, can we make it just say you're not allowed a second connection unless there's a capacity issue and you need to come before the you know I guess that's a again a variance then that could come.

It sounds like the same thing just said just worded differently. Yeah. For me I kind of feel like the administration can navigate that personally. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know if we need to get involved. I I don't necessarily want to be involved, but I I agree with that. And we don't want them coming in and doing a bunch of cuts. What about the 80s? I mean, you have uh uh like the parking for ADUs larger than 650. At what point do they become a whole new lot? I mean, there's houses in Rose Park and Glendel and White City that are 800 square feet. So, again, we This does say a thousand is your maximum.

Thousand maximum. it. Um I'm trying to recall I think when I did my first ADU ordinance in another municipality I think we did 800 was our max but in Herman we tend to like things bigger. All I'm saying is there's whole subdivisions that are based on 800 square foot homes. Right. Right. Right. What what about if we just had a requirement that they have a parking stall which is already in there. We have and that's how it is right now. That's what I'm saying. I I think we should just just leave it alone. I'm le I'm leaning on no matter what the size is

and maybe we actually regulate that there is nothing bigger than I don't know to me six you I kind of agree with what you're saying Darl is we're not trying to build another home here long-term home. We're building a like the the definition that you use for these facilities are more for potentially minor extra income or helping out family member. You know, you it's not right. It's not another home, right? But there is a provision that it has to be 50% less. It has to be under 50% of the main house, which I also Is that the main floor?

But yeah, that was my question. Is that the main floor or the total? That was like for the small house like if you have a tiny house that footprint or the total square footage if it's multi-le total square footage that's the ordinances that we modeled this off of that was recommended by AP they were saying thousand square foot total. So they could have, you know, if it fits on a 500 foot square foot space and they go two stories, they can do that as long as that 500 fits within the So the majority of the homes in Haramman, if you're including total square footage, you're going to be over 2,000. So you could easily be a thousand. But whichever is less is the requirement. Yeah. There might be some less than that,

right? Am I reading that right? I mean, that's building a whole new house. Not I on the on square footages, you know, you're usually about 600 650 a little bit more for a for a one-bedroom apartment. Uh about 900 for a two-bedroom, and then uh 1,000 would probably wouldn't you could maybe squish a threebedroom in, but not really. Yeah, that'd be really tiny. Yeah, it' be it I wouldn't want to rent it if it was me, right? Yeah. a thousand foot around 11 to,200 for a threebedroom. So the reality is we're talking two twobedroom apartments and below.

Well, the whole purpose of this is to give people somewhere to stay a residence that's smaller and cheaper. Yeah. And so the purpose is to actually create another house just smaller. One bedroom or twobedroom, right? So 650 is like a onebedroom. The 10,000 would be a twobedroom. But if it gets too big, what does that do to our ordinances for subdivisions? I'm just wondering. Sorry, I didn't mean to. Go ahead, Derek. You mean subdividing the the lot after it's already been built? Well, you might as well. He's saying you effectively did. Whether you subdivided it or not, you put two lots, two houses on a lot. Yeah. Essentially, well, that's what this is doing anyway. Except you can't sell it.

Yeah. Yeah. We won't allow the subive aspect, isn't it? like Mhm. can't subdivide it and sell it, right? So maybe I'm not seeing where's what is the maximum then that we're allowed thousand which makes sense. That's just for the ADU, not the full structure. Correct. You're right at that pointable space. Yeah, the occupiable space. So it should just be a thousand. It's fine. Yeah. I'm just wondering, do we just not if it's 650 or a,000 and it's a little bit bigger or roomier? I don't think we really care. You're saying for the parking? For the parking. Okay. Yeah, I'm okay if we drop that.

It may come back to us anyway if the state dictates it. But either way, I mean, the state could dictate anything and it would have to Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I'm just thinking for Haramman, we ought to really cut out the ambiguities in all this and just be point blank. It's this big. It's this tall. It's this wide and one stall. So, let's do that then. Do it. Can we go to the table? Yeah. You want to go to the table? That way we can just right there. Oh, sorry. Does anybody disagree with the minimum lot size? No. No. No. I think we just say thousands. What? What? I do, but I don't vote. So,

I think because of the requirements that are placed, you think it needs to be bigger. So, Riverton, South Jordan, Mil Creek, they're all 12. So, I don't know why we would go smaller, but I I lean on I think 12's a little on the large side, but I think six is a little on the small side, to be honest. I think I think I think are limited. The setback's regulated anyway. I was going to say you're not going to get it on a 6,000 lot anyway. That's what I'm wondering is realistically with the setbacks and the you're not going to get it unless it's a really small home on it. Yeah, that's that's the reality of it. So, and and if there's a small home, I don't have a problem. If there's a way they can make it to work, why not? Yeah. On a smaller lot. Well, but with the setbacks, it's you're not going to get a thousand footprint either.

No, absolutely not. It'll be a small on a tiny lot. Exactly. Yeah. I I don't like this. I think we should lower the setbacks. So that's where I would increase the lot size because I I find setbacks to be a waste of a waste of space to be honest in some areas. We talked about grass. It becomes it becomes non-maintainable garbage land and and so I I just am more of a fan of less setback especially because these are accessory dwelling units which are near accessory units. So, so for me, I this this is just my opinion. Have a match.

I would rather match setback sizes and just increase the minimum lot size to 8,000 for for my opinion because I I really find setbacks, especially on accessory units. I get the main home, but they become stupid in some areas. And so, we take a good a better looking product Mhm. and squish it up to the houses to to the other parts of the infrastructure. So that that's again my opinion, but there is also a setback requirement from the main unit as well. Yeah, but let's Right. So if you had a it's not listed here, but there is major builds an ADU. Another one builds an ADU. I don't care if they're touching.

They're three feet from each other. Okay. It's down to the windows are looking in.

Well, we have we have approved houses that do that that are 3 ft apart. So what I'm saying is like in Town Center literally we have I've seen this happen. We've all seen it where they build the foundation in the wrong spot and because they both have windows they technically encroach on each other's window wells encroach. So that means they are six feet apart structure to structure. What I'm trying to say is why don't we allow that for tinier homes, but we're okay with that with big giant homes. Like every one of these houses soon as we go out, they're they're near that close. So that's why to me setbacks are kind of a waste.

But but we do have the the ability to review that if they come to us and say, "Hey, no one's around me. I've got a lot that backs up to the mountain. Can I go within six feet of the of the rear lot line? You know, we can review that and then we can accept that. And and I'm more of a why have something that they're going to come in here and cry and we're all going to go, "Okay, we feel bad for you and do it anyway." So, because to me it's a have or have not. And I would rather just let it be a have. Like there's no reason for us to dictate it. Now, now I could say maybe we cut it in half or five or four, but to me, if we just tied it to the setback requirements or if they go up taller, then they move back a little bit. Yeah.

Yeah. If we if we tied it to the accessory setback requirements per zone, I still don't there is a know why we wouldn't do that. I feel about that in there. If I remember right, you can go taller, but you had to increase your setbacks or something to that, right? And the accessory structure ordinance, right? I I mean, just looking at my yard right now, that's what I'm thinking. We all do that, I'm sure. I live on a corn I live on a corner lot with a trail behind me. I can't put that shed, which I feel like you should eight feet to the trail. Yeah.

So then that eight feet becomes nothing because we all know the structure will make the landscaping not work. Like I'm just saying so to me it would be better to push it closer to the fence or at least maybe mimic what we've done in Town Center where we've done six foot structure to structure. I feel fine with that. I'm just saying we've done that and we've done it at mass scale on permanent homes. Why don't we do that? Just again my opinion. Yeah, I'm just trying to see it.

If I may, you may recall that we recently had a commission and council consider a reduction in rear yard setback for access accessory structures when it was adjacent to open space, right? Yep. Which is we could add that here. Um you could reduce it to I think it was five feet if I remember right. Um and that's or again if you want to access the same setback as to what is required for accessory structures me that would just make it easy for staff. It'd be easy for everybody to look at the table. Well then plus stuff that's already built. It's not like you're having to like oh I have to go get an exception. So let me ask a question. Gets transitioned.

If we if we go with this which anyhow if we go with that there is a requirement here for height. So um it says for every 1 foot of building height above 16 ft one additional foot in interior side and rear setback is required. Yep. Which are you okay keeping those that was as a part of it? So 16 feet you don't you you can do your minimum setback but for every foot you go above 16 feet you got to have another foot of additional setback. Yeah that's referring to the existing accessory structure ordinance. Am I looking at the wrong one? Yeah, that was that I included the accessory structure ordinance as an exhibit in there so that you would have that for context.

I still think that should be there for I guess for accessory buildings again uh 25 ft in this current draft. So accessory buildings change depending on 30 feet over half acre and under 11,000 ft to half an acre is 25. Both of those are contingent on if the primary structure is less than it is the height of the primary structure.

And she has reviewed a lot of permits to know that. So, if we said same setback requirements as accessory buildings and then 25 foot height, then we're covered. Mhm. Now, I'll be the contrarian and say I' I don't mind the setbacks. The 25 foot I like. I would uh change the minimum lot size to 8,000 and the floor area to 800 10% of it. Wait, what would you change to 800? The maximum floor area is does that mean footprint or is that

Yeah. Is that like floor area? Total total total square footage of the of the habitable. But Jackson, you're saying like a 900 is a reasonable twobedroom. Yeah. 950. That's I think I think I Yeah. A,000. I'm okay with a,000. Me too. at even 1,200. But adding a dining nook to your twobedroom.

I kind of get stuck on if you have a 1acre lot like build a 1500 square foot ADU. I don't care. Yeah, but that's like like we saw earlier that's like 100 homes in Herman. We're not talk like really we're talking about more of the quarter acre. I mean I was looking at that graphic Heather showed us earlier. Really? Yeah. when we when if we were to limit it at 12,000 the 12,000 and larger is like 300 to 400 units total across Haraban. Yeah.

Our biggest number is the 8,000 to 6,000. We actually have a healthy amount of those and then we have a heck of a lot of the 6,000 and smaller lots. Well, and if the legislation goes through, it doesn't matter because then legislation says you can't restrict any lot size from having ADUs. Yeah. If that goes through if that goes through. So that but it doesn't is it silent on that or is it No, it says that we would need to write an ordinance that would permit a detached ADU on any lot that has a legal single family home on it. Does it say anything about setbacks in that

man? I I know I'm wrong, but my mind's going to a tent city across Haramman. I know. So, but I didn't realize that's a tent city across Utah. Owner occupied is what is the key on that? Owner occupied. Not a lot of people want want that. One ADU and owner occupied. Yeah. Well, no. I'm good with the two ADUs having if you wanted to rent out your basement and then have one internal, one detached. But that's Yeah, I'm more as long as it's owner occupied. I do not care how you do it. One to be honest. That's it. Which I agree. Won't be attention.

All right. So, I'm try in my head. We'll start back at the top. If we went with 8,000, I think that seems reasonable. I like 8,000 and I'm okay with that. If we're going with a less lesser setback, if we're reducing the setback, I would want to go with a larger minimum lot size. I think 8 8,000 with setbacks being accessory dwelling or accessory. What if it was 7,000 maybe a little There may be a few out there that do work. If it well, if the state goes away from it, we're going to have to reissue relook at this, right? If they go away from any minimums, we'll have to it'll have to have to accept it.

What is our minimum allowed in the city? 6,000 10. It's just MDAs that are allowed for six. Unless it's in an MDA. Yeah. Then it's negotiated, right? I don't. Yeah. But it didn't hurt. Have we ever gone We've gone less than 6,000 on MDA. Maybe. So, it sounds like 4,000. Oh, yeah. Much. All right, Mike. It seems like maybe this is premature. I mean, if maybe we should hold off and see what the state says. And again, the interest of the city is one, we have residents who are asking for this now. And two, we do want to communicate. I mean, just we we want to

demonstrate that we are making progress on our moderate income housing uh obligation. And I think we're now going into our fourth year and that was one of our objectives and it is something that we need to make progress on. I I think there's some good reasons that are beneficial to the city to move forward. Obviously, it needs to be a draft that the commission can recommend, right? Are they are we expecting the state to come up with something in the next uh 40 days of legislature? Well, again, what I quoted from you tonight is a draft that has been enrolled. Um, then what will happen with it, I don't know. They can change it again next year. Mhm.

True. Or the year after that. I mean, I I don't think we, you know, honestly, we kept hearing for the last couple of years they were going to do something. They were going to do something. And so, we were waiting, but they weren't obviously nothing happened. And so, it became just felt expedient for us to do something. Now, again, we've had residents who have been saying to our council, "We need this tool. We want this tool, and the council wants to consider it."

So, what if we did, and I I don't want to do a motion because I don't want to make everybody else have to go my way, but I'm leaning on 7,000 foot minimum lot, thousand square foot maximum total. You can't get bigger than a thousand. I don't care if you have it bigger. So, are you eliminating the 50? Yep. Yeah. Okay. No, no bigger. Sorry. An ADU just can't be bigger than 1,000. Uh maximum can't be taller than 25 ft. Don't care what you're thinking. Can't be taller than 25 ft. I think change the setbacks to match the accessory units since that's what we already have done and approved. And yeah, I think it's easier for the residents.

It would to me it would make more sense. I I want to build a I'll just say when I'm younger I may want to build a garage and then when I'm older turn it into an apartment. So that's that's why I'm saying just tie it to that. And then you do have to have one off- streetet parking. That's kind of what I think seems reasonable. Still allows for growth and things. Mhm. Um it allows the council and Mike to actually move forward and come up with an actual decision. And then I do think we say minimize cutting the roadways. tie your utilities to your current utilities and everything can still be case by case. Those are

like can we can we make it a requirement that they not do it unless there is a I would say there's a requirement unless there is a large impact fee would be my recommendation for city council to the only time I could see them wanting to or needing that to happen is if the the current meters did not have the capacity to accommodate it. It actually I actually think it would be more the sewer cuts. This is what I think will happen is the sewer cut. If you think in backyard, if you think about your most of your laterals are coming off your front yard, your backyard, if it's sloped the wrong way, will actually be very difficult to gravity back. Mhm.

So, I actually think because of that, we will end up with a large amount of sewer cuts. Water capacity I don't think will be an issue. It will be the sewer cuts. Sewer cuts are dictated by the line, the main line in the road anyway. The the elevation of those. So, and that's what I'm saying, but that's a cut in the roadway where trying to push them out of that. And I agree, but all I'm saying is if it's low enough, you're never going to get that one to drain to it. You're not going to be able to even have it. No, you're you're going to have to do you're going to have to do like a septic, which you can't you can't do a septic. You can't do septic septic, but you do you do pump. But what I'm saying is if your unit is lower than the pipe in the road, you can't get a pump. Yeah. Yeah. You can pump. That won't happen. What I'm trying

Yeah. What I worry about is there will be more you I mean you'll get we need to have something that allows the city to recoup some cost for the damage to the roadway. That that to me is what I'm trying to say. So I think that's on the city council. We'll put in do not cut the road without a large impact fee and the council can come up with whatever that seems to be fair. Well fine. Yeah, I guess so. I want to say that engineering uh proposed a uh some engineering standards for road cuts and and and the age of the road and what kind of cuts have to be done. And I think there's a standard for that if I'm not wrong. There there is now. And and it's very costly if the age of the road is

less than Yeah, I can't remember what it is. And two or three years probably. It's huge. With the warranty period, a lot of that is important. So maybe it's already addressed. A two-year moratorium, you can't cut the rope, which is good. Yeah, it should be that way. People need to plan ahead. And well, I'll compromise and go with 7,000 and 1,000. I like a fixed 25. Uh, personally, I'm okay with the current setbacks and one off streetet parking. Yeah, I'm okay with the setbacks, but if a motion was made otherwise, I would accept it. I like setbacks matching accessory.

I think it makes it simpler for the residents to understand and use what they already have if they want to convert it. Yeah. Do you think that people are going to do um accessory building permitting to get a higher elevation? Because we're maxing this at 25, but if we allow 34, right? 34 35 35. It's up to 30. Up to 30. That's over half, right? But you're talking about the single family home, right? Yeah. Yeah. family is up to 35 35. Yep.

Right. I guess um so if we allow the accessory structure to be higher than we would for the detached um dwelling. Do you see what I'm saying? saying 25 the same like we're maxing it out at 25 but we're allowing you know our sheds to be huge. I don't know does that make sense? So sheds can go up to 30 for half acre and larger. That's the issue. So so minimum that I don't I will say it's pretty uncommon. Okay.

Uh generally what you're saying is possible. Um, but it's it would affect very few lots that we currently have left. And we went that big, if you remember, was more like I want my writing arena on those big lots. And that's a whole different topic. Okay. In my opinion, but again, not

currently again our position for the administration is we were interested in proposing this, but we were coming more from a more conservative. We're looking, we think it's probably better possibly to have a smaller detached ADU than maybe things that are as large as some of our accessory structures that we currently build, right? Because it starts feeling like it's just a second house, right? So, and all these things factor into that dimension that might be permitted, but I feel like what Adam's saying makes sense for our first go at it. We can someone can always come back and say, "Hey, look, this doesn't make sense." And make ask for a modification.

Sounds like Brody wants to make a motion. Well, just to clarify first before that, so we are going to require the design to match the home, right? Or what was what did everyone compatible? Okay. And then owner occupancy, we were going to require, right? Right. Those are all both in there, correct? Okay. And then no short-term rentals. Right. Right. Okay. And that's in there. Right. Okay. I think that was everything that was on there. I think right now it says that you can't have two ADUs, though. Well, I think you'd want to specify that because it's not it's silent on that. Yeah. Right now it just says one detached ADU. You can only have one detached is

right. But if but in combining the internal and the accessory chapters together, that was my recommendation that we do that. If you want to specify to permit or allow that, then do that in your motion. All right. So, I think I can do it in my motion and you can interrupt me, Mike, if I miss something. Is that okay? So, I'd like to make a recommendation to city council on item 5.1 with staff's recommendations. I need that chart, though. Oh, you want that chart? Yeah. Okay. with an adjustment that the minimum lot size is 7,000 square ft. The MAC I'm just going to say the maximum floor area is 1,000 square ft. Period.

Period. Maximum height is 25 ft. Period. Rear and sideyard setbacks match the the accessory units, accessory structures that we avoid cutting the road in any way possible and city council should think of an impact fee if we do. But I I want them just to hear that. So, so if you

um to require in all cases that this is owner occupied only and that there is allowed the ability to be an accessory dwelling unit and a internal dwelling unit and a detached total internal accessory internal and external. Yeah, internal and external. That is my motion. What about street parking? It's already there. And then the one one additional off- streetet parking. Yeah, I was just I was only trying to go with stuff that I didn't quite see. So that's my motion. I'll second that. Good job.

Okay, so we have a motion by Adam, a second by Jackson. Andy, yes. Daryl, yes. Adam, yes. Heather, yes. Jackson, yes. And Brody, yes. All right. Um, chair and commission comments. I think just um just want to thank Clint for his Yes, absolutely. for his efforts and we'll miss him. We want to thank Clint who's not listening.

Clint, we'll miss you. Thank Thank you. And congratulations. By the way, if I may, have you technically hit your five years yet? February 1st. Just barely at five years. When when we met Clint, we interviewed, this is during COVID and his first interview was online and we learned about where he lives down in Utah County and I said, "We have got to save this man. We've got to shorten his commute. Yeah, we got to do anything. Says the guy that drives from to

This is true, but not as far as where you were driving.

Yeah. And um I remember on one of my uh Fridays off, you know, we alternate our schedules. He's here, I'm off. I remember feeling so relieved knowing that whatever Clint does while I'm gone, I can totally trust. I totally trust his professionalism. Um, we were just so in line and it has been an absolute pleasure to work with him and he has been a huge part in curating our team. We have a tremendous um sense of team right now. We are called the planning whales by the way and that's whales as in meaning we live large right we yeah we are the planning whales. So, we will miss We've missed Sheldon a ton.

I've had Sheldon on our phone a friend line. We've called him a few times and I've told Clint, yeah, he can expect the same treatment. So, yeah. Well, that's right. My hippie friend's coming back. Yeah, Clint, thank you. I things have just gotten better since you've been here, honestly. So true. Easier to get through the packets, everything. Thank you.

I told people um the community development department here is probably the best I've worked with just in terms of um like there there's no egos. Everybody wants to collaborate. Everybody wants to help. And uh in other cities I've been in, you know, talking to an engineer, and this is no offense to engineers or anything like that, but uh you know, I've always felt kind of lesser than. So, our team here, our community development department is is really second to none. And that makes it really hard to lead. But I I think the people that we have in place, I think, you know, Lauren and Mike and Amanda,

I don't have any concerns. It's just going to continue to go that way. Okay, thank you. We appreciate you. Um, future meetings, next city council meeting February 11th and the next planning commission meeting February 18th. Uh, motion to adjurnn. So moved. Um, Andy and second. Thank you. All in favor? I I Thank you.