Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hi, welcome. I'd like to invite everyone to stand and say the pledge. I pledge algiance 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. Thank you very much. Could we get a roll call, please? Chair Anderson, present. Nope. Vice Chair Ericson here. Uh, Commissioner Tippetsz is excused. Commissioner Snow here. Commissioner Litkkey here. Commissioner Edwards here.

Commissioner Kasparian here. Thank you very much. Did we have a chance to review the minutes? Swell. Are there anything? Any problems? I didn't see anything. You're doing a good job. Yell out. Okay, then we're doing good. I make a motion we approve the minutes from August 27th, 2025. I second. All in favor? I.

Thank you very much. We are now ready to open our public hearing. First on our agenda is Kim Hart. How am I saying that? Heric requests approval of a conditional use permit for a vehicle repair automot automobile accessory shop KS audio to be located at 66 West 7250 South in the clean industrial zone. Johnny is presenting perhaps. Here's Johnny. I just was going to say, but I get in trouble for all those things. Shane,

thanks, Chair Anderson.

Sure. Okay. Um, it's a little bit of insight on this one. Originally, we were recommending approval of this as you read in the staff report. Um the landlord of the property actually called us today and sent an email um about the the proposed business going in here um that they've withdrawn their signature on the application for the conditional use permit. Um the applicant has verbally expressed that they want their application withdrawn. Um we've not confirmed that in writing yet. Um, but I do have a printed email from the landlord here if you guys want to look at that. Um, but yeah, as they have not formally withdrawn it, we would recommend denial of this um, based on the application no longer being complete. Um, Daniel, and am I missing anything on this for

No, I think you covered everything we talked about. Okay, perfect. So, we're not looking at the issues involved with it. It's just withdrawn. Correct. And we're we're going to be denying it. Yes. Okay. Does that does that require action by us? Uh denial. Yes, it would. Okay. So, do we still have a public So, we make a motion. Correct. So, yeah, you'd still have the public hearing comment and then um and then our recommendation is staff is denial that the application is no longer complete. Yeah. if signatures aren't correct. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I can pass this around to you guys as well. That would be great, actually. Thank you.

We'll open this to the public hearing. Seeing there's no one, I make a motion we close the public hearing. Second. Roll call. So, all in favor? All in favor? I I I forgot. Thank you for the knots over there. Thank you very much. We've we've heard from the attorney, so I think we're okay. I think we can go ahead and make a motion. And where is the motion? Well, make it up. Just deny it.

I make a motion that we deny the conditional use permit for a vehicle repair uh located at 661 West, 7250 South in the Clean Industrial Zone. I second. Can I get a roll call? Okay, thank you. Chair Anderson, yes. Vice Chair Ericson, yes. Commissioner Tippetsz is Oh, so sorry about that, guys. Commissioner Snow, yes. Commissioner Ludkkey, yes. Commissioner Casperian, yes.

Hold on. Thank you. Next is the Midvil City initiated request to amend several sections within chapters 17 through 7 through 11 of the Midvil City Municipal Code entitled Main Street formbbased code. The amendments clarify provisions related to noise, outdoor dining, cooking, light pollution, signage and building uses. Vendal,

thank you for reading that long advertisement. So um you know about the formbas code it's the zone that covers our downtown area. It comes basically in two flavors, Main Street and what the ordinance calls town center core TCC. And what we are most of these changes really address main street and um it's there are several reasons for these changes. Some are housekeeping items. Some are driven by things that we have seen over the last two three years that we don't necessarily want to have occur again. And some, for example, the signage um provisions that are changing were driven by some applications that we had and some you could say maybe some missteps in the ordinance that were pretty obvious. And then there's another housekeeping item on the definitions and I'll just go through them real quick and explain them but they're all I would say pretty common sense. Um so first um uh placement of office uses um we've seen now with some of the buildings that have been developed under the zone that um office tenants seem to be relatively easy to come by. Um however they don't always fully support the vision that the city has especially for Main Street. Um you know the city would like to be you know to have a lively main street full of

people who come here and maybe spend money and um with office tenants that isn't always the case. Um, and as I said, it seems to be relatively easy to bring in office tenants. And so as a result, when we looked at this, we thought the ordinance does allow office on the main floor, but maybe that's actually not a good idea to allow office on the main floor, at least not on Main Street. If you are in the town center core portion of downtown, so off of Main Street, you know, between Maine and Holden, yeah, some offices, you know, don't hurt anyone, but Main Street is, you know, the arts and entertainment district. And so, you want to have uses that active. So, that's why on this table, um, that was changed. So um before the change here office and industrial was in one and industrial in this context it's craftsman industrial it's not a big factory and so we split that out and said office only in upper stories that's what the stand u stands for so um the next table here that's the same thing again uh only difference is that this table addresses the zoning districts. The previous table um you know skinned the cat in a different way. It basically you know went through that same exercise um but um for different building types. So that's why this appears twice. So here you can see the one column is MS

that stands for Main Street. The other column is TCC town center core and then that stands for the area that's off of Main Street and you know towards Holden Street. So should the second the TCC column be a P? Um based on what you were saying. So on the second column the way it's been set up uh originally it said upper floors only. Um, so if you I mean if you feel that should be changed, we can make that change too. Um,

I was just curious because you had alluded to the fact that they were kind of separate and it might be more appropriate for the TCC rather than the industry. Okay, just curious.

Yeah. So the next item um is really relating to outdoor dining and um this basically tunes up the ordinance. Left is what we currently have on the books. Right would be after this um text amendment. And um the differences really boil down to that um number one on the music part um paragraph E it refers to the noise ordinance and then in the current language outer music shall not be audible off premises. That's a pretty um high standard um in an arts and entertainment district. Um, so that was modified. I mean, everyone still has to comply with the noise ordinance. Um, but there if you if you look at this, the no outer m music shall be allowed after 10:30 p.m. That's sort of you could almost say a transition period. Um the noise ordinance usually addresses the time frame from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. So here we are basically saying well you know you can have music but after 10:30 turn it off and makes sense there are residential neighbors these homes may be non-conforming but they are still there. So um that's that part. Um then um we changed the language a little bit with um spacing of the outdoor dining in

relationship to residential zones or residential uses. We changed that um in the new version to residential zones. And the reason is that you just do have some non-conforming uses there. and you know they need to be protected. Of course, people who you know have a home somewhere. On the other hand, we still also have the goal to have this be an arts and entertainment district. So that's that's why we changed um made that change. So it's in a way a little less stringent. Um then cooking facilities, you know, there were some changes around the edges and the par paragraph G and um then the rest here is yeah not much to be said about that. So then the next item addresses lighting. Um the ordinance right now forbids uplight spotlights. So you know you see that on buildings um people or organizations that want to make their buildings stand out. They have lights that go up and illuminate the building. There are also other lights. For example, if you look at what the city put in with the, you know, lighting project on Main Street, we actually use uplights too for some of the lighting effects. Um, so the opinion on the staff side was it's it's better to have the city's equipment be legal than to have there be an obvious discrepancy.

Um, code right now. Yeah. Oddly timed with the reading. Pardon me. Oddly timed with the reading. Uh, chapters 13.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah, good point. So, signage um there are basically two issues that are addressed here. The one um is about temporary signs. And in the form based code area, the only temporary signs that are actually allowed are the A-frames. You know, sometimes people call them sandwich boards. Um and what we did is number one, we put the regulations that address the A-frames. we just moved them up a little bit so that they in a spot where people would expect them and that they don't get lost. So there was really no material change on that. Um the material change with with regard to science is really just about the location. Um the current ordinance um just talked about that they need to be on the public rideway um not obstructing the clear view area and that's sort of somewhat ne nebulous. If you want to really know where the clear view area is and unless you take a common sense approach that's not precise, then you have to lay it out, you know, put a side triangle on it and it's it's not that practical. Also for people who may have a sandwich board and it may not always still be in a location where we would want it. I mean, we don't want these sandwich boards to obstruct the sidewalk. So um after looking at that we basically said well you can have these sandwich boards in the bullpout areas um and in the park strips on main street oftent times or most of the time the park strip is really you know filled in um anyway with concrete. So, but it's at

least out of the, you know, travel path if people want to walk or, you know, people do walk. And the other um change here on iconic signs um that's more a semantic change. It used it currently says iconic sign elements. Um but oftent times it's all one package. You think of the pearl um the marquee sign, it's it's not just the sign element that it's a marquee. It's the entire sign, but it's, you know, it's it's just making it a little more descriptive. Um then the last um change on signage uh was really driven by an application we got. Um, it was reviewed. Johnny did the review and we looked at it and said what this what the ordinance says really doesn't make any sense. So the current language says that the text of a sign um can only be 30% of the sign. And that just doesn't quite seem, you know, within the bell curve of what one would expect. You get a big sign with a little bit of writing,

right? Exact. That's exactly it. And so we kicked the percentage up to 70 from 30%. So that's that change. And then uh one of the definitions that you know goes addresses offices and professional services. We took out a portion that talks about that these types of businesses would only have customers that have appointments which I don't know why it was there in the first place but you know we don't we for example in our offices here have walking customers it's not uncommon so that's a you know a housekeeping change I would say and that's I mean everything that has changed I don't know if there are any questions that you not have

I like deleting that because I mean if you want an office here in Main Street and you're working but yet you can't have your office there because you don't have enough people making appointments to come in because you don't need people to make appointments to come in because it's your office and you don't meet with people or whatever it may be seems appropriate. Yeah, I do understand the um changing the office from the main floor because we have walked by many places on Main Street and thought that they were vacant only to find that they weren't were not vacant. They're just they're not activating the sidewalk like the intent Yeah. would be for that. So, that makes a lot of sense.

Um, of course, the existing businesses are grandfathered, right? Yeah. Yeah. Um Yeah, I like that too because it Yeah, you want to vi invigorate activate. Yeah. Yeah. My other comment was on the um noise pollution for changing it to residential zone versus residential is have you had any feedback from residents on that? Just I feel like those that are not conforming might feel like they're being targeted. I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. We haven't had any feedback. I know. I feel like that's a pretty big change. Yeah, cuz it could be much much closer to your it could be much more impactful.

And how do we enforce it? Well, if it's a non-conforming Well, no. If we have multiple businesses and they're like, "Oh, our music's going to be louder than your music." The noise ordinance would still govern um on volume. So, regardless of whatever we say here, the noise ordinance would prevail. I guess it's the distances is what we're talking about from residential zone versus a residential use. Yes. And so I mean one thing maybe you have to also keep in mind the main street portion of the formbased code is really just the street and the properties that front onto it and then it's town center wrapped around it. Yes.

Right. Do we know how many residential units we have around there? Any guesses? Um, I couldn't tell you right now. I mean, we would have to tally them up as far as we know where there is, you know, especially pre-existing residential. I mean, the, you know, the new buildings, people obviously see what this is all about. My concern is that the few, it's probably maybe one or two that would be affected. Um, that would be my concern is it it could feel almost punitive. I I don't know. Yeah. Okay.

But I think the 10:30 is reasonable because that's kind of, you know, we have neighbors that play their music and we figured, you know, 10:30 we're going to get bugged and call the police. Yeah. 10 it's like, okay, I want to go to bed. But then 10:30 it's like okay or calling the cops or or something like that. I'm in bed. And you know if you know if everyone stays within the realm of the law you think about a residential context I mean barking dogs for example they could be as or more disturbing than you know

someone playing a guitar and singing. Yeah. You mean like my neighbor that revs his engine on his car night and early morning 6:00 in the morning? Is that a problem? We just need to get your neighbors to get roosters, too. That's Oh, that sounds fun. That's not allowed. We have some roosters in our neighborhood. Well, those are my comments. I don't know if anyone else had any. Do I need legal to talk to me? Yes. Yeah. That's do I you need I like to be professional.

Of course, you know, Mr. uh legislative decision. So ultimately this is for the city council to make the final determination. Uh but you do have more discretion as to what you can do with it as far as your recommendations to city council and what you think they should do with it. I thank you very much. I have one more question. So, do we for the city council to take it up, do we have to make a motion to approve or deny or does uh excuse me to recommend approval or denial uh for them to take it up? Um so, if we ask for changes, does it stall that? So, I'd have to double check, but I'm pretty sure after 30 days it's considered a denial and it'll go it's either 30 or 60 and then it could move there. Yes.

Thank you. Well, assuming you haven't tabled it because the tableing I don't think the 30 days applies to the tableing. Is that right? Uh I again that's the finits of it. I would have to go and double check. It's been a minute since I read it. Yeah, actually I so when you

so when you let me word it this way in the end the city council can do whatever they you know choose to do and can support. Um but they they do look at the minutes of the meetings. They may even watch us right now. I and um so they they really put a lot of stock in what you you know what you say and especially if there is something that you put into the motion as a condition that's you know there is a lot of pull that you have.

Thank you. VIP right here. You could say recommend it with maybe a whatever you're concerned about. I I have no concerns. It was more just a question. Question procedural. Yeah.

I I like the changes you've made. I think they make sense. Uh the noise I you if you're going to have restaurants and they're open till 10 and they're going to have someone out on their patio singing to say, you know, you need to turn it off at 8:00 because we might have some angry people. Um you know, you don't want the angry people, but I just I've I've never noticed a lot of loud noise on Main Street. It's not going to be like uh Rio Tinto stadium. We can hear that at our house and you know so

well yet. I mean it is becoming an up andcoming arts district. So that planning for the future. Yeah. I mean the way it's written now it says there can it doesn't matter the noise ordinance. There can be no sound from the the main street area that is heard in residential. So it does give them more latitude. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. at the property line. That's a I can't do that at my house. Like Yeah. A a dialogue might reach that, let alone music. Yeah. Yeah. Lawn mower. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I appreciate that it's trying to instill a more downtown atmosphere for for Main Street. I I think that helps for sure.

That all I'm going to open this to a public hearing then. public come up. Seeing there is no one in the audience, I make a motion we close the public hearing. I second. All in favor? I. Thank you very much. Could I get a motion, please? I move that we recommend approval of the amendment to section 17-7-11 entitled Main Street formbbased code MSFBC to clarify provisions regarding use placement outdoor dining, lighting and signage as provided in the attachment with a finding noted in the staff report. I second.

My goodness. Could I get a roll call vote on that please? Thank you. Chair Anderson. Yes. Vice Chair Ericson. Yes. Commissioner Snow. Yes. Commissioner Ludkkey. Yes. Commissioner Casparian. Yes. Thank you very much. Okay. Next is Midville City Water Use and Preservation Element of the General Plan.

Thank you. Um this is a general plan element that the state legislature um made a requirement for cities to uh compose and um water planning is you know not new to municipalities you know public works departments or whoever the water provider is in a city. if it's a you know a special service district of some sort they have of course done this type of thing for a long time. Um the thrust of the state mandate really is to encourage cities to look at ways to conserve water. And since we operate in the planning realm, that you know applies really to the planning realm. And um the way everything interfaces is really through our municipal code and you know immediately really through landscaping provisions and you know landscaping provisions on private land but also on public land for example street cross-sections. And so when you look into um the um our code um you can see that we lab I mean as of late um have gotten more into that. Um for example, we approved the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District uh water efficiency standards and um those were you know quite a large step to take for the city. in the city for a long time.

Wasn't quite sure if we really wanted to. Um but um you know over time city said yes we do want to do this and also with that give our citizens the opportunity um to take um you know to participate in rebate programs. For example, um the John Melly Water Conservancy District has um what they call the local scapes program. If you take turf out of your private residence and replace it with something that's more water-wise, you get a subsidy basically for doing that and it's pretty sizable. I think too the citizens are more comfortable being water.

Yes. And more comfortable with what that can look like and that it can be pleasing to the eye. Yeah. If you take care of it.

Yeah. And I think that's that's a really good point and I think that's also what happened here in Midvale that actually many many citizens said, you know, we actually want this. Um and so that's what brings us to you know this plan today and um if I mean if you look at the underlying data you know we do have enough water right now if you look into the future you know we still do expect some growth in Midvail even though we are you know geographically speaking very close to being built out But there will be some densification.

Um and so the water plan has actually looked at that. And so this is the culinary water plan. And um it's I mean it's all in your packet as I put these little tags in there. But I mean the main lesson from the culinary water plan is that if we grow like we are expected that we will grow till in that plan it's 2060 is sort of the planning horizon we would I mean we would see really a substantial increase in the number of um residential connections or you know what what the plan calls ERC equivalent residential connections It's just a sort of an you could say an accounting figure that has a standardized unit that gets applied to residential and commercial um development. So if we see that growth like it's like is projected, we do need to as a city purchase quite a bit of additional water. Um so it's not insignificant and we I mean we have some of our own wells but um we've I mean we are currently purchasing water and we will have to purchase quite a bit more. Um now the question is is that water supply secure that we would have to purchase you know is it really going to be there in 30 years from now and so as part of this um water plan the cities are required to meet with a water provider. So we had a what the court calls a consultation with them and they told us yes there they have water. The only thing is it might get more expensive

and that even applies now the you know every municipality that purchases water has a contract. Um and if you go over your contract there's sort of a band in the contract within which you can be but if you go over then there's quite the upcharge. So knowing that I mean it's really in our interest you know to be cognizant of the value of water and that we just need to have more. It's it's just a fact of life. But whatever we can conserve is going to be really in our interest. Um the reason being um you know water is so elementary you can't get around having water and um with that you know we have an interest in you know being conservative about it um also even just for this for the city's budgets sake I mean infrastructure can be very expensive and um you know water infrastructure culture has you know a there's a lot that goes into it. I mean if you think about topography within a city you have different water zones, pressure zones. So if you if you need a change there need to get more water into the system. It's not as easy as just buying more water. You your system also needs to deliver it being able to deliver it and so those that can be very very costly. So it's in the city's interest to really be uh cognizant of that. Um the other angle of course is that

you know we all live in a natural environment and we live in a place that's by nature just dry and we are reaching that point where the ecosystems and the watersheds are just stressed. I mean, you know, the the famous example of that is the Great Salt Lake and um our water provider provider assured us whatever a city saves does arrive at the Great Salt Lake. Um and so that's that's really I think what this is also about and why the state legis legislature is so interested in it. Um it's really a problem that affects everyone in a in a watershed and you know the one approach is that everyone just ignores the problem but it doesn't go away from that. So um so that's that's really the reason why this is an important topic. So um then as part of the plan I did attach all the source materials or at least most of it and that's that's why it's quite lengthy. Um but you know the the main portion is you know pretty digestible I think. So, do do you have any questions?

No. And that is the wrong motion. Yeah, I was going to say Yeah, I was going to say I think we already approved that one. Yes, you sure did. So, um, the motion would just be I move to recommend approval of the water preservation and conservation element of the general plan. The same one. Yeah. Yeah, the same one. So, we're going to have to make it up. Yeah, it's the the slides to a public hearing. Yeah, we still have to do a public hearing. Um, so it's just basically saying we want to do what the state wants us to do. I mean, and be good stewards of the environment. Yeah. Okay.

Or we could slow growth down. Yes, we could do that. The fastest, easiest. Just restrict water. You just restrict water. There is that or just pump the brakes. Yeah. Okay. So, public hearing. Public hearing. It's open. Again, seeing no one in the audience, I make a motion that we close the public hearing. I second. All in favor? I. Thank you very much. Legal. Uh, this would be the same as the last one. Uh, however, I do have an answer for you to your question.

It is 30 days. If the planning commission fails to make a recommendation to city council within 30 days, it moves forward to city council as a as a recommendation for denial. And that's uh irregardless of if we table. Yes, that's my interpretation. Thank you. Thank you. Could I have a motion, please? I make a motion that we approve the Midville City Water use and preservation element of the general plan. Second the motion. Could I get a roll call vote, please, please? Chair Anderson, yes. Vice Chair Ericen, yes. Commissioner Snow, yes. Commissioner Litki, yes. Commissioner Kasparian, yes.

Thank you. We pass with flying colors. I think we have a discussion item. Johnny's going to do that. A discuss discussion on unoccupied accessory structure and external accessory dwelling unit standards relating to allowed height and building areas.

Thanks Chair Anderson. Um so this is brought up before you and these are the specific which I highlighted in the the packet for this. Um so we've received a number of calls recently. Um and I'll kind of go through those. Um so the current standards right now the height for and I'll just it's in front of you letter D and E. Um, so the height for a pitched roof is 20 ft or 16 for a flat and then range from one to one and a half stories. Um, and I didn't include our story definition. Um, but on the next slide I kind of have something that details it. So there's been difficulties interpreting the half story um with how we regulate that. Um, as well as there's been a number of calls asking if basements are permitted for external accessory dwelling units. Um, our code does not regulate anything with those. Um, there's been no submitts like building permits for those to date. Um, but just something to think about as we go through this discussion. Um, and that's why the building area here, letter F, is included for the discussion. Um, but yeah, so I'll kind of talk a little bit about these. So, and our story definition kind of both goes into both of these. So, for a half story or for something to be considered not a story, um, you see here I called out a kick wall. It regulates that a kick wall, so where an outside wall meets the roof line is 4T or less. It does not constitute an additional story. And then a basement that is less than that protrudes less than four feet out of the ground is also not a story. Um so if you take this to the maximum level, this

could potentially be something that somebody could submit. U 20 ft tall, one and a half stories including a basement. Um, and as far as external accessory dwelling units, this may not be exactly what we would want to see, you know, located behind a single family house, per se. Um, so what are your thoughts on this? And we'll just kind of open it up for all of you. I can click back and forth between these. I also have paper copies if you want of what I put in the packet too as well. I guess one of my concerns is that um is this a way to get away with subdividing your property to get another piece of property, another building on your you know

No, you're not subdividing your it's you're allowed to do an exception drawing up through a certain you know you have a basement. I mean, I think of more ADUs as that it could be removed or more temporary um either moved or or torn down. But with a basement, it's it's like you have a twin home on the property, but you're calling one of them an ADU. Now, I understand if you have an ADU, you have to live in one of them, correct? You know, one of the buildings and stuff like that. So, but but we don't enforce that. Basically, you have a threestory building that you could build.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, we don't have anything that regulates, you know, the only thing that it regulates really is the building area for the cumulative maximum of all say sheds or detached garages or ADUs is the 900 ft or 13% whichever is larger. Um, what's the definition of pitched roof? Um, you go ahead, Liz. Anything that's not flat. Really? So, yes. Is that a state thing? Because even a flat roof has a Yeah, there's a slope on a flat roof. I can double check, but I'm pretty sure I was the last one to amend the height and

Yeah. was a flat roof is zero. Pitched would be anything that is not Okay. zero. I I will double check though. Yeah, because that's Yeah, that's much that's open to a lot of interpretation when you talk about pitch and if a flat is flat, that's not a roof. That's a disaster. It's a water hazard. Yeah. Well, and people are putting Yeah. I've got a garage online though where they maxed it out, put a one or two% pitch on it. Yeah. and he's getting away with it. And the things I can pull I do have a document with a bunch of definitions if you want me to pull those up to read.

I just I read the state and the building code and it seems like Midville's Yeah, I have those. Um, can I plug in Matt? And depending on what that would say, I just double checked our Midville city definitions. We don't have one for flat roof or pitched roof. So we would probably just be using whatever Miriam what our code specifies which dictionary definition we would be using as I think we need to make one. Yeah I think referencing the IBC or some kind of building code would help keep it in line. Yeah because there is a definition of flat roof. There is a maximum pitch and a minimum. Well because they can go flat look pitch it and they get the extra height. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So right now I mean it's it's interesting whenever someone has a building related background then you know you have a certain view on on that because of the building code and you know different codes exist in their own realms. So you know our municipal code that is is just simply not set up that way right now. Um, and I think it would be good to maybe crystallize out for us as staff what's, you know, what's the important thing for you? I mean, is it the look? I mean, you know, you it's flat, but

on the inside it's maybe pitched because the water needs to go somewhere, but on the outside, my concern is loopholeing it and not getting what the intent of the the code would be. Yeah, there's one on 10 piece that's way over. Really? In fact, now seeing your one and a half stories, he's over that. And then I have a neighbor that's way over. Yeah, I would love to build a garage in my backyard that tall. So would I. But I considerations my neighbors.

So here on the screen, the top definition of slope is from our municipal code. Um so means the level of inclination of land from the horizontal plane determined by dividing um so on. So essentially anything that has a run over a rise for building code. The slope then is it's the the lowest of the three highlighted. The fall pitch of a line of pipe in reference um which is also uh run over rise. I'd have to pull up building code but I don't this is from building code. You can't build a flat roof. So

right. Yeah. There is some sort of pitch like 1 to 12 or something. Yeah. It's pretty minimal for what a Yeah. So, and that even then I wouldn't recommend that. Yeah. So, we need to figure out I just I would hate for someone to take advantage and then Yeah. Just because our definitions aren't clear that it would impact those around them when it comes to that. Also, the kick wall, I have concerns about that because you could place that anywhere to make it any size you want and then easily change it. That's a concern I have. And we've had that conversation in the office several times that that's really that standard is flawed. Yeah.

And that's this this story definition here. This is from our ordinance. So, it's basement or parking structure Oh, sorry. Yeah. Basement or parking structure levels that emerge less than four feet from grade or attics or equipment rooms not exceeding four feet of the kick wall shall not constitute an additional story. Yeah, I'm not sure. Which is where that um image comes into play if that's the potential maximum.

I'm not as familiar with residential, but you would almost think you would want to go with a volume way to denounce half a story. If a full story is this amount of volume, then a half story would be half of that volume. I don't know. I I don't know what a definition of a half story would be in a more precise definition because I think the kick wall is so some some possible options are like would you rather regulate you know height alone and then they can story that however they want do we want to limit it to one story like I think we're trying to get at how do you think would be helpful because we all realize the problems with the half story so

I think it's a height and a setback Uh, for me, the problem is is if you do 16 and you're eight and eight, I mean, you could have a full-blown apartment right on the property line as per our code. Mhm. With windows looking down into somebody's backyard if you did a flat roof, right? Yeah. Yeah. Well, because right now our pitched roof is flat. Yeah. So, I don't know. I think it's a windows thing, a privacy thing, a height thing. I don't know the answer, but we do have a problem.

I would invite you all to drive up my street. I don't even know the address. Yeah. Drive down. I mean, the one on my street's worse. Could be something of like windows can't be higher than whatever the top of the fence line is. like or do you make it to where on the zero setback property line you can't have windows basically and there is considerations currently for that let me pull it up here and so let me ask you this does it matter to you and I think I think I already know the answer go for it

does it if it's a habitable structure like an EADU versus a garage. Is is is to you should there be any differentiation in how tall these different types of buildings can be? Not for me. No, not when it comes to height. No. Okay. Not when it comes to height. Yeah. So, in order to do a zero setback, they have to meet four criteria. That's good.

So, no openings on the side contiguous to the lot line. So where the zero setback would be because currently they have to if they don't do that they have a minimum of two feet which includes the eve overhang of uh accessory structure. Um but yeah so they'd have to be no openings. This is if they want to be on the lot line, no drainage onto an adjacent property, fire resistive walls, and it can't be on a utility easement. So those are already considerations for if somebody does want to try and put it on their property line. So, what if we go to the two or three foot setback? Can you have windows on that? Um, yes. Yeah.

Doesn't matter if it's on the property line or it's 3 ft away from the property line, you're still looking in on my yard. Yeah. Yeah. And so, would it I mean, and really, if you have a story and a half and that wall is only four feet tall, that would mean there's a window in that 4ft section. And you're talking about in the upper portion of the building. So if they're putting an apartment up there in this the half story where the walls are only supposed to be was it 4 and 1/2 ft? 4T. Yeah. Four feet for the kick. Yeah. But you could have it on the end. You could have

Yeah. If it was on like say the gabled end. I mean depending on how they oriented that could potentially face a property line or a skylight that opens up or they do the flat pitched roof. Yeah. And I the flat pitched roof almost makes the half story not applicable because the kick wall is only for pitched roofs. Yeah. So that's the problem I'm having is they did a flat roof. Yeah. And then it's got all these windows in that fullblown upper level. And what if we said the flat roof's no higher than like 10 ft period? But the flat roof needs to be defined. Yeah.

Anything that don't have a Yeah. pitch pitch is greater than pitch is greater than 10% or our slope. Yeah. Yeah. Because then that will set the height and then the low end as well based on the length because I think that's how the guy on 10th got around it as well. Oh, but that's how designers and people go for it. They're always looking for the advantage in the law. So, I think that's why we're the ones bringing it up. In both of these cases that I'm talking about, neither homeowner occupies the property. Yeah. The main property. So they don't care what the neighbors think. Yeah. Yeah.

So yeah. So the only roof definition we have right now is means the building element which covers the top of the structure is the walls and close the sides. That is the only definition roof related in the zoning code. Um, let me see if So, if if it was a flat roof, they could do a basement, but it can only rise up four feet above ground level. And then they can do one level and the flat roof. They can't do the one and a half because the one and a half would have to be the pitch, right? Because they could do an eight and eight on top of the basement. So, what if on a on a flat roof? When we define a flat roof, you can't do the half story.

That's an option. Yeah, that's that's an option. Yeah, it'd be a lovely big space, too. So, I did I really You guys should drive up my street. Uh the pictures are just I I probably will. Like, you're you're going to tell me where you live. I'm going to go on a little tour. Can you give us some thoughts on the basement situation? What do you think? I think I'm fine on basement, whatever. Yeah, for a it's a glorified bunker is what it sounds like to me. I'd rather have a basement than hype. Yeah, but is there any regulation for how deep you can go? Well, I mean,

if you're going to live in it or using the ADA, you're going to have to pump it if you go too deep because Yeah. Right. But I'm I'm still just saying then there's fire code about how many exits and things you need to have as well. So, it'd be difficult to go more than one story below ground. Can can I maybe reframe that question a little bit? Y

so right now the way the court regulates you know the number of accessory structures in a on a property is by basically building footprint. Now, there's, you know, most EADUs right now, I would say, are probably don't have basements and maybe don't have a second story.

But if someone wanted to max that out, um, you could have, um, a really sizable home in the backyard. Does that matter to you? To me it does because I think an AD ADU is not a second home. Yeah. To me it's not about the square footage as much as the height right if somebody wants to maximize as much as they can you know footprint wise fine but I think the height and setback are and you don't have somebody living in the basement and in the half story. Yeah.

So we need to your ADU becomes a twin ADU. Yeah. So the one of the reasons I'm asking is this. I mean you it seems all of you have experienced this in some fashion or another. Um enforcement sometimes is really hard. I mean it doesn't come easy for the city. It it gobbles up a lot of resources and then the outcomes are sometimes still sort of subpar because you can't have a policeman at every street corner. Yeah. And and even if you have an infringement like what do you do? Tell them to tear it down. Like now you have a villain. I know you can, but are we gonna be the are we gonna be that villain? Is the city gonna be that villain? Yeah.

Yeah. And so I think my point is sometimes um you know, of course we assume that everyone is honest um but if let's say you have a larger structure in the backyard then of course there is more of a temptation to say oh maybe we'll have two parties living in it. If it's smaller by design, then you know that doesn't happen quite. Not that it's a 100% safeguard, but it doesn't make it as easy.

Maybe if it's designated as a garage, you can still do the 20 something%. But if it's not a garage and has a basement, because I mean, if you're putting a basement in a garage, that's expensive. You have to do for engineering. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody's got a really What's that called on 10 Thieves? Isn't that called a storage? A garage. That goofy guy that has You talking about the one off 78th? Yeah. Okay. He has plumbing and everything. He's got plumbing. He's got everything in there. Two doors. The brand new one. Two doors on top of each other. The roof is flat.

Yep. I mean, what we're what we want to avoid is having someone essentially build a whole another house and renting it out sort of situation or multiple. I mean, and because the purpose of the ADU is an additional dwelling unit on your property, which is which is fine, which is great. I mean, it's the way housing prices are, that's a wonderful option. I think we're trying to avoid it becoming just inundated with ADUs and making that like the substitute to apartments or other housing options or duplexes. Yeah. And a and a multifamily ADU, right? Which is what will happen,

right? I mean, we have examples, we can clearly see them just of people abusing kind of the ADU premise. So I I guess that's the trying to keep to the intent of what an ADU is.

Yeah. I mean so like specifically towards like the basement and half story. I mean so the the F building area um which area is not really the best term for this. Um building footprint in our definition fits that a lot better. Um the interpretation right now is that from their walls this is the max they can build. And obviously this is contingent upon if they have other sheds or garages. Um I mean if they wanted to do say a basement and if we keep the half story, do we want them to still be able to do that or make it based on the area of basement main level half story if they do it? I mean that's an op option that we've talked about internally. So basically

a minimum like uh when you used to do mother-in-law apartments, we had a minimum like 800 or a maximum like 800 square foot 900. Uh I mean anymore maybe we go back to that. So if you're going to build a 30x40 garage on your property and you're going to put a second story on it can only be 800 ft. We could look into that to to basically limit the size of it to obviously within the footprint or smaller for if they did the say a half story or basement. So it would be livable area versus footprint of structure. Yeah, we could do that. Yeah.

Yeah, that's that's really the underlying question. If it I mean if it matters um to us as a commission and as a city then we should really contemplate because this just goes by the footprint. doesn't account for a possible basement or even a possible use of a second story or but we don't want to punish the person that's not bending the rules by saying no your garage in your backyard can only be this big because we're afraid you're going to make it a multifamily AU right and maybe we need to distinguish between accessory dwelling and garage

and have some different standards for each other. Yeah, because they can co-ingle, but there's intricacies in that as well. Yeah. And of course, if it's an attached garage, then you know, it's viewed as part of the home, right? Then, you know, none of this really applies, right? Then it's not exterior as much. It's adjacent. And maybe too on the basement, maybe if you have a basement, you can't have the upper level. Yeah, but what? If you do the basement on the accessory dwelling, you can't do the upper half story. So, the basement is the half story, right?

Because half story, we're making it a lot harder to make it a multif family ADU. Yeah. Above, below, but not below. Yeah. You could also say no exterior entrance to the basement. Yeah. Around it. They'll just put a set of stairs inside. That's fair. Yeah. But then it would be internal to the building, which is your point, right?

One of the things that I think about is I I just think it needs to be clear what we want and because if we make it too liberal or too open-ended, then you got an issue of code enforcement and all of that. And if we can write it so that we don't have to worry about code enforcement having to go out there after the fact. You know, they'll be out there while they're building it as they should, but um you know the building inspectors, but then after they're built then it's like, okay, wait.

It's also easier to flag when you're when you can see that they're clearly out of conformity. You're like, "That definitely did not comply." I know people that have pushed the gray envelope in this. It was actually in Murray and they went in and made them cut everything out. I mean something

or no window wells. Yeah. Yeah. Because of fire and stuff. Yeah. Or just say no basement. I think the basement I mean it's not going to be inexpensive to put in a basement for an ad. You want the basement and you're willing to pay for that, right? For Yeah. Yeah. Maybe that's the answer. Like we only allow basement and and one story and nothing above. Yeah. So if you want to if you want to go through that half story. Yeah. No half story. Um, and then that limits the height. So you don't have But we need to go back to the flat and the pitch. We need to Yeah.

have a definition. Um, in in general, and you've basically said this, it it is a lot better to have simple and clear standards. It makes it better for everyone. Um I mean like like you you have mentioned and seen there seem to be or there are some people who just try to push against the rules and it's a lot easier for us to say but you can't do that. It's very clear in the law. Um especially with ADUs being kind of a buzz word that lay people are using more often. they they know what an ADU is now

and so it's a buzz word that they how can I do that on my property? Yeah. So I think I'm maybe partial to like one story above no half. Um we do need to work out the pitch piece. Um and then we would allow a basement. Um and I think the square footage up top Yeah. going to be livable up top. We limit the square footage. Yeah. That way they can't cut it in half like the one on 10th and do two two livable sides to less than the I think 900's fine with me. You say 900 because as it reads now they're obviously it depends on how big their property is. If it's%

Yeah. If the 13% is smaller than 900, they can still have the 900 currently because it's the larger of whichever one. But if they have a big enough property, then the 13% could be I mean clear up to 1500 square feet. But you're saying so depending on what they want to use it for, limit the size of it. Wow. To an extent. And again, I think we could take it back to windows. If there's no windows on the up the half level, then it can be the whole size of the garage because you got no fire egress. Okay. Yeah.

Um, Johnny, do you feel like you have everything or do you want to try to boil it down? I mean, that is a hard exercise, but I've been Yeah, I've been taking notes. I can read it off here.

Yeah, maybe if you do and then you can maybe correct if it say I I was just thinking with the Sorry, Johnny. um is if you're on a small footprint and you've got 300 feet to make an ADU, that's pretty small. But if you could go to the basement, then now you've got, you know, 600 800 square feet that you could put two bedrooms downstairs in the living room, kitchen, and bathroom upstairs and stuff. And so you could use that. But, you know, I look at these long deep lots where you have a little bungalow up front and then they can build this

huge building in the back and then that that just doesn't it it it seems manipulative that it's like, okay, I'm now going to have my front house be the ADU and I'm moving to the nice place in the back. And it's they're totally different standards for both of them, which is yeah, I mean, we could look at potentially on larger lots like that. There has to be a correlation between the existing house and the the ADU if you want to prevent that. Parking for the ADU. Say that again. And parking for the ADU.

Yeah. The the minimum right now is you have to have one off- streetet parking stall for an ADU. So yeah, with and that's in addition to the two required for a single family dwelling unit. Yeah. So and only single family dwelling units detached are allowed to have an ADU whether internal or external. So on a narrower lot like you're talking if they had to have three parking silos and you're only allowed to have so much concrete width. Yeah. I mean my house is in that situation. I have room in back, but I have one narrow driveway. So, yeah.

Does anyone need to describe their point of view better for Johnny? Yeah, maybe let me rattle off my notes here and then we can discuss.

Um, so pitched roof and flat roof definitions, we need to come up with some of those and adopt them. um the conversation of liable livable area versus the building footprint area um and the correlations there. Um there was a discussion if we're going to allow basement in these no half story or just get rid of the half story altogether and then potentially separate standards for accessory structures. So, garages, sheds, versus the external accessory dwelling units. Anything besides those four?

I I guess for me, I don't think there's a difference between a accessory dwelling and just an accessory like garage. I would treat them the same. I think there needs to be a separation because of occupiable space. Yeah. Because they are different uses. Sure. So there are different considerations when you think of fire protection and all that sort of Well, then you could build it, put this half story up top, get your CO and then later on. Yeah. Converted. Yeah. Yeah. And that's good.

Well, and I think, you know, if someone wants to build a a garage that fits their RV and and things like that, then, you know, do we want to limit them to, you know, what they can can build? um that way by making it the same as an ADU. Um but then if they want to put a ADU on top of that, then you know, I guess they'd have a problem with height. If they built that tall of a garage and then want to put an ADU up there, then they're more than likely going to surpass that.

Is there any way we can make it conditional? Um like where they have to come here for like uses beyond a certain point. Um, so you're saying for like say external or internal accessory dwelling units to make them a conditional use that has to come before you guys for approval. Or maybe only if it had livable. Yeah. Maybe if it's just livable. So yeah. So like a external or internal accessory dwelling unit. If it was just like a baseline garage, no livable area, that would be allowed is kind of what you're getting at, right? Yeah. That's legislative, right? Like we could we could say no. We don't we're not bound to say yes. Go ahead.

Sorry. If they meet the parameters, you'd have to say yes. So I think it's better left at a staff level and you can focus on more we would become the ad larger level things. Yeah. Yeah. Because there is more and more of them being submitted. putting a livable area in the basement's going to be tough, too, because there has to be if you're only allowed 900 square feet, but your garage is 1500 square feet and you want to go to the property line, but you need window wells. Well, I mean, and like even plumbing, plumbing draining to the street from a backyard, like you'd have a hell of a time. Yeah. Yeah.

And there is considerations for height based on existing grade,

if that makes sense. So if if the front of a long deep property say it goes like this you know slopes down whatever that lowest existing point would then be the 20 ft for a pitched or 16 for a flat that's their buildable area. So even if that if they have to bring in fill that would automatically you know lose them a couple feet if they have to bring it up. So, I had this problem in Holiday on a garage that I'm building detached and the lot slopes side to side and the I had to have a survey done and it averaged the whole lot plus 10 ft on each side into the neighbor's yard. And you were building on the downhill or the uphill side? All of it.

Okay. But it Yeah. Let me pull the It hurt. It was cut down. Yeah. Yeah. Um Yeah. Let me just pull the definition real quick. That's in building height, Liz. Sorry, the the recent changes where we do it based on the lowest existing. I remember this. Um, it said building. We We probably don't need to pull it up right now. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I was so I think my biggest takeaway is keep an ADU an ADU like what the intended purpose of it. I think that's my biggest whatever we can do to have clear concise

language my that that's my concern because I can I can see greed coming into it. I can get more money by pushing the envelope and I can do all this and which is fine to make money. um you know, someone who's retired now, they have a ADU that they can rent out or have their mother come live in and and stuff like that. But again, I think there's certain properties that you could have a a much larger ADU. Um and then, you know, how do you how do you make it so it's not a new home? You limit the square footage of the livable.

Yeah. Yeah. Did that help clarify? Yes. I think the hard one's going to be the roof. Yeah, the roof's going to be the biggest one is getting those definitions to a place that we can regulate those easily. Yeah. As far as the heights, the 20 ft and 16 for both. Are those We'll just stick with those for now. Just define roof pitched in flat bender. No. Okay. Because I think that's our problem is they're doing a flat non pitched and they're doing it 20 ft. No bueno.

That's huge. Yeah. Okay. Anything else? Good job. Good luck. Good luck. Thanks. Is that clear? Good. Clear. Clear as mud. I need a staff update and other business. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I'll stay here. Stay here. So, with regard to the staff update, we have our planning commission dinner coming up and um it moved. It moved. It's not a candies. Oh, right. Yes. It's I

geographically Yes, it moved. We spoke to Fajita and they felt I mean they would have but it's so much easier if we do. We went in plenty of room. It's so big. They've got a perfect spot for us. They've got Yeah. And that way too we can all the soda we want to drink. They'll have servers there that can take away our dirty plates and you know that kind of stuff. Not really have wasps. Yeah. Waitressing or anything like that. And I think for them it worked out much better. Don't you?

Um Yeah. and they actually offered that to us for free. And if you remember in the past, we've had an experience that was even though we tried to reserve and put a lot of effort into that, we still didn't have reserve tables. That was a night. What was that? We'll talk about that later. It wasn't terrible. It was just a long night. Yeah.

So, um No, I think that's great because I' i've eaten there and it's just a clean restaurant. good food and and the service there. The people there, some of them don't speak fluent English, but they were just so nice and so accommodating and stuff that I think it'll be a nice We kind of picked out a menu item and figured we'd just go that way. Guacamole, I'm kidding. Just some street tacos and with all their really good stuff with it. So, I think we'll be okay. Easier. Yeah.

Okay. Um, so maybe after the meeting if we can just make sure I know who's all coming and some I've heard from some of you, but just so that we can sort of phone hone in on how many people we'll have that would be great. Sorry. So cool. Um, all right. Um, land use training. We are since we've had Can we do that next time? Are you guys okay if we skip the book reading tonight?

Yeah, I'll let's do like 10 seconds. So the first chapter was that I love it property rights on woodsman. And so from your perspective, I think if you're interested in sort of the sort of the legal um gray areas that sometimes cause problems, they have case studies or case summaries on the website. Um they have all sorts of background information. Um, for the city in general, the the main takeaway is probably if we ever got into a situation where a developer or the city wants to go that direction and get that state office involved. They in a way they offer different services and the advisory opinion is probably one one shouldn't take because it locks you if there's a legal action or lawsuit and it it locks you in especially with having to carry someone else's legal fees in case you lose. So that's that's probably you know one of the main

or we just change the code. Of course you always totally so so anyway under normal circumstances we we probably don't have much to do with property rights on and let's keep it that way. Yeah. Yeah. Now we know what an budsman is. However you say it. Something something. That it. Yeah. Okay. Good. Great. Planning department report. Is that done? Yes. Great. Wow. I think Robin's done. Yeah. He's so tired all of a sudden. Okay. Are we good? We're good.

I move that we adjourn at 7:18. All in favor?