City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to welcome Council and those online and those who are in the room. Welcome you to our work session today, the Orange City Council. And we've got three items for our work session. The first one is a presentation on detached accessory dwelling units by Jared Hall, our planning director. It's a 20-minute presentation. So, Jared, I will turn it over to you.

Thanks and very much a discussion that we. Are grateful to be having again and want to start by thanking all of you for taking the time last few weeks to get together with us and. And talk through some of the things that had. had surfaced in the conversations before. What we're trying to do at this point is to synthesize everybody's thoughts about the DADU next amendment and make it something that's palatable enough to be passed by that October 1st deadline that the state has given us. So just by way of A reminder, a couple of basic things about the DATUs. These would be detached accessory dwelling units on every evidentially zoned lot that's at least 11,000 square feet in size. It's not tied to the zoning, it's tied to the lot size. and allowance for residential dwellings. In our city, that is residential zoning. So there are approximately 5,800 lots that are greater than 11,000 square feet in the city. By contrast, there are 14,500 that are smaller than 11,000 square feet, just so you know. There is one ADU accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit allowance per lot. Owner occupancy is a requirement. We want to demonstrate the utility capacity and they need to meet building and safety requirements. Those are kind of undisputed things that haven't been an issue so far with anyone.

Can you just repeat the number above and below?

Above 5,800. Below, I don't have the exact number in my head, it's 4,300 and something.

And they're spread out over the city.

Yeah, I apologize. I don't have GIS to show you, but You all saw in the meeting meetings that we had, I believe we showed you all this map. They were remarkably spread out through the city, throughout the zonings in the city. There's no one area that stands out as kind of the void that doesn't allow, or where we wouldn't be able to see any attached accessory to any of this. They're remarkably spread out. Apparently, we just disregarded the zoning size requirements, and people who've done 11 zones were for a lot of places that would have only required six or seven or eight. They're out there. These are kind of the basic lot requirements. The first thing that we ought to talk about are setbacks. We've gone back and forth a couple of different ways a couple of different times talking about setbacks. Um, 25 feet is the setback that's required for a regard in most cases in our zoning. Our 8 zone requires 25 feet for setback. The zones going up from there. We are 6 and our 5 zones only require 20. For setbacks for the help for the single family home. um what we've looked at what we started out with the planning commission forwarded to the city council for consideration was a 20-foot rear yard setback i'm sorry they start with 10. but rear setback um council talked about 20. we had looked at 25 or using the zone requirements as well um it seems as most folks have been more um leaning toward the 20-foot requirement straight, not tying it to the zoning. We talked about that a little bit in the mini meetings. We can continue to talk about that. But this diagram is showing the 20-foot setback 10 feet from sides. from side yards. We would suggest that with 10-foot side yards, we put in a requirement that any ADU built in this kind of pad, this area that's available for it, would have to be 20 feet from a dwelling on an adjacent lot. We had talked in the mini-meetings also about using a standard like a 30 feet from a setback line. We showed that in the last set of slides that we did. In general, more folks were inclined to look at the 20-foot fail-safe instead of the 30 from the setback lines and write some kind of an exception for lots that haven't built to their limits yet. For example, if you're looking at this Right here, eight feet is the requirement side yard. So this house has not been built out to the required side yard. If these folks were building an ADU, they'd build to their eight feet, and then you build a 10-foot offset for an ADU, and you're not 20 feet away. So that would punish this lot, or this lot, rather, they wouldn't be able to build out to their line. It's an easy enough thing to write an exception and say that wouldn't be the case. Existing homes get to respect their There's zoning setbacks regardless of an ADU on an adjacent lot. That protects everybody. Do something like that. we also looked at and talked about exceptions for setback requirements when the lot butts up against an open space like a park or a school or a commercial use for example they're still going to encounter problems just i think this came up in the mini meetings as well just as a reminder you're still going to encounter problems even if you went to a zero setback you'd still encounter these public utilities that's around the sides of of lots that are going to keep people eight or ten feet off no matter what don't allow buildings in those in those spaces so that's something to keep in mind so the 10 feet probably still works even with that adjacency to an open space or a or a commercial zone for example corner sides would be anywhere where you're on a on a street so 25 feet from any street and then again that minimum 20 feet from any primary dwelling on an adjacent lot Any questions about setbacks? We can go through some more things and then see some visuals and talk more about some of the setbacks and where we want to land on those. Does that work? I'll keep going if that works, okay?

What do you mean if that works?

If I see some visuals and come back.

Continue in the discussion.

Yeah.

He wants to move on.

None of these setbacks work, but for purposes of the discussion, we'll look at some visuals and come back because we're going to want to talk about it more. But that's kind of where we've been in a nutshell on the setbacks. This is just a larger version of that so you can see better when we're talking about it more. The other issue would be height. We talked about flat roofs and pitched roofs having different height allowances and having those heights, having that height allowance start at the minimum setbacks. So assuming that the minimum setback was 10 feet from a side yard, we would allow as a baseline 14 feet for a a detached accessory dwelling unit with a pitched roof, and 12 feet for one with a flat roof. That would accommodate most of the architecture of today, nice ceilings inside, it's not cramped feeling, and would accommodate some creativity with the roof lines as well. We do a one-to-one ratio that you get one foot of height in addition for every additional foot of setback that you produce for the unit, up to 16 for the – sorry, 18 for the pitched roof and 14 for the flat roofs. Again, you wouldn't need a lot more than that.

These are single-story structures, so we wouldn't be allowing two stories, so there's really no – So this is 12 and 14, but you're saying that they're a different number than –

Yeah, so you'd be 14 at the... Let me go back to this slide. So if you were building your ADU right here at the 10 feet, your first allowed height would be that minimum, 12 if it's a flat roof, 12, or if it's a pitched roof, 14. If you move it away from that property line, further into your setback, we'll give you one foot of height for one foot of setback. Does that work?

Yeah, can you go back to the next slide?

Yes.

What is this, 18? 18, 18.

Setback's up to 18. Yeah, so this would be... One foot, the one-to-one ratio, additional setbacks up to 18 feet for that pitch.

Maybe up to 18. That's what got me, too. It's showing the minimum, or not minimum, but that's where at that point, and then it can go up.

Right. That could get taller, up to 18. So that allows you, if you're doing a pitch drift, you could get a little more creative with how that roofline goes, but you're going to have to scoot in a little bit for it to do that, do the space that's allowed for you. Just other things for height. They shouldn't be any taller than the primary dwelling on the lot, no matter what. There are some homes out there that are shorter. They shouldn't be any taller than those. Not allowing exterior balconies. Not allowing interior loft space, but a maximum of 20%. And then single-story structures only. I thought it's important that we dictate that we're talking about not habitable structures and rooftop decks. When we're talking about these kind of things in rear yard areas, that makes some sense to me. If that doesn't make sense to everybody else, we can talk about that more. For me, that's kind of the, that comes from a lot of townhouse discussions over the years, rooftop decks and whether that's great near property lines or not.

And what is your, I can't read that, your setback from the house?

From the house here, six feet from the home on the lots. So that's the setback from the primary home on the, the primary dwelling lot would be six feet as a minimum. Size of units. Never more than 50% of the dwelling. Minimum of 200 square feet so we can do building permits for them and that's a dwelling kind of minimum that's allowed. under codes. This is an area where there was some difference of opinions in the mini-meeting, so we need to talk about it more. 11,000 to about 13,000 square feet, you do 650, or we had started with 850 in that category before. Wanting to shrink them down a little bit would be to 650. We could go 13 to 16 at 850. 16 to almost 20,000 square feet, which is how people normally think of close to a half-acre lot. It's actually a little less than that, but In people's minds, 20,000, a half acre lot. So now we go up to 1200 square feet. And there's some talk of saying, if we have a really large lots, there aren't that many in the city, but people with really large lots, half acres and greater wanted to do something bigger than the 1200 square feet. Won't look out of place on those really big lots with really big houses. It wouldn't be more than 50% of the dwelling. Just not do a size for that. Or at all, but if they want to build something that big on a lot, that's that large as you get to those larger lots and look at the aerials. Impact just really starts to disappear for the neighboring adjacent homes.

Um, can I just clarify on that particular. So 20,000 square foot lot, even if you had a primary dwelling that was 1,600 square feet, I guess they're stuck at 800, right? Because it can't be more than 50%.

Yeah, yep.

So if it was a 2,300 square foot home, they wouldn't be able to hit that 1,200, right? Right. So it's an interaction between the size of the home and the size of the lot.

Right. And it's a really good example. And most of the smaller lot cases, it doesn't really come into play. But with these, yeah.

Those are going to have like a 6,000, 8,000 square foot home.

Really big lots, yeah.

They have a 3,000 to 4,000 other house.

Potentially, yeah, if they're the really, really big ones. Yeah. Some of the biggest lots are in the... I forget the name of the subdivision in my head because I need it. It's always there if I don't need it, but right now I need it there. It's a PD that allows the guest cottages already.

Oh, the Berkshires?

Thank you, Berkshires. Those are some very big lots, and they already allow this in their own kind of unique PD zone that they've got.

Because everybody knows everybody can have them.

Right. It's already kind of a deal, right? the size of the primary dwelling based off of what's above grade or the full size including basement above grade or the footprint that's a good distinction we didn't really make yet so we talked about that we're talking about the full the full square footage of the home many of those are going to be larger homes but what i'm really thinking about the footprint

My footprint is 1,200 square feet, but I have a basement, so then I could have my lot over 11,000, so I could have 600 square foot.

If we said 650 or 850, you still might not make it based on that footprint. It's the visuals that we're trying to match up and keep the ones subordinate to the others.

Yeah, I think it's important if that's what the intended counsel, then it's important. I think that that's delineated in the ordinance that it's the actual footprint.

I think it is footprint. I keep saying square foot.

It's not what's up if it's a 2 story or above or below. It's just that.

Yeah, I, I should clarify that. I know that's how I've always viewed it, but I probably didn't make that clear saying.

I think that would be wise to clarify that.

That working folks is that a concern? Footprint is what I view it as work comfortable with that.

So another question while you're writing that down.

Yeah.

If there were a lot that had a small home on it, a large lot with a small home, they actually had the size to build a larger home. Could they switch and make the new home become the primary home and then the smaller home for a...

The dad is the attached potentially. It's just the question is usually with that case setbacks. Is it going to be in the front yard area? Is it going to be? Is it going to be located appropriately? And that question also brings up people with, this is bound to happen. As we start implementing some of this, the first thing that's going to happen is someone's going to say, well, I want to build this size ADU, the ADU. Okay, well, that's more than 50% of your home. Well, I have plans for an addition to the home that will make it 50% of the home. We're going to need to deal with the existing stuff. That's going to happen as well. But yeah, I don't see any reason that we wouldn't say, yeah, we don't care which one's the primary and which one's the accessory. If you have an older house that's there, you can put a new primary in front of it. Absolutely.

So you don't have the DADU in the front yard?

As long as the DADU is not in the front. Yeah, that makes sense. Does that answer your question, Jeff? Yeah. So let me go, some of the visuals might make sense again too, might help us with this conversation. So if it's okay, I'll buzz on to the next part and we'll come back around. Oh, here we are at the visuals, look at that. So this, I got to thank Emma for cranking this out for us. You're looking at, she's overlaid the top of the houses that exist right now on a block. and then put in ADUs so you can look at where they would be and how they would fit into the makeup of that block. So this right here is an 800-square-foot ADU, and this is the 650-square-foot ADU. So two different sizes. And they're located in the backyards in areas where they could meet their setbacks and function. And all the rest of these tops are houses that already exist there. So that gives you at least some idea spatially what we're talking about. And then we did some bird's eye views of this. So again, there's the smaller one, the 650. This is an 800 square foot unit there.

So what's that thing in the back of that?

Which one? This?

No, on the very top, but kind of the exact same idea.

This?

A little bit right there. Like a shed.

Yeah, that's a shed.

That's like totally on the easement.

Yeah, it's completely. Whatever that is.

All sides.

It's probably in violation of certain rules. We'll be looking them up after this meeting is over.

Close enough.

Probably already had it in our office and they're taking care of that.

So if I were on those, if I were to put.

a breezeway or some sort of interior build a little hallway yeah i could do that and make that even bigger because that would be attached and attached it's an addition to the house that's that our rules already don't consider that attached in our um in this in this in the code that was written for orms accessory apartments years and years ago they anticipated exactly that maneuver said no

That doesn't qualify a corridor or breezeway does not qualify as attached in this case.

Okay.

So they wanted to keep it. Exactly. Left that language in as we moved it over. So if that's still the intent.

Okay. But I could build an addition to my house.

Addition to your house.

Absolutely. That'd be the apartment.

Yep.

I'm sure I'm understanding this right. So I'm asking you to help with your spatial reasoning here. The one on the bottom second from the left, that one right there. That. Looks didn't scale to me. Like it's greater than 50% of the size of the footprint. So what I can say, I want to understand that maybe I'd have to have that house might have been 2400 square feet or whatever. Yeah.

I just want to understand.

This is 800. Turn it 90 degrees when it's still...

I wish I could do that live for you. If I were Emma, I probably could.

I just want to make sure we know what we're doing.

This is, if not more than 50%. I don't think it actually is. I think it's probably real close. It's probably right. Just looking at it spatially, it's probably 40% of the house. I think it would make 800 square feet. And that's one of the codes that I wasn't, I didn't explicitly say, hey, I'm going to make sure it's not more than 50%, but it's part of the code anyways. I didn't miss that. This one's definitely less. You're right, though. It's a good thing to point out. This is why we wanted to do this exercise, because it helps you see kind of how much of that in relation, how it fits in relation to the house. This one's close to that 50% line at 800 square feet. I don't know if it was there too.

So are you just showing two on there?

Yeah, just two.

Because all those other buildings are in these.

These are just other accessory. Yeah. This is a good example because it has other accessory structures. We keep talking about them. It's not really pristine. There aren't just a whole bunch of empty lots with single homes on them. They've got detached garages and sheds. There's stuff back there.

So the second from the right, is that accessory dwelling unit to the left as far as it can go?

It could probably go a little further left.

It's like it's not on that.

It's probably more than 10 feet. It could probably go a little further this way and get further from that unit there, from this shed or whatever that is.

And then, let's see, how does that affect the house adding on to the left?

This one here? They could add on. So this is a 25-foot rear yard, so they would be able to add on.

So they could go all the way back until that. then the exception would have to pull in.

The exception would have to kick in, and that's why we'd want that for sure. Using a 30-foot offset from the buildable line, you want something like the exception to say, look, just because you put this 10 feet over here, and I'm going to be two feet off, I'm not taking two feet off my sunroom because of your ADU. So that would protect kind of the previous ones. That's why I would suggest the exception. And we don't have a coverage issue yet, but in the future there might be. This is a lot of coverage of the re-yard in that case there. But again, a lot of re-yard gets covered when you maximize your house, too. This house is covering a lot of the re-yard, at least as much as this one is. So it's kind of similar in impact.

Jared? Yeah. Let's say The one with the shed came in. They applied to do a detached accessory dwelling unit. And then looking at the application, staff saw that it was a violation, for example, of the shed. We tell them they'd have to come into compliance with other regulations. What would we be able to do? Who heard you?

Yes. In fact, yes. That's the kind of thing that comes up.

We say, look, kids, it's great you want to do this. And as pointed out that you have a nonconforming structure on your property, let's look at the permits. And I can't tell you, I mean, just looking at it from the air doesn't really tell me. It could be that they built it with a roof drain system and we permitted it in 1973 or whatever. It might be legal and nonconforming and can stay there. We try to get people to put it out until we know they're in violation.

And then it's really... We look at that every time a new permit comes in.

Yeah, we look at the conformance of the law, especially where there are material implications for it. And the slot coverage is important.

So there could fit one on that upper corner lot too.

Probably, yeah. You mean this one here?

The one on the left.

Oh, this one. Yeah. This one would struggle. We've built a lot. It's not your left.

Yeah, sorry.

Your right or left. Oh, okay. All the way. Keep going. All the way. My left too.

Keep going. This one could definitely, yeah. There's room in this area here.

We are definitely not prohibiting.

We didn't show an ADU on every potential lot in the block.

Out of 2, 4, 6, 8 houses, you're getting a third.

I'm glad you mentioned that. In the meetings that we talked about, a third is almost exactly right. We looked at more lots. Emma pulled another 300. We actually have all of them pulled, but we run numbers on 400 of them in the spreadsheet. When you run the numbers with the When you run the numbers with one of these things, with these setbacks and requirements, about 47% of the lots in that first 400 lots are eligible, could get an ADU. Now, there might be other things that, there might be decks in the way or sheds that are already there that would be in the way, but technically they'd be eligible for, they'd have a way to be able to put a DADU in there. So we're pretty good.

Or they could be owner-occupied.

Yeah, they might be non-occupied, and that does include some vacant parcels as well. If you pull the vacant parcels out, I think, and they haven't been built on, so who knows for sure, but technically, we include the vacant parcels, we get to 47%. You pull the vacant parcels out of that same grouping, and I think you're down to 43.5% or something. But it's a lot more than we expected. It's a greater percentage than we expected off our first numbers. We had a random sample that was 10%. We bumped that up to be a little more direct and did all the numbers in like 150 or 200 and got to like 30%. With 400 of them in, 47%. So, fairly good.

Okay. So, to build ADU on your property, you have to be owner-occupied on that property first.

The owner needs to live in either the DADU or the primary community.

So let's say you build a DADU on your property and then you sell that property and that person buys it as a investment property. What happens then?

Well, what happens is the title work that comes through flags the affidavit that we make you record when we give you an ADU permit.

So it de-restricts it to be owner-occupied.

Essentially, yeah. Because you found an affidavit that says, I live in one of these units.

Okay.

And I will live on the property. So when you go to sell it, your investor or your buyer knows that. We won't relicense them unless you're demonstrating that you live there. It flags it in the title searches.

So go back to the neighborhood photo, please.

This one. Which one do you want? That one.

That's a lot. You have one, too.

You kind of see where that number kicks in. There are all kinds of complications that might happen when people go to actually do it. Things can go wrong pretty quickly as you're looking at different scenarios. It might be that you don't want to do it where you want to do it because you We've got a deck in the way or whatever else there is. But technically, 7%.

So are those property lines, is it jet?

Yeah, these kind of stick into this one a little bit.

There's a lot going on.

There's a shade.

Sunshade.

A little neighborhood. You look at the world from the air all the time, it looks messy and busy. A lot of cars parked back here. Google Earth changed everything. So when we have this weird illegal parking situation, we'll be looking into all of their lives pretty soon. Yeah. I hope that we wanted it to show kind of the massing and how that works and if that's acceptable, especially for the size. Oh, honestly, also I should have said, these are shown, these are accurate for height and stuff for the buildings that are there, and these are 14 feet for the homes, these pitched roofs.

Wow.

These aren't the extra tall ones, but, you know, there you go. A couple other views of the same thing, so you can get an idea how it looks or how it would look if you're looking at it from that angle. Just like that. I do have a few more. Just examples that Emma did of different homes that met the requirements. You can meet the requirements and still have quite a big area in the back. There are 10 of these just pulled at random to show that it can be done. These codes, even with the slightly larger rear setback, 20 feet. Again, you've got to provide parking. Things can go wrong. You've got to provide parking for it. You've got to be comfortable with how it's working on the lot for your home itself and everything that's going. This is just strictly looking at whether you can meet the standards that we write for setback and height, et cetera.

So how would it goof it up if we wrote something that didn't need an exception?

Uh, which 1 that the 30, the between 20 or to protect the rights of the property rights of the new property changes it a little bit. Um, I don't have any of those included in this slide deck, but in the other slide decks that we had from before those that you were seeing in the mini meetings, those are all based on 30 feet from a built to line. And the percentage doesn't change a whole lot. It's just more complicated to measure. But you maintain that 20 feet and some of them, you know, there's homes that it shrinks some of those buildable areas, but it doesn't, it's not a make or break in most situations. There are a few drop off, might lose a little percentage. But in general, the ones that are making it are making it because they're pretty significantly easy to do. And that 30 feet versus the 20 separation or an exception doesn't make a huge difference. So basically this is a good one to show. So if this home could be extended further back, you might need to be, this might, it might carve, you know, three or four feet out of that multiple area where to keep that 30 foot. Oh, sorry. It would be more than that because it would increase this by the 20 by the 10. So it'd be, yeah, shrink this in five, six feet.

So, and then if you flip that the other way, you would say if that house built a detached ADU, their detached ADU would be three to six feet closer.

their addition that it would normally have been they've been allowed to be exception in there so they'd be there'd be a smaller buffer between the two neighbors yes that's right that's essentially the impact of that it's hard to show that right a couple of different ways to show the difference between the two and it's just hard to show it there you go uh any questions that works on the cul-de-sac still the cul-de-sacs get really where you could do an ADU?

I'm waiting for someone to say, hey, that's my house.

I was hoping. It's been so far.

I don't think mine...

Any questions or is there more stuff you want to look at and talk about? Should we go back to some of those other slides?

I have a question for down the road. Once this is submitted to the state, do they have somebody that reviews it and says you're good or is there a chance they'll kick it back and say you need to look at this again?

Their requirements were simple enough that if we pass something, their requirements were we either passed it or theirs went into effect. So I don't think they're going to have anybody checking. Sometimes they write that in with the water income housing and such. We have to report somebody. We don't have a reporting requirement in this particular code. I suspect they'll check everybody's, keep an eye on everybody, or maybe they won't. I don't know. There's no mechanism built into the code they wrote. So

Council, any other questions?

Does the 20 to 30, I'm still with this side yard. That's my hang up right now because I got people behind me right now fighting over a fence. Sure. People care about their rights on their side of the fence.

Let me go back up to the diagram.

Someone's going to be a little miffed if they find out their neighbor's building three feet closer than they should. Is there, if 30 isn't the right number, is there a number, does 25 help protect that still? You know what I'm trying to say here, so we don't have those contentious moments that between neighbors?

I know what you're saying. I'm not sure how to do it other than the fundamental mechanism is what's different. The number can be different, but the way you measure it is really what you're talking about. You're talking about measuring it from this. This dotted line is where they could build to. And what you're talking about is even if we were 20, let's do 20 from the dotted line where they can build to as opposed to 20 from where they exist. And that's That's the real question. If the number is different, it's just different from that line instead of from the property line or from between the dwellings. You could say 25 feet between dwellings.

But you still might have a foot or two that somebody's feeling they're impinged upon. That's why you came up with the 30. It's because the 30 had good buffers, good arguments.

you're 30 feet off it's going to shave it's going to what it does essentially is 30 feet from this build 2 line just if you're going 30 feet from the build 2 line on the adjacent locks you're just pushing the the buildable area of the adu on whatever lot you're looking at toward the center of that lock as opposed to toward the edges that's the thinking behind 30 feet and the build 2. The build to or the setbacks of the potential for this lot is really partially about protecting that lot, but also about pushing this further in and making it part of this lot's concern rather than as far over as here. Human nature is going to be to push things to the edges, right, of the allowance. So if the allowance is 10 feet, you can assume that a lot of times they're going to be 10 feet unless there's a reason to do it otherwise. So the 20 feet that we proposed as initially with the Planning Commission, the 20 feet between any dwellings, it's just a failsafe to make sure there's at least 20 feet between my house and the person's new ADU, regardless of whether they're set back. That's where we started. The 30 feet from the build-to-land is a different kind of a proposition. It's a different way of looking at it.

Okay. So we need to adopt an ordinance at our next meeting. Or else the state takes away our birthday. Yes. Okay, so we've got to do that. So, what do you need from us today to go forward to draft this ordinance? So it sounds like we maybe have some differences of opinion on what we just discussed. What would be helpful for you as you draft an ordinance for our next meeting, which will be a public hearing, so residents can weigh in.

Yeah. The next one would be September 22nd would be the hearing. So we can hopefully get something adopted so there's nothing outstanding and the state's rules don't apply.

What information from, what would you like from us today? Some thoughts.

Total unity and love. All points. The most important sticking points, I think, if we could, let's do this. This will be helpful. I don't want to take up your whole evening or afternoon. The biggest sticking points, I think, seem to be, I don't think... From the mini meetings, I would say the biggest sticking points were probably the distance as we're measuring it, like we're just talking about. That's a point that we need to have cleared. I may not be completely clear on that before the hearing, and I can accept that. I'll have to draft sort of the majority opinion on it, and that's what I would do in the event of no more information tonight. Draft on what I know. And that's what's represented here. The 20 feet is represented here because it seems to be the majority from the mini meetings. The other thing that was a point that I want to make sure I'm clear on is the size of the units allowed. That we were a little bit all over the map, not all over the map. That's not fair to say we were. Some folks were okay with just saying 850 is the basic number because people are going to be restricted because of the 50% rule and such. So there's no need to really get too fine with that point. Other folks feel like the 650 is a fine starting point too. Again, if you're a smaller lot and you're only going to get 650, okay.

What did the Planning Commission recommend?

The Planning Commission recommended 850 as a starting point. Or 800, sorry. 800 was the starting point discussed different square footages or did where they just presented you showed 800 and then when we talked to the planning commission, 800 looked a lot larger in real life as we looked at it. Then we kind of anticipated like that 1. Like Jen was pointing out, 800 is bigger in real life than you think as it sits on a lot. 650 is bigger than you think on a lot. So we, when we came to the council at first, we dropped down to 650. That's kind of where we, right now, the draft that I prepared for council's first work session on it, it's starting at 650. What I guess I guess what I need to know is, is that still acceptable? We feel strongly about staying with 8 as a baseline and letting the 50% rule. Are we okay with smaller lots smaller? I mean, they're all over 11,000, so they're not little moments, but we're okay with the smaller, like, 11 to 12,000.

Go back to the slide that had the breakdown there.

So, 11 to 13, leave them at 650. 13 to 16 go up to 850. 16 to 20,000 essentially say that's the maximum, not the minimum. That's the maximum, not the minimum. You can build them as small as 200 square feet if you want.

Okay.

No minimums really. Just give me the maximum of the, of the footprint of the foot and 50% of the footprint of the home. So a lot of homes are going to, that's going to come into play. That would come into this building right here. Real close to 50, probably over it. This isn't some ADU that we have. This is just a random.

Another city, right?

This is a California city. Of course. California. But it's probably larger than we would allow based on that 50-foot rule, regardless of our 800 or 650 or whatever. That's going to do some heavy lifting in some cases on the smaller ones. I'm not sure it's going to come into play as much.

Council, what are you thinking?

I like the 650. I like the no lift. Well, I think that no more than 50% of the footprint of the house is helpful. But when you get into the larger lot sizes with the larger homes, that could be a really big thing to do.

That would only apply to these exceptions at 20,000 grand, but those are the ones that are going to have the really big houses. So I need to know if we should have that kind of an exception or not, or if you just cap it out at 1,200 and say, it doesn't matter if you have an 8,000 square foot house on an acre and a half, You're an ADU. Your DADU is still 1,200 square feet. That's the size of a home. That's plenty of footprint. But the question is whether that's even necessary when you're talking about that big of a lot. Why not just let them bigger? I need to know if we should have an exception like that.

Prefer it to be capped.

Some kind of cap. Any other thoughts about that?

Comfortable leaving it as you've written it here. I think the least amount of government regulation is better in that, as long as it doesn't impact neighbors. But on a lot of that size, I think that there will be safeguards in place so it won't impact neighbors.

It's hard to impact neighbors on that size of a lot, even with the closure.

I've seen them.

They will impact families with kids.

Good point.

Good for our schools.

Well, can I ask a practical question? Sure. I think I've asked you this before, but I'm not sure if I remember the answer. Thinking about people who might build these, I assume there are some people who will build them from scratch and design them on their own. But I think a lot of people will use existing floor plans, maybe modular construction or And I'm wondering if that 650 is a square footage that works for a lot of those existing modular or other constructions, or if we're going to get somebody trouble through. Or is the 800 because that's the small one that they've seen and put on there? I just am not familiar with the modular kits.

Sure. That's a great question. We did talk about it, I remember. So I don't know about the modular kits and things, but there are two most popular. The reason I came with these numbers is because of the two most popular. The two most popular Connex conversions that are sold, 650 and 850. There is an 800 one as well. Two most popular, 650 and 850. So that's a big conversion. Which one is the most popular is, I don't know. There are their two most popular models. So those work for both of those. And that's, I think, why so many codes use those numbers.

I don't know about anyone else, but my feed, my internet has filled up with floor plans for DADUs. Yeah. And I find it really interesting. So I'm good with it. I mean, I feel comfortable with what you have there.

With the smaller 650s and going up from there.

I just find that really interesting that all of a sudden, like in the last two or three days, I keep getting these advertisements for... Mine's not big enough. It's actually listening to your thoughts. It's kind of creepy.

Any other thoughts? I would also be comfortable with this. I'm not. Well, it's good to know, at least as we kind of look forward. That helps with the draft.

I'm just going to voice my opinion. I don't agree with the 50% of the larger lots. I think a detached ADU should be just that, a detached accessory dwelling unit, not a home behind a home. And on the 20,000 square foot lots, we are opening up our city on those lots to a home behind a home. So I'm going to voice my opinion against that.

You'd be in favor of a cap of some kind.

Yeah, I like the 1,200. I think that's a huge, that's, I mean, you know, I lived in a nice little 900 square foot apartment. It was big when I moved in out of college, you know, having my own room and stuff. So I think that's great for the purpose of what DADUs are. They're not supposed to be...

A house. A second cottage or whatever.

How many 20,000 square foot lots we have in the city? How many are we talking?

I don't know that number. I know that 20 of the 5,800 that are over 11,000 square feet, 2,000 something of them are between 11 and 12. So it's I don't know the breakdown. I'm sorry.

I just want to say, I think the reason why I'm against that is because of people who've built homes on those size of lots have an expectation of what their neighborhood's going to look like. The Berkshires, they know because they've agreed to that in their PD zone. They've seen that that's already there. But I don't know if that, where this is going to affect other areas or how, but if, you know, if I, that big of a, of an estate, place that I obviously intentionally purchased and built my home and designed my landscaping and everything, and then my neighbor puts in a, I don't know, if I'm a 6,000, put in a 3,000 square foot detached ADU, that will impact me. I just don't feel like, I feel like there's property rights on both sides of the fence. And too many times we just look at the one property and we don't consider the neighbors and then we hear about it later.

It's, it's, it's, you have to kind of imagine this in a way. We didn't, those numbers, the percentages of that work go up as you get bigger, obviously, right? But we didn't do a visual of that kind of thing. We don't have anything to shoot for. I don't know what to expect. If we don't have a cap, if we do have a cap, it's hard to say.

It would be helpful to see what that looks like. I mean, it's like, generally, how many lots are we talking about in the city? And then also beach to see visually. A lot of the homes, you know, 7,000 square feet, but 3,500 square feet home on the lot. What does that look like? I'd appreciate seeing that, if that's a thing.

We can do that. And this is helpful for the hearing. And we might have to approve an amendment with modifications specific that night, if that'll work. And then we can make sure that's what gets adopted and signed. We'll have a gigantic window of Almost eight days after that meeting to sign.

Oh, it's only going to be two or three until you're living next to them.

Let me do that. Then I'll put together some numbers about how many lots it would be. And we'll do some visuals about what sizes might be if they were like based on the 50%. Just pick some of those. There might not be that many.

I'm okay with, I mean, I don't, I guess, do you want, does anybody else want to see it? I don't know that he needs to spend more time, staff time. I'd be curious. This is just a, whether you agree with that or not, basically. I don't know.

I would be curious because I, I'm just looking at the plot maps and looks like most of our big lots are down. Well, the river bottoms. We have a few larger parcels that have just not been subdivided yet.

There's going to be some of those that are going to fall.

I'm curious because I do understand your concern.

Perfect homes up by me. By you? Half acre. How big are those? Three quarters? Let me take a look. Lots different. Some of them are.

Some are large.

Some are pretty big.

There are eight, but some are larger, right?

I don't think we mind just a little more of the drawings and getting some numbers together. We can give that to you in the work session. I'm assuming that we'll want to go through the draft that's on your agenda in the work session as well, and we can give you those.

Is that going to change anybody's mind?

I don't know.

It's not going to change your mind, folks. Let's not make the staff do the...

I can't tell which one I prefer, so that would be a little...

We're done. It's no problem. It's just writing. It's just typing words. We can do it. We'll get some numbers together, too, just so. We'll draft it one way and show you the things, and if we want to change it, make that part of a condition of whatever approval gets done. My main concern is getting, I want to get as close to what will be the best for everybody's wants for this as we can, get it adopted in time for October 1st deadline, and we will fix it from there as well. If we have problems, we'll fix them. As we go, but to have something at least that approximates what everybody wants to see on the books is our main goal. We'll do that. And that helps me. I can at least draft something. And we'll get it out to you as early as possible and then present it in work position if we get time for it.

So what else? She has two more things.

Nope, that's it. Let's see. Square footage. The height, I think we're okay. I think everyone, if I'm reading the room right, the height's okay. Size of the units was one thing. And then the setbacks, the different setbacks.

So I'm going to voice my opposition also to the 20 foot. I see no reason to cut off 5 feet. When we spelled Jared, you said, once again, you said that's not going to make any difference.

25 doesn't make a huge difference. It just shrinks them.

Just stay with the zones. The back of the zone.

It doesn't, it doesn't, in most cases, it's not going to say, it's not going to mean yes or no. It's just going to shrink the building envelope. It's going to shrink the building envelope by the five feet or 10 feet of itself. There's the, there are zones that require 30 feet. So it does, it does shrink it. It'll shrink it five or 10 feet. And then there are cases where it'll say, it'll mean you can't do it, but there aren't that many of those. It's the majority of them will just be shrinking the buildable envelope. That's true.

So do y'all want to stay with the 20 feet or do you want to do the 25?

The 20 feet is... Is the 20 with an exception?

The exception would be for the 3. yeah. Okay. 20 between units or the 20 between dwelling units would be with an exception.

Got it. Okay. Sorry.

This is the rear setback that when he's talking about the right setback. We've written as we had written as 20. everyone seemed comfortable with that. We talked about looking at it using the. The zones setbacks, so that's 20 or 25 or 30, depending on the zone you're in. And the question is, does that really make that big a difference in how many lots are available or not? I don't think it really does. Looking at some of them side by side, it mostly shrinks the building footprints. But yeah, it does shrink building footprints and there will be those cases that... Just looking at them randomly, there will be those cases that we can't anticipate yet that does make it not available. But, again, you're not available to DOD. You're available still to do an 80 inside. The question is just whether 20 feet seems like a reasonable just catch-all, everything's got to be 20 for the rears, or if you want to go with the part of the zone.

Go back to the slide that talks about them.

Yeah. All right. So right now, the 20 represents what everyone, well, the majority of folks in the mini meetings felt comfortable with, as opposed to using the setbacks of the zone. Well, what he's asking is, do you feel differently about that at this point, if it doesn't really move the needle that much?

Why wouldn't we just go with the setbacks of the zone? You can buy your property knowing that that was the setback requirements. Why don't we just stay with that? Some would be 20, right? There are some?

Yeah, the R6 and R65 would be 20s. The other 7, 8, and above would be 25s. And then the really big zonings that you don't see very much of in the city are 30 setbacks. There'd be a few of those. But again, those are the really big, those are bigger lots.

That protects the property rights on both sides of the fence a lot better to do at least the setback of the zone.

I support the 20 because I think a few things. One, again, this whole idea of government regulation that tells you where you can and can't put this little thing on your property. But two, we're not talking about a whole big primary dwelling unit that could be however tall and however big and however large. It's just a much smaller footprint, so it has a much less impact. So I want to give them a little bit of flexibility about where they put it on their property.

Sure. Yeah. I can understand that. Any other thoughts?

In the pictures that you showed us before, looking down, are those at 20 feet or 25?

That's a good question. I think she's shown these at, they're just in the, I don't have dimensions on that.

I apologize.

More than 20.

I think she just dropped them in.

Yeah, it's more than 20. The front's the 20.

It looks like it's the same as the front yard, the one you're just on. 25 minimum. It's showing 25s.

It's probably showing 25s. Again, that's the thing is there's, if you went to 25, it just shrinks the area where you can do this as opposed to the 20, which gives you a little more flexibility. I mean, both arguments, neither argument is invalid. They're just different.

Those even look like they're 10 feet away from the house proportionally.

They're further from the houses than the six feet, too. No, they're not set at, they're not done at, I mean, there's really no way to, because they can't be, they can't fill up the whole billable area, so we had to just plunk them down somewhere. And the direction I gave them was plunk them down somewhere. Where they fit. What we're trying to show is in general what the massing, what they would look like generally in terms of mass in the rig gardens.

Jared, what's your guess in terms of the zoning of the snake? All right. So that would be 25. These would be 25.

These are 11,000 greater square foot lots in the R8 zone.

That home on the front that's large. Yeah, that side. I'll keep going. All of those have a much closer to their fence.

Yeah, they're all.

It looks almost like 10 feet. Yeah.

Well, this one's fairly close. This is probably a patio cover of some kind. I don't know. But, yeah, these are meeting setbacks to the rear because this one's lot line jogs a little bit.

You have to be 25, right? Yeah.

They should be 25.

Good call. Just trying to determine approximations of spacing and feet.

Yeah.

And you said there really isn't any, there wouldn't be much difference.

There's not no difference. It shrinks that envelope and there will be cases where it becomes ineligible, but it'll be on the smaller lots for larger homes that are going to be most impacted. And a lot of the lots of 11,000 square feet, most of them are not like this gentleman here, this lot, for example. It's not going to make it for an ADU in the rear yard area in either case. It'd have to put it over in this area somewhere. So 25 feet might kill this one, but I don't think it's going to be eligible at 20 either. It's going to have trouble locating one. Most of them are going to be like that. They're going to wind up saying five feet isn't making the difference. That's not to say that there will not be cases where that five feet or 10 feet It means doing it or not doing it. Those will happen. But it's not going to be a sea change of, oh, now we're down to 20% of eligible lots or something. That's not going to happen.

And if we found that that was a problem, we could always change it to give more allowance. We can't put it back in once we've decided it. So if it's not, in your opinion, it sounds like it's not going to change that much.

Yes, you can change it, even if you decide it's a problem. It's just you can't change it without making something nonconforming. The other direction, if you started at the zoning setbacks and then got and said, yeah, this is too much. It's being too hard for people. We want to go the other direction. You can make a change with no impact. No one's going to be nonconforming. If you start the other way and say, oh, this is terrible. Yeah. We've got four of these or six of these that they were too close to cause problems. We want to go to the zoning setbacks instead. I've got half a dozen non-conforming ADUs. So yeah, it's easier to go the other way.

People complaining that this was prohibiting them, then we could revisit that and adjust the ordinance to be more convenient, but we can't easily make it go the other way.

It's true.

And I still, as far as I know, I still work for you after October 1st. So I can make any changes you want to make after that. Want to go either direction? I'll go either direction. It's pretty much established I will do anything.

No problem. You can go back to the slide again, Jared. Which one? The one with the, nope. This one. Yes, that one. So all we're talking about here is rear setbacks.

Yes.

You feel like you have good support on the rest of those?

Yes. The others, I think I know what to do without there being too many differences that we couldn't resolve in the meeting. Setbacks?

I'm still having a problem with it. Why not have a clean? I mean, I still want to talk about the other one.

Which one?

Because, I mean, anyway.

That's okay. Do you want to talk about that one?

Let him finish. Let's finish this one and then move that one.

What I'm hearing on the rear setbacks is this is going to make a marginal difference. Yes. And in that case, I think whatever is easiest to manage for property owners, because it's not going to make a big difference either way. For me, the more consequential one is the distance between dwelling on an adjacent lot. And, you know, 20 feet sounds about right to me on that. Okay.

So you're more comfortable with the 20 feet between dwellings as opposed to the 30 feet. So we're kind of segwaying.

Did we just shift over from the building? I just waited on both. Sorry. Okay. Let's go back to the thank you, which is you're fine. You're fine to do that. Let's get this one wrapped up. If it's a negligible difference, I'm fine either way. I'm okay with 25 or 20 feet. I have whatever works for what Quinn said. I agree with him on that. It's the other one that I want to have some more discussion on.

Anybody else? Sorry about the 30 feet. Is it making sense?

Jeff and Chris.

I mean, I'm...

I could be persuaded to go with 25. I don't know that it's going to make that much difference.

It would be 25 in an R8, right?

Yeah. But at the same time, I'm thinking of the people that are going to be living closer together inside the lot.

But that's their choice.

You know what you're getting into. You're the one doing it, right? You're the one creating that. So...

and i'm still good with the 20 feet on the sides okay okay it's helpful anybody else probably the same i don't it's not a strong okay so my i just want to just clarify the 25 feet is not just about the person but what we're looking at it's about the lot behind you the lot behind you behind that person has 25 feet they they have an expectation of 25 feet on both sides of the fence so That's why I'm saying the impact, the ability, the impact, everything, everything should be absorbed by the person who's benefiting from the detached age or not benefiting from the detached age. He's choosing to have the detached age.

I'm hearing that there would be people are comfortable with a 25. They'd be okay with a 25 foot.

So can we go to 25?

Rear setback.

Well, the setback of the zone.

I mean, that's what I'm hearing. It sounds like the discussion is on the buildable, the other.

No, I think we're selling the 25, so I'm okay with that.

Oh, we're talking rear setback, 25 feet or whatever the underlying zone is. Rear setback being the setback of the zone.

That's currently what it is. It's 25 feet.

Or just in the ordinance, whatever the underlying, the current, is that what I'm hearing?

Yeah, I heard from you, Jen, that you're uncomfortable with that.

It's not my preference, but I'm one person. So my preference is that we go with 20 for several reasons. One I didn't mention was that 20 is a really generous standard compared to the neighboring cities around us that have made similar ordinances that are 3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet. So the 20, I think, is adequate. But whatever the majority of council wants is what we're comfortable with. So it helps.

Again, I think if we go with the setback of the zone, if we find that this is not allowing people to build them that really want to, we do have the option of changing it and making it more allowable later. We can't put that toothpaste back at the tube.

We can. We just lose. For anybody who builds in the meantime.

There's a lot of non-conforming out there, which then.

Potential, yeah.

That's the reason you would do that is because you have had the House on Palisade. You know what I mean?

It's the same scenario. I'd rather inch out on this than just jump in completely with, yeah, do whatever you want.

That's helpful.

We got that one. So now let's go to the one that everyone wants to talk about.

So this... Is that making sense to folks, the difference between the two? You're looking at, in this diagram, the buildable pad of an ADU in the backyard of this home with a 10-foot setback to the property line and a 20-foot required setback to any dwelling on the adjacent lot. What Linnea is talking about is the other... version of this, which would be instead of saying your ADU must be 20 feet from this house, it's got to be 30 feet from where this house could be expanded to. So that dotted line there is where you could, this house is just a little bit smaller than it could be, you could build it out in this area, and what you would do is then say 30 feet, so you take this 30 feet from that line, come in here like that somewhere in here it would have a smaller buildable area and if you've got the same thing over here you know it's shrunk a little bit so it moves things toward the center for the 30 feet that's 20 feet off so instead of that big long whole thing being built right no one's going to build that no but you're saying it moves it more so they're condensing it more to the Instead of being built out here, it might have to be built here.

The size it could be built would still be dependent on the size of the footprint of the house and the lot size anyways, but it pushes it to be closer to the house on the lot it exists on than the neighboring property.

And in this scenario, this is a really simple lot setup, right? Lot setups are complicated. Lots are shaped weird. There's lots of instances where that 30 feet from a build-to line would be more impactful than in this one. But that's the general way it would work is that. It's easier to talk about what's not a complicated lot. 30 feet would push you more in this area here with build-to lines.

Now that we're talking about it, nobody's talking about it.

Are we all thinking about it? If someone built their house, they could go to eight feet from the fence.

If this gentleman wanted to add on to his house, he could add on to this area up to eight feet. with a setback of eight feet. So it would be two feet short of that 20-foot deal. But in the case we're talking about, we would be talking about a code that said he might ever build in this area. So when you place your ADU, we're going to make sure you're 30 feet away from that line that he could build to.

In the case where the home on the right is much further away from the property line, The 20 feet becomes irrelevant, right? Right. But is the homeowner on the left still required to build at least 10 feet away from the property line, in that case? Yes.

He's still required to stay 10 feet from the property line, no matter what. That's the minimum, no matter what, 10.

And we're going to have utility easements.

Utility easements are going to be in most of that 10 feet in most cases, so.

So I guess my question is this, maybe I'm not quite understanding this, but my question is why then the way you're explaining it looks like there's not going to be any overview on other people's buffering or whatever you want to call it. We have to put an exception in the code. If that's true, then we don't need the exception in the code. So that's why I asked earlier, is 30 feet the needed amount to protect those opportunities to use the property how they want, both neighbors? So I thought that's why we came up with the 30 feet, because that was the solution to impinging on someone else's buildable area.

Well, yeah, I don't know if it's quite that on the nose. 30 feet is a greater setback to assure that the ADU in the backyard, because it's in the backyard, doesn't impact the potential future enjoyment of that potential addition.

Neighbor.

And I think that's... It's kind of a, this one's really a question of principle. I'm way over. I'm sorry. This one is really a question of how you're looking at it. If the intent is to say there's no, you need to be far away from anybody's potential home. then you want something like the 30 foot deal. If 20 feet between any dwelling and anybody's accessory dwelling and it is acceptable.

We're switching from buildable area to dwelling. And that's the thing I'm having a problem with is I think those buildable areas should be protected.

Right. So the principal part of time.

So when you switch to then making the distance between a dwelling and then you have that opportunity to impinge on somebody else's buildable area. So how do we get something that doesn't create that exclusion needing to be in the law? How can we just have a clean law without any opportunity for someone affecting someone else's enjoyment of their property?

Well, if you're talking about in terms of code, somebody's house, this house, for example. So this house right here, as it was pointed out, has not been built up to this eight-foot line. It neither has this one, right? So there's 16 feet potentially between these homes, all the way back to 25 feet for the rear lot. So most of that space hasn't been used up. So I'm not sure how it... It doesn't really translate exactly that way. Because he could build eight feet right here, build this house out to right that point. Fill up his eight feet and it'll only be 16 feet from this house. So 20 feet is already more than that. 30 feet is significantly, well, 10 feet again more than that. So it just... Does more to keep the ADU away from him. The house could potentially be a lot closer to his house than the ADU could be. So it's sort of recognizing that the ADU is a different animal and is not expected, like you've said in the past, no one signed up for having something in the backyard as a house. We want to keep that further away from the home than it would be otherwise, than actually the main dwelling could be. The same point, though, It's the same point on the other side of that argument. That's the problem is they're both good arguments. Same point on the other side of that argument is the house can be two stories and have 35 feet and it's already only gotta be 16 feet from your home if you're built to eight feet. So what do we really gain by pushing the ADU further? it's just if you if you view the ada as needing or the adu as needing to stay subordinate to the primary home and not impact as much as possible then something like the 30 feet from the village line is a better way to go uh the 20 feet is a fail-safe protection saying you know the subordinate it's just not as subordinate the other person does that make sense it's it's just a different way of looking at it can i just make sure my mouth is correct on this jared

You're always going to have 16 feet between dwelling units because that's the buildable line. Yes. When you add an ADU, according to this plan, you're always going to have at least 18 feet.

Yes.

Because you have 10 on your side and 8 on their side. And if they do not build up to the buildable line, you're always going to have at least 20 feet.

Yes.

Did I get that right? That's right.

Why do we need the exclusion?

To give him the other two feet from the 18. If they build an AU here at 10 feet and he wants to build right here, he's going to be violating the 20-foot rule by two feet.

Why don't we just do 10 feet from the property line, side property lines?

Well, we'd have to adjust the regular R8 zoning to say you don't get an eight-foot side yard, you got to have a 10-foot side yard.

But that doesn't really, I mean, two feet for that, then that puts two feet on the owner who wants the ADU. They feel the impact by two more feet.

The way that you could make it, I mean, it was just changing the number. You could call the number, the side setback, 12 feet, and then you would protect forever the kind of expected 8-foot side yard.

So that's an easy write-up with no having to put an exception in the code.

You could say side yards are 12 feet to worry about that.

But if we're going to go with the 25-foot setback to match the zone, why would we change the side setback to not match?

We're protecting the buildable area. cider is because they have a difference between eight foot or attempt a choice between eight or ten build your house you can move your house you just have to have the combined 20 i thought but well 20 is 20 is the fail-safe that's why right is yeah that's what it would do is it would save you it won't impact anybody's your ad you couldn't impact anybody's ability to build on their lot if you were 12 feet off 12 just protects both people without having to worry about an exception in the code

That's two feet. Yeah, that's true. If we made it 12, you wouldn't worry about an exception.

What's the height, for example, if I wanted to build a three-story home on the eight-foot setback line on my home, how high is that? I mean, how high can I go?

Now that we've made, that's a good question. We've made changes to how high you want it.

Right, but I'm just saying, if I'm eight feet away, so it would adjust out, but how high can I go if I'm on the eight-foot line? On the eight-foot line, 30 feet. Okay, so I can go up 30 feet on my personal residential home. My ADU is set at 14. So I think for me personally, the discussion of the 20 or 30 is almost germane based on the size of my regular primary home will impinge much more on my neighbor at 30 feet than this little 14 feet so far away anyway.

The height ordinances that we've written, that's a good point. The height ordinances that we've written now are attempting to address that. So, 30 feet is your baseline, but again, we've got that built whole envelope that might impact that a little bit. You might only be at 24 or something. If you can get that and put a gable on it, we're going to make you do all kinds of stuff. But, good call.

I think that, Chris, I think the issue is neighbor relations. Because, you know, I can't really say anything about my neighbor adding on to their house.

Right.

But I can get hot under the collar about my neighbor adding an apartment in their house. Because for some reason, that's going to bug me more.

It might bug you more, but I don't know if it would bug everybody more. That's the question I'm asking.

It's going to bug the next-door property owner more because it's a different housing product that has been placed next to their house. It's no longer single-family property. dwelling, picking up that space.

I can see what you're saying.

That's what I'm trying to say.

I agree with what you're saying. My opinion is slightly different, but I understand. Thank you.

I'm just trying to throw that out. That's what we might come up against.

Anything else? To me, 10 feet, that feels like it's two feet more than what it would have been. So I'm good with 10 feet.

Other thoughts that should take into consideration there for the.

Okay, that's it. Did you say 10 feet from the property line then?

10 feet for the interior property. Um, okay. Any other, I think I think I understand the. Kind of everybody's positions on it work where we are. And I can try to write for that. So, yeah, it will be, it'll be fine.

It will be fun.

If you have any thoughts as we go forward, as we go toward the 22nd, let me know. Shoot me any thoughts, and I'll try to help you. And, yeah, we can hash it out and be ready. The most important thing is that you get something in place. And like Crystal said, we can always make modifications.

We can make modifications.

Make any kind of modifications we need. All right. I'll let you move on. Thank you. Thanks, guys.

All right. The next item on our agenda is a central dispatch solution, 10-minute presentation, 10-minute Q&A.

Are you going to just go for it? We've got Jake, too, and we're going to cleanse your palate from all this ADU stuff, and we'll talk about something else for a minute, and then we'll get back into the main course of the ADUs with Jake. So we rock, paper, scissors, and I'll talk about dispatch, and he'll talk about it. With that, I just, we don't need to take the full 20 minutes. I'll go be very brief so that you can have more time to discuss the 80s with Jake. But I do want to give a little bit of history to our newer. Newer council members as to what brought us here to. Transferring over from Metro dispatch to central dispatch and the reasons for money that so that when we bring it to the consent for the next council meeting, maybe prepared to make that decision. So in 2022, we had some historical issues with dispatching, retaining, and attracting, and recruiting dispatchers. And it was nationwide that we were having issues with that. And with that, we met with Provo and decided to join with Provo to create Metro Dispatch. And that was a consolidation that we gave up our public safety answering pool, our PSAP, because the state has requirements that if you join another agency, you can only have one PSAP. And once you give up your PSAP, you're not able to get it back. So with that, the provisional agreement that we made with Provo would be that we would share one PSAP and work together as an interlocal agency. And from 2022 to 2025 was the timeframe that we were supposed to create the interlocal agency. During that time, Provo had some hesitation and reservation to create the interlocal agency and has decided that they prefer that we were a customer of Provo Dispatch rather than an interlocal agency. That impacts not just Orem residents, but Linden residents as well. So we met with Provo administration and tried to work out some ways that we could continue with Provo for dispatch. And we weren't able to come to a resolution there. And our biggest issues were being able to control the budget, having administrative control over the decisions that were made with Provo dispatch or Metro dispatch. And then also just our our public safety control with the decisions that were made with how many radios we had for each location. So with that and the state's requirements with PSAPs, our only other option was to look at central dispatch. Central dispatch is for Utah County and most of the cities, the surrounding cities. We went to them and asked them for a bid on how much it would cost for us to move over to that. There is a significant savings to Orem and Linden cities to make that transition. There will be a startup cost, like a buy-in cost, that will impact us the first year. In speaking with Brandon, his preference would be that we would that all up front in the first year. But then moving forward, we would see about a half a million dollars in savings year over year and move away from Metro Dispatch. So with that, we can answer any questions you have, but we will be bringing forward a resolution next council meeting to approve the transition February 10th over to Central Dispatch.

I have a question Just want to make sure I understand. When you say central dispatch resolution, is there any type of, are we talking about a formal resolution that we receive? Or are you talking about, is the resolution meaning that we're getting it resolved?

The resolution is that we are agreeing to join the Interlocal Agency of Central Dispatch.

Okay. Yes, we would be looking for a vote from the City Council proving, resolving that forum move to Central. Okay, so to be a formal action.

Starting on February 10th, is that what you said? February 10th of 2027 is when we would move over. Um, we, we wanted to have a full time a year, which is what was in our original agreement is that we would get Metro dispatch a full year, but provost and reference would be that we would leave sooner as soon as possible. It will have a significant impact to central to move us over quicker than the year. On Thursday, there will be a central dispatch administrative board meeting where they will vote to let us come in sooner. Sure. Our intent is to move on February 10th. The board just needs to qualify that.

And so when will we see this resolution? The 22nd. Council, do you have any questions? Yes, I do. Thanks.

So with the new structure, if we go to central, what will be the leadership structure? Will we become part of the board? Will we have control and access and part of the budget based on the number of dispatchers or positions that we sponsor in their current system?

That's a great question. So right now with the structure that we've been currently working under with Provo, we don't have any administrative control as far as budgeting, personnel decisions, any of those things. When we move over to central, we will have a governing member on the administrative board as well as the operations board. So police and fire will have a member on the operations board, and then we will have an administrator on the administrative board.

We also have the option. If necessary, we did vote based off of calls and population.

That's the questions that would be critical for us to go anywhere. Those would be all the questions. And it sounds like Central has all of those answers. And Provo just wants us to... not have those options currently in our current situation. So I'm just trying to make sure I weigh and understand both so I can make that voter decision. So that's helpful. So crazy.

Contextually, when we did the original agreement, the agreement was that we would be forming a global agency where we would have that equal partnership. in the interim we would just have an advisory board but ultimately would be provost municipal council that had final say so we we have had an advisory board but it's just been that advisory it hasn't had actual control thank you what about i know when we first joined provo we had issues with the way that our culture handled calls and provo handled calls and we had to work through just some of that what kind of um

What do we have with Central? Can we get those same helpful culture that we're used to when our people come in?

Tell me how does that work? What is very nice is that when dispatchers from Metro, who used to be Orem dispatchers, found out that we were moving to Central, a lot of our Orem dispatchers have actually gone over to Central in anticipation of us coming over. So a lot of our previous dispatchers or dispatchers are at Central now anticipating us coming over. And with us being by far the largest city coming over, every city will see a cost savings because of the economies of scale. And so with that, we were able to negotiate an extra fire channel for the fire department and some things that our requests were when we moved over. So we are actually going... our level of service. Nice.

Also, just to piggyback on that, we also negotiated a little bit of potentially a credit or reduction in our buy-in based on those economies of scale. And we'll see that on an audit a year into our membership in Central 911.

And just to kind of, you know, not belabor the point, but prior to moving to Provo, we had a very helpful dispatch. Someone would call in, they would be helped. We had issues when we went with ProVolt that it was all back on Monday at 8 a.m.

It was an issue with something.

So you're telling me then is we have a voice to say this is the level of service that we expect. We can work on those types of... So are you talking about non-emergency dispatch? Yes. I'm talking about... How does that work? Chief, you might be able to answer that.

I would say with all changes, there will be some growing pains, and I would say we'd be able to work through those. What the end goal, what actually ends up being and finalized after months or years, I would hope would be to a level of where we're at and where we expect, and that's where we would continue to work from. Just the change, it's going to be a change. And I think this is the best thing for us as a police and a fire and a city, but I would expect some growing pains and some change, but not so drastic that we're going to be dreading it. I'm comfortable with their ability and how they operate that far more people served.

And I would just add to that that our former dispatch manager, when Orem was functioning very well here, is the operations manager over at Central. Oh, that's huge. So not only are our dispatchers there, but the administration is some of it.

So you have your security there.

I mean, of course the emergency comes first, right? But just that culture of service that you're talking about is what I'm hoping that we can be able to have a voice in.

Those are my concerns. Just naturally go from being advisory customer best to a proportional share of decision making on the governing is the largest population.

So most decisions will not be a weighted decision, but equal unless we invoke the weighted.

Can you do that decision by decision?

Yeah, you can choose that depending upon what the decision is. So I don't anticipate that we would need to invoke that often at all, but we do have that ability.

So it's discretionary on the board member. If there's a vote that comes up and the city, the board member wants to call for a weighted vote, they can make that call under their structure.

then it becomes a weighted vote or do they vote on whether it's a weighted vote well it becomes a weighted vote yeah really wait to wait i mean we would want to be very careful in that we don't want to come in and act like we're the big dogs on campus because that's not our intention exactly yeah okay can i follow up on something you said um I'm just wondering if you could give us a little bit more of time horizons in terms of operational impact. So between now and February, do you see any operational impacts? February to six months in, you see operational impacts. And then long term, it sounds like you think it will be better. And I'm just wondering what we anticipate will be better. Isn't that from cost savings? Besides cost, yeah.

I was talking about operations. Yes. I think you will have... It will change, and there will be some growing pains as to how we operate in the sense of just how we talk on the radio. It's very... It's nuanced. It becomes muscle memory. That's going to change a little bit with a new dispatcher, a new dispatch system. And then that will become the new muscle memory. So I'm only worried about just, you know, terms and how we're used to responding to them on the radio. So it's those type of things that I'm more into. The finer nuance things that citizens won't even see more just from an operations of an individual officer and how he calls out on a traffic stop or that type of stuff. It's going to be working through that process now that we kind of have the anticipated month as to what we're doing. We're now beginning those type of preparations of, OK, the transitioning away from Provo and then what it's going to look like transitioning into Central 911. I don't have a lot of those answers nuanced to give you some very specifics. Cost is a big thing right now, just figuring out how Provo is going to be able to provide us the level of service that they currently are with the anticipation of us leaving. So, of course, that sweet spot. And that's where we've landed on with February. And so I will make it work.

I'm confident of that. Some of the things we're trying to balance, too, here is it's not simply flipping a switch and take one cable and plug it into another cable. We have Motorola as the main provider of cutovers, so we've got to work with private providers to make sure that those cutovers, when somebody calls 911, instead of getting routed to Provost PSAP, it actually hits Central so they can be dispatched correctly. We have also private computer providers, L3 and Harris, whose main offices are up in Salt Lake. They're actually going to be physically moving components from Provo over to central dispatch, making sure those are tested, making sure those are running correctly before any of these cutovers are made. So that's one of the implications when Provo is saying, well, we want you to cut over quicker. Well, again, we would like to make that move too, but there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of, once the ball gets rolling, there's a lot of moving parts that go downhill too.

And then staffing on top of that too. It takes a significant amount of time to onboard a dispatcher to make sure that they meet all the requirements to be able to go live. And so it takes some time for them to ramp up because they will have to hire several dispatchers the size of our two cities.

Like February 10th gives us enough time to do all of those things.

So, as we've negotiated with Central and Provo, it was always our intent to give a full 12 months. That way, it provided Central Dispatch 12 months to ramp up new dispatchers and then make sure that we could do all of these, you know, all third party cutovers. Provo, however, would like us to make that over much quicker. So. It's a little bit of balancing and as we worked with central, they feel like they could. February is about the earliest they could accommodate that. And that's kind of the, the window we're trying to hit.

We want to make sure with that we want to make sure that we don't impact negatively too much the other cities. that have already agreed to let us come in. We want to make sure that we're good partners from day one. So there will be a ramp up cost to us by transitioning over earlier in February. We will have to pay some overtime costs and maybe some travel dispatchers just to make sure that we have the level of services that we need.

It's also a balance in terms of doing a good neighbor to Provo as they ramp down. they need to ramp down their staffing so that that means they can't hire new additional staff so i've said multiple times in these meetings our top priorities are peace positive relationships and protection and so we're trying to do that both with central and with provo in this transitionary

And that's what I'm talking about with like, where's that sweet spot? I would say worst case scenario, we're doubled up with another agency that we ordinarily wouldn't be just for radio time. Like Closet Group. I would outline for a period of time until they get enough dispatchers. It's not ideal. It's not the worst thing in the world. Done that before.

Way to work. That's helpful. Where are we in terms of the...

colonizing a separation agreement we've already given that to them so we we stayed true to what the original agreement was and that was a full year so we gave that to them the end of july um so they they've been on notice are the things still to negotiate uh there will be yes um

There's things still to follow through on it, make sure that there's no standing devils in the details.

Where is Central Dispatch located?

It's in Spanish Fork, west of the freeway. We're on Utah County.

The west campus of the Utah County Jail.

It's a beautiful location. They're looking at making the consoles because they'll have to bring in new consoles with us coming in and fitting it in in a better way that has better communication for all employees. So the current employees are excited about this transition too.

Because it's going to give them a little upgrade.

Yeah. Upgrade plus more personnel. This is going to be better for just better coverage and everything.

And when also just highlight from a budgetary standpoint, our intent would be to reinvest these public safety cost savings into future public safety operational needs.

Which we need.

Yes.

Anything else that I could help or not answer? Sorry. That's great.

Thank you. As I learned, I apologize for missing the morning of two Mondays ago, but afternoon, my experience in the fire aspect, there's always a lot more than one piece in public safety. And this is, again, we saw some of that firsthand as far as the actual operations out there in the field, but behind the scenes, there's a lot. A lot of nuance. There's a lot that goes on. And so appreciate it. Appreciate the work you've done on this. I know that it was.

We're always looking at both sides of the ledger. That comes from Bren and from you all. And so with this, we're excited about the potential savings too, as we're always trying to find. Thank you.

Right council it is, um. I hate to break it to you, Jake, but I don't think you're going to have 90 minutes. Figured what I, what I envisioned is his plan. So it's like, tell me something new there at 5. I'm guessing dinner is going to be ready at 5. is it 5 o'clock? Is that. That will take a quick break at 5 and I've asked council member Miller to offer a blessing on the food at 5 o'clock and then we'll continue sitting quickly. Get your food. It's from Mr. Mr. Dog. It's isn't Mr. Doug. Is that hot or 1 of our. Hot dogs, like, Venezuela. Venezuela at the OPA. And so appreciate them as a member of our community. So then we'll quickly get that, come back, and then we'll resume our discussion. And I would like to have us end our discussion in about 10 minutes to 6, so we can kind of regroup and figure that. Just quickly, before I turn the time over to you, just want to give a little update on where we're at as far as how I see where we're at. And you can tell me if it's not the night, that's fine. We've come a long way. In fact, this afternoon I was interviewed by one of our employees for a newsletter, and she asked, would you like to get done at the end of the year? Before she finished the sentence, I sent her a short-term rental ordinance. But we've come a long way. I know that we've had a lot of discussion. There's been compromise. There have been so many issues that we've discussed. And I appreciate all of you. So far. Well, I'll appreciate you even after today. So far it sounds like I'm going to stop appreciating you. No, I do appreciate you and the compromises and the discussions that we've had. We've had different opportunities to visit with staff. I know that As we were trying to figure out the step going forward, one of our work sessions, we talked about maybe possibly two different ordinances. So council members Millett and Milstein and I met with Jake to talk about some things. And I know others have talked, Jake, but everybody's opinion matters on this. I know people are coming in to this that I think – And as we go through this ordinance as council members and what we're concerned about and what we hope, our hopes for it, I hope we get, we all get most of what we want. I do recognize that there are some sacrifices and each of us does have the interest of the community to dig at heart. wanting in their definition and feeling of being fair people in the community, those who in good faith started businesses, short-term rental businesses. I think everybody wants, as I've talked to you all about it, everybody wants to protect our community and wants to protect neighborhoods. Everybody wants to respect property rights. I don't see any disagreement. I've not seen any disagreement in that as far as we go. So I appreciate the staff you're juggling, everybody, because we have definitely seven different opinions as I've talked to council members, and that puts y'all in a position to hear seven different opinions, and maybe we ought to have a test. Which council member thinks this? No, I'm just joking. But anyway, where we left off on our last discussion is... My understanding was we were going to be actually started off with the majority of the council was comfortable with owner occupied. And so we actually came along and we talked about having two separate drafts come forward, one with the owner occupied component only, and one that had a non-owner occupied piece as well. So you're in recollection. That's where we were. Then as discussions took place, I know as I've discussed with Jake, the thought of maybe having a base ordinance that was owner-occupied. and we had a lot of our standards that we talked about, and then have a section for exceptions or additions where the possibility of non-owner-occupied could be discussed as well. Is that everybody's understanding? Okay, I'm seeing heads nodding.

And you're saying that to the point of decision-making?

What do you need? Discussions. Discussions. Discussion thus far. That's a discussion so far.

So I guess I'm saying, are you saying the direction to have to write two different ordinances?

I thought that we shifted to one. I thought as we discussed it, I don't know. I don't want to be officially shifted over to make more sense to have one.

So let me just answer kind of where I am at.

Okay. If you can answer where you're at, then that's a great segue. Then after that, then I'm going to turn the time over to you. And I understand we're going to continue our hike. Yes.

Okay. As a group.

And we all want to stay on the trail. Okay. I don't want anybody, I don't want to leave anyone behind. I don't want to have anyone fall off or anything like that.

Don't you, Jake? Sometimes it feels that way.

You've got cat. Oh, look at the cat. So, hi, I just came out to cat. So that's like.

And every time you're trying to keep all the cats on the path, some aren't even on leashes.

Love that picture.

So, so they.

There is, I feel that there's not, there's some consensus on some basic points and then there's not enough consensus really to come forward with two different drafts because I feel like there are a lot of diverging opinions. Some of the opinions are close to the same, but there's just enough of a tweak to it that it doesn't really fit nicely within two competing ordinances. So really I want to, um, I'm going to walk through tonight a couple different waypoints. I say on here eight. I know I'm not going to get to all eight. In fact, I didn't prepare all eight because I didn't think we would get through all eight. You've been on this hike before. I have. This feels like, you know, we're trying to go to Everest, the summit of Everest, and you have to acclimatize. You go up to Camp 1 and come on back down and go up to Camp 2 and come on back down. So it takes a little bit of time. We'll get there. But the eight different waypoints that I look at it as a way to frame the discussion moving forward are Establishing that we, yes, we are moving forward on an owner-occupied framework. From there, defining some of the terms so we have a common language. So when we talk about something, we're all talking about it from the same viewpoint or the same perspective. And then addressing licensing and enforcement mechanisms. From there, addressing some clarity of are we applying density, spacing, ADU requirements to the owner-occupied framework? Um, license, then going back to some of our qualitative restrictions, the 24, 7, urgent response. Um, on quiet hours times. and then addressing parking and other rental restrictions. The other two that I've not prepared for tonight because I didn't think we'd get there is ultimately conversations on occupancy and what occupancy limits would look like, and then any exceptions to the owner-occupied restriction within the framework. So that's kind of the different waypoints, as I see them, to build a common language and framework from where we can build the ordinance and see where there is consensus and where there's still work to do. Because we're having hot dogs, I guess, for dinner tonight, I won't really go about my metaphor that I was thinking of is, you know, oftentimes legislation is you're making sausage and nobody really wants to see how it's made. They just want to see it at the end and it's good. Then nobody wants to see it being made. But that's exactly what we're doing. We're doing this in public meetings with divergent opinions and perspectives. And so because of that, it may feel like the draft ordinance keeps getting beat up or getting reborn or changed and feels a bit battered. But that's just part of the process of doing this in a public meeting. If it was at the state capitol, some legislator would have gone to a staff attorney and said, draft me a draft bill that will say this. That attorney gets to work, drafts it up, hands it off to the legislator, and they go to committee. It might get tweaked in committee, and then it makes it to the floor of the House. At least that's how Schoolhouse Rock taught me how it works.

I'm just a bill.

Here we are in a public meeting, and we're trying to decide what this bill really should be and what it should look like. So there is quite a bit of work still to do, but we have done a lot as far as part of the framing. And I agree with the mayor, based on our last work session, it felt like the consensus of the council was that we would build off of an owner-occupied framework. I just want to ask the general question, is that where the council still sits? Is that where the consensus still is? there's anybody in disagreement, I would love to hear, um, and we can pivot.

I'm in disagreement and I'm happy to, I'll just do it now. I was trying to figure out when I state this, I'm just going to do it in a nutshell, but, um, the reason I just want to explain, I totally get the short-term rental, um, you know, desire and, um, But just short, just very briefly, for me, I feel like I want to look more long term. I want to look at solving issues that we can solve. This is an opportunity that we have not had to help with our affordable housing. If we can keep them illegal and actually enforce our illegal short-term rental ordinance. We could have up to, you know, numbers are disputed, but 500 additional housing opportunities on our market. We could have, we don't have to approve any new zoning. We don't have to increase any density. We don't have to have more land. You know, we could have this opportunity to see if we can pull that lever to see if that makes a difference in our housing crisis that we're having right now. So I guess my the reason I am kind of I get owner occupied and I've been trying to work on this ordinance because I think if we have a buttoned up ordinance, it could be a good thing. But before we move to that step, I'm of the of the idea that, you know, let's finish up this ordinance. Let's put it in the file in the file cabinet for a couple of years and let's see what happens if we get all of these housing opportunities back to our city. See if it helps bring kids to our schools. See if it helps young couples find places to live. See what it actually does. Because so much of housing we can't control. And this is such an opportunity to see what we can. And it's not permanent. It's a new horizon, Star Trek, going out there, seeking new opportunities. that I think we should cease. I think we should, that's why I'm in the camp that I'm in. I'm not against short-term rentals, but I am in this camp of, wow, let's see what this could do to our city and how it could help our city bring families, bring children, bring young couples who can't find housing anywhere. You know, just that narrative is kind of where I am. And once again, I just want to emphasize, it's not an anti-short-term rental opinion. It's a, wow, this has been dropped in our laps. We have learned that there are a number of these in our city that we weren't aware of. So let's pull it back. Let's get all of them off the thing. And then when we, you know, discontinue them, close them up. And then if in a couple of years, we're not seeing these all selling and creating more housing opportunities, then we roll it out what we've created and we license everyone in an orderly fashion. and everything is in line, and we've tried the opportunity that was placed before us. So I felt like I had to kind of say that. That's kind of my pitch, my thoughts right now.

Anyone else?

Well, maybe I'll just say, Lene, that I think we do care about housing affordability. I think that's That's important. I'm not a pro-modeler on this. I think that if our, from the basic modeling I've done, which even should be reviewed, that we might, if all those houses were free to purchase for only single families, we might gain a percentage or two of the cost of an average house. But I think that the bigger opportunity for housing affordability is actually for people to purchase a home and help with their mortgage by having a short-term rental of their basement or something. So I think that will have a much bigger impact on people's ability to purchase homes.

Right, but I'm just going to push back on that because it doesn't mean they can't rent out their basement for long-term rental. We're not taking away an income-producing opportunity from them. It's just the one that they're choosing to do, which I think negatively impacts our housing supply. By allowing a short-term rental, that's one couple that can't. I had a couple in my ward that he lived for four months. They wanted to live in Orem. Took them four months. They lived with their own for four months. So anyway, I understand what you're saying on the assisting affordability. I'm just kind of, once again, I'm like, ah, there's this opportunity here. Do we know? We don't know.

Yeah, I think there's minuses to short-term rental versus long-term rental. It totally is, yeah. And... And they're both more fixable.

Yeah. One of the things that has been on my mind the entire time we've been discussing this is, are we turning our housing stock into an investment opportunity rather than stabilizing force in their life? If lots of houses even just have an ADU as a short-term rental and it's this investment thing, all the houses around them go up in price. making it more unaffordable for people to get into the market in the first place? And are we just creating this upward spiral of housing cost that is making it harder and harder and harder for the next generations to get their foot in the door? So I agree with Lene's point of view on that, that we are seeing housing prices starting to come down. Would this help? some way to equalize the housing prices for our community. Might not be the right word, but bring it down some.

Just something to think about. Thanks for sharing those.

So based on what I had felt was the consensus of the council, kind of in my mind is what does an owner-occupied framework look like? And so with that, I want to kind of talk about a couple different provisions here that I've drafted that help kind of really lay out what I would think a baseline owner-occupied framework ordinance looks like. The first is you would... Basically, by you would adopt this ordinance and by adopting it, you're going to prohibit all short term rentals within the city unless the operator comes in and obtains a license. You would have to come through an application process during that application process. They would have to show that their owner occupied. And. would not allow anybody to rent an STR for a period of time less than 24 hours, and it would not allow somebody to operate or rent an STR for more than 30 days. So basically what you're doing is you're defining really narrowly what an STR is. It's a rental of more than 24 hours and less than 30 days, and you have to have a license. So other than that, it would be prohibited within the city. Are there any questions about that baseline?

Just a question about the C, Jake. Yes. So if someone is renting for 60 days, for example, Do we have a provision in our landlord licensing that would allow them to do that? It exists, right?

Yes, the landlord dwelling. The residential dwelling license would be applicable there. It's a rental for more than 30 days.

So anything more than 30 days, we do have a pathway for that.

So this language C is really to address what we had talked about in a previous work session of how we ensure that somebody's not using this to go around like our student housing zone. So no guest or any, what is it? So no single guest or any group of guests can stay at an STR for more than 30 consecutive days. That way you don't have the dead time windows that we had in the proposal previously. That's what this language does. Are there any other questions on this?

So do you want us to, as we go along, as we go on our trail, say, okay, are we all at this point? Do you want us to say we're comfortable with, we're okay proceeding with this? That'd be great.

I'm also going to try to do a vibe check, I guess, would be the phrase the kids say. And see where, you know, if I feel like there's a lot of pushback, then I know that there's not consensus. But if there's not, a lot of questions arise. I'm just kind of gauging based on reactions.

Why do you have a question? It says a lot of cities are doing minimum two night rents in order to avoid the party house. So we're not doing that anymore. I thought we had that in our.

We talked about that several work sessions ago. There was quite a bit of public or personal appearance. the comments that came out in regards to that, talking about how feasible that is, what that impact is on operators. Based on that, my feeling from a consensus of the council was that it was not, it wasn't going to be a minimum nightly stay or a period of time that an STR needed to remain vacant in between rentals. And so that is not currently what I'm posing here tonight.

I'm sorry, I don't know when those conversations happened.

Those were in work sessions. Again, I can't point you to the date of what those are.

So we pulled that one off. We now no longer, okay, can I just make sure everybody's okay with that? Let's get everybody on the record here of saying they're

I'll just ask the question, is there a consensus amongst the council that want to have a minimum stay of two days, three days? Is there a consensus that wants to have a vacancy requirement in between stays? I'm supportive of this language.

So I have done this for two years now. This is interesting to me. But the reason we did the two days is because so many other neighboring cities, we had data and evidence that that was how they stopped party houses that were occurring with the 24 consecutive, with the minimum 24 hours.

So the minimum of 24 hours is to tackle a different problem. That is so nobody comes and uses it for a wedding reception for three hours as a reception center, or they use it as a place to do something that's nefarious for two to three hours. It's basically, it's meant to address what our intent is for STRs is to do overnight accommodations. So there would be a rental of a 24-hour period.

Okay, so do you have a one-day then?

I don't have anything in this draft that I'm presenting tonight. It is the consensus of the council that I can look at adding that.

Right now, the minimum is 24 hours. Minimum is 24 hours.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 24 hours would force them into a two-day rental, though, because you're checking in three nights.

You're checking in at 3 and out by 11. So I guess that's taking 21 hours then?

Yeah, if you're checking in out by 11 or 10 or whatever the owner's things are, you would have to do two days to get the 24 hours anyways.

So that would need to be changed to 21 probably.

Yeah, we could adjust that. I mean, again, the intent is there was to be an overnight stay. I see.

Yes, I support that. And I'm talking about something different. So you're saying.

I think what you're asking for is more than a one-night stand.

I'm talking, how do we avoid the party house? We've had those discussions. How do we avoid the party house?

I think that was the point of the owner-occupied.

Yes, and I think Jeff's point.

Okay, so is this owner-occupied then?

Yes, this is only, tonight we're only talking about owner-occupied as the sole framework of this. Okay. Yes. Thank you for that clarification.

It's five, so. Mind, okay, now we've got, take just a second.

We can take our time out.

Two-minute break, three-minute break, and put you there. Lene, do you mind? I'm so happy to, thanks. Thank you.

Our beloved Father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity we have to meet together today and discuss these important issues of our community. We pray for thy blessings to be upon this dude that for us may give us nourishment and strength and strength to serve thee and those around us. We're so grateful for the blessings of where we live and pray for thy guidance in all that we do. So these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you. Sorry to just go. Stop.

I'm just going to give you all the aggression.

Turn on cameras or recorders. Camera's good. Let me check. All right. A little bit of a shift in the direction here. We'll have Jake roll through and give us information now. And then, if we have time, after he gets through what he wants to get through today, we'll... We'll go from there, but we'll just go ahead and... Jake, let's see, we're still at the first waypoint, right? Or we're approaching the first waypoint? We're in the first waypoint.

Yay! Okay. So, again, talking about what this framework looks like. So... they would have to come in and provide, as I said, proof of ownership. And what that looks like is they have to bring in a copy of a deed, listing them as the fee title owner, and it has to show that that deed has been recorded with the Utah County Recorder Office. That's how we're going to see, are they truly the owner of the property that they're coming in to apply for short-term rental? The next is we're going to require also that they provide proof that they're occupying that parcel of home. They own as they operate the short term rental. And what we're looking for, as far as ownership is, they would have to provide their most recent state and federal tax returns listing the property. As their primary residents, and they'd also have to show government issued identity identification listing. That address as their residents. And we'd also require an affidavit indicating that they dwell at that residence and that they live there for 304 days a year. That is roughly, I'm now trying to remember my math. So do you want to hold me? Nine months. Ten months. Thank you. I am a lawyer. I'm not an accountant. And that was put in based on the concern was he had it originally at 183 days, which was basically halfway through the year or six months. There was concern from the council was not enough. I've opted to the 10 month mark. Um, he was just once then. Okay. Um, on the, um, we would also require them to buy. A certification of compliance indicate if they understand what the requirements are and that they have to maintain this in compliance with what they're applying for. The reason we're doing these 4 steps is if we come to find out after that, they've applied. Um, for this license is an owner occupied. Operator, if they're not in compliance with it, that gives us the grounds to go ahead and revoke short term rental license, because they're not in compliance with those standards. So. That gives us the basis in and of itself. To revoke the license. We've talked about this as well, and this is just how it relates into code, is that the STR, the short-term rental license, will continue to be valid for the term that it was issued. The base term is 12 months. So it would be good for the remainder of the year, and it would remain valid until it expires. Or if the owner sells the land or transfers the land to somebody else upon transference that that license is suspended, it's revived. It is no longer a valid license. And that is because we have this language in there, which is basically says that by granting this license, it's a discretionary decision made by our business licensing officials. It is not a land use decision. It does not create any vested rights. This right to operate a short-term rental doesn't run with the land. It's only a privilege during which the license is valid. And again, if the If the owner transfers the land or sells the land, that license expires upon transfer. You cannot transfer the right to use the short-term rental license to somebody else. And then there's a catch all provision as well. That is the council a couple years down the road or a year down the road decides, you know, we tried this as an experiment. We don't like the results we're seeing. We want to discontinue the program written in language that allows accounts to come back and say. We've considered this it is not in the best interest in the public health safety or welfare of the city. To grant licenses, and we're going to discontinue the program that provides that language and authority for the council to do. So, in the future. This became a concern. And talking through with individual council members, the concern is, okay, I own an STR as an owner occupied. I'm going to go out of town for a month. And while I'm gone, I want to rent my home out as an STR. So we no longer have the owner occupied offer there because the owner's not present property at the time it's being used as a vacation rental. So it kind of defies a little bit of some of the intent of what I heard the council saying, some of the reasons that we need to be more lenient towards an owner occupied. Because the owner would be there present while it's being rented. And so what I've come up with here is language that requires the owner to be physically present during any time the home is being rented out as a short-term rental.

What that doesn't mean is it doesn't mean that the owner can't go about their normal life.

It doesn't require them to stay home from work. It doesn't require them not to run their kids to school or go out and run errands. It does require them to be physically present overnight while the home is being used as an STR. It also requires them to designate somebody that could respond 24-7 in case of any issue there at the property. If they've gone to work, if they're out running kids through the soccer practice, or they're out running errands, and something's occurring at the home, there have to be a contact person the city could reach out to and say, we have a noise disturbance at your home from one of your STR tenants. We need you to respond to the home. respond within the next 20 minutes so we have that contact person still even for the owner um and then ultimately just because they give that responsible person that doesn't substitute their physical presence requirement it would still be that they have to be physically present there during this day if you mean staying away And then lastly, again, this is the intent from what I could gather from the council is that the intent here is to allow short-term rentals to be operated as overnight accommodations, not as event centers, not as places where people come to hold a party, hold a concert, hold fundraisers, but really to be overnight accommodations. So that is the basic skeleton of what we mean when I say a framework of owner-occupied, knowing that every STR that I'm talking about in this world is owner-occupied. Are there any questions about those specific sub-coins? I'm going to move on to the next waypoint, which is building common language. And that is, what do we mean when we talk about a short-term rental? What do we mean when we say owner or owner-occupied? What are those definitions? What do they mean? The owner is an individual with a fee title owner possessing 50% or more of ownership in the short-term rental property. or a trust ownership. And then I define what that means. It was created, trust was created primarily for estate planning purposes, placed the STR into the said trust, and they retain at least 50% of the primary beneficial interest in the STR property.

Interpretation of trust primarily for estate planning purposes, but like there need to be other things besides the STR in the trust.

So it would be the home. It could be also anything else that the families decided to put into family.

But does it have to have more than just the home? So how do you improve the state planning purposes?

At the end of the day, we're putting a qualifier in here that it is for primarily families. The state planning purposes, it's the intent here. Could somebody still try to get around that? Yes, they could. But again, we're trying to at least state what our purpose is for this. This is language I think we've used elsewhere. Trying to remember where this is coming from.

Yeah, that's for our accessory apartments. So it's owner-occupied for accessory apartments.

Okay.

Um, now I'm going to post up on our occupancy again. This is the place where they live. Well, that was their primary residence. And it's their primary residence for at least 10 months of the year. Person just means individual. It also includes the corporate individual, the individual, any sort of trust, corporation, association, any person that the law generally identifies as a person. Renters, any single group, any single person or group of people, primary residents in some other location, coming to stay at that location in exchange of some sort of compensation in any form. Short-term rental is just the adoption of what we all have identified as what a short-term rental is, the common acceptance of any stay transient lodging, which is any stay less than 30 days. And then the acronyms STR is a short-term rental, STRL is the short-term rental business license. This definition is a little bit longer, and I'm just going to abbreviate it. At the end of the day, there was questions about what a violation is or what a strike is. It is any sort of administrative regulatory action against an STR under our city code, under any state law. It was issued by either the Department of the Community Development Department or the Attorney's Office. Anybody who has the authority to enforce such law. What we're doing is we're saying we're looking at the date that the violation occurred. We're not necessarily looking at the date when the violation was later confirmed. It was on what day did the violation occur. For purposes of if NIT goes out and we have a noise disturbance and also a lighting issue and a parking issue, if all of those violations occurred at the same time, we're counting that as one single strike. That's just for simplicity of... you know, not trying to tack on or show that, you know, five violations all occurred at the same time. So now we're going to not only revoke the license then, but also prohibit you from operating because of one-time agreements. Then I'm going to stop here. Are there any questions about... as they currently stand. Is there?

I do. Yes. You said violations with substantial evidence. What does that mean? Like what kind of burden of proof is there?

We would use what we use for our ALJ, which is a preponderance of the evidence. I'm probably going to actually go back and read this to the evidence. So I'm consistent with what we use in our ALJ system.

Does that include an online listing? Does that include people who reported it or had it confirmed? Or what kind of standard is there?

So that would be, again, we would use the violation. We would confirm that. We would issue the violation notice. If they want to appeal that, we go through the ALJ. And at that point, we would have a finding. If they don't appeal it, that's the finding in and of itself. Yes, Quinn?

I guess I haven't read every word of this, but according to this language, Is every type of violation treated equally? In other words, something that's relatively benign versus something that's egregious, they all get the same treatment in this language? They do.

Are there any other terms, or any other, as we've talked about this, is there anything else that you feel like needs to be defined? Is there something out there that you're like, you know, I don't know if this is a rope or if this is a snake? Sorry, our family calls snakes rope ropes, so that's my joke. I'm just taking a note on changes. Moving on then to the next waypoint, which is licensing and enforcement. So we've talked a little bit about this. I still don't know of any real good way that doesn't require, at the end of the day, us relying on somebody to make a complaint and or requiring either a police officer or an NIT officer to go out and confirm or do some investigation. That is kind of just the nature of the beast when it comes to city law. Most of the time that we're engaging in sort of law enforcement agency, law enforcement action, is an officer notices something, puts action on it, receive a complaint of something, and an officer follows up on it. With that said, We're trying to put a lot of work at the front end of this. And that is by requiring the application to be pretty thorough here. I'm not going to necessarily go through each definition unless there's a specific request, just so I can keep moving forward here. Um, but the license application would require them to describe with particularity property in which they are renting out as the short term rental. That includes putting forward a floor plan, identifying the bedrooms. identifying the square footage and putting all of that at the outset of the application. So when that application comes into the community development or business licensing, they can review it. They can see exactly what is going to be operated as the short-term rental. As we've already kind of talked about the ownership, the proof of occupancy, those are also required at the outset of the application. They also have to sign an affidavit or a declaration saying that there are no private restrictions that wouldn't prevent them from operating an STR. That would be your HOA or any sort of restrictive covenants within the neighborhood. The STR community talked about you know, what would make an STR operator successful. And they were pretty compelling as to the idea that there should be some sort of course, some sort of training for STR operators to know what those obligations are, how to be a good STR host. um still kind of looking around the community to try to find um what we could use as far as a resource to require an str rental management course looking at potentially trying to reach out with you to do this through their their extended learning program and have it be particular inclusive about what forums regulations are A parking plan would have to be submitted at the outset. Identify, based on occupancy of the STR, how many people will be using the STR. Also, the parcel itself, what the parking plan would be for off-street parking. If there's the need to provide additional spots where those spots would be paved, those would have to be done prior to the issuance of the license. And then lastly, they would certify that they're in compliance with all of the regulations that we're setting out. Again, the basis is if we find that an STR license was issued in error because of misrepresentation in the application, that can be used as the basis to then revoke that STR license. There would also be a requirement for inspections to make sure that the space is habitable and that it's safe, that there's a working carbon monoxide detector on each floor, that there's a smoke alarm operating there in the STR as well. Again, just to ensure that those that are coming to visit Orem are coming and they're visiting in a safe space. Then, we would be required out of the trees. He is yet to be decided upon. Again, I know the council that this fee be administered in such a way that it helps offset some of the costs to administer the program. And so we would be looking at doing that. These licenses would be an annual license. The window to start would be July 1. It would be good from July 1 until June 30. It would automatically expire on that June 30 date. So it would run with the fiscal calendar. If they renew, they would have a window to do so. They'd be required to show proof of all payment of taxes and provide any other documents that are required. So if the business licensing official is like, hey, I need to see an update of your parking plan or I need to see an update of the field plan, those could be requested. Those would be required to be resubmitted.

So I think we had 12 months. Didn't we decide on a longer term? period for complaints. How many complaints are we doing.

Yeah, 2 strikes is what I've been I've altered it to do you want a period of and say 2 years.

Is that where the council is the problem was I think when we talked about it was well there's the summer season. So if you get one in. I am one in June. It's in a row, but it goes on two different licenses.

Didn't it say earlier there was a rolling?

Yeah, so I had it as a rolling period. If we can make it a rolling period, can I just clarify that it is a rolling 12-month period as opposed to if it drops off in that previous fiscal cycle, then it doesn't get counted. It would be a rolling 12 months. I can just clarify it that way.

My question, Jake, is there an advantage to the city to do it in the fiscal year versus family's care?

Not necessarily. I've done it with the fiscal year in case there's an increase in the fees, but typically we've opted and changed the fiscal cycle. That's why I went July 1 to June 30th.

I might throw in if they had to physically make any sort of construction type of changes or obviously that's going to be easier to do in the summer periods than potentially in the winter period.

The only thought that crossed my mind is that the summer period may be a busier time. And therefore, if they are getting a renewal of the license or they're making any adjustments that

I'm guessing we have fewer people coming in July, but that was my only thought.

Is it only open to be given as a short-term rental license in July? Could you get them anytime? Is the cost prorated if you buy them outside of that?

No. So the way it would be a fee, if you picked it up, let's say you If we kept the July 1 date, right? So if you were to apply for an STR license and be approved in April, you would pay the fee and you'd have to renew again. So you wouldn't be prorated for that.

I don't like the Disney Channel. It doesn't matter when you...

It's how State Park passes used to be. It was the calendar year and no matter when you bought it, but now they changed it back to when it's...

Whitney, 12 rolls from the month that you do it. So does this put having it all be done in June and July? Does that put an undue burden on, you know, whatever department this falls under for them to get all of this done? Is it easier to have it be throughout the year? When you get it, is it easier to track of them? I

I'm a little bit leery of having it be tracked. I don't want one to fall through. I rather would have a window of time that a staff person knows that this is coming up for renewal, and we're sending out notices as a deadline saying, okay, I know that come May, you're going to send out the STRL renewal notices. We have that renewal window, and if somebody misses, then they... just reapply i would rather administer it that way than have it be some staff constantly trying to check did this one expire yet and then i don't want to do something with that one or not you know i am sensitive to the possibility that we pass an ordinance um and they every everyone it's less than a year license so it may need to be prorated

Prorate the first as we implement?

If we do this cycle, yeah.

Just on your own or prorate all the time?

No. You know, imagine that this ordinance gets passed in October.

Yeah, okay.

And everybody's expires in June. They may not feel like they got their year's worth.

Thank you.

And then again, we've hit on this one already. There is no vested right here. If the program is discontinued in the future for any reason by the council, that there's no right of reimbursement. This is what it is. It was a discretionary decision made by the business licensing, and there's no vested rights here. Now I'm going to switch over to the enforcement side. Again, some of the things that I already hit on is the overnight accommodation only. The reason I have this under the enforcement, again, is it's to really, again, identify what the nature of this use is. The nature of this use is meant to be for somebody coming in and staying inside of a home, using a home as a place to stay and not necessarily as an event center. Um, hopefully that reduces the impact to neighborhoods and the character of neighborhoods. Because again, it should be a family or a group of people coming in and using that home as any other person would use a home.

So, like, inviting Cosmo.

Yeah, not that would be a strike or it would be an event. As most thing overnight, unless it goes over stays overnight.

Unless he's the rector.

Without revealing who he is.

Better take that costume off.

Hero.