Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, let's call the order our work session for the Royce City Planning Commission for July 28th, 2026. And we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Tanner.

I award the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,

Right, the first item on our agenda is approval of the June 23rd, 2026 work session meeting.

I'll make a motion to approve the benefits from June 23rd.

Second. Motion to approve and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Now we'll move on to agenda item number two, which is a continued discussion regarding detached accessory dwelling units. This relates to SB 284 from the session.

Second.

I'll share my screen. We've discussed this several times and now I'm kind of presenting you the language and we will present at the public hearing. So I'll take changes in three sections of the code. First one is table 17-1, the table of uses. So it will include the use within the list, so a detached ADU. The requirements of the bill was all parcels that are 11,000 square feet or larger. So that should include all zones. Even the R16 would have some properties that are larger than that. So we need to include the language in it. So here's a couple of the things that we'll include in this is allowed on 11,000 square foot lots. Include an additional parking space that we'll get to in table 19-11. Still require the primary residents to occupy of the buildings limit to one detached adu must be rented for 90 consecutive days or longer must obtain a dwelling license rental dwelling license that i put in there to see other sections actually one of them probably should go away is 10 10 29 we're not going to amend amend that so i will of that. It didn't make sense to include anything in there. And then a notice would be recorded to the county to show that it's shown that this is... Please, we're trying to listen here. Thank you. It's trying to show that this is a legal detached drilling unit. So just kind of look at the IADUs. We record some of the county just to inform them that this is a legal internal So when they go to sell it and someone goes to buy it, they already know. They don't have to ask the city if they can have permission. It's already there. 101028, this is a section that talks about accessory buildings and accessory uses within it. The first eight of them had nothing to do with what this was. Number nine was the section that talked about where accessory buildings cannot be dwelling units for human occupancy. And the thought was, well, we'll just amend this one unless it meets the following. So basically, if it doesn't meet this, you can't live in there. If it meets this, then you can. So kind of some of the stuff we talked about, the ADU can't be larger than the primary dwelling. As a setback requirements similar to other accessory dwelling. So 10 feet behind or more behind the dwelling, then you can be within three feet of property lines. Designate consistent design. So basically the The ADU should look somewhat similar to the primary dwelling. One's pink. The other one shouldn't be green. You know, just kind of, if it's got stockhold and stockhold, if it's got siding, got siding. To me, I'm not going to, I'm not stickler. Same, similar colors. I don't care if it's similar materials, just similar design. So it's not going to be one of those. Clinton had an ordinance on the garage that if your house had brick, The garage was brick and it didn't make sense. I mean, that was an expensive garage. It also had a brick and all four sides. So when it was, was there, we just changed. The front had to be the same as the front of the house. The rest of it, just similar color. Didn't care material. Legal construction of accessory structure may be converted. So if you've got a permit to build a garage, now you want to convert it to an ADU, as long as it was legal, because there are some accessory dwellings that are, not accessory, accessory buildings that are two feet from property line, which nowadays is three feet, but they were legal at the time they were constructed, so we can't force them to move that building, they just convert it, and then building code would just dictate what they had to do in order to make it safe. Uh, F. I think it would require a parking space. And then the or E. F. The only time that we can deny a request is if they can't get adequate services. Most of that's probably going to be sanitary sewer and culinary. And then if the services in that area aren't sufficient in size in order to handle, say there was 20 in the neighborhood and the 21st one put it over the limit, it gives the city ability to say no until they can upsize the facilities. I'm just curious about something.

Is this set up to where they would be for water, they'd be on the same meter or they have their own meter? It'd be the same meter. Okay.

And as well as sewer, they wouldn't have their own? They'd have to be on the same service. Okay. I'm 11. became an issue, at least a question that I had asked, because it talked about that it can't be rented, leased, or sold separately from the rented, leased, or, you know, from the main primary building. So it was thought, and then granted all this, I've spoken with legal, so Colton and Matt Wilson have kind of looked at this and given the nod that this is sufficient and meets not only the state stuff, but also complies with the rest of our code. So just adding in other than a detached ADU, So if I have a detached ADU and a garage, I can't rent the garage out to somebody else. It has to be somebody on the property. So maybe the required parking for the ADU is the garage. And then 14, the reason why it's crossed out, it just didn't make sense. An attachment to a house can't be bigger than the house. Well, if it still meets the zoning code and setbacks and height limitation, why do I care? If it's attached. If it's attached. Originally, when I think I went through this years ago, I thought it said detached. Okay, that makes sense. But this one is an attachment. Let's get rid of it. Normally it wouldn't be part of this code, but because we're in this section, let's just modify it. So if someone wants to add onto their house, as long as it's not taller than 35 and meets the 7.5. It's part of the house, yeah. I'm indifferent on that. And then section 19 just add in the language about parking space requirements in the state's allowance was if it's 649 square feet or less than only one stall is required and it's 650 or more than two stalls can be required. So we left it in the same aspect with there and same with the IADU, it just can't be within the front yard setback. Any questions?

Just a clarification up on the, I think there's a lot in here. Thank you for all the work. I know that there's been quite a team that has been working on this for a while. Table 1017-1, and this might be almost more of a structural of the grammar set up in these statements, because talking about the dwelling units shall also meet the following, and I'm going to touch on number three. must be occupied as the primary residence of the owner of record. That's speaking about the property overall. And then we have on five, without any change in any of the tenses or anything, must be rented for 90 consecutive days or longer. Can you clarify what the intent of number five is getting at?

So it can't be a nightly rental.

Yeah, they have to be in there.

Yeah, the consecutive days. I just took the same language as the IADU because it talked about the occupancy of the primary residence by owner of record and that it has to be rented out more than. So number five is referring to the use. And number three is saying the property owner, you still have to live there.

That's to avoid the Airbnb thing. I can't make it an Airbnb thing.

And that's the state's concern is, you know, some of these turn them into Airbnbs. That's why they put in there even the 90 and 30-day consecutive.

But they're going to make affordable housing. People want to turn it into Airbnbs.

Right, right. I just wanted to make sure that that's actually, when you just read it through, that that's what comes out.

Okay, I'll double check on that.

Because, you know, it tripped me up twice while reading through. So I'm like, maybe that's just me, but I'm going to throw it out there.

It's my English coming from university. Where'd you go again? Move to that. Be stricken for the record. My answer or your question? Okay, I have no questions and I'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting as a public hearing.

The only thing that even gives me pause is the three feet is pretty close. But if somebody builds within a certain distance of a different structure, what is the standard for building?

Well, the reason for three feet is if someone puts their structure on their property three feet, the two structures are six feet minimum. Right. Now, the way the building code says, if you're closer than five feet, then every foot you're closer than, you have a one-hour firewall. So at three feet, they're going to have a two-hour firewall for everything within that distance. So if two buildings are six feet apart, they're going to have four-hour firewalls between the two. So I left it at three just because that's what a lot of the current accessory buildings are, and it'd be hard to... Say one, let's just keep it similar so nothing really changes.

And that's based primarily off of the concept of converting an existing structure.

Converting or new. You can be within three feet. Now, in some cases, you know, the cost of a firewall does get quite pricey. So a lot of people, even accessory buildings, move it to the five feet. Myself and Gail always tell them, if you have enough space, give it five feet, then you're that much cheaper. And if both of them are five feet, then you're ten feet, and there's no issues. But having the ability to go three feet just in case your yard is small gives that option still, and it's consistent with what we've allowed for the last, say, 50 years.

I think the IFC allows for three with the fire delaying it, so that makes sense.

Okay. Item number three is commissioner's minute. Do any of the commissioners have anything they want to bring up?

So no meeting on the second Tuesday.

No meeting August 11th.

And then we'll have a work meeting.

I really don't have anything on the agenda unless all of a sudden something comes up that I didn't do or haven't thought of in the state legislation that I've missed that we need to hurry up and do.

Back to school.

Back to school. Oh.

I know. I'm glad y'all knows our boys put that on record. I got it all.

All right.

We'll go to Steve for a second. We kind of had that at the same time. So again, we'll meet on the 11th. So September 8th is the next time we're meeting.

Yes. Okay. I know some of the people that were impacted by the fire down by the railroad tracks. And one of them was right next to the house that they had to demolish with a bulldozer. Has anybody else been down there be able to see firsthand the damage?

Yeah.

Pretty devastating. What caused that fire again? The tracks?

It was presumed. Officially. That's what I heard. A UP train trying to break sparked.

Or it could have been an axle bearing that was going bad and they were dragging a wheel.

Yeah. But I mean, it started just off of Hinkley in 19. Then moved west. There were more in... Actually, probably... There was a couple more.

Probably a northbound train going downhill. It's going uphill.

Yeah, I'm not sure which direction, but the fire marshal said there was a train parked across 48 when the fire started. That's a reasonable assumption. I assume because... They're also trying to look in at tracks, see if it was one of the front-runner trains that may have done it.

Yeah. Pretty devastating. People that kept their backyards up, they sustained minimal damage versus those that did not.

I know one of the houses had a really nice backyard kept up, but the fire came from the side.

Yeah, came from the sides and got it.

She was probably going to park trailers there, right?

Yeah.

Won't go there.

My friend had a swimming pool and the swimming pool did not survive. In the ground pool, the cabana building, pump building and the pool did not survive the fire.

Was that Burnett?

Yeah, Burnett.

Even with water in the pool?

Huh?

Even with water in the pool?

That's too bad. An in-ground pool, huh? Mm-hmm. Wow.

The line on my pool right now is over 100 degrees, and we're running it opposite. It's so dang hot.

Maybe not go to your house then.

It's a hot tub.

I was going to say that's a little bit.

And we just have solar panels on ours, and it's freaking hot.

A lot of days, you're going to just feel like soup. We heard heavy freight trains come downhill towards the yard. They're doing 79 miles an hour, which is the speed limit. And you can hear the square wheel on one of the break cars. Here it goes, thump, thump, thump. It goes.

I have a lot of questions about whether or not there's anything that we can do, but that is not city.

I thought it was Frontrunner. It was a disk break that was all gone. It was messed up. It's hard to tell.

Okay. Agenda item number five. Do we have a motion? Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any votes to hear? We are adjourned. Thank you.

Thank you.