City Council - Regular Meeting

Hey, everybody. We've got about two minutes left until we get started. I'm gonna start our recording, though.

Recording in progress.

Madam chair, council member Stroud is online right now. So we do have a quorum. If you wanna wait, that's fine. But we can also get started whenever you'd like to.

Welcome everyone to the Sandy City Council meeting of April '66. We have a really important special recognition that we're gonna start this meeting off with. Let's take things just a tiny bit out of order.

Madam Beer, on that note, can I ask you the council to move item eight to five or six possibly?

So they

both require comment and voting.

You want to

move eight up?

Yeah to five or six if possible.

Okay does the council have an objection to that? Okay thank you. Alright so let's do introductions first and then we'll kind of hand it over to the youth council and our staff. Let's start with introductions. So Mr. Fratto will you start us off?

Of course. Thank you madam chair. My name is Dustin Fratto. I'm with the city council office. There are a couple other council staff members in the back of the room Justin Sorenson and Liz Theriault.

My name is Tracy. I'm counsel for the council.

Chris Edwards with the council office. Chris Nichols, Sandy City Council District three.

Marcy Houseman District four. Brooke Christianson District 1. Cindy Sharkey at large.

Aaron DeKeiser at large.

Alison Stroud District two.

Thank you Alison.

I'm Brian Kelly director of administrative services.

Jeff Robinson sitting in for Lynn Pace.

We are expecting council member DeSouza to join us so we'll keep an eye for that. I don't see her online yet but we are expecting her to join. Alright, would Colin Rasmussen and Rachel Lowe come? Oh she just joined. Hi Brooke. Introduce go ahead and introduce yourself. Ms. D'Souza go ahead and introduce yourself.

Brooke D'Souza at large.

Thank you. So call if you guys will come right up to the podium here. Colin, you have volunteered to start our meeting with a prayer and Rachel with the pledge. So Colin, will you go first? Go right ahead. Thank you.

Let us bow our heads. Oh lord heavenly father, let us pray for those graduating today from our youth council. As we embark on our next chapter of our lives, give us the wisdom, strength, and courage to lead others in any endeavor we pursue. Let us further to serve the greater good of our city, valley, and beyond. Let us pray for those who have made this program possible, for those who have sacrificed their precious time for us, from our advisers to our parents, to our council members, to our city, to every agency and individual we have come across.

Let this program continue to flourish and prosper prosper so that the youth of Sandy may learn, serve, and lead our future. We say this in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Let's all rise, and Rachel will lead us in the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks to the both of you. The first item on our agenda tonight is a special recognition and that is recognizing the current class, the graduating class of our Sandy Youth Council and this is always a highlight for us. So I'd like to invite our staff Chris Edwards and Liz Terrio to come on down and guide us through this class of twenty twenty five-twenty twenty six program year.

Okay. Good evening, council administration and our youth council parents. As the program advisers to the Sandy Youth Council, Chris and I, along with the city council liaison, Allison Stroud, are excited to recognize our twenty twenty five, twenty six Sandy Youth Council members. This is the fourth year of our program and we continue to be amazed by our members.

This year, we had 38 Sandy City Youth Council members. Our members are all residents of Sandy City and they attend nine different high schools across the valley. Jordan, Alta, Brighton, Hillcrest, Skyline, Beehive Academy, Chesterton Academy, Juan Diego Catholic High School, and the Waterford School.

Most of our members participate in the program for multiple years and we're very proud to have a 95% return rate among our SYC members. A lot of our members here have already sent in their application for next year which is great. Tonight, we wanna provide the city council with a review of our 2526 program year.

As part of our civic engagement, we learned more about the city. This year, we met with the public work staff and learned about the important work of that department. We toured the new fleet building and were amazed at the state of the art facility. We met with our emergency manager and learned about the importance of being prepared.

We also had a meeting with our Sandy service ambassadors and learned that there are more opportunities for involvement with the city as we as they grow and become adults. And we also participated in a career panel where we learned about roles in the city and future municipal careers. Thank you to everyone who participated in that. Something we will include every year in the SYC program.

We toured our brand new Fire Station 31 and were introduced to to the important work of our firefighters and paramedics. We even had the opportunity to dress in the full firefighting gear and tested our strength by dragging that very heavy fire hose across the building and spraying at a target.

We also went to the capital for the statewide youth council event at the local officials day. Our SYC again was chosen to participate in the mock debate and our members really impressed not only the other youth council youth councils there but local officials and the ULCT staff with our depth of understanding and knowledge of the current issues.

Leadership through service is a focus of our Sandy Youth Council. This year, our Sandy Youth Council had over eight hundred and fifty hours of service to our community. Each year, we add new opportunities for service. This year, our whole group service included raking nearly two acres of leaves which went into 80 leaf bags at the Carmelite Monastery in holiday, a service project we will not only continue but will invite other area youth councils to join us next year. We also helped put together 5,000 swag bags for the educator wellness conference at the Mountain America Expo Center. And we had to

pack those more than once. Just. Yeah. For about 6,000. We expanded our small group service to include helping at the city council oath of office ceremony this year. The council's Noel Bateman award ceremony, and the senior center center annual car show and barbecue. As we continued our incredible service at our city events sorry. Something popped up on my screen. Okay. Okay.

We also participated in the July, light at the Karens, and the balloon festival. Our service does not end tonight though, and we will again be helping at the Sandy Cemetery on this Saturday at the Sandy Beautification Day. We're gonna trim around the headstones and just make sure that we're honoring our residents who have passed and we're also going to help plant some beautiful rare rose bushes with the parks and recreation department.

For the past two years, we have recognized youth council members who stood out in their service to the city. This year, this recognition goes to Bridger Jones who had over fifty five hours of service. Could you stand up?

Fifty five hours of service.

Fifty five hours of service with the city and consistently showed up not only at our whole group service projects, but many, many of our small group service opportunities. And we thank him for his service.

Okay. Now we would like to introduce Katrianna Kawamoto and Kate Anderson who would like to come up and share just a few words with the council and the administration on their experience.

Hi everyone, my name is Katrina Kaomoto. This is my second year on the youth council. Okay. And I'm a junior at the Waterford School. So first, I just wanna thank our amazing program advisers, Chris and Liz, as well as council member Stroud for making this opportunity possible for all of us.

It's truly been so rewarding to get to become more involved in my city and see the inner workings of all of our departments. So I'd also just like to mention, like, how rewarding this opportunity has been to me through our service events and getting to meet, like, little kids at, like, the Karens and help them find where the elves are, to meeting with our Sandy service ambassadors at our October meeting and getting to talk to them and learn from them and learn from their experience, becoming more involved with the city. But most of all, my favorite part of Sandy's council has been getting to meet and be inspired by people who I never would have otherwise interacted with. Like, as Chris and Liz mentioned before, we had a volunteer event earlier in the year at the Carmelite monastery, and we raked over 80 bags of leaves. And that was just it was so fun to be able to connect with, like, other youth council members and do that.

But also, it was amazing to talk to the mother superior after. And one thing that really stuck with me that she said was how anyone who comes to them in need, she will pray for them, and the the sisters will pray for them. And this idea that we should be open to all of our neighbors regardless of our differences or, like, religious affiliation in the case of, like, mother superior. It's just been so inspiring to me. It's been something I've tried to carry with me through everything. So I'm just so grateful to have this opportunity, and thank you guys.

Hi. My name is Kate Anderson, and this is my fourth year on the Sandy Youth Council. I'm a senior, and I'm sadly graduating and moving away. But my time at Sandy has always been such a tender place in my heart because I've always lived here and I've always called it home. And, for like a long time I like went to school and I did all my extracurricular activities in Sandy.

But I never really explored outside the bubble and I never really understood how big Sandy was. And when my mom mentioned, oh you should like apply to like be part of Sandy Youth Council like it's new. And I was like, okay, it'll go on college applications I guess. I never really understood how much of an impact it would make on me. And I'm so glad that we were able to open up Sandy Youth Council again because I've had so many opportunities meeting new people and having so many hours just exploring Sandy and what we truly are and what makes us a city.

And I'm so grateful for all the people, of course, Chris and Liz and all the city council members that make this possible. And of course, our families that allow us to be able to go out. And of course, all the Sandy Youth Council members that I've been able to friends and now have a good relationship with. And I'm just so grateful that I've been able to have this experience. Thank you.

So now we would like to we're gonna honor all of our youth council members in a moment, but we'd like to honor our seniors. So as we call your name, will you please stand and be recognized by the council and the community? So Annie Allred, who is going to post high school attend Brigham Young University to study business and stay standing.

We have Jet Webster going to Purdue to study biochemistry.

Colin Rasmussen who is going to the United States Naval Academy.

For mathematics. For mathematics. Maya Gupta who's going to the University of Utah for computer science and business.

And Aurea Orm who's going to the University of Utah to study pre med.

Thank you seniors for your service. Don't worry. We didn't forget some of We

have four more seniors

that we're gonna recognize. And for these people, we'd like you to come up to the front.

So we'd like to recognize four of our seniors who have the privilege of joining the youth council as freshmen. In our second year of the program, we changed the program to include sophomore through seniors just so that we could accept more students and things like that. However, these four were able to join us, and so they're the only ones who will have four years in the program and we wanted to acknowledge them. So please come up to the dais as I call your name. Charlotte Houser who's going to the University of Utah to study creative writing.

Do you want clap now? Kate Anderson who's going to Salt Lake Community College for nursing. Olivia Hauser going to the University of Utah to study do you know? What are you studying?

I I would.

Not to put you on the spot but You know what? You built build an interesting Yeah. I believe in you. You got it. We'll figure it out. And Rachel Lowe who's going to Salt Lake Community College and then the university or UVU, sorry, to study architecture. Architecture. So thank you guys for sticking sticking with us for these last four years. We now like to invite the entire youth council up to the front. We're gonna do Oh okay we're gonna do a photo of just you four real quick.

Smile. Now. Okay. Now can we have the rest of the youth council up to the front of the room for a photo? Do you wanna have the council come down? We're gonna wait. Okay.

We have one little surprise addition to the agenda. So bear with us. We need you all up here. And I'd like to invite the council chair Cindy Sharkey to come

up to the podium. Well,

to all of you, to all of the parents who are here and anyone else watching online, We are so proud to have you as part of our council here at the youth council. We really look forward to recognizing you and all your many accomplishments. But in addition to recognizing and honoring you tonight, I have one more thing and she doesn't know about it. So we also want to recognize Liz Theriault.

Unfortunately,

for those of you who are coming back, Liz won't be working with you next year. So we've had a plaque made for Liz. We joked about the fact that you were gonna cry.

I didn't know I was gonna cry.

And it says, the Sandy City Council honors Liz Theriault for your vision and dedication in creating the Sandy Youth Council. Your commitment and passion have shaped a lasting legacy for the SYC and will continue to inspire future generations of students to engage, to serve, and to lead. Thank you Liz for what you've done for the SCC.

Parents, we're gonna go, we're gonna excuse ourselves from the council meeting, and we're just gonna go right next door to the overflow room just to finish our presentation and let the council get on with all the other things they have to do tonight. So please join us just next door for about ten more minutes.

All right. As they exit, the next item on our agenda is a presentation by the fire department. I see we have a lot of chiefs here tonight. Is chief McConaughey, are you leading us off on the presentation on the 2025 annual report?

Yes. I am. And thank you, madam chair and counsel and administration and staff. Thank you. It's a pleasure for us to be here tonight to give this presentation for the annual report for 2025.

And I just wanted to clarify a few things. We printed out a copy for each of you. And it's as you see, if you've thumbed through it at all yet, it's fairly substantial. I have no intention of covering it in great detail tonight. There's a long agenda and schedule for tonight, so I'm gonna try to keep somewhat concise and short and just touch on some of the the highlights.

But having said that, if you are interested in calling, emailing, texting, or whatever as you move through this over whatever time period, feel free to do so. I will also mention that in the top corner of corresponding pages, I have we have added the references from the management study with the the areas that they recommended. So you can actually use that and go back to the management study and reference those areas. And I've I've we've presented them with their titles. So having said that, we'll kinda just cruise through this.

So starting out, the first thing that I wanted to point out is a vision statement document. Prior to this past year, we didn't have a vision statement. We had two separate documents, one for the mission statement, one for the values. What we did last year is add a vision statement and then combine it all into one document, framed each one of those, and they are now hanging at each of the five stations as you enter. So just kind of a good next to a shield that we had laser cut.

So it's kind of just a good reminder. So we we're excited about that project. The next section is the organizational chart. And as you're probably already aware, that has changed slightly and does correspond with management study recommendations where we had one deputy chief before we have two now. And you're probably familiar with deputy chief of operations, Chris Aston, and deputy chief of administration, Michael Bullock.

So with that, we've also added the position of emergency manager under the fire department umbrella. And so all of that is here in this organizational chart. And then we've also kind of color coded it for a, b, and c shifts, red, green, and blue. And then down the side in black, you can see stations one thirty one through 35 and the personnel that are at each one of those stations. So hopefully, that's helpful to you.

Any questions about that, let us know. Personnel changes, promotions in the last year, we have had four promotions for paramedics, as you see there, and then our fire department coordinator, Carrie Phillips, that was promoted last year as well. We also have, as some I've mentioned already, some of the new positions, but new hires. Our battalion chief, David Larson, for emergency management, and then the six individuals that you see there. We have two more that are about to complete next month, the Salt Lake City Academy.

So they'll appear on next year's annual report. And then we have the addition a few years back of the firefighter senior step and the paramedic senior step, which allows people within their van to move up and down a little bit more flexibility with some additional training and education, and then gives them some additional roles and management within that area of expertise. So these five individuals accomplished that senior step. Pictures of our Salt Lake City Academy and references to the recommendation by the management study of increased budgeting staffing levels. And I'll just pause for a second to say thank you.

Thank you so much for the support, and you'll probably reflect back when we were running as two handed on the heavies, on the engines, and the trucks. And we've increased that now. And it's increased retentions, increased our morale, it's increased our our response. And so thank you for that. Next five slides, I'll just briefly cover the five stations.

If you didn't know, we have a beautiful new station right there off the freeway. We're so excited about it. I think in the training room, we probably have an event every single day and people coming from all over the state. I know we had a wild land saw class today and is going on, and we have had people from all over the state attend that. But the additional bedrooms, the the additional offices, the base space, and then just all the storage in general. Not to mention, you know, just how beautiful it is. It's been a real shot in the arm, a breath of fresh air. Those that are stationed there just love it, and and we constantly hear about it. So we're very excited. It was it was long needed.

So it's turned out great, and we're and we're finally at the end of all the touch up. So thank you again for your support on that project. Station thirty two is doing well. It was rebuilt in 2007. I will mention, and I forgot on thirty one, I'll mention the specialty of each one of stations. Station thirty one, the specialty is the truck. We do have a tiller, which is a truck that's on order. We'll be here in a year and a half. That'll also be stationed at thirty one. The specialty at station thirty two is technical rescue, and it's strategically located by Dimpledale Park, Bell Canyon, Rocky Mouth, and all of those areas where we have a lot of the technical rescue type type of calls.

We have done some upgrades to that station this year with some renovations to both the men and women's bathrooms. And I think two years ago, the shingles were replaced. So it's in really good shape. We've also added some doors and some isolation to the turnouts storage area, which are the fire uniforms that they use. So that one's going well.

And it's if you're not aware where that is, it's directly across from where Altus Canyon, the rec center is being rebuilt. Station 33 was built in '78. It's the oldest of our stations. We have made some renovations over the years, including some new doors, repainting. If you refer back to the management study back, it's been three years ago, they said this station needs to be replaced within three years.

That's kind of the time frame. So we're at that point now. And so it's had some troubles with water, with sewage, and some other things, but that's one slated for replacement. Thirty four oh, sorry. The the specialty on thirty three is wildland and has our wildland engine, the heavy type one three and the type six that we do the deployments with as you're aware.

Station thirty four would be the next on the list that needs to be replaced, and that, if you look at the management study, was recommended between three and seven years. It is the specialty on that one is heavy extrication, and it is also strategically located to have quick access on the 106 South to the freeway and other surface streets where we see a lot of those high accident prone, high speed accidents. So and then 35 was built in 2001. It is also in good shape. It is the same floor plan, just flip flopped as Station 32.

And it also underwent some renovations for the men's and women's bathrooms this year. So that one's in good shape. Alright. To the data and statistics, we continue on the same trend as 75% of what we do being medical and 25% being fire. You can see the total responses in green and how they've increased over the last three years.

This is the first year that we've gone north of 10,000 calls, and you can see the climbs from 23 of 8,600 and to 9,400 and then to 10,000 calls. The way that that's broken up is between fire and medical calls in the blue and the orange graphs with corresponding years, and you can see how those have kinda shot up. A lot of that can be is due to the fact that we absorbed the gold cross calls that we were having them go on the lower acuity, lower emergent type calls. We've now absorbed everything in addition to the fact that we have the MVP and then just the increased volume all overall. And that's that's a large part of why those numbers are shooting up.

This is a graph that just shows the peaks and valleys from month to month. The the dips in February, it's a little deceiving on the graph. I mean, just two days shorter in the month of February can make that dip the way that it is. But you can see on the fire side on the the lower graph there, just the the higher people get out and about, plus you have the grass fires when everything warms up and drives kind of that peak in the in the graph on the on the lower side with fire.

Chief, can

Are you wanting questions along the way or

Wait. Well, that's up to you. I was gonna just cruise through it all real quick, and then if you guys wanna come back. But I I can take them right here. I can take them now. Sorry.

I can put a finger can I put a hold and remember to come back to you?

I'm flexible. If you would like to ask now, that's fine.

It's quick. July the peak in July, everything you just described is also fireworks related. Are we responding to okay.

Yes.

Because July, we obviously have the fourth and the twenty fourth.

Yes. So I

wanted to confirm that was part

of it.

It is. Yep. And and these right here, this next graph kinda talks about well, almost. The the one after this, I'll show you there. But one one last part of these of the graph I wanna talk about was just the transports because, of course, you know that every call we go on does not end up in a transport.

And so this graph here in blue represents the transports. But what's what's kind of worth highlighting is since 2023, we went from 28 27, 2,800 calls of or transports, I should say, to now. And just this last year, we've almost increased a thousand transports at numbers. And so a lot of that, again, comes back to the fact that we absorbed the Cross calls that we started taking. And and part of the argument and and your support in in putting into service that fourth ambulance and the MVP and the the additional calls that we go nearly about 600 per year that we go there.

So to your question, moving on, council member Hausman, this bottom chart is the twenty twenty five top 20 EMS incident types that you can kinda look through there. But the next one is the top 20 fire incident types. So you can see on there, it's fourth down are the fireworks and those types of calls that we go on. You wouldn't guess it, but the the second highest one on the list there is water related problems. And that explains kinda why we put those pictures on there, but one of the bigger water related incidents from 2025.

But kinda breaks it down of everything and what we're going on and why. And then the response times, they've trended down. Think that I'm proud of this that since 2023, we've gone from total response time. We've knocked off almost half of a minute in our total response time. There's not a whole lot we can do about the drive times, you know, and getting from a to b.

But we can we've we've spent a pretty good amount of time coaching, counseling, training, and encouraging people to get out the door quicker to lower that time. So I think that's that's helpful, and we're happy about that. And then we get into just all the narratives, which we hope you guys will take a minute when you get time to just read all the different ones. This is from the operations chief, and then we've got the administrative chief, and then the different platoon battalion chiefs for a, b, and c. And then we get into the divisions and the reports and narratives from the fire marshal division, the fire prevention division, emergency management management division, and then our specialties.

As you're aware, we have the sandy fire spots that work along with the police department, our wildland specialty that goes, as I mentioned, and deploys all over, technical rescue, and then our hazardous material team. So we appreciate you guys supporting us. I know some of you are going to be coming out to help and participate in the fire skills day ops one zero one that we'll be doing at the May. We'll have first hand experience in participating in some of these technical and specialty things. And you can appreciate firsthand how much time and training that goes into this.

And this is aside from just the basic medical and fire training. I was told the other day that we average, as a department, about twenty five hundred hours per month of training, which is substantial. So the support ongoing for, you know, financing that for the uniforms, for the equipment, that is has not gone unnoticed. So thank you. Thank you for all of that. And then to conclude, just some fun memories of the ribbon cutting at Station 31 with the pancake breakfast. And again, thank you again for that. This could not have happened without your support. So we appreciate it. And with that, I'll ask if there's any questions.

Ms. Houseman, go ahead.

One additional. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know you're trying to be brief, and I appreciate that. As we know we all like data and I'm just the turnout time so I'm on page 20. I love that all stations turnout time is under a minute. I love that you're sharing that there's been a lot of coaching and support. But Spire station thirty four stands out as like the clear leader in terms of fifty one seconds for their turnout time. What I'm just curious like what what is thirty four doing to to be the lead on turnout

Like I mentioned earlier is and you'll see if you look at 33, it's the highest. And a lot of it just has to do with their access points and how how, you know, how much of their district are just in clear cut even surface streets. And if you go up in the 30 Threes area, for example, you're weaving and bobbing all over the place. So naturally, it's going to take you longer. And in the case that you're referring to, it just is set up to where it's a little shorter. Because getting out the door is, you know, really the only control that we have. Right. Once you get on the road, you can't, you know, do anything about that.

Well, was actually referring to turnout time. Oh. Not travel time. Alright. Well then,

they're in trouble.

Is it No. No. No. Fifty one fifty one seconds turnout time for for Station 34.

Oh, they're best. Is that what you're saying?

Okay. Was like, what what what are they doing? And Well because turnout is is just right within the station. Right? Yes. Like how

That's from dispatch to en route. Correct.

Okay.

So we're gonna give them a day off. But yes, each one of those, you know, we work with the battalion chiefs. I mean, there's so many different things. Like, what are you doing? So Yeah. But, yeah, we work with there's all three platoons and how much that plays into it. And so but we we publish this. They can look at it. So I don't know how much of it is just competitive in nature and, you know, so it it is nice to have that data and those dashboards Yes. For just quickly referencing if we're in staff meeting, pull it up and let it, you know, be seen by the battalion chiefs and, okay, how can we adjust? How can we change things so that we can bring down the numbers?

Yeah. Well, just let them know I noticed and that's that's fifty one seconds. That's pretty fast.

Yeah. Now it is.

And so And that's average.

And we appreciate you looking into that. Yeah.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

I was searching back for where it was but

Oh, 20.

I think I lost it.

Page 20. Okay. Yeah. See you're turning into like don't I wasn't gonna point out the one that's like highest turnout time. I was just celebrating the one with the lowest.

Thank

you. Will appreciate that.

We're grateful for all you do and the whole whole department. Thank you.

Go

ahead, DeKaisi. Thank

you, Madam Chair. First, I just wanna say I think this is a fantastic report. Really well done and like it a lot. One thing that I thought was interesting, a little surprising, and maybe my perspective on this is just because I don't understand how fire departments work. But the incident types for the fire incident, do you know about how much it cost the city to go on each one of those?

You know, we've been asked that before. There's so many variables.

Jay, just a rough guess?

And don't. I can I can look into maybe come back with you? But I mean, if you consider everything involved including the astronomical fee of the heavies, the trucks, the engines, the ambulances, and then the personnel costs. And that's aside from you know, your uniforms, your equipment, and supplies. It it I'm sure is crazy but And that's on the fire side. If you did the same on medical side and you got everything else involved in there, we could probably get a rough guess with a little bit of research but right now, I don't.

It's just wild to me that twenty seven percent of those calls are smoke detector unintentional and no carbon monoxide detector. Not that people shouldn't be calling the fire department if they're alarmed. My question is, you know, that could be worth half $1,000,000, a million dollars to the city. Is there any education or communication with the public that the fire department can do to get that those numbers of false alarms down?

Yes. And to your point, I wonder where it would be if we didn't have that going on because we do. Our prevention department is really top notch around the state of getting out the monthlies and and then just the social media ads of smoke detectors and all kinds of safety trips and falls, driving bicycles, and they just go through the whole gamut. And they do it week to week and month to month, and they continue from year to year. So I'm hoping that that campaign and that education has brought it down, and this is what we're seeing as a result of that instead of you know a 10% higher, 20% higher. But yeah they they do what they can and they really push that campaign. I'm hoping that it has

I hope it keeps going down. Thank you madam chair.

Madam chair, can I just offer some feedback here? Obviously, campaign's not working because station thirty one came to my house Sunday morning after I couldn't get my alarm off.

Shame on you for having that happen. Had that happen too.

So I had to go out and do some serious groveling to station thirty one. And I reminded him that even though it wasn't the same crew, but station thirty one is the station that saved my house about fifteen years ago. I'm always grateful to you chief and to your team. But it was a false alarm early Sunday morning.

Well, we'll start a new Tracy team and put them in service.

I just thought, now what moron could do that? Oh, it's me.

I just have a question for you about the growth on page 15, the nine eleven responses. And you answered a big part of it, maybe the entirety of it by indicating that the call volume was due is it largely or entirely to this the Gold Cross rearrangement?

Largely. Yeah. We continue to grow in spite of our population not going up. It's just becoming busier. But, yes, largely due to absorbing the Gold Cross calls and the MVP is a large chunk of that.

Is there any change? So these are all nine one one calls whether they're inside Sandy or mutual or automatic aid calls too that might be outside Sandy?

Yeah. That that we are responding to.

They were responding to. And obviously the other jurisdictions respond to ours too. Yeah. Are are you seeing any changes there? Any upticks or changes there? And calls where you're being pulled out of Sandy on a mutual aid or automatic aid kind of arrangement?

As far as it going higher or lower?

Yeah. The numbers.

I have that we have that data. We actually have a report. And so if you don't mind, we'll look at that tomorrow and I can reach out to you.

Just curious. I know you guys keep a lot of very very very good data. Data. Is that Carrie that does that?

It's the whole team but Mike is the data guy and Carrie is if he has problems then he asks Carrie.

Mike's got it. He's finding the file right now. Any other questions council members I don't see any hands online either so thank you very much.

You appreciate it.

Thanks to all the chiefs for coming out tonight.

While while we're transitioning, I I saw you all looking at each other when I brought up the the fifty one seconds. Was I not supposed to bring that up? I'm like, oh, no. They're looking at each other like, why is pointing out one individual station? Okay. So all is all is well. I love all of our stations. Okay.

Seems like there could be a rivalry going on there.

Is there? Yeah.

A little bit.

Alright it's six zero one so that is a good time for our general citizen comment. If anyone is in the room and would like to speak to the council on any issues please fill out a blue card and hand it to our staff up here. I do have one card already so I will go ahead. Oh thank you. Oh good. Okay awesome. Kate Nielsen, would you like to come up? And you will have three minutes to address the council. Thank you.

So

I'm actually here to speak on the CDBG so you guys will be getting to that in a few minutes. So I just wanted to thank you for your time this evening on behalf of Habitat for Humanity Greater Salt Lake Area. We appreciate your continued leadership and commitment to preserving affordable housing in Sandy City. We're grateful for your continued support of our critical home repair program and we value our partnership with you. With the support from CDBG and additional funding sources, we repair and, rehabilitate homes for low income homeowners who would otherwise be unable to address their critical health and safety issues.

Through this work seniors are able to age safely in place, families are remaining stable in their homes, and individuals with disabilities are gaining greater accessibility to independence. I'm gonna go off script for a second. We're reducing

some

of your

calls for

smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors because we put those in every home we go in

so hopefully that will help.

We just need, you know, to be able to do that in more homes. So in the past year, we've completed repairs benefiting over a 159 people across the Salt Lake Valley. Currently, we have three projects in Sandy City and they represent an entire blend of what we do in our program. One household is a single income family with three children under the age of five. A second one is a grandmother who recently had an amputation and is also now caring for two young grandchildren who lost their father which was a veteran.

The third is a woman who is in her late sixties and she is disabled so we're doing some, accessibility modifications for her. These projects are for us they're more than construction as well as for the families they are life lines. They prevent displacement and preserve existing affordable housing while strengthening the neighborhoods. We are grateful to have been recommended for the funding which you guys will go over shortly to support critical home repairs in Sandy City. This investment supports not just the housing but also long term stability and well-being of the residents. And again I just wanted to thank you for your partnership and your commitment in ensuring Sandy City remains a place where everyone has access to a safe, decent, and affordable home.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Joyce Walker. Miss Walker, do you wanna come on

down? Okay. I

had to leave earlier because I had a scratch in my throat, and I'm sorry for disrupting the meeting. Do you need an address stated, or do I just jump in? Oh, we're already don't start that clock yet.

I've got what I need from you, Joyce.

Very good. Okay. Good evening. I am Joyce Walker, a long term Sandy City resident over thirty years, and I'm the president of the Dimple Dale Preservation Community. And tonight, I am here to state on record on behalf of our organization and many affiliate groups that we strongly oppose any additional roads, specifically the Highland Drive extension over the Dimpledale Regional Park.

From the current master plan for Dimpledale that I was on the steering committee for, This master plan strongly advocates for limiting any future development that involves the extension of any roads over or through the Dimpledale Regional Park. I have pulled some information, and I've brought highlighted copies for each of you if you'd like to see that. But it looks like from the Sandy Transportation Master Plan of 2021, so these numbers are likely outdated and on the conservative side, that the environmental impact study would be $4,300,000 To do the extension, including all of the roads leading to the widening, etcetera, we're looking and that would be to San to Draper. The cost would be $118,900,000. And I'm going to advocate as a city of Sandy for that Pandora box to never even be opened.

We will be happy to talk at other meetings about the negative impact to the wildlife, the migration routes, and the water that White City uses. There is an alternative plan in this study, and that is 1700 East, which ideally so from the intersection of 1300 East, 100 And 600 South, which is then on the South side of the Dimple Dale Regional Park, you would take a short transit from 1300 East or a drive to 1700 East. And from this and that cost would be $20,400,000 so almost $100,000,000 less. The option that is presented in the study states that alignment option would transition Southwest at Dimpledale Park and connect to the 1700 East Corridor. This would go to approximately 123 South in Draper, which would then be a good connection to the freeway.

This analysis attracts as much as 18,000 more vehicles per day than the Highland Drive extension along 20th East. I would be thrilled to have individual conversation with each one of you, but we will be persisting and state, please do not extend Highland Drive over and through the Dimple Dell Regional Park.

Thank you.

Shall I leave this with anyone?

Miss Dustin.

Thank you very much.

Alright. Stuart Ralphs. Stuart, three minutes. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. I'm kind of jumping the gun because it's regarding the CDDG funds, but the staff allowed me to go forward. I'll be really quick.

Go ahead.

I'm the director of Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake. We provide services for victims of domestic violence for all of the residents in Salt Lake County. We truly appreciate the support that you give us through your CDBG allocations. We know that there is very little money, it's hard to make determinations of where to to invest that money. But we help about a 180 residents of Sandy each year, give or take.

And with the allocation that you're able to do, that's I do really bad math as an attorney, but that's right, counsel. That's about $33 per person. Not all of those people get protective orders, but for those that do, as I stand here today, I know that there are women and children in our communities that are still alive today because of the services that we provide and that you support. And I want to truly thank you for your support. You had some excess funds available this year. You directed our way. And I wanted to come out in person and tell you how much we appreciate that. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Alright. I have two other cards for other items, and so I will call on Patricia and Jason later on. I won't forget, I promise. Dustin, would you like to call on our online audience to see if we have any commenters there?

Of course, madam chair. We've got one more card as well that we missed. Let me pass that over to you. Would you like me to call

on line?

Yes. Yeah. Of course.

Okay. If you are joining us virtually this evening via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any Citi business, now is the time. Go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen. I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes. Not seeing any hands raised madam chair.

Same here. Haven't closed public comment yet. We have one more card in the room and that's Henry Butters. Come on down Henry. You have three minutes.

Are you city council? Hey, thank you Sharkey. Thank you Brooke for calling me back. Thank you, Brooke Sousa, for calling me back too. Thank you. My concern is when I sat down with I have talked to all three of you about my concerns, about the meeting I have had. Where do we stop not helping truck drivers out? And then all this car parking down there, they wanna just put flyers down on there. Where where does it where I get a warning and all them cars down there that's not licensed, not get a warning? How biased is that?

That's my concern. I think the meeting I had with the police chief and them did not go anywhere. I hope my city council can work with and try to find truck parking. There's the one down by Costco will be obsolete when that building goes up. Six trucks will not be able to park down there no more. Rather by Costco. And they're saying the maps was not the maps. And this is what I got from the city council when you guys made this. That's my personal opinion and thank you. Have a good day.

Thank you. Alright I will close general citizen comment for this evening and we'll move on in the agenda to item number three And that is detached accessory dwelling units. Melissa Anderson.

All right. Thank you very much, chair and counsel. Good evening. So this is a topic that has had lots of previous discussions. But finally, the legislature had adopted something this year. It was Senate Bill two eighty four. And what that does is require cities to allow for detached accessory dwelling units. So in this presentation, I'd like to give an update. I'd like to give an overview of what this new legislation requires. Also, the items where we have options discretion on, and then also to seek your preferences.

And I'd like to go through the whole thing and then go back to about the five or so questions, options, or preferences of the council. So, I I that's the way I'd like to proceed. So, as opposed to stopping in the middle and because there might be lot of discussion on how to put in and so I just wanna make sure you see the whole thing. This applies to all the cities that are required to do a moderate income housing plan, and that can be well, it does include all cities 10,000, population or greater and several cities that are 5,000 of population or greater depending on the county. So it is rather ubiquitous.

Most of Utah, must comply with this. Also, for detached accessory dwelling units, they are different from the internal ones that are just part of the home, like a basement apartment. It seems like a simple subject, but it can be complicated. So as we go along, if it feels kind of like a lot, it can be because there's more things you need to consider when you do detached accessory dwelling units. So the new state law in s b two eighty four requires cities to allow detached accessory dwelling units where you have a lot that is 11,000 square feet or greater where, a home is a permitted use in a residential zone.

Now I did notice that in the workshop series that you spent a lot of time on for missing middle housing, that there was some criteria that you were looking for. You were hoping for detached accessory dwelling units to be in the lower density areas. Also, dimensions and size was important, and design standards as well as owner occupancy. And you can basically do all of those except design standards is a little tricky. And but anyway, so I I don't what you want to accomplish, I think you're still able to with this.

So anyway, next slide. Yeah. Right now, we allow for internal accessory dwelling units. They are currently permitted with clear and objective standards, in all residential zones. For example, basement apartments, that's your typical.

So that is already on the books, and we've been, allowing that for quite a bit of time. And so this one, we are required, by October 1 to adopt regulations to allow for these detached accessory dwelling units on residential lots of a thousand square feet or greater. And so this this these two slides just go over what are requirements of this new law. So 11,000 square feet or greater lot that contains a single family dwelling in residential residential zones. Zones.

We need to allow them as a permitted use as opposed to conditional uses where it has to go to the planning commission. But we can have criteria where, you know, we have to check if that building permit before they can do that. And we now, for internal ones, we require a special use permit with business license. So also that we can or that all detached accessory dwelling units must comply with building health and fire codes. And I think that's what we do now, and I'm sure you'd agree with that.

The maximum number of additional parking spaces for detached ADUs is one new or additional parking space for detached ADU of 649 square feet or less or no more than two parking spaces if it's six hundred six hundred and fifty square feet or larger. So that's the maximum amount we can require. We're prohibited from requiring design elements, and there's a list of those in our state law. But we may require design of this detached ADU to be consistent with the design of the primary dwelling. The state law is a little ambiguous about that.

I've been speaking with our attorney Darian about that. But there is that flexibility, which is consistent with some of those objectives that you had in the workshops. And, we can tackle that later, not necessary tonight in terms of design elements, but just wanted you to know that we do have some ability with that regard. New state law requirements also require us to provide a process, like a review process, to convert a legal accessory structure into a detached accessory dwelling unit if they meet setback requirements and they're also meeting building health and fire codes. That's a provision that can be a little complicated with different options.

So I'll I'll we'll set that aside. We won't get dig deep into that tonight. At least I hadn't planned on it unless you really want to. But, that is, one element that can have a variety of different options you can go. Now there's a a variety of things that still allow you this flexibility and options.

So just to run through that real quickly, it allows for the detached ADUs on lots less than allow 11,000 square feet. We can allow them all over residential zones if you'd like to like we do internal ones. We can also limit the number of ADUs on a lot. Like, you could say only one or two per lot, like an internal and external. We can still require owner occupancy, and I know that's a high priority for the council, of either the detached ADU or the primary dwelling, one or the other, but owner occupancy.

We can still require that. We can require that it be no larger than the primary dwelling. And so those dimensional requirements or scale, we can, you know, regulate that to ensure that it is no larger than or subservient to in size. We can regulate the size, the dimensions, the height, and the lot coverage. That's very clear and straightforward in the new state law.

We can also regulate setbacks, and those setbacks can be used when we consider proximity to the property proximity to other structures, easements, the window orientation, massing, and other elements. We can also require the detached ADU to be designed consistent with the single family dwelling. And then lastly, with the some of these discretionary standards, we can prohibit or regulate the parking. As I mentioned, the maximum amount is one for ADU that's less than 650 Street square feet or two if it's 650 square feet or more. We can require replacement parking spaces if they wanna convert a garage into a ADU.

We can also prohibit them from being in the front yard. And we can also prohibit the ADUs if the access to or the capacity of utilities, such as water service, is not available. So and that's very straightforward. So now in terms of the context of our region, of what other cities in our area do, common themes are that many of them still require owner occupancy or only one ADU on a lot as opposed to two. Many of them prohibit ADUs to be detached ADUs to be a short term rental.

No portable units or units on wheels. At least one parking space is pretty common for a requirement. And, also meeting all building and fire safety requirements, that's standard. And, lastly, for for common themes, in terms of your size and then the height, is your size limits, they can vary quite a bit. There can be square footage maximums, or you can also use a combination of well, it you know, it's a percentage of the size.

No more than a percentage of the main building so that it's ensures that it's smaller. So one, for example, could be a maximum of 850 square feet, which does not include a garage. But, also, it cannot be any more than 50% of the primary dwellings. So there's a combination of a standard that they're using on that. One was, no greater than 25% of the rear yard.

Another is just a flat no greater than a thousand square feet. In terms of the height limits, they also vary. Some can be just a numerical value of a height of, let's say, 20 feet measured to the peak of the roof or one or two stories. Also, it could be one story and a maximum of 20 feet measured to the peak, the height of the principal structure, whichever is less. So that are some common themes in our area and also some best practices that we do now or that we would support that we do now and we'd like to continue or would recommend continuing.

Internal ADUs, we allow in all the residential zones. And for the detached ADUs, the new law is you must allow on lots 11,000 square feet or greater. And then these other standards would be, recommending continuing that it's a permitted use with a special permit. It's clear and objective standards, but that there is a is a permit associated with it. So clear and objective says, yes.

Owner occupancy, continue with that. We would recommend, one address and one utility meter. We do that right now for the internal ADUs, and we'd recommend that for detached ADUs as well. If you allow, like, two meters, two addresses, it's essentially making the zone like an r two where you could have duplexes. And it also kind of opens the door for in the future, if you wanna subdivide off these lots, you already have two addresses, you have two meters, it kind of, opens that door.

My sense is that that may not be a direction the council wants to go. So we like that, and we think it's a good practice for both internal and detached to just keep one address, one utility meter. They can extend the the services, but it's still off of that main line to that unit. And also, we do recorded affidavits when they have a permit for this. It's recorded on the property.

So now these slides are they'll cover the kind of the questions or preferences that I'm hoping to gather from the council tonight. And so I'd like to go through those so you'll see all of it. And then we're gonna come back to basically the slides, and we'll have a discussion on each one. So one of the basic questions, well, where should we allow the detached day to use? Some of the options would be, well, whatever the minimum is that the state requires and no less than that.

That would be all the residential lease zone lots that are 11,000 square feet or greater. Another would be, well, maybe a little bit smaller. We do have a fair amount of zones that are the r one ten zone, which is single family homes on lots 10,000 square feet or greater. So that would be kind of the next step. Or you could go further.

8,000 square foot lots are all over the city if the lot perhaps doesn't exceed a certain amount of the lot or the rear yard. So that would be the most liberal. Recommendation right now from staff is to allow the detached ADUs according to state law on lots 11,000 square feet or greater, but to consider expanding it to other areas, other residential areas in the future. Although, a lot that's 10,000 square feet, you know, that's not that big of a jump. We did make some maps that illustrate all the residential zones on 11,000 square feet or greater.

That's what this shows. And keep in mind, you know, we can refine refine other other mapping projects later, but this is just if it's zoned residential, regardless if there's a school there or a park, then it's highlighted if the lot is 11,000 square feet or greater. But it also this shows the 10,000 square feet lots or greater. So that just gives you kind of a a visual reference. The other question that

Melissa, do you wanna take these questions one at a time with the council? Do you wanna start with the one on the lot size and then progress through? Or do you wanna do your whole presentation and then circle back?

She said she wanna go. I was hoping to circle back. I would just but that might be the an easy question. But I'd like to do that and just come right back

if you

if you don't mind. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So the other question is, well, how many detached ADUs or how many ADUs in total do we wanna allow on a lot? Do we wanna allow two, one internal to the house, like a basement apartment with the house, as well as a detached ADU, or only one ADU on a lot? Meaning you can only have one detached one or you could have it internal, but you can't have two. I mean, it it doesn't increase the density. Our our recommendation right now is to allow only one ADU on a lot, but consider allowing two in the future. That that would just be a little more conservative and slower process.

The other question relates to parking and how many parking spaces should we allow? Should we require what the state allows us to, which is the maximum of one additional space for a 650 square foot or less ADU or two additional parking spaces if it's more than 650 square feet or just require one additional parking spaces regardless of the size or not require any more. And so right now, staff is looking at allowing or requiring what the state allows us to. But if you're within proximity of a transit station within a quarter mile, that we could reduce those parking space requirements. Our existing code requires four parking spaces right now, a two car garage and two in the driveway.

If you have an internal ADU, we cannot per state law require any more than those four that we require. So if you want the detached ADU, we don't have to require any more, or we could require as much as the state will allow us. Another question would be, how large should we allow these ADUs? No larger than the primary dwelling, no more than a thousand square feet, or it could be less than a thousand square feet or even larger. And right now, we're recommending a thousand square feet in size and no larger than the primary dwelling or smaller than the primary dwelling because to ensure that it's subservient or, you know, accessory too.

And so that could be maybe a percentage of the size of the main dwelling. So this table on this slide just shows with our accessory structure standards, like sheds, detached garages, It shows what our existing requirement is. So if your lot size is less than 15,000 square feet, you know, they it would be a maximum of 750 square feet or 25% of the rear yard, whichever is less. So this just gives you a relative, gauge of if someone's getting accessory structures in the rear yard or on the side, what kind of size they're allowed to depending on the lot. And then how tall should the ADUs be?

Should they we only allow one story or maybe one and a half stories, which is kind of in a it's a bonus room within the roof, like a loft, or up to two stories perhaps. And staff is recommending one to two stories depending on setbacks. And no taller than the primary dwelling. I have some examples to show you. This just shows some nice looking detached ADUs that are only one story.

This shows some examples of a one and a half story, like with the the bonus upstairs. It's not a full story, but it's a little bit larger and then full two stories. I think there's a lot of it's very attractive to a lot of people to have a garage below and then living space above. And lastly, setback options. For example, in our the the cottages that we allow right now, the guest cottage, now those standards are really limited.

Like, it can only be 400 square feet. You can't rent it out. It's only a mini kitchen. No basement. We require on those 10 foot, setback from the property line.

And so, you could consider, like, if it's one or one and a half story, you could come up within 10 feet of the property, and that's one option. If it's two stories, it's maybe recommended to just as long as they meet the setbacks of the primary dwelling. Meaning, you know, it could be attached to the house or detached, but the the main house setbacks that everybody has to have with the rear yard and the sides has to be met. So it's it's almost as though though that like it's part of the house. So that includes everything.

I'll go back. Future discussion items that kind of can go further into the weeds, they would be accessory structure conversions, design consistency standards, windows, you know, mitigation measures like the windows, doorways, lot coverage, balconies, lighting, and corner lots. So what you know, that we can spend a lot of time going over a lot of those details, but I was anticipating wouldn't have time so I just set them aside. And so I now would like to go back to that first slide, first question for preferences. Where should we allow detached ADUs?

Ms. Christensen, go ahead.

I would prefer them to be the 11,000 square feet in size or greater at this point.

Recommendation around 10,000 in a very strategic way. I think you you gave some. You felt like likely the Council would not be interested in 10,000, but you also said that a large number of our not large number I don't know if you said large but you said we do have a number of homes that are already are 110. That's already on 10,000. So if if there was a strategic recommendation for for example it aligns with our corridors or the places where we have indicated an interest in increasing density in the right manner.

So for example, our R 110 that is in those transition corridors, the neighborhood activity centers, like a couple of those places that that we have indicated could potentially be increased density if the right form of that is simply allowing an ADU there on a 10,000 square foot lot. I would be open to that but as far as a standard I think I think it's right to go with what the state

is mandating.

Ms. Nicole.

I would be hesitant to answer that question I'd like to know how many R18 R16 residential dwelling units we're talking about before I look at the the minimum lot size.

It like, would it be just for clarification because I wanna meet your needs is, would it be showing all of the r one eight zones or 8,000 square foot lots, etcetera? Or would it be well, in that smaller zone No. Which show the percentage do an ADU on it.

Yeah. No. The percentage that is already zoned right now, r one eight, r one ten.

Oh, very good. Okay. You know? And now I understand

much better. Would be

Per yeah. Percentage. Okay.

Information I need before I committed to a number on that.

Mister DeKiser?

Well, I have so much to say. I'll try and keep it brief. But first of all, thanks everyone for working on this. I've it's been a long time coming. I I wanna make sure that like Sandy is the best on this.

We did the housing workshop we're leading out and my goal is to have the most strategic update to this that we can have. Because if we treat it as a box to check, you know, we've done what SB two eighty four says, I think we're gonna be missing the opportunity to provide really affordable housing to our residents. And remember, we're in a crisis. So I think that we should probably be a little bit bold when we do this. For example, if we cap everything at a thousand square foot units, as I think about the missing middle, there are so many people who would love to live in that, a small family or something like that. Yes. About 80% of those are gonna be two bedroom, one bathroom units.

Mhmm.

There are families that would like to move up into something that's three bedrooms or something as their family grows.

Mhmm.

And I think that our lot sizes can accommodate that in certain spots. So and I've said this to James before. I want like a really nuanced code where there's like sliding scales and things like that. You know, maybe 11,000 square feet, you get 800 square foot unit. If you're on a 14,000 square foot lot, maybe you can accommodate a 1,400 square foot unit.

I I just wanna have a little more thought putting to things like that. Additionally, I think the parking standards in this are I don't know, maybe not I think they're probably antiquated. The literature I've been reading on stuff like this is like a thousand square foot or smaller, maybe zero to one parking stall. Because I want the code to reflect how people are living. And if there was like a location element like you're by the school.

That same family we're talking about in the thousand square foot unit that needs to go into something bigger. If they're close to a school and they're walking or they're close to a commercial center or they're close to transit, I like how we've got the quarter mile maybe we should make that bigger. Like what is that quarter mile based on? But I think if we really think about how people are living and what it means for zoning with regard to certain locations and things like that, we can have a really, really, really awesome update. You asked for feedback, so I just want to say sliding scale for ADU size, I would like to see some information on that.

Modernized parking approach that takes into account being near schools, transit, neighborhood services, whatever. I would like to see and this is maybe too extreme for some people but a transportation sustainability type menu. You we know in planning of housing that we need to combine it with transportation planning. So I wanna see more of that too. So like how can we incentivize people to only have one car?

If if a unit is built with like secure bike storage in the unit. What kind of an incentive is there for that? Incentivizing electric vehicles if you have a charging station in yours. Clean up our air. As much as we can make this work with our transportation and other planning I would like to see that. And the last item I wanted to mention is exploring preapproved building plans. I know those are out there so I would like to know what the thoughts are of the department on a menu for

I'd like to just mention on that point, the preapproved idea. And that is a really good idea. The only thing is that what I found, like, on Salt Lake City, they have a list of some preapproved plans. But what that is is just that the building code this meets building code. So the building staff has already reviewed these for that compliance, but it does not guarantee that on that specific lot with the size that you have, the size of the lot, or what that zone is, and and and the room in the backyard and all that, that that you can accommodate that.

The building kinda does, but you still have to go through this other. But I think that's a great ex expediting method and that I would encourage that.

We

can definitely, you know, try to pursue that. But there's the limitations in that, well, it's approved by building code, but let's look at your lot. What, you know, what do you have enough room for that size? Can you meet your setbacks, etcetera? So it's kind of a nuance in in terms of the preapproval.

Sure. Well, yeah, as much as we can control within the language, but I I really am looking for a nuanced approach kind of a case by case basis because there are a lot of lots out there that won't fit our criteria that could have awesome ADUs on them. I just think we need to have a procedure that could allow for those so that's my feedback. Thank you, manager.

Ms. D'Souza.

Thank you. Okay so I too don't know that I have enough information to make decisions outside of well I think maybe this. I get that you have to start somewhere and you need some information to be able to pull something together but like council member to Kaiser said I really do feel like this is a little more nuanced. Like for example the question about all residential zones for which one should we should allow them in. If the lot does not exceed percent lot coverage, maybe this isn't the right way to think about it, but I know for sure there's another question in there that kind of talks about the size and the percentage of the yard that it would take up and whatnot.

Like that can't be the same. That wouldn't necessarily be equitable for all lots. Smaller lots would have smaller ADUs. I don't know that it makes sense to blanket this as much as we might want to for the sake of ease and simplicity. I do think that just checking the state's box is a missed opportunity.

I hear some comments about well they should be on the larger lots. Well, in this in the general plan that we adopted, you know, my my Novo was specifically because of the new sub low density designation of the ultra ultra low rural

I question.

I that's

that's a

no offense to anybody but there's a little bit of hypocrisy in the let's throw density in these low density areas and whatnot. Think that I probably could be more bold in some areas and less and more conservative in other areas like I would be open to considering more residential zones even more than just the 10,000 square foot. I do think again though that it needs to be balanced with the lot size and maybe that's where the nuance that council member DeKaiser's speaking of comes into play. So I guess if we're gonna go through more questions, I'll just kinda end it there because I think that I've answered with that question.

Mhmm.

That'd be accurate?

Yeah. We'll come back to the other questions. Hang Thanks. On Miss Stroud, are you online? Oh, there you go.

I am. I I'm happy with the state standards for now, and we can look at it. We can take it in an incremental process just to make sure that we don't do something and then regret it later.

All right, thank you. I am happy with the state standards as well. 11,000 is an interesting number to me. It has. And I think what it means is that the state in considering this and probably with the input of the ULCT is questioning whether a quarter acre, a standard R-one 110 quarter acre lot is too small.

And I, so that is my belief that a quarter acre lot is too small. We will get into things like backyard coverage and stuff like that that's in your And so we'll be addressing those kind of issues. But I too like the 11,000 square foot or larger and would not be inclined to take it to a smaller size.

Okay. Very good. I appreciate the feedback on this this topic. Yeah. Have worked in other states and cities where it's allowed in all all residential zones, but it's the lot coverage that is really the the primary factor.

Because if you just have a a small house already, then, you know, and it could be relative relative to that size. That is the the most liberal, and that's but at the same time, we know that on previous discussions that the council has been concerned about ADOs or had a preference to looking at more of the lower density zones. And so that was one of the reasons why we we thought this would be a first step, but encouraging revisiting it in the future. So anyway, just so you know where what we're our thoughts were. As as planners, we we have all kinds of creative ideas of how we can start pushing the limits.

At the same time, our job is to be sensitive to our policy makers. Should

we Madam chair, do you mind if I ask Melissa a question? Sure. Is that okay? Melissa, I'm just wondering if I'm correct in this, but the the bill that passed, it it it restricts us more in terms of what we can regulate on the required anywhere where they're requiring DADUs, right? So those lots that are 11,000 square feet or greater. But on lots that are under 11,000 square feet, do we have additional ability to regulate those? Like design, for example.

Oh, I see. That's a good good question. Would think no. I probably wanna look at look at the language. I'm thinking detached ADUs. Here's your here's what you can and cannot do. And they specifically state in terms of location, it's 11,000 square foot lot with an existing single family dwelling. It can't be just blank or vacant and a primarily residential zone. Mhmm.

Yeah. I I get what you're saying. In in my reading

But but I would think that that I would like to check on that. But my first guess or thought is that now that we're still gonna have to be limited on what we can restrict. But if if it's broader than that, so if it's an 8,000 square foot lot and we have even further design elements, yeah, that'd be great. And it's a good question. Yeah.

Worth worth looking at for sure. And then I just had one other comment, madam chair. This is just food for thought. You know, you guys are the folks that get a vote on this, not me obviously. But in our in our housing series, there was a lot of conversation about missing middle housing, moderate income housing, and such.

And just something that I thought about as I was reading through these recommendations, you know, don't don't get me wrong. 11,000 square feet, totally understand that as a starting point. It's what's in state code. But I would say are most of the houses in Sandy that are going to help bridge that moderate income housing gap on 11,000 square foot lots or are the smaller lots the ones that would potentially benefit from DADUs in terms of providing better middle income housing opportunities. Does that make sense? Again, just food for thought as you're kind of thinking about this over the coming months.

Sure. I like that you brought that up because I and I want to make sure I'm understanding a what if scenario. So what if a family could afford that small home on a small lot because they will have rental income from that detached ADU and now they are able to become homeowners because of that. Is that what you're referencing? Okay. Thank you.

Madam Chair, my thought process was a lot like Dustin's, not as detailed on not choosing a minimum lot size yet. Is the my homes on a R one ten and I've got plenty of land, but I don't necessarily want or need to where someone who has a larger family than I do or in not in such a large house has a larger family and needs they need to move on with life. People should be able to move on with life with what they can afford. If we have these ADUs in affluent neighborhoods, they're really not going to be affordable either. So that was kind of my thinking on that.

Okay. One of the other questions for the council is how many ADUs do you like to see on a lot? We could allow two ADUs. You could have an internal, like a basement apartment in the house as well as a detached ADU, or it can the state allows us to limit to just one ADU on a lot. You can either choose you have it inside the house someplace or attached or, detached, but no more than two.

Right now, on our internal ADUs on a house, we only allow one internal. So if you wanted to do even though, like, the second Story and then the basement apartment as ADUs, you're not allowed to do that. You can only have the one. So that's just what we do now for the internal. And a more conservative slower approach would be just allow one for now, either internal or external ADU, but consider allowing two in the future. So that would be our recommendation. You.

Ms. Christensen.

I can answer that one pretty quickly. One, period. The impacts of two is going to have an impact. The impact of three units

Mhmm.

Is going to have a very large impact. And I think that's just too much Yes. For our residents.

I agree.

Miss Houseman? Oh, not ready? Okay. Mister DeKeiser, did you you already answered that one? No. You're not

thinking Sorry. I I kinda jumped the gun on mine.

Yeah. Yeah.

Went the whole presentation. Yeah.

I was taking notes though.

On this though, I would just thinking in the reading I've done and I'm kinda more going into form based code, but I think that whether or not the primary structure has a family and someone else renting in it, we've got the one structure. I think we should offer two structures on a lot. So if you have one of each, that would be fine with me. No more than two structures a lot. Two total and you can have one rental in the primary and

one Yeah.

Mhmm. Detached is my opinion.

So, Aaron, clarification. That would be three. A maximum of

three. Two accessory units.

Oh, okay. Not an accessory dwelling unit in interior.

So you could have one internal and one external.

So with that's a possibility of three in my mind.

Total. Yeah.

Sure. Three with the primary.

I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Miss Houseman.

Thank you. Sorry. I just had

to, you know, don't wanna talk about mouthful.

I I like the recommendation for now. I also like that you are encouraging us to consider in the future. I think the more we the more we think about strategic planning the more we remember what is our goal, our goal, our shared goal is to make homeownership possible for more and more people who want to live in Sandy. And in certain situations, it could be that makes sense to move to two but I think for now it's the right decision is to limit it to one for

now. You

already answered right. Ms. D'Souza go ahead.

Okay. So an ADU calling something an ADU only is like a a definition that allows them to rent it to a non related party. Is that kind of what the delineation in an ADU is?

Well, if it's part of the house attached internal to it or if it's detached, you could just have it as extended family and not rent it out. But it's

But I don't have to have a permit to have, like, my family live with me.

We still require an affidavit for internal we call them extended living areas versus accessory apartment then requires a special use permit with business license. And so you you no. You're not required to rent it out. It's the option of the the homeowner. If you are renting it out though but and all of them require a type of affidavit by the owner that is recorded on the property, all of them. And then especially use permit though, if you wanna rent it out, is required as well as a business license. Does that help clarify, Brooke?

It does a little bit. I think that, personally I think that the affidavit is a little silly. I think I've been through that process with something else and it seemed unnecessarily cumbersome and I don't even know from like a from a standpoint of code being able to enforce anything you know what that really does. And I'm thinking about this you know one or two in terms of like actual usable space in different scenarios. And so like for example I recently listed a home in Sandy that has a kitchen in the basement and it's got a walkout.

It's got the potential for an ADU I imagine. And the people that were interested in that home were looking at it more for primarily for like multi generational living where you have the aging parents and this was a rambler like on the main floor and then younger adult children living in basement. And so then I'm thinking about okay well from an ADU standpoint like this is my family and this is how we're going to have our living situation for whatever reason right? But the large the lot is large and so then it may qualify for an external ADU and there may not be you know any real negative impact outside of that external ADU. And so if the house has the space and the owner wants to utilize it for their own internal family and they're taking up all of that space then I don't know that that that's really different from having an internal ADU occupied by people that you may not be related to.

Like, you know what I mean? Like, so from the the amount of people utilizing a space doesn't to me doesn't seem to be important in, like, should we or shouldn't we? I you're that you can you can if it's not a if we only say one and you have an external then you can't rent the internal but you can use that space for your family in the same way. And so from an impact point standpoint I just don't see it as a big deal and so that's a really long winded way to say I I thought a lot about this and I initially was on just the one but I actually think that in situations where it makes sense that an internal and an external would be acceptable.

Mhmm. Because

I just don't see the the reason to decline based off of the fact that the person that lives there is not a blood relative and is renting it. So k.

Good. Thank you.

Miss Stroud.

I I think once again, I I would like to start, more restrictive. And then as we become more familiar with this, as we get more of these accessory you know, these units outside of the main living building that it is, then we can look at it in the future. But right now, I'm okay with I would prefer just to have the home and then one ADU, whether that's internal or external. And we just and and we can take it, you know, year at a time. Mhmm.

So I am of the mind of one ADU on a lot. I think the issue is not the number of people. It's the number of cars. So when you add people, I mean, okay, you could have a scenario where one person is living in the house, one person is living in the internal ADU, one person is living in the DADU. You could have But that's not likely.

So the more people you have, the more units you have, the more cars you're going have. And therefore you're going to wind up having a problem with even if we can and I assume we can require off street parking. Oh yeah. But even if we can it doesn't mean that's what you'll get. So the more people that you have the more cars you're going to have and the more chance of on street parking overflowing. So I too for that reason would want to start out the most conservative, assess where we are and what we're experiencing and then make shifts or changes later.

Very good. Thank you. I think that we have everyone on that particular preference.

Madam chair, do you mind if I ask another follow-up question? It's related to you and council member DeSouza's comments.

So

Melissa, we have an internal ADU and we have an extended living area in our code. Right? Those are both they're both within our code. You can an extended living area is basically the same thing but Yes. You're not renting it out to somebody who's not related to you.

That's correct.

However, you could have a family extended family members live

Absolutely. Yeah.

Live there. Right? It doesn't there's no difference in terms of whether there's a walkout or not that has nothing to do with whether it's an extended living area or an internal ADU?

Well, a walkout, no. That

doesn't Okay. Okay. So I guess my question then is, is there a way for somebody who has built an internal ADU, it's been licensed as an ADU, they have the special use permit. They say, hey, I don't want to rent this out any longer. And I'm just going to turn it into an extended living area now. Now I can build an external ADU. Is there a will there be a process for that? Or since they build an internal ADU, got the permits, are they stuck with with that? That?

We don't have a definitive answer on on that. That is the hardest part is do we require them to decommission that?

Mhmm.

How do we prove and how do we monitor that? They can easily decommission and then put it right back.

Yeah.

Oh, there we go.

So I would like to stick with what we have on the slides because I think we need to get that first before we get into some of the k. The deep tulis on this so we can at least get started on a code. But let us get through what is on the slides first, and then we'll start getting into the weeds a little bit deeper. But you're doing a great job

Let's do it.

On what's on the slides and getting us information to write the code.

What's next, Melissa?

Okay. Yeah. Because it it it is. Like I said, it seems simple, but the you can start going all these. Oh, what about this? And what about anyway. Parking. Should we require additional parking? The state allows us to require, but no more than one additional parking spaces if the detached ADU is less than 650 square feet. But if it's more than that that, we could allow up to two additional parking spaces.

We require the four now. And even if you have a basement apartment, we can't require any more than the four. But on detached, the state is saying, for that use, we could require more parking. We don't have to require more. You have that option as the maximum. You could just say, it doesn't matter what size it is. We just want one additional parking space for that. And so as a kind of a slow approach, staff was thinking, let's just do what the state allows us to do. If it's less than six fifty, one additional parking space. So that'd be total of five on your lot.

Or it's more if it's greater than six fifty, two. But if you're near a transit station or even possibly another type of a a use that enables or the corridors that enables reduced parking or facilitates that to consider reducing it or not requiring it. And so that that's what this one is about is the parking spaces additional to what we already require.

K. Miss Nichols.

I would say yes. Impose the additional as a minimum. Mhmm. Because one of the biggest impacts on streets is off street parking. It changes a neighborhood. And it would be my fear that we're allowing another unit on the lot and without reducing or mitigating some of the residents risk. And it also goes to go if we point to keeping it at 1,100 square feet, we're talking about a different

area Mhmm.

Of Sandy. And it becomes less affordable with those limitations. And the I don't want to walk out on my street and see cars parked up and down it. And I don't have that now, and I would not accept it Mhmm. In my neighborhood. So

Before we move move on, I just wanted to ask because I I forgot is I just wanted you to know, before, we used to require one additional parking space for the basement apartment, the internal ADU. But the state changed that, I think it was last year. So we had to take that away. So then we're maxed out at that four. But for the detached, they provided this provision as an option for the city. Just just so you know that

And if you want something like this, you need to be able to maintain it on your own property. I know the streets Yeah. Property in a different sort, but absorb all of that impact on your lot.

Yes. And that That's my perspective. Yes. That is the assumption when I pose this question that it's on-site parking. Just by saying, oh, yes. It's there on the street is not not the question. Is is if we want to require it on the site.

Miss Houseman.

Thank you, madam chair. So so just to add to that, if if the addition addition of of the the parking parking spot spot means so so so back to our scenario where we're imagining like where it could actually happen on an 8,000 square lot like if we were to approve an ADU and we also had this additional parking space. Where there would be a process by which they would have to show they have enough space like that. Oh, yeah. Like the primary house would have to be, like, enough that its footprint allowed for both Absolutely.

The ADU plus the additional park. Okay. I just wanna make sure that we are there is a process, you know, because I I agree that we need to require that that additional. So you're saying we would go from four to five. I actually do like the idea of encouraging the use of transit.

And so if you're within a quarter mile, guess, of a transit, I like that as well. I think that's a great recommendation. I just needed to see it in my head of what that looks like they if they build that ADU. What what happens if if they don't have the land for that parking spot, but we They wouldn't be able

to do it. If that's a requirement, if that's a standard and the state allows us to meet the max these types of standard here, they wouldn't be allowed to do it. They they'd have to be meeting whatever standards that we are allowed by law to codify and require in our code. So if they can't meet those standards, that'd be at height, be

it Mhmm.

Setback Mhmm. Be it park number of minimum parking spaces. It's They don't need be allowed. Yeah.

So they could end up pivoting. Let's say they were a homeowner and they wanted to do an a detached ADU larger than 650 square feet.

Mhmm.

And we say you don't have enough space on your lot for the two parking spaces that will be additionally required, they could pivot down

Down. Yes. They could.

To a smaller ADU Yeah.

With

one spot. Right?

So That's correct with all other things being met, other standards Yes. Being Yes. The park

the going to two parking spots is a barrier, they could go, well, let me just reduce the size

of the ADU I'm gonna build. Or if it's feasible, they could do an attached ADU, which is not a small jump. I'd say the big cost is when we have to attach it at the roofline because that's a big construction project. But we do that all the time on building permits. Okay. When there's additions or a new house, they we go through and we cite what they need to do or what needs correction and send it back, and they can send it back. So this is a standard process. Yes.

Thank you. So I guess I didn't ask the question though. Did I?

Did I already answer it? I

think I did answer.

Okay. Go ahead. And

I wanted to address council members Kaiser's I completely love your vision for reducing cars if we could do it. I would mandate it. But I don't think that's in practice. We're not there yet. And up where we live, it's far from any type of convenient from anywhere. We don't even have bus service. Right? So again, by limiting that lot size, we eliminate a lot more and we could encourage it in places that we could reduce traffic.

Ms. Christensen. I would like to have both the one and the two parking requirements and I am highly opposed to reducing the parking spaces for within a quarter mile of the transit stations.

Oh, okay. So no reduction. You just like

I get I get the vision. We live in Utah. No one's walking to the transit station and everyone who is lives in my neighborhood and everyone's already parking on the streets and we don't get our streets plowed.

Mhmm.

And

so I'm highly opposed to that. K.

Mr. DeKeiser.

Thank you madam chair. I yeah I get that we're car centric and there's a lot of locations that are not practical to have reduced requirements but I'm telling everyone the literature on this would say that this is super restrictive. If we we should be doing our codes so that like, yeah, you're within a half mile of the transit and you don't need a car, I would love to have incentives on top of that like a rental credit or something. Like, the the impact that that has on our community would be so huge. And already in the conversation, it's like, oh, the lot might not have enough parking spaces so now they can't build the desirably sized eight u.

They're gonna have to go smaller. And again, I think that's a huge misstep and I would love to have more conversations about housing policy in terms of parking because this is one of the major things that prevent cities from making progress on their ADU policies. And so I'd have like more discussion

on that.

But again, I'm on the side of location specific how can we reduce the parking requirements. And to the point, I honestly hate being in some parts of the valley where you drive around and it's like cars everywhere. That's really really I mean, it's not the feel of Sandy City. So I I don't wanna be like that, but I do think we could have good policies. One other thing I wanna think about in terms of how the city can do this I thought of like what if we required landlords to have like a no on street parking covenant in the lease agreement or something like that.

Just whatever creative ways we can do to make parking more manageable Because again, the the example I gave at the beginning of the the small family where mom or dad is just walking the kids to school and they're close enough to a grocery store or whatever and if they can have one car Mhmm. I want whatever we can do to incentivize them.

Mhmm. Yes. But the parking requirement can be costly. It definitely is part of the equation in terms of, you know, if you can afford to

do

that. There's so many different factors. I appreciate that.

Miss DeSouza.

Really quick, have a question that just popped into my mind about the parking requirement. And would it be would it pass if the parking say, just picture like a regular single family house, right, you got your driveway in in front of the garage and then maybe just to the, you know, immediate left there's

Mhmm.

RV park. Right?

Like an

RV pad. Mhmm. But instead of having that RV pad where it's, you know, you pull in straight, could it could you angle it and increase the amount of parking that way? Or do we require it to be, you know, I don't know, parallel to the other you know what you know what I'm

trying say? That's a great question, council member D'Souza, because there is a nuance about the parking design. The state law requires us now to allow and, like, I brought those code changes in, I think, last year. It requires us to allow tandem parking, so right behind each other up to two. You can't stack three and count three parking spaces.

But we are we are required to allow kind of like, you know, how you have one in the garage and one in the driveway right behind it. That's a tandem, but that's just too deep. So so it would not necessarily have to be, like, covered and all that. But if they had an existing RV pad already there on the side of the garage, potentially, that could serve as the the parking.

Well well, that's only one part. I wasn't I was trying to describe a parking situation that was not tandem in that space where it's kind of more at an angle. Like when you pull pull into an angled parking spot at like Smiths for example. Have neighbors as an example. This is kind of what popped into my mind. I'm thinking about some of the parking questions and things that have come up. Like I am very sensitive to that too, don't get me wrong. But even in like my own neighborhood where we have large lots, large houses, large families, multigenerational living, there are already multiple cars. And if they're not, everybody's teenager is getting their own car.

Yes.

You know, as soon

as they

come of age and they're stacking. Right? Mhmm. And like, the parking situation is what it is regardless of an ADU in my opinion. But Yeah. The neighbors have taken, like, a they have a they don't have as much room for, a full RV pad, but they have the small little side that they put out that only goes back to their garage. And they don't have a very deep driveway, but they've kind of, like, made two additional spots right there by angling it. Does that make sense? By having the cars, like, pull in at an angle instead of pull in

Yeah. They don't have to be right behind each other tandem, but potentially they they could be angled.

I'm just wondering because that technically takes up less space. And if our parking requirement is so is is restrictive in that it says that it must be the length of a car and it has to be perpendicular or not, you know what I mean, to the home or parallel to the driveway, then, you know, maybe that's an opportunity to consider language that allows for that type of parking because space wise you can fit more in a smaller space.

Yeah. I our code I don't believe prohibits prohibits that detached ADUs unless the council required it would do not have to be covered via carport or garage. And our dimensional standards about the minimum dimension size though is specified, and that's in the code and that's pretty pretty basic.

Well then But but angle

is not a not necessarily a problem.

Okay. Well, I I wanna make sure that that type of parking would count because I think that we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we know if we didn't if that type of parking wouldn't pass. But I I personally think that I would be okay with requiring one additional parking space but not two for more than 650 square feet. I was trying one of the things that I'm having a difficult time with is I'm not good with dimensions out conceptually. That's just not one of my skills.

And so 650 square feet, like, I'm trying to think of an IKEA room that I saw. You know, how many how many square feet did they say this was that posted outside of their door? You know? And and, like, what does that really what does that really mean in terms of living space? It seems like 650 square feet is kind of like a Yeah. A studio apartment, maybe?

I can all yeah. I can also bring interior layouts with square footage that would help the council visualize what that size means. Like, you know you know, 400 square footer, you could probably do a studio. I had a studio downtown one time in a loft. Now my house is only 1,300 square feet.

So I'm gonna say I'd be okay with requiring one additional parking space for an ADU regardless of size.

One. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Miss Droud. Oh.

Are you ready for me, madam chair?

Miss D'Souza, were you gonna say more, miss D'Souza? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you.

There was one thought, but I you called on miss Drowd right as I was going home.

Go ahead. She's waiting for you.

Okay. I was just gonna say in terms of like transit and wanting to encourage that one like part of the comment I didn't finish the entire thought when I was talking about ADUs greater than or equal to 11,000 square feet is you are putting them in areas where there is less transit options. Right? The you're you're on more narrower neighborhood roads that are like one lane each direction. And if you're prohibiting them from any lot smaller than you're not getting the benefit of some of those other access points to major roadways or transit.

And so that might be counterproductive if it's going to be limited to just these large lots that are further away. Okay, that was all. Thanks.

All right, Ms. Droud.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've had parking complaints, I mean, throughout District 2. I've had them at apartment complexes. I've had them on streets. So and I I just we do live here. I think, miss Christiansen brought this up. I mean, we we live in Utah. It's really cold in the winter, and it's really hot in the summer. People and especially in 10 on 10,000 square foot lots, these aren't super close to transit. If we open that up right now and reduce the amount of of parking requirements, I think we're gonna have problems later.

So, you know, I'm definitely one and possibly two. You know, I do like the idea of taking a look at what 600 square feet or 650 square feet looks like. Is that a one bedroom? I can think back when when I was first married, you know, we had a 900 square foot apartment, and it had two very large bedrooms to it. So, you know, I but I am trying to picture what that 600 square foot looks like. Mhmm. You know, I'm definitely one, maybe two.

Okay. Very good.

So I'm I am

Madam chair, I just if I may make one more comment. I wonder if it's the best way to think about parking in terms of the square footage. Just what was just said like maybe a better mark is the number of bedrooms or something like that. I don't know.

We unfortunately, state, we we can't regulate bedrooms.

Very well.

So I'm a yes on the the staff recommendation. I've been going with this every time. One additional for under $6.50, two additional for over $6.50. I do happen to agree with not, I'm sorry, on this case, not allowing the exemption within a quarter mile of a transit station. Really all we're doing, I mean just think about it.

We're not going to be, no one's going to be building garages for all the cars when you, if you have an ADU internal or external. So we are going to be tandem parking in driveways. So and tandem parking in driveways always invites on street parking. So even if we're in a lucky situation where what we found at transit is that people are people own even at our own TODs. They own fewer cars but not no cars.

So the situation is that we will maybe have an empty space in the driveway. That's and that is a good thing. That it will prohibit the on street parking. So, I would not at this part, at this point, I would not enact the reduced or no additional parking within a quarter mile of a transit station but leave it open to future consideration. That one I would leave open to future consideration.

This might be, you know, a little larger, but getting a sense of where people are, you know, and maybe like councilmember D'Souza was mentioning, it's hard to visualize the size, you know. How many bedrooms is that and all that? But one of the big questions is, well, how big do we want to allow these? You know? We clearly have the ability to say it can be no larger than the primary dwelling.

You know? We could require it to be less size than the private primary dwelling. We can clearly regulate size and dimension, like a height. We could you know, let's say a maximum of a thousand square feet of a ADU and no larger than the the main building or maybe even less. We wouldn't you know, like an 850 square foot size.

Staff would recommend in going forward with a maximum of a thousand square feet and no larger than the primary dwelling or even smaller than the primary dwelling. That we can dictate that by a percentage of the size or no taller than, etcetera, to make sure that it's not like having two of the same size on the same lot if the council wants to. So do we have a sense of what how large

Currently, our accessory structures is 25%. Right?

Oh, for the detached just a a regular Anything. Yes. So that's where this table just shows our existing code for an accessory detached accessory structure that is nonhabitable. You know? It Like a shed? Like a like a shed or a detached garage, etcetera.

Is that lot size or square footage of the home?

This is the property size lot size.

Okay.

Yes.

So right now you can have your home, And then 25% of the lot Coverage.

Coverage. So so if if, let's say, it's your lot is less than 15,000 square feet square feet. That it has to meet these two requirements. It's whichever is less. We say that, well, that shed that that homeowner wants to build, well, it can't be any larger than 25% of the rear yard. It cannot be larger than seven fifty square feet, whichever is less. If 25% of the rear yard is only a 600 square foot shed, then they'd have to limit it to that.

So now we're I'm just thinking out loud. So now we're saying that we have our 11,000 square foot lot. They can have 25% of their lot as a shed, a garage, whatever they want.

In the rear.

And then we're also saying that we could possibly have another structure that's 50% or a thousand square feet? No. It is an ADU? Or total, the shed and the ADU can only be

Well, right now, with just these sheds, these detached structures, nonhabitable, it's all of them. You're actually limited to two unless you have an a zone with animals and barns that you're limited to a maximum of two detached accessory structures, and both of them combined have to meet this standard. It's either no more than 25% of the rear yard or this square footage, whichever is less to me. And so

So if we said that ADUs can only we follow our current

rule Mhmm.

And said 25 on an 11,000 square foot lot, you could only have an ADU that's 25% coverage and 750 square feet or less.

Yeah. On that size lot. Since right now we're looking at maybe the 11,000 square feet or larger, you know, given that, you'd are allowed up to a thousand square feet or 25% of the rear yard, whichever is less.

But if they choose to use it all in their ADU, then their 25% is gone. They can have no more than two using that 25%.

So my question is why why we're why isn't the recommendation to stay with what we've got? Oh, I see.

What is this? To stay with a thousand?

No. To stay with our current accessory structure as well.

I think it is.

Is it more than that?

Oh, I see. No.

I'm asking this is less than what we're you're recommending for me to use. Mhmm. So I'm asking why why aren't we staying with the existing do we are we gonna adjust it so that they can have bigger sheds and garages now?

I think, initially, we were thinking that, you know, to not propose a whole another full dwelling unit detached on the lot, wanting it to be small. So and it's very common for us to have multiple codes that we are, you know, kinda juggling and applying. And so sometimes one code overrules, well, you could do that, but now that you can't meet the setback, now that's you can't do this. So you could. I I mean, it's really up to the council.

We are being kinda conservative now as opposed to maxing out the limit in understanding kind of the sense, the character of our decision makers, our our elected officials, our administration, what we deal with administering, or the character of the of Sandy and what what maybe you'd like.

So ADUs would if they decide they want a a detached ADU, it would and they had a shed, they would have to take down their sheds.

It it may be.

Or their garages.

It could be. It it it it could be what depending on what we what and what you'd ultimately like to do. I think I had

If you wanna allow them just to have an ADU with everything else they have, you can do that.

So okay. I got a secondary question that I think will help me tell you what I would prefer. Oh, okay. How are we getting okay. So when you build an ADU on your property, is it taxed at the full second home tax rate? So a 100% of that property No. Don't know. Will be taxed? So we're getting zero money for these.

Yeah. Oh, good. I don't I I don't know yet.

It would increase

I mean, it would definitely increase your property value.

By by the but only at the 45 don't percent amount and not for a full amount of a home?

Probably. I don't I don't know the answer.

So it would be like I mean, I'm assuming to be like if you build a shed you get like an extra of what 20,000 to $50,000.

I actually know how it'd be taxed, but probably not at the same rate.

I'm just saying like we're increasing all these people and we're not getting any money to support them. Is what I'm hearing.

It probably would increase their property value, but the methodology that the assessor uses, I'm not aware. I I just have

to check-in to it. That's all. They're not, like, paying enough to cover fire, police.

Madam chair, I can speak to this from personal experience.

In Sandy?

Well, in the county. I mean we're all not in not in Sandy but the county assessor is who assesses your property taxes not the city, right? So I built an extended living area in my house. The city initially that I live in not Sandy City but the city I live in initially reported it to the county as an ADU. And so the county reassessed my house and added a different definition on the type of property which increased my property taxes significantly until I let them

Like double?

No. But it was about a 20% increase I would say, overall. Until I let them know that it was not in fact an

80 But

I think that's minimal honestly. Like that's not enough to cover police, fire, roads, snow plowing, the extra like I do I I understand what you're saying totally But okay. So then I would propose I would prefer to go with the minimum amount, which is what we currently have since we're not actually getting any money to pay for all of this.

Follow similar to what we allow for detached accessory structures.

Okay.

That

that's

because size in cam table?

No. Yes. That table. The one that's in our books that's on the screen. It wasn't on the screen.

Oh, about this. If you go back to

the accessory I mean This one. Yeah. It just is we're just not getting any money to pay for these. And so we've got a ton of new services we're proposing to start supporting, and we're not getting any money to pay for them. So now everyone else is in the city who own homes and have, like, buildings that they actually pay taxes

that uncommon though because

I know.

A single family home generally doesn't pay for it.

Usually because So even if we doubled it, it still wouldn't be enough to

cover the additional Closer. Yeah. I know what you're saying though. It's closer with a single. This would be a little further away.

And ADUs aren't

a

path to homeownership. Like, it's just another rental. So I disagree. That's fine. So I would I would prefer to go with what we already have in code.

K.

K.

We'll note that.

K. Good.

Madam chair, may ask a question?

Sure.

To just clarify, so if I have a 15,000 square foot lot and my house has a footprint bigger than a thousand square feet, I cannot have an ADU. Is that correct? No.

If No. No. You're you're right.

Saying maximum combined building coverage.

That's not including your your main these are just accessory structure. Your main structure doesn't count in that.

Yeah. Oh, sorry. It says building footprints.

Yeah. That would be for the the accessory structures.

Okay.

Of all yeah. The title at the top is combined building coverage of all accessory structures or 25% rear lot coverage, whichever is less. And then it goes down

So you would. You you would be.

So if 25% of your backyard basically could be an ADU Yes. Just not a 100% proposed

We just don't want full coverage. 50%. All over the old. Yeah.

So I that's why I like this. Mhmm.

I've noted the following the similar we have the same thinking process.

Mr. DeKaiser, this kind of that proposal kind of matches what you had brought up earlier so I'm curious about your thoughts on that proposal. Where the larger the lot, the larger the accessory dwelling unit gets to be on a sliding scale.