Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah, I'm going to go over it. Master slide. Hello.

Hello. How's it going? Good, how are you? How are you doing? I'm great, how are you? Oh, I couldn't be better. I did.

No wonder. There you go.

No wonder you couldn't be better.

I did pretty good. Danny, did you play golf today?

I did not.

Uh, I do tomorrow.

Where'd you play?

Uh, River Bend.

You know, they, you know, they think that it was bad. Yeah. There was, what time did you play though?

We peaked out at about 7.40. Oh, that's, yeah, I know. I wouldn't want to see a point right now. It wasn't hot at all. And there was a slight breeze. The wind was not blowing. There was a breeze. Yeah. That's true. How do you get final approval after I go on my project? You don't have the computer to do that. I'm done with the design. You don't have the computer to do that. Are you trying to make emails? Oh. The one that you just forwarded. The one I just forwarded? The long letters?

Yeah.

The one that I find, yeah. The other two were on the project. No. Oh, you are? Yeah. They allowed you to come down here, right? Yeah. They just said, don't do whatever. Because the domain was coming from one city project.

Isn't that funny how that works? Good, how are you? No, no. We said, well, should we talk to you? Because it's their own. They're like, nah. Don't talk to anybody.

Oh, awesome. I don't know if you know Kim Rolfe, global construction. He's a pioneer of West Jordan or something like that. And you have to do the construction. He's the one doing the dirt. He's like, I want to be productive. I'm like, great, since you're already out there.

Like, have you do all the horizontal stuff?

And he's like, the thing is, like, whatever we need from the city, I'll get it for you. I'm like, well, it's working so far. Yeah. Okay. Did you get it fit? No, we'll get that. But it's not, like, a little hard. Oh. I just want it to be more relaxed. How do you get it so it doesn't go back? I don't know.

There is one chair and that might be the one that doesn't have a lock anymore.

Do you want me to check it out? Oh, whoever is going to sit here. We'll put Cameron over there. Thanks, Bill. Oh, he's not? I haven't heard that.

He sent an email with a bunch of comments. That'd be me.

Yeah, he did. I need to look at my phone. Yeah, Ron, I would say you are just an idiot checking your email.

You've been too busy golfing.

I know.

You can't check email on the golf course.

I'm like, I'm golfing. Don't pick up the weight.

Now, the dispenser, I may have taken it.

No, I talked to Gary. I guess we'll find out. I knew Gary could talk to dispensers. But he's right. It was like four or five days.

And I was like, I'm really thinking that I probably ate something. Like, I don't think you're actually there.

What did you say? I think it has a tendency to go unnoticed. Like part of the thing is, I would have gone out there and said, it's all right. We already know it's going to be bad. Everybody filed. They read it. Yeah, start thinking because, you know, it doesn't look good. But it did go unnoticed three days before or whatever it was. No, it probably did. Oh. That's fine. We've got a lot of inventory on. Yeah. You know, because they could have spent a month trying to figure out what to have. So, of course, not for a condition study. No, it won't matter.

Here's the work.

When you get on the honor, you don't destroy it. So, here's the elevator. Okay. Steve, how's it going? How are you doing? You know, growing a seed, real life will probably not work until, but, until there's those, you know, that'd be an honor.

You know what? What's her name? Well, she's been in our heart.

Probably over a decade or more.

It's true. like 25 minutes ago. Oh, that's a slide on the outside. And so I like to move them.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, I don't know what it was.

Yeah. Yeah. we're trying to see we have one that's um of that division. They fall under building and safety. That is now . No. With Jim's retirement, he was the assistant building official. And then one of our... Finally. And so one of our co-reforcement officers was promoted to the building inspector. I need transparency. He's been getting his certification throughout the... That's the way I did it. Yeah, I never heard of it. But it is two weeks now. Not necessarily. The guys that we've had back there have all been there for four or five years. But it can be. It's not an easy job.

A tailor.

Yeah. I got a... Does James always have a good position? Oh, yeah. Okay. He's the head. So he sits in all the... Yes. He's in every one of them. I like that. I think you're very much... Mine is kind of... Yeah. I got... I'm getting past this. It took longer than I thought it would. What's the thing? I'm not applying anything.

Oh, yeah. America's been through the day.

That's why I didn't count that. Because he was here. He was here and then left. He was here and then left. Oh, yeah. He retired faster. That one's really hard. Back in deputy, Mark Jensen, the CAO. And then he had pity and he gave me the strumming one.

Oh yeah. And that was so nice.

He was in administration, but he went to public facilities. And then went back up to administration.

And then that lasted much longer than he did. Went back, so I think probably like 30, about four or five years. I think total, that he put in his name, he said it was like 32. When we talked about it, he said, when my dad's going to school, he said, there's no way in hell, in your life, you will never know. I don't know. That's one of the shapes, yes. So I actually thought, I'm taking from a guy by the name of Scott, which is

I saw fire. Fire.

Fire. Fire. Fire. Fire. Fire. Well, yeah.

The only people left are .

And it's about 50 years, 50 years from home. The problem is he's there for a little bit, and then he's gone. He's going to steer.

You did a lot of work.

It was. I'll take one. We'll either make it easier or harder. We'll make it harder. It's not for an email, but... We'll make it harder. Yeah.

Is there two separate community comments from the public that were emailed in very recently?

Today.

So I forwarded it via email, but obviously if you don't know if there's a funeral too, you're not gonna see it coming. That's why we're doing the printout. We had distributed, I think a couple days ago, a comment from... the Wattage Advocates for Livable Communities that had comments. So that came out, and then Commissioner Bromley had his detailed comments, and then also Cameron Duncan had comments and responses, so I'm not sure if you got, Cameron had responded to everybody. Yeah, we're happy to, the main thing is you received

I printed a few extras of the ones that I did. I hadn't printed a ton of them, but I printed a few.

Well, that's great. That might be handy for our discussion. We can always make printouts right now, but if you've already brought some stuff. Does anyone want hard copies of anything else?

I'd love a hard copy. Of what? They'll charge you. That's okay. That's going to make money.

Do you want the hard copy of the camera in your comments as well? If you have, that'd be great.

Okay. Okay.

What do you have to print first? There's a mistake.

Here we go.

I can print out the whole staff report. Okay, I'll pull that one up now. A formal recommendation to the city council won't be until your next meeting. Right. This is initial comments. You guys can work through things. You know that you may have agreement on some things that were proposed, did not.

Before we go too far into this. Steve. I'm doing good. I'm good.

I'm glad I'm here. It's AUD for my backyard.

Recording in progress.

There's no backyard up here. AUD? I didn't mean to say that. We're doing AUD after that fall. It's an AUD. The AUD, yeah, that's an AUD requirement.

People who don't like our requirements. It's not an AUD requirement.

I'll print a clean copy of the

That's what I'm asking. How many should I print for a physical copy right now? One.

Exhibit B. I've got a dirty copy. I've got the right way. Oh, that's fine. Don't promise me.

Okay, I'm printing some now.

When they're printing, I'll go get them for you.

I can get them.

It's your story.

Oh, I see. I'm printing it by Aisha's office.

And your office. And my offer's gone now, though, because my mouth is full.

I'm not kidding.

We didn't realize that was conditional. Yeah.

and it's been revoked already.

And for the work session, I was thinking of, I can go through the slides, and I think for the public, that's important I go through the slides at the meeting when we start, but I thought it might be easy, easier for us to go through these slides at the work session.

Yes. OK. Before we get into it, I do want us to kind of walk you through what our proposal and our exhibits are now so that you have that foundation. And then the base we'll be working off of. Yeah. And then we'll go through those.

We'll go through those. We'll go through that briefly in the poll meeting. Again, I would say I would go there too. Yeah. Publicly. Correct. Correct.

So we're more in depth, one with you all right now, then a brief one uh when we are in the chambers and then you guys can have your deliberation on any of the topics or things that you want to discuss the plan is for next uh planning commission meeting two weeks from now there were some of the items that we ended up needing to amend that were not properly noticed so no motion um to adopt what we've presented to you should to But I don't think that was the plan for the planning commission by any means. I know there's some changes and other things that you're wanting to consider. So the proposal for tonight is to table that decision until the 20th. um but we wanted to get the draft out to you of our proposal and then next week we'll have a full-blown analysis and full staff support we did a brief one tonight uh for tonight's meetings as well as the full exhibits of the proposal to change in the code we'll put a redline version and a clean copy and while melissa kind of walks you through that in detail um you know if you have questions that we're going through it feel free to ask um And I'll go to that.

The point that I have with the meeting over this, I'm really interested in the why. There's a lot of stuff. You guys have got a lot of dialogue on why. But other than having to have a policy match the policy of the legislature, what's the vision we're seeing for what we're doing? What's the why behind that so that when we're looking at this, we can say, this is what we're trying to figure out to do? Because we talked about that policy. Maybe if your process should be

and the vision you have is to see from this as far as the city.

That matches this policy, and then maybe we can talk about that too, because without having an idea of what the bridge is going to look like, you build a bridge and it may, but sometimes that's hampered a bit by when the state gets involved and actually dictates what the policy is and what the vision is. So then we're kind of building around that the best we can.

I know, our vision may be different. The state says you're going to build this bridge,

Here's how we're going to do it the best we can around what the state, the parameters of what they've given us to work with. What's the purpose for the private account? But I think we haven't answered, frankly, if I'm wrong, but when we started this discussion, the first question was, do we limit where these, first of all, do we want them?

And we said yes. Second of all, we said, are we going to limit them in any area? there's a house and we're trying to find a way to make housing a little bit more affordable and it's an optional thing but anybody has the right to do it and i think that's the vision we've

came up with today, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's where we kind of left off. I was trying to think of how I was going to improve the city.

I went down and marked out a 650 square foot in my backyard. I've got 9,100 square feet. It took up most of my backyard, and if everybody had one of those, they can't afford it. It would change the whole nature of my community.

What are we looking at other than the buildings? It wouldn't change the nature of every community.

And I think that's the point, is that in your community, it might change the nature of the community.

But we're still saying to people, if you want something like that, if that's what you want to do and you're willing to pay for it, then it's okay to go ahead and do it. But the majority of people are gonna self-select their way out.

Rather than passing a law that says you can't do it and you can do it, which is kind of like the nanny state.

Some of the stuff I hear from you guys is very much property right owner. I'm looking from a community and a general community how it's going to affect the general community. In other words, it may be good for you.

It may not be bad for me.

I guess what I'm saying, though, is that we have to rely on the fact that there are economic barriers to some of this. And from my standpoint as a planner, those economic barriers are probably going to limit what can be done in a smaller plot neighborhood that have lower economic incomes.

I'm trying to see.

figure out the best way to say it, versus areas that have larger lots or higher economically. And so I don't know how many will be built in your area. But I doubt everybody will build them.

That's why I think there's some of these that people are worried . It sounds like they're worried . I don't think so.

I don't think so either. I don't think so either. I don't think so either. I don't think so either. I don't think so either.

I don't think so either. I don't think so either. I don't think so either. I don't think so either. yeah would that concern you yeah no probably not you'd say okay there's a thousand lots and then there's one so somewhere in between there's the comments you're making it's like it's on every lot so i think you have a tendency i'm not trying to make that i'm just trying to say

How is it, what's the vision of what's going on in this regards to the community?

You may want to put three of these on. No, no, the goal is to make the community better by having, you guys, when you're seeing diversity of housing and all these opportunities.

to people now. So you have this diversity of housing which historically has proven it makes you think how strong you're going to be. You want to have this consistent span of what happens in the demographics.

They all age at the same time and they all age out. And that really causes a big problem. The neighborhood was great at that. We have so many . I'm just trying to figure out. Let's see for a minute. The vision that we approved in the general plan that we went through.

This was a big discussion in there. There's a survey with it. I like what you're saying, though. Maybe we add a little bit of that in our analysis for the next one because the general plan did say that the citizens, you know, pretty big support for ADUs. It doesn't specifically say that or how that's going to be done because that's what we do here now. But the vision was set when the general plan was approved. Right. and how we're going to move forward with that. And we were part of it. I hated it now. We were part of it. So did our citizens through surveys. And they responded back. But, I mean, they didn't say everything you guys are going to discuss. It's just a vision was set. We want to do this. So planning commission, city council, how do we do it? Well, that's what we're trying to do right now is how we're going to do it and move forward. But I like the idea, and I think we shoved that in. But I think we'd put that vision in our analysis next time. I just want to be sure that all the stuff we're doing now goes back to something that we've done. I think that would be helpful.

So that we know why we're doing it.

Yeah, we can add that in the analysis.

That's a little bit where we need your kids at lunch. We probably should have. We probably should add that anywhere on where this is coming from in citizen support. I like that.

And then when it came time for us to make a decision, I think the vision that was put forward that we talked about was that we wouldn't go in with percentages. We wouldn't go in with criteria that would restrict somebody. So this area gets 20%, this area gets 50%, this area gets 40%. We decided we weren't going to do that. We were going to give everybody the opportunity to have it.

But in the meantime, we got state law that was approved as well that we have to actually, that vision kind of, set us a little bit on certain things that we have to do because of that. So we have to kind of take that parameter into the overall analysis of what we're thinking together.

And that's why we ultimately ended up saying everybody has the opportunity.

But it doesn't mean that everybody agrees with how the vision, that's what we're trying to establish as the planning commission. You might not agree with everything on here, and that's what we're trying to decide what the planning commission will recommend and send forward to the city council.

Yeah, and it'd be nice for the city planners is what the city planners would think, what their vision is of this. We, you have it. And so that's good. You have it.

If you allow us, we'll let you. I will allow you. we don't want to be slapped but yeah i understand i think that was that your good questions and we'll add that in and he's trying to put it in the front unless it's out now well and it's backing for why we're doing that too

Okay, so I'm gonna go over some slides here to begin the discussion. And these slides will just mention about the new state law. We're gonna talk about how we're defining ADUs and extended living areas. our application and procedure. And then we have general requirements that apply to both, be it an extended accessory dwelling unit or an extended living area. Basically one is you rent it out and the other one is not. But also we have additional requirements that would only apply to ADUs, additional requirements for ADUs attached ADUs at extended living areas versus additional apartments when they're in detail. So anyway, those are the kinds of things we're going to cover. The new state law, it's effective October 1st. So in August here, we're going with the Planning Commission for your recommendation. So in September, we can go to the City Council prior to the deadline of October 1st. And the basic crux is that the state has mandated that cities such as Sandy must allow detached ADUs, not just attached, but detached ADUs when you have a residential lot, residentially sound lot, with a single family home. And that lot is 11,000 square feet or greater. We can do smaller size lots, but that's the mandate at a minimum. So it's important to understand we're defining or distinguishing between an AU versus accessory dwelling units. So I have, the next slide would be defining extended living areas, but this slide I want to go over accessory dwelling units. So an ADU is a habitable living unit with kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area that's used as a rental and self-contained. So if it's attached, we used to call those accessory apartments, but we would like to have more of the standard nomenclature that is common to everyone and is also used in state law of, we're gonna call them attached accessory dwelling units instead of accessory apartments. So if it's attached, it's incorporated within the existing home of the single family dwelling and it's not gonna substantially alter the structure or its appearance. So in our definitions, there's some tweaking changes going on and so the other definition is it's detached and so we really want to make sure that it is subordinate to accessory to that primary dwelling and it's detached from that primary dwelling it's not incorporated And it's also on the same lot or parcel. And then that is different from extended living area, which is intended not to be rental, but just for the family use. So extended living areas are designed for use by the occupants in the primary dwelling on a non-rental basis if it's attached. These would be additional living facilities within a primary single-family dwelling that contain a kitchen or kitchenette that may also have associated living quarters like bathrooms, sleeping area. Detached extended living areas is additional living facilities. They're detached from the primaries of family growing and that contain kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area, or other habitable living areas.

And the only form that we have of this that we haven't allowed currently in our code is called a guest house. and that was essentially a detached extended living area. It was for non-rental basis, limited to 400 square feet, had to be set back 10 feet from a property line on side or rear.

No basement.

No basement, very limited kitchen facility, but that's an example of something that we have allowed And we're redefining it and kind of lumping it under this detached extended living area rather than referring to it as a guest house. But inclusive of that would be any form of detached living space, habitable space. We're seeing in a lot of building permits that we're getting, people are looking for external living spaces that could be used as a detached rental. or could just be used by the occupants of the primary home, similar to an internal accessory apartment, or internal, sorry, extended living area, where they're just creating additional living spaces within their home. We're seeing more and more people want to do this for their family members within a detached structure themselves. Sometimes we're seeing an office being space or a combination thereof, pool houses, or full-blown wanting to have a full-detached accessory unit.

Yeah, we've seen, you know, it's a pool house, you know, and that they are like a roofed And I mean, the intensity of the use of that in that it, you know, two feet from the property line is a concern. And so, because basically you have a habitable area that's fairly high. and so what this would do is kind of cover its extended living areas just for the people that live there. However, if it is incorporating habitable functions, then this basically would be that you have a bigger setback when you have that as opposed to it's just a storage shed.

And when we're thinking about these, these are, again, used by the primary occupants of the home on a non-rental basis. They're kind of the same areas or spaces that could be occupied by a detached accessory dwelling unit or internal accessory dwelling unit on a rental basis. So you have the kind of two ends of that spectrum. So you have ADUs and you have extended living areas. Extended living areas are for the occupation but are used by the primary occupants of the home on a non-rental basis.

to answer one of the questions that I had about this. It had to do with parking. And was my assumption correct that the parking for extended, the reason why we're not adding, that if you have a detached extended living area, you don't have to add

correct yes and therefore you're okay we actually cannot assume through the process on that we can't we're already maxed out on our parking because the state says that it's only for a detached adu when it's a detached adu they'll whack us let's keep this rolling so we can get we don't have too much let's keep it but answer them and let's let's just keep rolling so so this is one area where we're diverging from diverging from previous discussions planning commission is that we're proposing to initially have what the state requires which is lots that are 11 000 square feet or greater and to consider next year

or in the near future other eligible areas like you know r110 r18 smaller uh lot size so what was the why behind that one because there was 21 on 11 and 26 on 10. so there's only a four percent difference according to your charts

Hearing from the ultimate decision makers, elected officials, we had feedback from them that they really wanted to go slow. They were more attracted to going with 11,000 square feet.

Can I say something about that real quick? Please. The reason they did want to, it's not that they're opposed to not looking at this in the future. They've clearly stated that they might look at something smaller in the future, but they're worried. They don't want to introduce more than state law right now at the beginning. They want to see how it works, see how it functions, and learn from it for a year. And then if they want to make some adjustments, they can. One thing that has happened is it has got some of them. Farmington went all in. and they did everything and now farmington all the cities know farmington is like oh he just messed they're pulling way back fast and going back and kind of starting again because they went in too quick so the what are what what's happening at the council level is i don't know what will happen ultimately we don't decide for them we may take this and they may look at your recommendation i don't know yeah but just from our discussion There was a concern that they don't want to jump too quick. They want to just measure this over a little bit of time and see how it works and see how it functions. I understand. But I can't speak for them, and I don't speak for them. This is you guys' discussion to send to them.

I would appreciate the sound on that aspect. I would appreciate it. If you agree with 11, then I would say own it.

I agree with 11, and I am owning it. Okay. And these guys have known that from the very beginning and that's why it's there. of saying that I like the approach of going a little bit slower and making sure we have time to review this, look at it, and be able to enforce it and know what we're doing. Because if we go too quick, I don't even know if I have enough people to inform, you know, what happens with it. We just need to, I want to be a little more prudent, a little more just about the whole thing. But I know you disagree, and that's fine. That's what we're here for. Is Farmington...

Are there safety concerns with having a smaller lot and taking up a little bit more space?

Let's keep finishing through and we'll get to that. Otherwise, I will move. But you asked that and I felt that that was important, Dave, because you had brought that up before. And I just need to know where we're at with that. Well, it's a really good clarification because I was thinking we were going a different route.

Well, you can't.

It wasn't me. I'm just saying that's staff's recommendation.

The planning commission, well, if you diverge, you can make different.

You can make, and we'll take those recommendations. Yeah. We're just giving you what staff has given, and you've got to put together your own in the end.

We weren't looking at a balance in any way.

You don't have to agree with me.

Exactly.

That's all I'm saying.

Any questions?

What do you sign on this?

Well, we're staff. We're her staff. This is what we're taking forward from staff.

Okay, so anyway, this just shows, you know, a lot more of Sandy if we had, you know, just even 8,000 square foot, let alone, you know, 7.5, 6,000 square foot.

I'm right. The 11 and the 10, that's still real conservative. Yes, indeed. Here, you really jumped into it. You do.

It is more of a difference. And now you've gone to 40%. Exactly.

Can you go back to the 11 and harder ? That's 21%.

There's not much difference with 10. Yeah. But the 10 to 8 really jumps. And then 10 to 8? 40%. It's all .

I think I uploaded the maps, right?

Yes.

The only difference on this map is our transit area plans, and that connects with Utah code requirements, is they're actually a half a mile, not a quarter mile. So these show a half a mile radius from the station. So anyway, we would like to see a continuation of standards of things that we do now that would also apply. So when we have internal ADUs, we have previously called them accessory requirements, but we would basically like to continue with all these requirements or standards we think that a good reason to and the only difference is that when you have a detached ADU that it would be more limited to larger lots or little houses for a few greater residential zones but otherwise we do now and would continue doing when you have an ADU be it internal or external it's a special use at the conditions and we associated with the business license and crack it there's a different affidavit as well clear and objective standards requiring owner occupancy making clear that you could live in the smaller unit or the bigger unit you don't have to be like in the bigger unit only one address and utility meter we specifically would like to avoid opening up, subdividing these. If you meet the zone and subdivision standards, go ahead and subdivide, but kind of these creative ways of subdividing this stuff off is not what we'd like to recommend.

What was it with the post boxes? Because I've seen that on these internal ADUs now where people have two post boxes, one from them upstairs and one from down here. We don't allow that.

We don't allow that now and we are not proposing to allow that moving forward.

The application process for extended living areas, basically we're triggered by there's a building permit because they're wanting to make some renovations. So it's through that building permit process we do our normal review and then we require an affidavit that they sign and notarize and our building staff reports it for them on the property. it's simultaneous through that process the same thing would go on with accessory dwelling in it be it's attached or detached same thing it's just in addition we have a special use permit that goes into more more detail of about it for tracking and make sure all the standards are met and with the business license And so the maximum number we're proposing on this round is only one ADU on a lot. it would be either attached or detached, meaning you're gonna have one allowed legal rental. And if you have a detached accessory building, it's either gonna be ADU or extended living area. We anticipated that if you have an ADU, maybe you built it for that purpose, But then you don't decide, you don't want to rent it anymore. You just want to use it for your own family or for whatever. It will revert back to extended living area. And so that special use permit for rental with a business license would retire, but it's still an extended living area.

So what was the reason behind that?

Because, I mean, if I have an apartment right now, so nobody's going to stop following me, but I just put it in for rent. Can I not have an ADU if I have parking for both? Because it's not really changing the neighborhood that much, it's just adding it. The apartment is an ADU.

Yeah, the apartment is an ADU, but it's not two or three buildings on that land, so it's going. That would be correct. I know. I just wondered, though, what was the recent line down of limitation on one? Yes. When it's not, I mean, I could see two detached ADUs. Like, that's problem. But when you have a attached ADU and a detached ADU, but you only have one other house on that property.

i think it's to limit impact on on the whole and and again that's going slow rather than going too quick too fast part of that so where where we um don't require any additional parking internally we may require additional parking on an external unit our proposal would include that but um Again, our recommendation is to go slow, conservative at this point. Let's start. Let's start. Let's get this all rolling. And then we will be doing a revisitation of this and all of our codes in a short time here. By this time next year, we hope to have a draft of that revised code overall. And it may involve some changes to this after a peasant time, seeing how it rolls and how it lives and how it's being implemented. And there may be some tweaks to that.

It's helpful to know. I appreciate you letting me know this. Just from... I mean, if I don't have a basement apartment and I put an ADU outside... that's going to affect the neighborhood funding more than it might at a basic program.

I guess what our position is we don't want more than one of those spaces being occupied or infused by another family. It can be used so say you created an internal ADU as was allowed by state code a couple years ago now you want to do an external. You can do an external as long as the internal is not occupied and used by another family. The external could be through this process, but the internal would have to revert to what we call an extended living area and not be used for external use by another family. You can do the opposite. So the primary occupants of the home could go live in the detached ADU. Say it's an older couple that can't do stairs anymore. The house is full of stairs. they could go live in the detached ADU that's a nice rambler small house that they can maintain and then rent out the entire house as their ADU. As long as they live on the property. and live in one of those portions of the of the property how would there be enforcement of that though just like we do now for for any type of duplex situations that occur we get complaints about alcohol and then we go through and enforce

and we in our application requirements we have the information required for that to show that and when we update the business licenses there's opportunity to do that the other caveat in terms of the maximum number would be with regard to extended living areas if you're talking about the primary dwelling we're not recommending limitations on that because it is a broad definition so if you have multiple kitchens that's fine you're not limited to that and so in the primary dwelling it's open in terms of having multiple extended living areas and for that it's in our definitions we're using it's when you have the kitchen that's the driver but if it's in the main home there's no parking we're only recommending additional parking or when you have an ADU that is detached so this is what the and in my slide, sorry, I should have put detached ADUs because we are maxed out if the state says that if you require four parking spaces, which we do now, whether you have an extended living area or an ADU or anything, that we can't require more if you do an extended living area or an ADU attached. So the four is our base. So only if you have a detached ADU, the state says, we can require this and we would like to recommend that state requirement. It seems like there was some support from both the Planning Commission and the City Council of going with the state, what the state allows us, is one parking space if they have a detached ADU at 600 square feet or less, that's greater than that, then we could require two. It could be tandem, they don't have to be covered, or integrated. They could be just open on a concrete surface, and they could also be right behind each other. We'll count both of those. But if you're within a half mile of the transit station, then you'd have reduced or no parking requirement. So that is what we were recommending for that. In terms of the size, basically we want it to be smaller that are subordinate in size to the primary dwelling. So we have multiple things that you need to meet, but whichever is less. it cannot be greater than 75 of the primary dwelling footprint so we're not counting like if you had a basement or a second story or anything it's it's the footprint because it's a lot coverage that we are really keying in on that's why we're focusing on the footprint or lot uh building coverage so include the garage yes total footprint of the primary structure And so that's one standard, but you also could be no larger than the building coverage for an accessory structure in our accessory structure chapter. And so if let's say you had a 15,000 square foot lot, looking at this table, this is from our existing code, And you would be allowed a 1,000 square foot building or 25% of the rear lot coverage, whichever is less. Now, if 75% of the primary structure, let's say the primary structure was 1,000 square feet, and then that would be 750 square feet. then it actually, you'd only be allowed 750 square feet as opposed to 1,000. So it's like we have these criteria, whichever's less. We calculate one out, see whichever's less. And so that's, we're correlating with this with the building coverage of the accessory structure chapter. And by using that table, it is scaled depending on the size of the lot. So that if you have a 40,000 square foot or greater property, the building coverage is allowed up to 2,000 square foot. So you'd be able to have a much larger one. And that's, I mean, when we look at other codes, I mean, it's not uncommon that other cities have max thousand square feet, period. So in my mind, I'm thinking it's pretty generous. If you have larger lots, you can have a bigger structure. Now, the Planning Commission as a whole, you may wanna go different from this, but this is what, in terms of the building coverage, is being proposed. So location, the location is that you'd be allowed to put it in the side of the rear yard and then also it would be behind the front of the house or outside of or behind the front yard as opposed to the front setback standard. But if you have a larger lot, it's 40,000 square feet or greater, then you could put it in front of the primary dwelling as long as it meets the setback. the yard is anything in front of the in our definitions of the code front yard versus front setback are different front yard is anything forward you know to the street of the primary dwelling but your front setback is a numerical set standard it's typically 25 to 30 foot right here i want to take 30 seconds on this so this this is important because our

big lots, but when they built the home, they set them clear in the back. Or they set them further enough back which would eliminate really any ability to do an ATU anywhere on them. So we were trying to figure out a way, yes, on these we should probably be able to allow them in the front. Find another area because they're a big enough lot and the home was pushed to the back, so this works for that.

So that's, I think part of this is also is the intent is that these are intended to be subordinate to your main house. It's accessory to it. And it's, you know, smaller than. And so, you know, but if you had a large unit in front of the house, if you had enough area, maybe you could replace it and have your old house as your accessory and then you build a new one. But... Part of this of trying to avoid on most lots that it's set at least no further than the plane in the front of the house is trying to make it that it is subservient to that. So building height and setbacks, they're intrinsically tied, so I just put them together in the table on the code and also in this slide. Basically a one-story. Max is 15 feet high. Building height is measured from your average finish grade to the peak of the roof, 15 feet. Then your side and rear setbacks is 10 feet. And so that's just a flat set standard. This is just some images I showed before of some cute little one-story ADUs. However, if you wanted to go more than 15 feet, it can be no taller than the primary dwelling. And you'd have to meet the primary dwelling setback for that zone. And also that it's no less than 10 feet. So on your rear yard, those setbacks could be anywhere from 20 to 30 feet on those larger lots. And so your setback on the rear is going to be more substantial. And on the side, you'd have to meet the primaries on setbacks. So some of them would be a minimum of 12 feet, but in no instance would it be less than 10.

So if I had a one-story home at a rental, I could not put a two-story home.

ADU and get double the square foot each other. Unless it was less equal to or less than the existing house. Can I dig it down so I can put it in a basement? You can do a basement. Because if I got a 600, I can do a 1300. But I can't bring it up.

So if your existing house is, say, 30 feet tall, but it's a single level home, It'd still go up to 30 feet on the detached ADU. Okay, you know it's a single story. It's about height. It's based on height, yes. It's based on height. We're not dealing with stories. We're just talking about height of structure.

We talked about stories, and I was attracted to it, but after lots of discussion, we decided that this will do it. Just keep it at 15. If you can squeeze in a...

But we're also trying to ensure, and that's part of, and she didn't mention this, but we're trying to ensure that this accessory building is subordinate to the primary.

I'm sorry.

But height, we didn't want a big looming structure back behind the building either.

We wanted it equal to in height, but also smaller in size.

Again, it's about being discreet and not causing a disruption to the existing neighborhood. And that's part of the reason why we put them down.

is, and that was through the general plan too, is yeah, we can allow those or encourage allowing them. It's just, it should be supported.

So if I'm driving down the street from the street, I'm going to see the house and the other place should be lower than the house. So I may not even know that.

It depends on what your street looks like. You can't say that in every case, but the way we measure it, it needs to be supported. It needs to be smaller than the house and like Mike just described. it's all about the height but i can't guarantee you're dragging down a street on an angle and it's talking about what yeah i mean there's not a whole bunch of you can't protect everything looks like chimneys or whatever it does well hope not but it might get for lots like that it just depends that you can't really judge it based on that it's that's on each home as individual again we're looking for compatibility within an existing neighborhood framework these shouldn't be the structures that kind of are the tail to wag the dog so to speak

We don't want, and right now we don't have a requirement for accessory building. You can build a very large detached structure in your backyard that might be bigger than your primary structure. We don't limit that. But we do want to limit it in the case of an ADU.

Yeah. My concern would be, as a non-person of an ADU, is it going to affect my housing value by what goes on? So this is important. Neighborhood compatibility.

We're talking about the neighborhood. How the neighborhood looks affects my housing value.

But that is exactly what Mike is talking about. Yeah. He's like, that's exactly it.

discussion or our recommendation is recommending things that would make it compatible, make it not as big of an impact that it could potentially have if we allowed it 35 foot tall and yet the house in front is only 15 to 20 feet.

I'm just thinking of acceptance of the neighborhood. If it's affecting my property value, And you're making money off of it. I'm not.

We're not looking at property value, but we are looking at neighborhood design. Absolutely. It would be great to use the ability to have these units be adopted without being able to do something like it. So that little smaller book strength office, right, with that height, that is something that somebody else would be more feasible to do. But you're not going to allow that. You're not going to let them go to another single storey home. But also mixed with that housing diversity is making sure that housing diversity is compatible with the existing neighborhood.

you're still going to have it are we going to talk about design yeah let's keep getting let's keep going so um conversion of existing accessory structures would be allowed but it has to be a legal uh structure and we also put in a date meaning october 1st this year that it would have had to be a legal structure built prior to that because we don't want someone building a detached structure and then a year later say, oh, now I'm going to do an ADU and the whole plan was to do the ADU and they're not meeting the setbacks. So anyway, that's why we put in the date there. It must be a legal structure and the habitable area of that structure must meet the standards for a detached ADU. So this shows where, okay, existing detached ADU, but it's very close to the property line. This is going to be so common. and that the habitable area of the detached ADU will have to meet the ADU standards and that habitable area, for example, this area would have to be non-habitable use.

You could have a shed storage area or other non-habitable space, a garage, you could do whatever that an accessories building would be allowed to do. But the livable space, the habitable space, would have that 10 foot setback.

We're not proposing at this time that you have to go through any conditional use process or anything. You still go through the same process. But that conversion is going to meet building code, of course.

And I think that's important to note. We did try to avoid any conditional use scenarios. We also tried to uncouple some of the accessory structure standards that are talked about that and have them follow their own setback and height standards that are not subject to the accessory structure standards. So I know there was some discussion about, well, what if we allowed a CP to go beyond this? We wanted it straightforward and we wanted it simple so that it could be adopted without needing to go through additional regulatory steps. could be adopted and accepted throughout the community without needing to go through other referrals or groups.

Yeah, and so that's the proposal for conversions. Basements would be allowed. There's different types of basements, but basements would be allowed. Examples, so these are just some illustrations of the interior layout. I have numerical values on some of these. This is an example of a detached one bedroom, one bath in the layout. One bedroom, one bath on this one. And this one is an example of 535 square feet, and they actually have two bedrooms and one bathroom. There's no garages on these, but this example. one bedroom, one bathroom, and that's not a garage on the floor.

So that's a 300 square foot footprint.

Footprint, yeah. But 300 steps on top. This one is 1,000 square foot. They have three bedrooms and two bathrooms on this one. And then Mike went through a couple of examples. I handed out some of the hard copies. There's a lot of detail. Would you like to explain some of this? We have one R16 example, one R18 example.

I ran out of time to get more. The intent was to get all of these. different scenarios all the way up to estate lots, acre to plus, to try to illustrate and diagram how these could be applied. But I did want to do these smaller lot scenarios to kind of show what would be allowed in some pretty prototypical neighborhoods in Sandy. So I went to an R16 neighborhood. This is Unionwood, right off of 7800 South, right next to our Midvale border. But one of our smaller lot neighborhoods that we have. And there are some potential that they could do. In some cases, it's probably not practical based on our setback standards and things to do so. But you notice how big the house is, that 492. They have a much larger home footprint than some of their neighbors to the west there.

So that's this one, 492 address.

Yes. The one to the west in the middle there, 478, they could do up to 611 square foot in here. based on those regulations that we're proposing. Again, 25% of the rear yard area, they currently don't have any detached structures, because that does factor into the total footprint square footage that we're talking about, long coverage. And then the neighbor to the west of them, they could do a 265 square foot ADU, because they have a smaller rear yard area than their neighbor does. And then those are footprints. Yeah.

85 square foot, .

Right. So just off to the side behind the car there.

That's not the calculation of the structure you did.

No, the 265-square-foot ADU is that orange box. They have an existing 85-square-foot accessory building, which reduces their total maximum square footage of 350 square feet down to the 265. So that's how those would come into play when you have existing structures already on your lot. Because we allow for two accessory buildings in a rear yard area and allow them to cover up to 25% of the rear yard. So that's kind of how those would play out in this R16 scenario. So it potentially could work in... Again, it comes down to lot coverage and lot area that's left in the rear yard. If the home's pushed all the way to the back, there's not gonna be much room to be back. Or if the home takes up a majority of the floor, it doesn't really leave a lot of room for a home to be built there. Because they're, I think, at a 20-foot setback right now from the rear yard, maybe 18. So there's not much room when you're taking a 6-foot setback and a 10-foot off the rear, 6 feet separation from the home and the ADU.

And if a detached one doesn't work, they can always do attached, and that might work.

Or internal within the existing program.

Internal, right. So here's the R18 example that might work.

So this is another area, Pebble Hills Drive, 8600 South and about 1100 East. This gives a couple of scenarios on corner lots, because there were some questions on corner lots that I wanted to kind of diagram these out. So I did these three on the corner, 1115 East Pebble Brook, or Pebble Hill, sorry. So they would have room to do a 516 square foot footprint ADU in their backyard. These two corner lots, vary based on how big of home they have. Obviously, you see a bigger footprint on the one on the south, 8666. They have a 394-square-foot ADU potential. But again, these are 8,000-square-foot, almost exactly, lots that were developed back in the early 70s. Split-level homes sometimes were ramblers. And so this gives a few different scenarios in some of these categories that are below what we're recommending right now, but could allow for some opportunities in the future.

So if they don't rid of their sheds.

Then they have potential to go larger, or they, you know.

And probably some of them they would be, they would still be able to meet the setbacks.

Yeah. So on a corner lot, they're still not allowed to go into the front yard, because on the corner lot you have two frontages, right? You have the two streets that you have a setback. Either a 30 foot or a 20 foot is typical. But in either case, no matter where the home is set, it's set by the front plane of the home. And so you can kind of see how we administer that on this bottom one where the home kind of projects back a little bit, but there's that bottom area on that south side and we project that back to the rear property line and that's where the rear yard is designed. So they have a small rear yard typically on the corner lot. That probably isn't very practical. It's a long, skinny ADU in that case. If they wanted to do something like that, I would say it's probably easier to do an addition, meet your setbacks, and then just attach that to the house. rather than doing the detached. So in some of these instances, it may not work for a majority of those, even though if we did lower it down to even R16s or something like that, a lot of those homes may not be able to do it just because of the way their house is situated on the lot.

Do we know if there's an insurance plus or minus based on attached and delved? I don't know. We didn't base our decision on it. No, I understand. I'm just wondering if anybody knows whether it's more insurance or less insurance. No. So what about the door issue?

still facing up the doors where would that be yeah so based on our design requirements the the doors for an internal adu would be from the side or the rear or the rear that's that's the way they're they're articulated now on a corner lot state state law is a little squishy on this um we have some language in state law that says um what is that one

Oh, detached, okay, you said corner lots.

Yeah, so if it's an internal ADU, the only spot that they could have their entry for internal ADU would be from the side or the rear. So in this instance, you wouldn't be able to have a door this way, but you'd have a door this way or a door that way. Same thing on this lot, door facing that way or this way.

They would not be able to have a door facing fourth street for an internal ADU.

Now, an external ADU, I think we probably could, based on the way the state provision limits us on design. And I know you mentioned something about having compatibility standards. The state has applied the same rule to detached ADUs as they have to single-family homes, and that we can't really say much about the design.

So the language that was put in there that they detach ADU has to be the same design or compatible design. And that is exactly state law language. And we anticipate, based on webinars that we've participated in,

amend that because there's a lot of questions it's like okay what do you mean by that and so i think so for a detached adu i think they probably could have a door facing the street an internal adu or um but they're doing an addition to the home and attaching it to the house those doors would have to be spacing internally to the lot to the side or the rear but not out to the front

And that's current standard.

That's current standard now. We're not proposing a change to that. There are some design standard changes that we're proposing, and we can get into some of those stipulations. And I do agree with you on one of those regarding the attachment of 50% of the perimeter. Probably too much.

Physically impossible.

We did have a scenario of a recent application that they did in addition to the house with an attachment of approximately six feet wide. And it just kind of stuck off of the side of the house. We didn't have enough code standard to really tell them no.

So we wanted to beef that up a little bit.

I went overboard on that recommendation of 50%. But I think some percentage of that perimeter of what's being added ought to be a guide or a standard to apply in that case. Or come up with a minimum width or something else that accomplishes a substantial It's so rare that it's one of those.

It's not so rare.

It's like a breezeway.

It's not. Well, we just dealt with one where they connect the 333 by a little doorway. So now all those are going to be blocked off, 333. We deal with this all the time, but if you don't. I don't. for me, more than a month. I built that five years ago.

I did not do that. And if you're okay with that, you can start saying something. I get it. But I don't like that. No, I don't. There's a big house over there. There's a big house. It's attached to a broad area. Yeah, I do. There's a breeze section. It's covered. It's attached. It's attached. You can't do that. I get it. You didn't see that. We didn't see that. But that makes sense. I know you can't say it out loud.

There's a lot of questions and stuff.

We have more time in the regular meeting. We have online. I mean, I love you guys.

How long are we going to do this?

You guys are done with your discussion tonight.

Yeah, well, we're kind of running out of time. People need to have a little break.

What's the item?

There's two items not presented tonight. One for a subdivision of a commercial property. That was voluntary. And then this item for accessory. Well, I knew that.

You guys control the meeting. You can mark through all the breaks.

At a certain point, I'm probably quick. There's a basis. Am I sitting next to Debbie?

Your criteria is every day, then I'll be going back.

All right, welcome to everybody tonight to the August 6th Planning Commission meeting. We'll do a quick round of introductions of Planning Commissioners and then staff.

Craig Kitterman. Ron Mortimer.

Jennifer George.

Danny Schoenfeld.

Dave Bromley.

David Hart.

Steve Wrigley. James, do you want to introduce staff? I just have a couple here, so I'll just go ahead and pass it tonight.

OK. We'll do a quick Pledge of Allegiance and then get into the agenda.

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.

First item on the agenda tonight is the Radin Summit subdivision. Mike, I think you've got that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this item is an application that's been received by Ron Radin with Radin Development. They're representing the property owners, which is Sandy City, of these proposed properties that are shown here on this map. They are requesting a preliminary subdivision review for these two parcels. to make them into three lots and enable future development of these properties. And I believe Ron is there at the podium and he can present his request and we'll follow up with our recommendation and I'll be doing that tonight on behalf of Clint Spencer who's out of town.

Thanks, Mike. Real quick, I don't know if you guys know the history on this. We had the property going all the way over to the wetlands. We moved the wetlands. That took about six years with the Corps of Engineers. I'm sure a few of you have dealt with that. Since then, with what's going on with the development with the Smith, what they're doing over there and what we've been trying to do and with COVID and everything else, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole, but I made it in a contract with the city to go ahead with trading the wetlands.

Mr. Radin, can you speak right into one of those microphones?

Anyway, we're in contract with the city to go ahead and trade the property with the wetlands over to lot two and three, we're calling it, which is lot one's going to be the property. If you could go, can you go to that slide that we've got? There you go. Lot one's the west side of Monroe Street. Right now, you know, we're showing an office building. We've got the bridge coming over and everything to that. That's lot one. Lot 2A and 2B, that's the two lots right there. We've got on 2A, we're still trying to hold some kind of development as far as either still we had the hotel on it in 2002 and 2003. You guys know what happened with all that anyway. Okay. The lot to be what we're doing is we're taking the apartments that we had on the Wetlands partial and where it was coming over there and we're calling it a flip and we're trying to bring it over and we're parking it there the lines have been matched up been working with Mike and James everybody in the planning downstairs and everybody upstairs trying to get the lots to line up the lot lines. And so this is a preliminary subdivision plat that we've checked 95% of the boxes. Mike, I've been working with the staff. And Doug retired, as you know. And Clinton's taken over. And great person to be working with. I was working with Doug for 10 years on this thing. Anyway, that's what we're presenting tonight. If you have any questions, I can go deep as you want.

Any questions? Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. So as we talked about this is just an enabling plat to allow for future development on these properties. They are taking care of the required dedications along three public streets Centennial Parkway on the east side, 102nd South on the north and then Monroe Street that splits this land. And so they're taking care of all of that necessary dedication with this proposal and they're not requesting any exceptions from those dedications. One other thing that's of note in our conditions is regarding the easement here. So the final delineation of what this area is there's actually two areas here. So this shows in blue the area of dedication and then in green is an easement that's being proposed with this plot. to formally recognize this area being impacted by Dry Creek. That creek bed was realigned a few years ago and rehabilitated and it's in that kind of meandering pattern there along that south and west side of lot one. There is also a public trail that runs alongside of that creek and so we want to ensure that both of those areas are dedicated and protected and the bounds of the buildable area of that lot are recognized. And so staff does recommend that the Planning Commission determine that preliminary review is complete for this Rad and Summit subdivision and approve that based upon the findings and the conditions of approval that are listed in the staff report.

Go ahead. So Mike did you say that that green line does represent the delineation of the wetland water area and the walkway already or does that still need to be defined a little further.

It needs to be defined a little further and making sure that we've got both easements shown there right now. the right now the easement that's shown is described as basically covering both. But we need to have them delineated separately one for the dry creek and one for the trail.

OK. But the outer bound is still the outer bound.

I believe so. But we'll refine that in final review and making sure that that is dialed in 100%.

We surveyed the sidewalk that's already there. And we're working with UDOT because UDOT's widening. So we've been working with UDOT. We went ahead and put the legal description right alongside the sidewalk on the backside, of course, so everything from the sidewalk can stay the way it is. Because the trail is already pretty much in place and done.

Any other questions? This item has been noticed. Thank you. This item or did you have anything else Mike?

No.

We still need to do a public hearing on this right?

We do need to open it for public comment.

This item has been noticed. Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this item? Seeing none. Anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. I'm seeing no hands raised.

Public comment bring it back to the commission for action.

Anybody want to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission determine that the preliminary subdivision review is substantially complete for the Raddon Summit subdivision at 10250 South Monroe Street based on the four findings and the three conditions.

Is there a second? I'll second.

Jennifer George? Yes. Dave Bromley? Yes. David Hart?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer. Yes. Steve Wrigley. Yes. Craig Kitterman. Yes. Danny Schoenfeld. Yes. This motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you. Hope to see you soon. Thank you.

Have a good early night. Thank you. Thank you. And the next item on the agenda is the detached accessory dwelling unit presentation.

We had to put them on separate PowerPoints because of just the formatting and the master slide. So he's doing that now. Great. Okay, so we already went through a lot of this in our work session, but for the public I want to make sure that they're aware of and this is available to them as well. So this just covers, we have state law, it's going to cover the, this covers accessory dwelling units as well as extended living areas. the application procedures and the standards that apply to both or standards that are additional but apply to just some of these. And so the new state law was adopted this year under SB 284. It is effective October 1st and it mandates that cities such as Sandy must allow detached ADUs on residential lots that are 11,000 square feet or greater. And I want to define there's a difference between accessory dwelling units and what we term as extended living areas. And so in the proposal we have definitions clarifying that. Some of it is existing language or revised or adding detached ADUs. ADUs are intended to be rented out, be it internal or external. So an ADU is a habitable living unit with a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping areas. It's used as a rental. It's self-contained. If it's attached, we used to call it accessory apartment. But with the proposal, if it's adopted, we would replace language accessory apartment with attached accessory dwelling unit. because that's more common nomenclature and it's also more consistent with state law language. It's incorporated with an existing single-family home and it's not going to substantially alter the structure or its appearance is the intent of attached ADUs. If it's detached, it's intended to be subordinate to and detached from the primary dwelling, but it is on the same lot or parcel. Extended living areas are not intended to be rented out and just for use of the family or extended family area, and so extended living areas designed for use by the occupants of the primary dwelling on a non-rental basis. the primary thing. If it's detached, its additional living facilities within the primary dwelling contains a kitchen or kitchenette, and it may also have associated living quarters, bathrooms, sleeping areas. If it's detached, its additional living facilities detached from that primary dwelling contains kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area, or other habitable living area. So it's important that just we all understand that there's a difference between if it's rented out or not. There's different definitions of that and whether they're attached or detached because it makes a difference in terms of what the requirements are. So the current proposal is to allow detached accessory dwelling units consistent with the state law mandate, which is in residential zones of property 11,000 square feet or greater. and to consider expanding that to other smaller lot sizes in the future. We are updating a comprehensive update to our land development code so in another year that would be an opportune time to consider if it works with this more limited provision to expand it. So these are just illustrations of properties that are residentially zoned. They are 11,000 square feet or larger, and we've eliminated outliers like a large property that has a school on it or a park. So it gives more of a realistic acreage and like that. So that's about 21% of the residential zone areas when they meet that criteria. This one just shows 10,000 square foot lots are larger, which is approximately 26% of Sandy. And 8,000 square foot lots or larger is considerably more of the city, approximately 40% of Sandy. Sandy so that just gives you a visual of how many lots might qualify for that. We have standards now for attached accessory dwelling units as well as extended living areas and there are certain standards that we would like to continue and we think they're a good practice and so other than the for detached ADUs other than limiting the size of the lots having at least 11,000 square feet or greater we'd like to continue or recommend continuing our use of the special use permit with business license when you're doing an ADU be it attached or not or detached clear and objective standards avoiding you know, any subjective criteria and avoiding conditional use permits because these are permitted uses. Owner occupancy requirements, but the owner can live in either one of the units. If they want to live in the smaller unit and rent out the bigger home or live in the basement and rent out the main area of the house, that's fine. And only one address and utility meter as well. We do that now. We'd like to continue that. And we record affidavits at the time of building permit. In terms of the process, they're really similar. Typically, it's a building permit that triggers our review of these. And so at the time of the building permit, we would have an affidavit where the owner signs and notarizes it and then submits that. And our building staff record it for the property owner. And so it's fairly seamless. It doesn't delay that process. It's just part of the building permit review. But when you're having an accessory dwelling unit and you're renting it out, we recommend adding the special use permit that we do now for attached ones. And that comes with a business license. And that is an administrative review. It's not a lengthy process. It just documents that more clearly of making sure all the standards are met. In terms of the number of units allowed on a lot, we are recommending that only one ADU on a lot. Only one ADU that is either attached to the home or it's detached. So basically, in terms of renting it out, only renting out one of the units attached or detached. And if you have a detached accessory building, it could be used if it's permitted for an ADU, or it could be extended living area, but just one or the other. And extended living areas, they're not limited. We're not recommending limiting those within the primary home. additional parking spaces we're recommending if you have a detached ADU to go with what the state allows which is if you have a 50 square feet or smaller ADU, one parking space. It would not have to be in a garage, it would not have to be covered, but that that space would be on a hard surface and same as if you had one that's larger than 650, two parking spaces. And we can count, and the state mandates actually, that if you have a tandem parking of two, one behind each other, that we must be able to count those. And so we would. So potentially, if a nine, 10 foot wide space, one behind each other, they wouldn't have to be parallel or side by side, which might take up more room. If it is within a half a mile of a transit station, we're recommending to not require additional parking. So our existing code requires four parking spaces, two in a garage, two in a driveway. And so if you have an extended living area, you would not have to do any more parking. But if it's a rental and it's detached, it's one or two parking spaces depending on the size. Maximum size is measured on a building footprint. It's a building coverage, like related to our total lot coverage. So you may have two stories, but it's only measuring the building footprint. So it's intended to be subservient to or accessory to the primary dwelling, so in relation to that we're recommending that it's no larger than 75% of the primary dwelling footprint and no larger than the building coverage for an accessory structure. So that is in our accessory structure chapter and that is shown here on this slide where depending on the size of the property, if it's 15,000 square feet or 40,000 square feet or greater, It could be anywhere between 750 square feet or 2,000 square feet, but it also cannot be any greater than the footprint of 75% of the primary dwelling, whichever is less. Location, side and rear of the property and outside of the front yard, so no further than the front of the main house. However, if it's a large lot, 40,000 square feet or greater, We're proposing to allow someone to put the ADU in front of that primary structure, but it has to meet the front yard setback, which typically is going to be around 30 feet. Building height and setbacks, they're intrinsically aligned, meaning the higher you go, the further, the bigger the setback's gonna be. So if it's basically one story, it's 15 feet or less, maximum 15 feet high, it has to be at least 10 feet away from your side and rear property line. It also has to be six feet away from the main house. But if it's, these are just some examples of some cute one story ADUs. this is an illustration of if it is over 15 feet in height then it can be no taller than the primary dwelling and it would have to meet the same setback of the main dwelling in that zone so so the rear setback in that case is going to be you know, anywhere from 20, 30 feet, depending on the area. And also it's no less than 10 feet on the side of the rear. This is just some example illustrations of some taller ADUs and we're not proposing to allow any rooftop balconies and like that unless they meet the setbacks of the primary dwelling. Basically if it's set back just like the main house then they would be allowed to basically operate like the main house, meaning they could have then a balcony, but it cannot extend into that setback. Conversions, we propose that they're allowed, the state law does require us to allow for a process. We're not requiring or recommending a Condition of Use Permit process, but they'd have to meet the current standards of the code, and so it would apply to a legal structure And then the habitable area must meet the standards for the detached ADU. So this slide shows that on the conversion here, where the original building was really close to the property line, let's say even two feet, because we allow that two feet to the property line, the habitable area for this conversion would have to be at least that 10 feet away. And it would have to meet the standards of like a new detached ADU. Basements would be allowed as in our proposal. And we have some examples just in these slides just showing layouts of structures, what it looks like on the outside. This is an example of a 535 square foot ADU detached. It's got two bedrooms, one bath. This one's a 600 square foot ADU, but it is two stories. So the footprint is about 300. square feet it has one bedroom one bath this is a thousand square foot single level three bedroom two bath and then some examples of if you had an in the r16 zone examples of these properties with all the details of how much square footage is on the lot if they could accommodate a detached adu or not and how big that would be and then we did examples of the r18 and so that covers the basics of of the presentation we did go through that before I'm sure that you know the Planning Commission can make their recommendation ultimately to the City Council this is our staff recommendation but ultimately when we meet next we would be requesting an official recommendation decision that would go to the City Council who will make the final decision I know that we had some testimony come in and that was distributed to the Planning Commission and we had specific really helpful outline of questions or possible options that might be considered by the Commission by Commissioner Bromley and also response by Commissioner Duncan That was all distributed. So if you would like to walk through specific areas and ask questions or have a discussion, this would be a good time. We will return in a couple of weeks with, you know, per your direction, and we'll have noticed again for a hearing for public input.

Chair, I guess my question would be when do you want to do public comment?

We want to do that now. Would that be helpful?

Yeah. We can do a public comment now.

Let's open that up to public comment now, and then we'll have that discussion between council. If you're here in person, please come down and state your name and address for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Come on down. Just pick one of the two mics.

And is this public comment about delaying the vote or about this in general?

This is about it in general. Just so you're aware of the public process, we're doing deliberations about this tonight, and the vote won't meet until our next meeting, which I believe is on the 20th.

Which you can attend that meeting as well.

You're welcome to attend both. I look forward to attending that as well.

If you could just state your name and address, though, too, please.

Yes. My name is James Longstaff, and I live at 2285 East, 10095 South, Sandy, Utah. Yeah, 84092 if you needed that. My name is James Longstaff. Good evening. I wrote everything down, so. Go for it. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm a Sandy resident. I volunteer with Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities, or WOC. That's how I'm going to refer to it from now on. I'm here tonight to ask you to strengthen the draft. detached ADU ordinance before it moves forward. Utah's Senate Bill 284 requires every city to allow detached accessory dwelling units. That's not really what's in front of you tonight. What's in front of you is a choice about whether Sandy's ordinance actually lets homeowners build one, or whether it technically implies while quietly making it too expensive and too complicated for most people to bother. WACC submitted a letter to this commission that goes through the draft in detail and it found several places where the current draft could be improved to make it easier for homeowners in Sandy to qualify. The minimum lot size, the setbacks and height limits, a design matching requirement for materials and roof lines, the lack of any path for existing unpermitted structures, and an owner occupancy verification process that's more burdensome than almost anything else in the state. None of these are required by Senate Bill 284. Each one is a choice Sandy is making, and each one adds cost or red tape for the neighbor down the street who just wants to build a small house for an aging parent, an adult with disabilities, or to earn a little extra income. I ask you to review WOC's recommendations closely and adopt them into the final ordinance. Getting this right means real housing options for families like mine without changing what makes our neighborhoods work. When I talk to Sandy residents, they are concerned with the following issues. Few options for seniors who are facing increased property taxes and few options to downsize while staying in the neighborhoods they love. Lack of affordable housing for young families and workers in our city. School closures and the impact this has on families. I believe that with these other recommendations that were sent to you by WOC, that we'll be able to address a lot of these issues that a lot of Sandy residents don't realize are related to housing. And so thank you for your time and for the work you're putting into this. Thank you.

Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this item tonight. Anybody online Mike.

If you are joining us via zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item please use the raise your hand feature now and we'll address you one at a time. We do have one hand raised. Mr. Van Maren, you may unmute yourself.

Thank you, Mike. Good evening, Commissioner. Steve Van Maren, resident of Draper. I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. I arrived late at the work session. But I believe you said, I thought I heard you say that the external ADUs would be built on a slab. And as she was going through the slides, I thought they said they allowed basements. So I'm not sure I caught it right, but I'd appreciate clarification on that point. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else, Mike?

I am seeing no other hands.

OK, we'll close that to public comment and bring that back to staff. Did you want to speak on that one particular question?

I'd like to address that last question about slab on grade and basement. I don't recall mentioning slab on grade. The text does say that it needs to be built on a permanent foundation. So if you had a mobile unit, potentially that could be considered if it was on wheels. But then it has to meet the building code and all the other standards. So it has to be on a permanent foundation, not necessarily slab on grade. And yes, the proposed code allows for basements.

Thank you.

I think anybody else have questions? I've got a question. OK, Steve? So on the extended living area, I'm going to use some clarification. If I want my parents to live with us now, would I build an extended living unit, or do I have to build an ADU?

You could build an extended living area, and it could be an addition or remodel to your existing house, or it could be detached. Yeah.

So I'm thinking if I build a detached extended living unit for my parents, is it going to be the same as if I built an ADU as far as looking, the building requirements and everything? The building requirements would be the same. They would be the same. So later on, if I wanted to then rent it out after my parents passed, I just come to the city and get a permit. Yeah.

Then we get the special use permit with business license.

Yeah. Now, if I want to have my 18, 19-year-old kid there, but I want to charge him some rent, do I have to then do an ADU? But he's my son. I'm going to do it less than market. Do I do it as an extended living arrangement, or do I have to actually have an ADU? Because I'm going to try to give him a break on it, but I still want to get some money off it. Do I have to go to ADU, or is it extended living unit?

Well, let's see.

Can I ask a question about that as well? Does the extended living area, does that have to have a kitchen or not?

How does the kitchen fit in? If it's extended living area, if it is actually part of the house or detached, it primarily has to have a kitchen. It does not necessarily have to have all the elements.

In order to rent it out as a detached accessory dwelling unit it would need all three.

That's true. My question is if someone builds an extended living area but doesn't put a kitchen there because they don't want their aging parents to burn it down.

Correct. They're not required to.

But they wanted to switch it to an ADU, they would have to then remodel it.

Correct.

And follow through the proper procedures.

That is correct. I would also add that in order to do an extended living area it would not require a special use permit or business license. So if it's for family use, your aging parents for example that you mentioned, that would not require any additional regulatory framework. That's only required if you're renting it out to non-family members.

So if I rent it out to my son at a reduced rate it would be okay to call it an extended living

I would say it's on a non-rental basis. And it's for family members of the same household, but on a non-rental basis.

OK. So I'm just asking them some reimbursement, like they would if they're living at my house or whatever. Okay. Whatever. I just was wondering because I know some family does that. They'll say, you know, this usually would go for about $2,000, but I'll give it to you for $500. Let's move on.

Let's move on.

All right. I think Craig had one other question. All right. Thank you. If someone has an extended living area, what is to prevent them from just switching it over under the table to a detached? I'm sorry.

Or...

Does a neighbor have to complain and then enforcement would have to step in?

Yeah, that's generally the, you know, unless there's a building permit, we're not necessarily going to be notified of that unless they voluntarily, you know, notify that because they want to make sure the title's clean and everything. And so the way we normally find out about things is when there's a building permit to renovate or want to build additions or separate detached units. And otherwise, if there was a complaint, yes, that there would be, we'd be notified then and then we're obligated to go out and check. Did you have anything to add to that?

I would just add that we do require when we review a building permit application if we see elements of an extended living area we do require them to sign an affidavit that gets recorded with the property and it's an acknowledgment from the owner that they realize that they have no intention to rent it out and it advises them that if they do rent it out they have to get necessary permits of an ADU in order to do that. If they are found in violation, they've also sworn on that affidavit that gets recorded against their property that they acknowledge those rules and regulations when they did it.

That's a good point. A person can own a house, not live in it and rent it to someone else, correct?

Yeah.

I mean, that's all the time.

Yes.

Yeah. Okay. So, but then if they want to do an ADU, they can't because they aren't.

They can rent up the entire home to one household. They can't turn it into a duplex and rent out two portions of the home to two different families.

And how is that enforced? Same way. We deal with that now with

the attached you know additions and basement apartments now with the same methods that's a very good point that we have the affidavit so if they want to switch later then it's some documentation that helps and notifies them

Are there any other questions? Okay. I think there's been some discussion. I know a couple of folks had prepared some things and wanted to kind of talk through those. I think, do you want to start with yours and kind of talk through a couple of those issues?

Yeah, that'd be great. I'd love to. and I guess first off would like to tell staff thanks I think this is a lot of work that goes into this stuff so we do appreciate your time and all the efforts that go to this and also I think too it was James long staff who talked about walk we appreciate those comments that came in earlier as well and I think that you'll probably find that by and large the Planning Commission is Hoping to advance this further than what is included in this draft ordinance I think that that might not Well, we would see how far that could go with City Council, which is unknown But I guess what I would like to do at this time. I've got a lot of issues that I've documented that would love to run through and then I would like to get to hopefully an understanding as to what the planning commission sits on this. And then with hopefully the objective, what my objective would be. to go through this as well as hear other items that you guys have come to the table with tonight that you'd like to address and try to get an understanding of what I think might be a workable amendment to this, to what we will receive and provide recommendations for next week. So that's what I would like, that's my objective right now. in two weeks. Does that sound like a reasonable approach to handle that there?

I think we can get that discussion started whether or not we can come to a closure on it.

What I would like to do is go by I've got a lot of items here I'll refer to an item and then I think there's several of these items that I think will probably take a lot more discussion. I think there's some that hopefully won't take as much discussion. I would I would like to jump through the ones that I hope don't take as much discussion first. Sure. Just so that we can move forward.

Sorry you had a question for us? No you just looked like you were wanting to say something. The question was if public comment period had been closed. Oh we did. OK. I said that.

OK. That's OK.

So I guess this first question I've got, Melissa, this is probably a question that I'd like to ask you first. In section 21.11.1.D.3 it addresses some items that the applicant is required to bring forward including of both if they were doing an attached or detached ADU. So they're required to bring forth elevations of the detached as well as the primary unit, even if it's detached, internal layout of the primary dwelling, even if you're doing something detached, and then the carbon monoxide and so forth. So my question really is, what is the purpose of requiring an applicant to do all this?

The purpose was, as proposed, you would only be allowed to have either one ADU or extended – one ADU on the lot. And so looking at it as a whole of knowing what's going on, if they're doing something detached, knowing what's going on inside, you know, do they have other units and things like that, that it's relevant to that. I appreciate of thinking of the applicant and making sure that what's germane to what we're reviewing or not. But if we're only limiting one, they want to propose a detached ADU, we need to know what's going on in the primary dwelling.

I guess my opinion on that is that they're going to do an affidavit and so that affidavit is going to rule and then as discussed before that can be referred back to and the neighbors if they have issues and concerns and so forth that can I think if this stuff is necessary I'd rather see it come forward during a building permit if the building permit, if per building code requires it. I don't think that for every application that comes before for these types of uses that this kind of information ought to be required. How does the planning commission feel?

I think from my standpoint if it's detached I don't see the purpose for a floor plan. I do see the purpose for the elevations and the analysis but I don't see a purpose for the floor plan of the existing unit. Now I do understand the notion that they may have some space on the interior but I do agree with you that the affidavit makes sense.

I would say if the concern also can be addressed by elevation rather than having to draw it up they can take a picture. No I think an elevation is necessary. So that's a tremendous amount of – You're talking to an architect, though. Yeah, okay.

So I think that that's beyond – I have a question. One reason for plans would be for smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors. electrical being up to code for the either detached or attached.

Which is irrelevant if it's detached.

But an attached unit it seems as though there would still need to be some inspection that it meets code.

I'm saying if it's detached you don't need to worry about the primary residence.

Okay. But what about if it's attached, if someone comes in? Attached? Yeah. Sure. And wants to turn a basement.

Sure. Agreed. They're going to have to provide that anyway. I think if it's attached, you have to do it. If it's attached, you have to. And for building code, you're going to have to do it as well. So I think during this, and in the future, if something's regarding building code, great. But I'm saying if it's a detached unit, this other information should not have to be required during a submission to get approval.

And a picture of the main building, if you're doing detached.

A picture of the main building would be sufficient.

Yeah, I don't think you need an elevation drawn up of the main building. I agree with you on that. But I do think you need an elevation drawn up of the new unit. 100%.

Speaking of elevations, it seems as though the state is going to take out their language about design. Does that mean we can't add language about design?

I mean, detached. Right. And so I just have the sentence that mirrors exactly the state language. And so if they amend that, we'll amend that accordingly. I didn't go further to- Well, I guess that's my question.

If they amend it, then we can-

That's part of the reason why we refrained from providing additional design standards because that was telegraphed to us that that was the intent and that the original intent was not that the standards for a single family dwelling which states that we're not allowed to have design requirements for a single family dwelling are also supposed to apply to a detached ADU.

Right. And so, you know, stating their language and trying to elaborate I thought may be problematic because they may delete that later.

So I think it's a challenge to delineate between what is needed. If it's a new building, you need a drawing of something. and what is designed, right? So I think you're always going to need an elevation of a new building. Even if it's bad design, you're going to need something. If it's attached to the building, you're going to need something showing how it's attached, even if it's a simple box. So I think you have to have the discussion about elevations and floor plan, but I agree that if you're having a detached unit, the focus should be on the detached unit, not on the… Yes, and the only thing that we need is a picture, if even that.

Yeah, I got it. Okay. All right. So the next items that I've got down, I think they're going to maybe take a little too long.

So just in terms of process, I just want to make sure, are we giving these inputs to Melissa to kind of give an edited version of it?

I'm going to provide a motion that's going to. I guess the question, I'm assuming that what we're going to get is basically what we have right now. You're not revising your draft.

No, not generally, no. We had some minor clarification of extended living areas.

No, I will provide. What I would like to get to the ability to do is to know enough from where I think the Planning Commission sits to provide something that I think will hopefully pass.

Okay.

As a motion. Okay. In addition to whatever motion they are suggesting. Okay.

And you can provide some direction now. You can also in a formal motion next meeting in two weeks you can give direction on what your formal motion is and we'll make sure to reflect that in your recommendation.

How I envision that right now as I see it is I would envision this formal motion including some specific areas that we say this is what we say and that I also say there's just some specific areas where I would say, hey, this is the general thing that we are going to put forward but what it means is we would suggest that the city council recommend staff do this. Yes. So that's what I'm going to put forward in a motion.

You're mentioning like specifics, language or specific

adjustments to the code.

Some may be specific and some may be more broad. Is that what you're referencing?

Some may be specific like remove this portion of the sentence. Some might be we would recommend staff prepare a table that allows for bigger units I'm not going to go through the time myself.

You have too much expertise on staff to not use for all that.

I just wanted to get a clarification and that sounds great.

Yeah, and as we always do, we want to make sure your recommendation is transparent. Like if there was a version, you made some changes, recommendation, that's transparent to them so they clearly understand.

And also, by the way, what I plan on doing in the recommendation for your information is I would like, I plan on documenting reasoning. for some of these things too. So I really want the city council to know more about why this recommendation is coming about because I think it's vastly different than what many of these items are that we see in the draft.

Sure. That's good.

Okay.

Dave, before we go on that, I do have a point of clarification because I would like to get a better understanding of how procedurally that will go to the city council because I can see when you get to there, you're going to present your stuff, the staff stuff, And then we don't know or control what you're going to present other than the motion.

No, we'll present whatever the Planning Commission puts on is what we'll, the City Council will see that as well.

Verbally and written in the same format.

Yeah, what I would like to do. We pass on the same as what we normally do, and that's what we always do.

I know, but you can pass that on, but it doesn't mean you have to verbally address any of those things.

But we do. We do. We do. Whatever the Planning Commission recommends, we bring up and say that as part of our presentation. This is what we, and here's the Planning Commission's recommendation. Okay, that's all I was going to say. Thank you. You answered my question. We always do that. Yep.

We're we're not gonna just present our original recommendation without a no thing that came from the Planning Commission Well, will you do report on the full process that that transpired and give that full recommendation both from staff and the Planning Commission? to the City Council

This is a good time to really emphasize to any residents here that we are a recommending body. City Council will decide. So we will provide some recommendations.

And most always, when this goes to the Planning Commission first, the City Council will ask, what did the Planning Commission recommend?

Oh, yeah. And they want the draft minutes if need be, if it came. And many of them will watch the videos, too.

And you're also welcome to attend the meeting if you want to see what is presented.

And you can speak as public comment to the city council as part of this, too. That is within your right as citizens to attend the city council and speak to it.

I actually think that we may want to consider I've never done that before. I am considering doing it this time.

Let's move through this. Let's continue.

Would it be helpful to share your letter up on the screen or do you just want to go through it without visuals? You can do it. Would that be helpful for you?

I've got it in front of me. Why don't you just screw it. I'm more than happy to have it shared.

I have my notes.

I'm going to jump to I think number 3 is maybe a little more time needed there. I'm going to jump to number 4. Number 4 addresses entrances and it's saying that an entrance cannot You cannot have another entrance that can be seen by – from the property – front property line or a street.

For an attached – an attached –

No, no, this is specific for attached not detached So this section of code that you're referencing this this is detached.

This is attached or deep.

Okay, this is attached Can someone just explain why? We cannot I don't see any reason for this.

Oh I for an attached internal dwelling unit.

Why can't I have a door facing the street.

It's to retain single family dwelling appearance but people so that it does not look like a duplex. It does not look like an additional unit is in the neighborhood. Otherwise you start getting designs of homes that look like a duplex that look like Anything other than a single-family home It's about compatibility within the existing framework Okay, that's the reason you can disagree with that, but I'm telling you that that was the reason why that regulations there We are referring now to section 21 11 1 f 1 a entrances

Okay and my opinion is that I think I remember right now that that was attached and so but I think whether it's attached or not if this is a corner lot I think there should be able to be another door facing that other street. So I don't see any issue with that. I think that there are also some instances where there might be topography that is going to – or some other kind of very specific issue that we really can't foresee, that there ought to be some path outward of that. And I would be fine with that being director approval, something like that. Is that even – can we even do that?

That's a front property line. On the wording it doesn't say front street but it says front property line. It does say the street. Does it not? Well it says the street but you're talking about corner lots.

So corner has two streets.

Yeah. So it says front property line.

It also says street.

So can we just clarify that it's the front street?

It is precluded because there's two streets.

And so adding the front street or front property line would take care of the corner lot.

Designated front property line.

The city has designated which is then the side would be no because the city designates a corner house they have two fronts. Correct. Well you can see they're different in dimensions. But it's not.

The setback is different but they're both considered front yards. So on a corner lot you do have two frontages.

And we're saying we don't.

I think we can limit it to I think a good objective measure would be if it's a corner lot it could be you can have a lot fronting both streets. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does.

Right now on entrances I believe that's existing language just so you know that's not brand new. Design is also existing but it is tightened up and I think there was acknowledgment of maybe changing some things on that.

Also I would like to have the planning commission consider that there could be some unique circumstances that I don't even know about right now. And I'm happy to have that be a director decision.

So I actually do agree with your opinion right now I think that to get something I think it's gonna be hard to get something through the

actual ordinance. So I would rather try to get something that hopefully we'll get through. No, that's fine.

I'm just saying I'll agree with whatever because I think it ought to go away.

Okay. Got it. Okay. Move on to the next one. The next one is five. So the So the issues here, I think that having to connect to a habitable portion of the primary dwelling is extremely restrictive, can be very costly for somebody to have to modify their existing home if they can create a either a detached unit that does not go into the habitable portion, does not attach or does – sorry. If they can create something like the breezeway that is not attached to the habitable portion but yet they can then put an extended living – extended – what do we call it?

Extended – Living area.

Living area. Yeah. or an ADU out that it will be far less costly and we need to provide avenues for this to get done, not to not get done. And so to have to have it be attached to the habitable portion is going to eliminate so many of the ways that existing homes are constructed. And so I think that that is such a massive limitation that I think we need to do something.

Are we saying here that all ADUs detached have to connect?

No. This is a section in the attached extended living area and attached ADU design requirements. So if the proposal is an addition to the home these design requirements apply. It has nothing to do with detached accessory dwelling units. So if you have a detached ADU as long as you meet those setbacks you'll be approved. And there's no requirement to connect.

And there's a lot of existing language on that, too.

It seems like this is precluding being able to add on to a garage. We have a couple of people talking.

I know. Sorry. And can you speak in the microphone there, city attorney?

I think your question is if it's detached is it prohibited to connect it?

No. Attached. It could be either a breezeway or it could be attached at that non-habitable portion. Directly connected. Not with 50% perimeter.

So your question is that the detached is so much more onerous in the city's requirements than attached that you want to make sure that they can attach it differently. I'm trying I was trying to understand the question because if there's a breezeway it could just be designed as detached. It's not prohibited to have a breezeway detached. I don't think.

Yeah I think he's wanting to do an attached ADU and the method of attachment is through a breezeway not through physical sharing of a wall.

So I guess my question was why why does it need to be attached if you're also if you're already allowed to have detached anyway.

For one example one example is size. You're not going to be subject to the size restrictions. It's an addition to the home. Five years ago, I built a pool house on my property. This is a breezeway. And this was actually before Commissioner.

Oh, geez. You don't want a picture of the goats I was hiking with?

Which one's on top?

Wait, why is that not? Which one?

You can pass it around.

A brilliant architect.

Before he was on the Planning Commission, he's the one that drew these drawings up. So there are so many good instances where you should be able to attach by a breezeway in order to build what you're going to want to build that still meets all your setbacks and heights and everything else. Another reason is height. So there are many legitimate reasons that you're going to want to do this. And we need to have a path forward to be able to do that.

Another good reason is privacy. You gain more privacy.

By having that off of your non-habitable.

Whether it's off a garage or a breezeway, it adds more privacy.

And to have to do that and then have this habitable area attached, I mean, it's costly and unnecessary.

So I'm understanding this. If I'm going to build an ADU, it has to be six feet away from my house.

No, this is attached. This is attached. This is attached.

Oh, I know. But that's what I'm saying. He's saying if I put a breezeway there, now it's not attached. It's attached. Yeah, it's the now it's the primary what's it what's the difference the breezeway is putting this property pretty closer than the six feet But it's not attached There's some benefits

There are so many reasons.

Yeah, I understand, but trying to get around the ADU issue, if I just put it three feet away from my house and call it a breezeway... You can't do that. What are you talking about? I don't understand.

You still have to have a distance from your structure. You just have a separation between your structures, and you have a breezeway attaching.

Is that six feet, or is it three feet? Minimally. It has to meet code. Code is six feet. Why wouldn't I do that with all my ADUs to make it where they get more space in?

I don't know if we're getting all of this in the mics. So be careful about speaking into the mics.

I'm having just this issue. I'm trying to figure it out because if I put a breezeway, it now makes it part of my house. I can make it bigger.

Which you should be able to do anyway. It's within the normal building envelope. So within ADU ordinances, there could possibly be some reduced setbacks that you could get. You could not put that portion of a home that if you're attaching to your primary residence, you have to keep within your setbacks of your lot. The ADU or extended living area ordinances can go outside of that. That's always been there. It's always been that way. That's nothing new.

I did it five years ago. I don't have any problems with what you're suggesting. I do think that the 50% connection seems a little arbitrary. I think it ought to go away 100%. I agree.

Completely. So because if breezeways are there.

So could the adjusted language just be they say may be connected to the existing livid common area and then change this connection to be what it's going to be? I think so.

Yes, it should be a loud breeze ways and then I don't think there ought to be a minimum linear foot measurement connection. Does that sound okay? Okay. And can go to non-habitable areas.

Okay.

All right. Next. Okay. Lighting. Maybe a question to staff first. Does what's included in the draft seem like it makes sense?

Oh, yeah. Because it's for detached ADUs. It doesn't pertain to the primary. And the big concerns for detached ADUs and particularly because if it's one story like no more than 15 feet high it can be as close as 10 feet to the property line and that impacts to the neighboring properties is a really big issue. Not for me personally.

I guess I should clarify my question. have an ADU attached detached whatever or extended living area. Detached. This is a detached only area? So can you have a detached unit with light on it that you know is within that meets the setbacks that if you've got a porch light that and that porch light so your side yard setback is say 10 feet, can you have a light there that will not spill, as in the document, in the code, spill any light beyond the property?

If it's facing them, you may have none or very, very limited lighting on that side that's facing your neighbor.

Very limited makes sense. None is what the document says.

It's not that you can't have a light on that side it's that that can't spill or go beyond the property.

The word any is my issue.

Yeah we do this in commercial development all the time where we have a requirement that they do not spill light onto a residential side of the property line and they put on shields or other blocks and lighting designs such that they are not spilling onto their neighbors.

It's unenforceable. You're not going to be able to do this. You're not going to be able to have any light.

We run into that dark sky concept all the time in new housing where there are fixtures that are rated to be dark sky, meaning they don't shine out. They're down lights or up lights onto a ceiling or something.

Yeah, so that's why I would propose it be more like that.

Is there any language in the code about dark sky lighting?

We do not have a dark sky lighting policy for the city.

Okay then maybe do say.

But you could institute a dark sky compliant light.

Or you could say that it's shielded so that direct downward you still have spillage off to your other property.

Just say a dark sky compliant light.

Yes, that's okay.

We could do that.

I like that.

Because there are fixtures that are rated that way. Yeah, that makes sense.

Okay. Next. All right. I think number seven I think will probably take another amount of time.

So we'll eight. Eight.

Okay, nine, this is the walk recommendation is that there be a pathway for unpermitted accessory structures to become safe code compliant under an amnesty provision. Is there a reasonable path forward to be able to do that? To me there ought to be one.

Well, I think we agree on the concept, but the process normally is if you have a non-compliant or let's say you never got a building permit, then you would go through a process to make that legal. And once it's legal, then we can move forward. But that's normal.

It has to be legal in the first place to move forward.

OK, but I'm saying I think there ought to be a pathway to be able to move forward. So I'm just saying.

Yeah, upgrade it.

Yeah, no, I agree. I agree. So I'm saying they ought to, so rather than say that as of that date, so you're trying to cut off so that they don't do something illegal, I'm saying there should be some pathway.

What we're trying to do with that statement is ensure that someone doesn't build a structure and then turn around the next day and say oh here's this legal nonconforming structure and now I want to do something with it. We're saying for anything new beyond that adoption of this code if they're doing an ADU just follow the ADU standards.

Maybe what you would. Just follow this.

But if they have something they built 10 years ago and they want to come in, then they just bring it up to legal?

There is a pathway. Is there a pathway to get a structure that was unpermitted on your property to be legal?

Yeah, we do that now.

I think it's just bringing it up to code.

Now, whether it's financially feasible or costly, a lot of these non-conforming, non-legal structures are going to be very expensive to bring into conformance with building code if they were not built with a permit to begin with. But there is a process, and we do work with property owners on converting or not converting, but bringing to legal status anything that was built without a permit.

That's great. That's pretty common. That's not unusual.

Then we'll just add something in there that you follow that process to bring something forward.

There may be a way to clarify that that is the process because amnesty I think is just the wrong terminology.

Great. We'll let you guys figure it out. That's one I would say we'll put down and let you figure that out.

I didn't like the word amnesty.

Okay. Next one. I'm looking at 10. Minimum parking space for this code.

I think the parking is pretty straightforward. That was a question. I got that answered.

I had a question about that being close to a track station.

It's still coming.

Is that still coming?

Yeah. But you're good with 10? 10 was just an answer to your question. Taylor Park and Roswell.

Any questions?