Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Okay, let's go.

We're ready when you are. Thank you.

All right.

Recording in progress.

Excellent. All right. We're going to go ahead and kick off tonight's Planning Commission meeting. We welcome you. I'm the current chair of the Planning Commissioner. My name is Laniece Davenport, and I'm joined by my fellow commissioners. Let me first by introducing the two that are in the audience, Jennifer George and Craig Kitterman. And then we'll go ahead and have the other commissioners starting with Ron introduce yourselves, please Dave Bromley Danny Schoenfeld David Hart Steve Wrigley Thank you. James, will you introduce the staff, please? Sure.

My name is James Thornton. I'm the community development director. We have Darien Alcorn, the senior civil attorney. Mike Wilcox is the planning director. Jake Warner here with us tonight is the long range planning manager. Clint Spencer, development service manager here with us. Melissa Anderson will be here shortly. She'll do the longer presentation tonight on the ADUs. See, Ivan Hooper, transportation engineer, is here with us tonight. And Cash, he's here with us tonight, a planner. The office in Grant Hancock is here with us tonight, a planner. And Aisha is here with us tonight, thank goodness. We'll turn the time back to you. Thanks.

Thank you. All right. Before we turn it over to do the Pledge of Allegiance, I just want to remind you of what the Planning Commission is, what our responsibility is. We're a non-elected body consisting of citizens who live in Sandy. We've been appointed to this commission by the mayor with advice and consent of the city council. We are a land use authority for the city and charged with certain responsibilities as outlined in the Land Development Code of Sandy City. We are asked to make recommendations on land use decisions to the council and the mayor. We are also the decision-making body for various land use reviews and applications as required in the land development code. So we meet at the call of the chairman, normally the first and third Thursday of every month at 6.15 p.m. here in the council chambers. Our meetings are typically preceded by a field trip of the agenda items and an executive session, which consists of training by our staff and legal counsel. These are all part of the open meeting, and the public may attend. The training and regular portion of the meetings can be attended virtually through Zoom webinar as well. All right, with that introduction, Danny, will you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one

All right, so we will follow the Meeting agenda for the night that has been published and with that I'll turn the time over to Mike to introduce the first item I

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. This first item we'll discuss kind of two items at once. They're both related to the site that's shown on the screen. First is the Farm 106 subdivision and Liberty Drug Site Plan Review. They are requesting a preliminary subdivision plat request to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a commercial subdivision creating two commercial lots on this subject property. They're also looking for a preliminary site plan review and approval for the Liberty Drug proposed site that's shown in the yellow here on the map. And I believe that applicant is here to present on their item and we'll follow up with staff recommendations for both items.

Please, when you get to the podium, will you introduce yourself, name, and address?

Clayton, England, my address, 101-77 South Millbury Way, right up here, Sandy Library. First off, I'm a citizen of Sandy. Thank you for everything you guys do. I appreciate it. As Mike mentioned, this project is called Liberty Drug. My clients, who are also Sandy City citizens, are trying to build a new building for their business. They fulfill pharmaceutical and prescription medications for retirement homes and things like that. So they're trying to build a new building here on that building at 106 South and 10th East. We've been undergoing a process of trying to get several lots combined and as Mike described. Could I go to the next slide? So here's a small rendering of the project. Again, it's going to be the headquarters of the company where they're going to fulfill prescription medications for their clients as well as have a compound pharmacy on site as well as offices for their company. Could you go to the next slide? So again, here's just some more images. We're trying to make this an attractive building, make sure it's not an eyesore for Sandy City. And we've been going through the process with the planning team and they've been great to work with. And let's see if there's another, there's a site plan potentially. there so just to get an idea of where we're trying to situate on the site uh there's an easement that is going through the property when tent east used to not have that turn going down by challenger in that church um initially we had designed within that easement uh we we realized that it's not worth trying to go through and get that vacated so we've done a redesign and gotten it into that corner so we're trying to fulfill uh you know comply all of our designs with existing easements and so as you can see there's the existing or the proposed building and we're meeting all the design and landscaping requirements against try to make it as attractive as we can I think one more slide so thank you so much for your time happy to answer any questions all right thank you so much with that you're good thank you we will turn to Clint for any additional information

I'll try to make this quick. We'll go over the first subdivision proposal, and then we'll go through the site plan. As was mentioned, this is currently a conglomeration of existing parcels, and so this will clean that issue up, creating two legal lots for development, one for the existing building, one for the new building for Liberty Drug. It's going to skip like seven last slides here when it catches up. Here we go. This is the proposed subdivision. Both lots just under an acre. As was mentioned, you can see on lot one where that easement is. That's where the road dedication was originally. The road dedication was vacated and then the easement stayed in place. So that kind of forced the placement of the building. So some of the things we're getting with this is some road dedication on the north side and some right-of-way dedication as well on the east side. So these are our findings, our recommendations for approval, which the subdivision has proposed. And then we'll move it through the final review process and tie up any loose ends there. But everything seems to comply with city ordinance in that regard.

Excuse me. Could we turn up the volume?

The second side, so the issue now is the site plan. So that's the area in yellow. That's on lot one of the subdivision that's been proposed. The building is about 10,000 square feet, just over 10,200 square feet. They're including 30 parking spaces. The site does have 29% site landscaping and parking screening as well. This is the elevation and kind of the layout of the property. Finishing materials for the building are stone veneer, cement board, metal paneling and some glass obviously. Some of the zoning requirements that we still need to work through with the applicant, one of them is dependent on the commission to approve and that would be the location of the parking, our design standards require buildings to be up to the street front and have parking to the side or rear. In this instance where the parking is already in place and there is a giant easement restricting the building from being located closer to the street, staff does support this modification having the building or having the parking in front of the building. And then on elevations, as was shown in the renderings, the front of the building is very nice. They're very well done. There's a lot of articulation, windows, plane changes. On the rear portion of the building, there's a few elements that probably could be added and need to be added, and we can work through the review process and the final review process with the applicant to make sure that those sides are addressed and we get a few more elements to make that building a little more digestible from all sides. This is kind of a caveat that we looked at from a staff perspective. There's nothing in our ordinance that requires it, but we would suggest to the applicant to work with the adjacent property owner. There's kind of this funky little site. Originally, when this was laid out, it looked like there was probably an access that was going to go straight through there. With the siding of the building as it is, you have this little remnant piece that's kind of just hanging out, and it doesn't make a lot of sense there. If they can accommodate and re-landscape and provide a sidewalk connection, that would be great. It's not going to hold up their process. We can't say you can't develop the site without this taking place. But it's just a recommendation that we're hoping that they can work through. Again, it's just a recommendation, not a requirement. That being said, with those conditions, we do recommend approval for both the subdivision and the site plan. And if there's any questions for me, I'd be glad to take them.

All right, thank you. Yeah, do we have questions?

Yeah, just a couple for you. So the parking lot to the north is actually the other building's parking lot, is that correct?

Yes, on the subdivision, though, they're recording a cross-access easement, unlimited, for both parcels. So it'll be shared parking, shared cross-access across both of those lots.

Okay, so it gives them a little more parking. How many slots are there for their business on the other side?

So they have 30 slots for their business, which is all that they need for their proposal.

Okay. And they're doing compounding, or probably you should ask them. I mean, they're doing compounding, which means they will have parent people coming in and going throughout the day. Mm-hmm. Not as much as maybe a Smith's or whatever that has happened. Okay. Great. Thank you.

We will now move to public comment. So we'll open the meeting for public comment and begin with those attending in person. So if you would like to speak on this item, please step forward, come to the podium. You'll have three minutes. State your name and address and we'll go from there. Is there anybody wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Mike, is there anybody online?

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. I am seeing no hands.

All right. Thank you. Okay. We can close the public meeting portion and public comment. Thank you. Public comment portion. Thank you, Mike. And move to the body. Is there any questions?

I am ready for a motion. Okay. I'll make the motion that the planning commission is determined that the preliminary subdivision review is substantially complete for the farm 106 subdivision at approximately 1010 east, 106 south based on the following four findings and three conditions.

I'll second.

David Hart. Yes. Cameron Duncan. Yes. Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Ron Mortimer. Yes. Danny Schoenfeld. Yes. Steve Wrigley. Yes. Denise Davenport. Yes. This motion carries. Thank you Ayesha. Do we have another motion.

Yes I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission as determined preliminary site plan review is substantially complete for the proposed liberty drug at 1010 East, 106 South in the SD Carnation Zone and based on the following four findings and I think nine conditions.

David Hart.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan. Yes. Dave Bromley. Yes. Ron Mortimer. Yes. Danny Schoenfeld. Yes. Steve Wrigley. Yes. Laniece Davenport. Yes. This motion carries.

All right. Thank you. Congratulations. OK. Mike, will you move us to the next item?

Thank you Madam Chair. The next item is a request for a rezone submitted by Matthew Grant. They are requesting a change of zoning district for the three properties located at 11562, 11563 and 11586 South Hagen Road. These individual properties are seeking to rezone their properties to add an A designation or that would give them animal rights to these properties. You can see on the map there that they're associated proximate to other properties that are also zone a that gives them animal rights as well. I believe the applicant is here and can present on his behalf this request and then staff will follow up with our recommendation.

Just please begin with your name and address.

Thank you. My name is Matt Grant. My address is 11563 South Hagen Road. I've lived there for about six years with my wife Laura and our eight kids. We've lived in Sandy for 10 years. We love it here and excited to be in this room for the first time tonight and to meet with you all. So I and two of my neighbors submitted this application to have our zoning changed. To be honest, this request, I guess, comes about because of a mistake on my part. I thought we already had zoning to raise animals, and we acquired some lambs a few months ago. I misunderstood the zoning rules and the A designation. I thought because of our lot size and because we have some neighbors who have some animals that we would be able to do that. So I now understand we need the A designation. I've been educated well by the city planning commission. staff, and I have two neighbors as well that wanted to join in this application. They don't currently have animals. They don't necessarily have plans to have animals, but they believe that their land should also have a more flexible pay designation. I'd just like to highlight a few things from application materials for your consideration. The first is that, as noted earlier, and if you were to zoom out, you'd see on this map, there's, I think, 50-some-odd properties in this neighborhood east of 13th East, contiguous properties that all have the A designation, all of which, I should say, are half acre or more. There are four lots that you can see up here, R3 and then one that's owned by one of our neighbors who does not support this change. And those are the only ones that are not designated with an A designation. I actually spent some time this afternoon, I zoomed way out on Sandy and was looking around. It appears to me that of the half acre or more lots, the vast majority, probably 99%, are already designated with an A, and it just seems almost a standard. I think our zoning stands out as an exception to that norm in Sandy that we do not have an A designation. We believe it's only fair that we should have these same rights to responsibly raise animals, as many in our area and in our city have, who have lots this size. I'll just note that the staff report, you know, cited that we are in a rural slash very low neighborhood, which essentially means that it's, you know, dispersed single family lots where there is room to consider adding farm animals. The other point I'd add, in addition to just kind of the consistency and the fairness with the existing neighborhood and the existing city for these lots, is that we think this is a good zoning change for our neighborhood and for our families. As you probably saw in the meeting materials, in addition to the three property owners on the application, I think 10 of our neighbors sent emails in supporting this change. I've talked to many others of our neighbors who are very supportive of this. And there are a few who have concerns, which we've discussed and tried to address with them. I'm only aware of one neighbor who's opposed to us having lambs on our property. We have another one who sent a thoughtful email supporting us having lambs, but against the zoning on different grounds. I'll say that we're committed to being good neighbors. We've tried to address these concerns. We have had a lot of people in our neighborhood come and visit the lambs. A lot of children come over to pet the lambs and help feed the lambs. And again, I think it's been a positive for our neighborhood, but especially for my own family. In the Sandy City Code, it says that where zoning permits it, farm animals can be kept, quote, for the purposes of family food production, education, and recreation. Our lambs have provided exactly that for my kids over the past few months. And our ability to keep them until later this year when they'll be ready for food production, I guess, depends on the zoning change now. If this application is approved, I don't know if we'll have lambs in the future. I don't know if my neighbors will have animals in the future. But whether we do or not, we think there are other benefits to having the A designation, the flexibility to do so, and the freedom to do that is important to us. As the staff report notes, that in addition to allowing farm animals, properties with an A designation are afforded additional entitlements, such as less restrictive accessory structure regulations. And we think those are appropriate for half acre lots in Sandy, as evidenced by the vast majority that have this A designation. Before I finish, I'd like to just briefly address a few of the concerns that I've heard from our neighbors, including the one who sent what I said was a very thoughtful email that was opposed to the zoning change. but in favor of us keeping the lambs. To paraphrase that, and I think she's here, so she can comment if she wants to clarify my paraphrasing, but her concern was that if this rezoning is allowed, then we could have horses or cows consistent with the Sandy City Code, and that our backyard isn't really well suited for that. And I actually agree with that neighbor completely on that. I think the layout of our yard, we have a detached garage and a basketball court, and there's just not a place for a horse or a cow or anything of that nature. And I can't imagine anyone buying our house and thinking differently in the future. My view is that there are laws that govern how we can keep animals beyond just the designation and the zoning. There are nuisance laws. There are... The city code has a lot of regulations about setbacks and how animals can be kept and how they have to be cared for. And our view is that those limitations and those rules and animal cruelty laws and whatever else, that should govern how animals are treated and which animals are kept and how, and not the zoning process. The other concerns that were raised at the neighborhood meeting was from the other neighbor we have who's opposed to us raising lambs at all. And she's the only one I'm aware of who's actually opposed to that. Her complaints that you probably saw in the meeting materials were that the lambs are too noisy and that they had pooped on her lawn. And as I'm told, I may not be able to address those. I just want to clarify that our lambs are well cared for. We keep them in a clean, secure pen within our backyard that's also fenced in. So the lambs aren't free roaming and going on people's lawns. We do take them out periodically, like once a week to go on a walk. They're leashed during that time. They have halters. We keep them on the side of the road. We don't go wandering through people's yards. My kids come along. We have a bucket and a hand broom and a dustpan, and we sweep up. It doesn't happen that much, but if they drop anything, we sweep that up and take it home to throw it away. It comes out in hard little pellets. So it's similar to like deer, deer poop. So it's possible our neighbor has, you know, we have deer in our neighborhood that she's seen that, or dog, you know, dogs, which are obviously a little different. Those are walked through our neighborhood frequently as well. So I don't know what she's finding in her yard, but again, our lambs aren't roaming through people's yards. And the second point was just on the noise point. You know, we've, I've been around lambs. I grew up raising lambs. These lambs are a breed that's relatively quiet. They don't make noise at night, I guess, unless there's a predator, which we haven't had in our property. In our experience, we've never heard them. We have another neighbor, a next door neighbor directly to the north, actually told us that we'd had the lambs for four months when the notice of this meeting went out, and she didn't know we had lambs. They're not that loud is our view. Obviously, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and I guess that's all I can say on the noise, but we believe that they're well within reason and frankly probably quieter than The chickens that are in neighborhoods around ours and the dogs and kids and lawnmowers and whatever else. So I thank you for your time and your consideration in this application. I'm happy to answer any questions or receive the floor if none.

Any questions before we turn it to staff? Okay. Thank you for the time. Appreciate it. Jake, would you like to come up? Provide additional information for us. Thank you.

Good evening, Planning Commission. For the public, Jake Warner, long-range planning manager for the city. As has been stated, Matthew Grant submitted an application also on behalf of two of his neighbors, Barry Evans and Lyle Warner. The properties were mentioned. This area annexed in pieces. This road particularly, I think there were four annexations on this road. There are 35 houses on this road. When the annexations to the north came in they were zoned r120a When the annexations to the south came in they were zoned r110 the record on these four properties is a little unclear I did find Planning Commission minutes that recommended r120a However, the ordinance associated with this annexation for these four properties does say r120 and that's what the city records the city maps have shown I believe since that time. These particular properties, these four properties were annexed in, let's see, the properties of the south were annexed in 1976, properties to the north in 1998 and 1999, and these four properties were annexed in 1988. So there are 17 properties to the north that are zoned R120A. There are 14 properties in the south zoned R110. And then these four properties are relatively in the middle, zoned R120. The general plan for this property is the Future Land Use Map designates this property in the general plan as rural or very low density neighborhood. So both the R120 and the R120A would be consistent with the general plan. A staff or a staff held a neighborhood meeting on August 10th You have a summary of that meeting in your packet staff has received several emails following that meeting and those are included in your packet. There was one email received after distributing the packet to you, the Planning Commission. I made a copy of that one email and left that on the DS and I will attach that to the electronic file for this application as well. With that, this is a legislative item. So it is being presented to you as the planning commission to hold the official state required public hearing. And then the state code gives you the authority to make recommendation to the city council and gives the city council the ultimate decision making authority in this type of application for rezones. With that, staff is available for questions.

All right. I'm not seeing any questions now. Okay.

It's been brought up about larger animals. Does there need to be any kind of designation put on that or how do we handle the fact that they can have the smaller animals like the lambs or the chickens but they can't have the horses or the pigs? Is there anything we should do or shouldn't do? I'm just asking.

There are some regulations in the code, but the code does not allow a distinction between separating out large versus medium versus small. The number is regulated by the property size, so the number would be limited based on the size of the property. But other than that, there's not a way that I can think of where you could pick and choose between the two.

Yes.

So as he has it configured, small animals, very small animals are what they have. Another owner could actually tear down everything and put in horses, other things on that property. However, it would fit the A20 certification, right? Because it's big enough for horses and stuff. Correct. They couldn't put a horse in that current area that they have right now, probably.

The aid designation would allow them the right to have up to two horses, two large animals on the property. The sheep are considered medium animals but they could not have both. I believe that they're allowed up to six sheep on the property or two large animals and it's kind of a, you could mix those but it would be kind of a point system and once you meet

What I'm getting at is that he could expand that or anything the future they could do the whole back He would have to do as we drove through the neighborhood There was some further north that had some corrals and things like that He would have to do something like that that was Addressing the horse issue if they were to get those that would take care of horses properly Yeah, so to put horses and cows in there as it is would probably not be feasible to have to go he would have to read you know and redesign the backyard and take out all that stuff and

That's what I was getting to. Thank you.

All right. Any other questions? OK. Thank you, Jake. We may bring you back up after. OK. We will now open this item up to public comment. So if you're here to speak to this item, please come to the podium and state your name and address. Be careful. And you'll have about three minutes, please.

OK. I hope I can get this all in in three minutes. My name is Adele Clark. I am the neighbor to the south of Matthew Grant. I developed the acre. We subdivided it into half acres. When we came to Sandy City to get building permits, we were told, and it was no problem for us, that we could only be zoned R120. So we subdivided knowing and happy that we weren't gonna have farm animals associated with our lot or the lot to the north. So everything was fine until March of this year when mr. Grant added sheep to his property and I went to code enforcement I asked code enforcement to get the sheep removed because he wasn't zoned for sheep and code enforcement Brian I can't think of Brian's last name off the top of my head told me that they would be removed pending the outcome of the rezoning well they're not removed they've been there since March and They're loud. They're noisy. I can't sleep with my windows open anymore. Matt says that they aren't noisy. They are noisy all the time. I can't work out in my yard. It's a constant reminder that I have a farm living next to me that isn't zoned to be a farm. It was never intended to be a farm. When my husband and I built, my husband's deceased now, and it was never our intention. to be living next to a farm. That's why it was zoned R-120. We kept that zoning in place. It's my understanding that when Matt came to rezone, he was informed that because there was a four lot group of homes, we were the first homes to build in that was originally Salt Lake County land. that all four of us were zoned R120 and had to be zoned R120 per Sandy City regulations. So we were zoned correctly. Nobody on Hagen Road from 114 South all the way down into the other subdivision has farm animals to my knowledge. There may be corrals, but there are no farm animals on that road. There are several of us that don't want to live by farm animals. And so I would ask That sandy city uphold code and that should have had the farm animals removed, and I asked multiple times to have the farm animals removed, and they've never been removed. So somehow, Mr. Grant got permission to keep the animals. Now, Mr. Grant has stated, Mr. Barry Evans has stated to me personally, and Lyle Wagner, who is the sweetest man on the earth, none of them are gonna have farm animals. Mr. Grant has even stated that he probably won't have farm animals going forward. So I would respectfully ask that this planning committee keep that in consideration and vote no. The four lots that came in, I had two of them. We zoned them R120, never intended to live by a farm. Do you have any questions for me?

We will do that during our deliberation phase. We might bring you back up if we need to. Thank you so much for taking the time.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this? Yes, please come forward and state your name and address. You'll have three minutes as well.

Okay. My name is Debbie Judd. I live to the north of the Grants. To be fair, I travel for a living, so I was gone three weeks in May and three weeks in June and the first part of July. When we built our home 24 or so years ago, we were told we would not be agriculture. And so that was our understanding. I was surprised and asked Jake if we were indeed agriculture. And I haven't heard back that I know of. I don't know. I'm not good with my emails all the time. My concern with having a half acre with Sandy City allowing big animals. I trust grants. I 100% trust grants. But I don't trust if they sell and somebody else coming in. They could have two horses. They could have two cows or two cows. They could have five sheep. I mean, it's – if people know that and the size of the lot, grants take fabulous care of their yard. But as you can see, there's a big detached garage. I can't imagine someone pulling that down. It's beautiful. Cement basketball court. And the animals – I've got a neighbor who this has affected. He can't get on Zoom. He can only hear it. So I didn't ask for permission to use their names. They're more affected on the circle on Williamson behind them to the east. I used to live on that circle and years ago I had the same fight when they were, even before Adele, because they were trying to divide up in half acre lots and they wanted three horses per lot. And we said, no, because they're going to put them next to our fence. And the circles off Williamson have very small yards. So anyway, I used to be on that side of the argument. I'm on this side. I don't want to be agriculture. I don't know if I am indeed agriculture. But I feel like it would be cruel to animals. And I've seen people be cruel to animals, to have two horses there, even if they took them somewhere to ride them and run them. I mean, where? Where? In the cement and with the big garage? Or two cows? If the designation could be medium or small, but according to what I've called and tried to find out, there's no way to designate that. It's either all in or all out. And I think just for the sake of the size of livable, if Sandy City cared, about how much area is still there for animals, then I might be more in. But I'm a no-go if Sandy City doesn't care about that. And it's, you know, these two large animals could one day be there of horses or cows. So that's just my thought. And I would like to know if I am agriculture. It was our understanding. When we built, we had a one Lots of division we had to do and we were told we were no longer Agriculture when we did that so okay.

Thank you so much you And a member of the staff can help answer that question about your zoning I'm sure Jake or somebody else could help answer that question after the meeting yep, okay Mike do we have anybody online

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. John Dudash you may unmute yourself and please state your name and address for the record. John, you can go ahead and unmute yourself.

Can you hear me now?

Yes. Go ahead.

OK. Three points. One, we don't need to undo what's already been done. Let's keep all of our current networks the same as they are. Number two. Sorry, I lost you.

Go ahead, Mr. Dudash. I think we might have lost him. Mr. Didache, you can unmute yourself. It looks like you hit mute on your device.

Darn it, we had him for a minute.

We did. I'm seeing no other hands at this time.

We could report to him to put it in through an email if he would like.

Yeah, he just said he'd like to comment.

He can participate if he joins through the link and not through the phone connection. Phone connection only allows to listen. But he's welcome to provide public comment in writing and provide that to Jake outside of the meeting and those comments will get forwarded to the to the city council when it goes before that body.

Great. Thank you.

I'm seeing no other hands at this time.

Okay. All right. We will go ahead and close this item to public comment and open it up for questions and deliberation of the commission. Anybody have questions? Yes.

I had a couple comments from questions from Jake.

While Jake's coming up I'll just answer the question that was brought up in the public comment. The property 1153 is part of the R 120A zone designation.

I'll add to that. I sent an email to Debbie on Friday, said I did pull the files for the annexation and subdivision associated with your property. All references to zoning that I saw in those files indicate that the property was intended to be zoned R120A as the city maps currently show it. So I don't know if she didn't get that email, but it was an email sent.

So I believe you said that the Planning Commission initially did put it A, and then when it came out, it was not A. Is that correct?

I did find minutes on the annexation of these four properties. The Planning Commission recommendation was R-120A. I did not find City Council minutes. The ordinance for the annexation just as R120 and that's the official document that we go by.

In that area, how many other homes are designated R20 without the A? Are most of the homes? None that I'm aware of. The four. Because I know that large area there, probably everybody's A.

Again, the properties to the south are R110, the properties to the east are R110, everything to the north and to the west are larger lots and all but these four have the A designation.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. We ready to move for a motion on this item?

How are we feeling I'll move to forward a positive recommendation for the City Council to approve the application of the zone change to the subject property from r110 to r120 a second Daniel Schoenfeld.

Yes

David Hart. Yes. Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan. Yes. Ron Mortimer. Yes. Steve Wrigley. Yes. Laniece Davenport. Yes. This motion carries.

Ma'am we're not taking public comment at this time. We can address your questions out in the hall.

All right. Before we move on to the next item, we did view, we did take a tour of this location. It was a beautiful yard. Okay, Mike, will you move us on to the next agenda item? Yes.

The next item is a proposed code amendment that Sandy City is putting forward to address detached ADUs that are currently not allowed in Sandy City but this proposal would amend several sections of code to make that possible. Melissa Anderson will be presenting on behalf of Sandy City.

great thanks Melissa so we have that presentation on another slide deck and so we'll put that up here in just a second there we go that was quick thank you and so we're back again we had a uh... good discussion uh... with that proposed draft text amendment at the last session and we got a lot of feedback on that and uh... so we made some revisions to uh... the proposed code we incorporated some of those recommendations from the planning commission at that time and uh... so i'm going to go through the proposal some of this some repetition but this is officially a public hearing and so for the public and the record just want to make sure that we're communicating everything so the accessory dwelling units were proposing these code amendments one of the big reasons is because the new state law SB 84 and I'll be presenting some definitions, application procedures, general requirements, and then requirements specific to attached ADUs and extended living areas as well as detached ones. So the new state law is effective October 1st, and cities such as Sandy must allow for detached ADUs. on residential lots at least 11,000 square feet or greater and We currently allow for attached ones or internal to the house, but this is a mandate by the state to allow for them detached as well now the state law though is not the only reason and there was also comments about making sure we understand the purpose of this so to summarize in our general plan the goals and policies of that which also includes moderate income housing plan which is mandated by the state in general there is support for attached accessory dwelling units, be it attached as well as detached. because this would encourage a variety of housing options and it would also be available for different types of households. There was also some nuances about that support but with requirements for owner occupancy to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties and ensure ADUs are subordinate to the primary structure. Um, now, uh, the definition for accessory dwelling unit is that it's a self-contained habitable living unit. It includes a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping areas, and it's used as a rental. That's a significance is that you can rent it out. And so if it's each, um, attached, um, it would be incorporated into the existing single family home. but it will not substantially alter the structure or its appearance is the intent. If it's detached, it's intended to be subordinate to and detached from the primary dwelling on the same lot or parcel. Now, we also have extended living areas. They're similar but different. Extended living areas are designed for use by the occupants of the primary dwelling on a non-rental basis. So if it's attached, it's additional living facilities within a primary single-family dwelling that contains a kitchen or kitchenette. But it also may have associated living quarters like bathrooms and sleeping areas. If it's detached, it's additional living facilities detached from the primary single-family dwelling. It contains a kitchen, bathroom, sleeping area, or other habitable areas. And so these definitions are important when we talk about, well, how many of these extended living areas can you have? Well, how many accessory dwelling units can you have inside the house or outside the house? So that's where the definition really comes into play because it's connected to that in particular of how many you can have. Now the proposal as it stands now is to allow them on residential properties at 11,000 square feet or greater and that's the minimum required by state law but our recommendation is to consider expanding the areas next year in our comprehensive code update. And so I know that the Commission was in favor of at least 10,000 square foot lots. We have a lot of R110. This map shows areas of the city that has lots 11,000 square feet or larger. This one shows lots that are 10,000 square feet or larger, which is not a tremendous jump in terms of eligible properties. This one shows 8,000 square foot or larger. And this is a significant increase in terms of you know, where it could be eligible. But the City Council ultimately, the Planning Commission's recommendation will go to City Council for their final decision. So there's some things we do now and we would propose to continue to keep doing that. Now, internal or attached ADUs, they're allowed in all the residential zones. State law also requires they are allowed in all the residential zones. and the detached ad is the proposal right now before the Planning Commission is that it would be the minimum required by the state lot size 11,000 square feet or greater. We currently do and we recommend continuing that when you have an ADO, it's special use permit with business license. Also, we have clear and objective standards as opposed to discretionary decisions that would go to planning commission. Owner occupancy, which is also consistent with our general plan policy. Keep having just one address and utility meter and We record affidavits typically at the time of a building permit when they're doing some renovation to provide for these things. The process that we have is extended living area. It's typically at building permit and then we have the affidavit. It doesn't slow down the process, but it's something that is part of that building permit review and approval. Accessory dwelling unit, it would be at building permit with affidavit. In addition to that is a special use permit. which is basically a permitted use. It's just going through to make sure that they meet all the requirements with a business license. And the maximum number. So the maximum number that is proposed right now is that only one ADU on a lot meaning one rental on a lot. It's either attached or detached, one or the other. And only one detached, habitable, living unit where it's self-contained, where you have all the elements to be able to live like a little apartment or studio or your ADU. It's either ADU for rental or extended living area, but only... if it's detached only one and now with that situation you could have for example a pool house with you know a bathroom and for washing after the pool and and like that but it's not totally self-contained and then you can have the extended living area or ADU in addition to that. That's the intent of that is that only one of them is fully self-contained to operate as a kind of apartment or rental or for your extended family. Now inside the house, extended living areas are not limited, they're basically unlimited, like you could have multiple kitchens or many kitchens throughout the house, but only one to be a fully self-contained habitable living unit. And so that's the proposal as it is right now.

Can I ask a question? Yeah. So can we go back one slide? So if I had like in my basement, if I had a bathroom, two bedrooms, and then a little wet bar, it's just for use for like Super Bowl parties, Thanksgiving, stuff like that. Is that considered extended living area or is that exempt because it's just within my primary house? So I can still have a detached ADU with that extended living space on the inside.

Yeah, you could have both. Yeah, in the house, it's just your, yeah, like a party room kind of a thing.

I think what her distinction was is that there's only, you can only have one extended living area that is what she's terming to be self-contained habitable living units.

Okay, so if I have a basement apartment and a detached...

No. So we're talking about internal only. So that detached is not considered in that equation my understanding. So it would be that let's say you wanted to have your son or daughter and their family have some privacy in some area and then you wanted to have your parents have some privacy and have another area where they were able to do that. That's under this ordinance is not allowed.

basically the intent is that there's only one rental allowed on the property okay so that's where that top line is only 180 you on a lot one rental if it's inside the house or outside the house it's only one rental and then in these detached if let's say I have these two detached structures and one's a pool house and then the other one is a full like apartment with, you know, you can live in it, you could have those two, but you can't have two full detached ADUs. And then inside the house, there's unlimited, like, you know, we're not going to count all the kitchens or many kitchens, but in terms of a fully self-contained, like, full-on basement apartment with all the accoutrements, just one within the house as opposed to multiple. a fully operable apartment kind of a deal.

So you can have, just to clarify, you can have one ADU that's detached in the backyard as long as you meet all the requirements and you can have one extended living unit or an addition on the side of the house.

Yeah, within the house. So if it was too detached, you couldn't necessarily have one extended living area and one... on ADU if they're both self-contained, fully operational. But yeah, you could have a full internal extended living or basement apartment and then have an ADU or extended living area detached. But the overriding is only one rental on the house. The intent is, you know, these are going into single family areas and, you know, people move into those areas intending to, you know, expect a certain amount of density and, you know, activity and so it's trying to, you know, balance things and not Overrun the property with just multiple rentals through up throughout at this stage Anyway in terms of what we think we also want this to be acceptable We're required by the state this time minute to meet the minimum requirements our general plan has support for this but also we want to have people to embrace this or accept this and not just come out with such strong liberal standards that it creates such a heavy impact that people don't accept it. And so there's just some of these balancing things that come into play, you know, right or wrong or, you know, depending on your perspective. Those are just some things that we're thinking about. So additional parking spaces, we did get feedback on that from the Planning Commission that additional parking spaces the state allows for us and we want to recommend one parking space required if you have a detached ADU that's less than 650 square feet. And then two, if it's more than 650 square feet. But if it's within a half a mile of a transit station, to reduce that parking requirement by one space. That's my understanding of what I heard from the Planning Commission last time. And so if it was within a half a mile of the transit station, and let's say the ADU is more than 650 square feet, you'd only need one parking space. And if it was less than 650 square feet near the transit station, you wouldn't need any because you could reduce that to one. Anyway, that's what we thought we heard and so we incorporated that.

Can I just ask a point of clarification on that? So in the example you gave where you have two for 650 square feet or larger and they live within a half mile of a transit station so they only need one parking stall, if for some reason they have two cars they still cannot park that on the street, correct?

They're not prohibited from parking on the street because it is a public street.

So then within the half mile of the transit station the reality is we're probably going to have cars parked on the street.

They may. They may.

But I think the intent there is that the likelihood that they'd need two cars is less because they can be transit oriented meaning that they're within a walking distance of a transit station and have less dependability or reliability on having multiple cars at a resident.

I understand the logic. I don't know that I agree with that.

That's fine. I'm just helping you understand the reasoning why we have it set up that way.

I think the last time we had you didn't need any parking but we changed it to if you are within the proximity then it would just be allow you to reduce it by one keep in mind regardless we do require for on-site parking spaces to begin that's your baseline to in a garage to in the driveway and so I And if you did the ADU, these spaces are not necessarily required to be within a garage or covered. They could be uncovered and they can also be tandem, one right behind another, you know, if it fits on the lot appropriately within the setbacks and all that. So in that sense, providing that more parking is not as expensive as your primary house. next maximum size of detached accessory dwelling units we have kept that the same there was a lot of discussion of whether that should be amended but we've kept it the same that it's based on building coverage so we're not counting each floor and counting the square footage but that in terms of building coverage and the intent is to be subordinate in size to the primary structure It's 75% or less of the size of the primary dwelling footprint. So that means if the primary house was 1,000 square feet, then 75% of that is 750 square feet. And to be kind of in line with our building lot coverage to be no larger than the building coverage for an accessory structure. And so that we refer to our tables there where, let's say, if you have a lot that's anywhere from 15,000 to 19,999 square feet. You could have a maximum of 1,000 square foot detached structure or 25% of the lot, whichever is less. You also have to compare that to make sure it's no larger than 75% of the primary dwelling. So that is what we proposed last time and we've maintained that. Location, there was discussion on whether the accessory dwelling units should be allowed in front of the house but still meet those front setbacks. or particularly on a corner lot right now as it stands it's the way we had it before without a change and so it would be allowed on the side and rear yards side and rear yard or behind the house and not allowed in the front yard as opposed to the front setback But in properties of 40,000 square feet or more, because it is a much larger lot in those situations, the main house might be set back even greater than your normal setback. And so we're recommending to allow an ADU to be allowed in front of the house in the front yard, but must meet the front yard setback. Building height and setback. So these are combined because the height is intrinsically aligned with your setback. So our recommendation is basically a one story, 15 feet maximum building height. You must be set back 10 feet from the side and rear property line or more. And you have to be also six feet away from the primary dwelling. These are just some examples of some small ADUs that would meet that size but you could be taller than 15 feet but in that case you're going to have bigger setbacks and you cannot be taller than the primary dwelling so more than 15 feet That would be fine if you're no taller than the primary dwelling and you would meet the same setbacks as the primary dwelling in that zone, but also no less than 10 feet from the setback. On some of the smaller zones, there's an 8-foot side setback. That's why it's no less than 10 feet. And so that's the recommendation for building height and setbacks. And these are just some taller units. Balconies and decks, they are prohibited on roofs and second story unless they meet the setbacks of the main dwelling in the zone. So the intent of that is, well, if you're basically meeting all the setbacks like the main house, and the main house could have a balcony, why can't the ADU have one? So that's why it would be allowed, but under those conditions. And basements in this proposal would be allowed. Conversions, conversions also would be allowed, but a conversion of an existing accessory dwelling. The stipulation is it must be a legal structure. now if it was created without a building permit let's say 10 years ago you can apply for a building permit to legalize that structure so that allows you the avenue to be a legal structure that could be considered for this and also though because detached structures right now you can come real close to that property line as close as two feet the habitable area of the detached ADU. If you're going to convert that, we're recommending that that meet the setbacks and the standards of the code. So this illustration kind of shows you one example of, well, the building was close to the property line, but if you meet a 10-foot setback, the habitable portion of that could be used for your detached ADU or extended living area.

Could I make that a patio? Would that still fit this or not? section the other two feet yeah so very within the ten feet if I had eight feet 92 could I make what could I do with that you could well you could have a storage depending on the size maybe that's you know garage garage area

In terms of patio areas, if it's a covered patio, we would measure the post as part of the foundation of the structure, and so that has to meet a setback. If it's uncovered and just a cement open area, that would not be counted as like the building, and so that could be within the setback area.

The reason I ask that, we had one person submit, taking basically a shelter and a eight feet or less and wanting to make it into ADU, and you were saying you'd not be allowed to do that.

Well, actually, that's a good point. Thanks for reminding me. We did get that comment letter where someone had a case study, and that was a good example, where they have a detached accessory structure. It was built about eight years ago. It was legal that it had a building permit and it looks definitely like it could be easily converted. The only thing is that because it was meeting our accessory structure standards where you can go close to the property line, it's only seven feet away as opposed to 10 feet away from the property line. It's about 17 feet tall as opposed to 15 feet tall. That structure could be converted, but the habitable portion of it would have to meet that setback. the three feet on the the perimeter that could not be used as the habitable portion of the ADU and they could even though it's two feet higher they still could have that considered for a conversion It'd have to meet all the building codes. But just because it's two feet higher, it doesn't mean that it's precluded from being allowed. But they couldn't have the living space up there. But when you have a structure like that, there's not a lot of room for that.

Thank you.

Some examples, so these were just some pictorial examples of a layout and you can have different facades on the house. 535 square foot example and it includes two bedrooms and one bath. This one is an 800 square foot example with two bedrooms and two baths. Two-story example, 600 square feet, one bedroom, one bath, and 1,000 square footer, three bedrooms, two baths. And then we had some examples that we showed before. These ones are R16 zone, where your lot size has to be at least 6,000 square feet, so much smaller. And it did show how we could get some ADUs. It really depends on what's existing there on the lot. And this one is the R18 examples. This showed, let's see, there's three examples there. One allowed for an ADU of 400 square feet, another one 516 square feet, and another one 384 square feet, given the existing conditions on a 8,000 square foot lot approximately. So it's definitely feasible, it just depends on the lot and what's there now. Now these are new ones. This is an R110 example. We have to acknowledge Mike Wilcock's efforts on this. He took several hours putting these together, analyzing this to scale. So this shows R110s. We have an example where you could fit a 575 square foot ADU on the lot, and another one is a 750 square foot ADU. And these are to the footprint. So if they met setbacks and they could do it, potentially have a basement or a second floor. It really depends on what kind of setbacks they're dealing with if they're doing a second floor.

What's also illustrated in the dotted red line is the area of buildability for a primary structure. So that's where you could if it's detached could fit a structure within those setbacks you could go to a second story or things of that nature. But if you're fully detached and want to go as close to the property You can like for this one on Brook Glen I show a potential footprint of a fifteen hundred square foot structure which would be the maximum size that they could go under this proposed ordinance and it would be outside of that typical area but they have enough room on their lot if they wanted to scoot it back and further into the lot they could go to a second story and have larger square footage total for that proposed structure. But this gives some good case studies applying how this would actually function in real life if these codes as written were applied.

Yeah, this took a lot of work, so I really appreciate Mike's efforts on this. R140A example. We have a 400 square foot ADU. You said that one is existing?

Yeah. So that's an interesting case study because this one received a conditional use permit for a guest house and a detached barn. So it's a barn dominium there. So it actually does house animals in that facility as well as a garage. And so at the time we allowed for guest house and they were limited to 400 square feet. But the total square footage of the structure exceeded the maximum of 2000 square feet. So they received a conditional use permit to go beyond the 2000 square feet. Now that conditional use process would still be in effect for non-ADU spaces or extended living area detached spaces. So for the other storage garage farm animal buildings that total square footage could still be increased for the total coverage of accessory buildings total on the lot. Now in an A designation there is no limit to the number of buildings. In all non-A designated properties you can have up to two detached buildings on a lot. In an A designation the number of buildings isn't capped but the total square footage is. So in a rural example like this they can go and seek through a conditional use permit up to 3000 square feet through a CUP. They got up to I think it was up to 2500 on this example just shy of 25. And so they could increase that total ADU beyond the 400 square feet but they'd have to go back and get a modification to that CUP to allow for that expansion. They'd be allowed up to 1500 square feet for an ADU. Well actually in this case they could go up to 2000 total for an ADU and the remaining structure would be limited to up to 3000 combined. if that makes sense. And then yeah the adjacent property is a much larger. Oh yeah I'm sorry.

I'm sorry I thought we were. OK here you go.

Yeah they have an existing a couple of existing accessory structures totaling 750 square feet. So without getting a CUP not expanding that beyond the 2000 square foot limit they could still get a 1250 square foot accessory dwelling unit footprint. placed on their lot. And you can see with the red line if they move that a little bit further inside they could go to two stories and still be compliant. Because again the square footage limitation is based on footprint not total square footage. So basements wouldn't count, second story wouldn't count towards the limitations. It's just the footprint of that. So we're allowing quite a bit of optionality there for these ADU and ADU designs. So if you go to the next one, this shows some estate lot examples. So these would be examples where the house is set pretty far back, like in the example of 10542 South Wasatch Boulevard. The house is set way far off of Wasatch. The red line, the dash red line indicates a 30 foot setback from the street which is typical and then 15 foot side yard setbacks and a 30 foot rear. So they'd have an option of either putting an ADU out in front, that's where the kind of darker color shows that potential for having an ADU out in the front yard area as long as it meets the setbacks of the primary structure. And then if they didn't want to do that, they could still do an ADU in the backyard that shows a potential for that. And that's showing a maximum square footage of 2,000 square feet. And again, that's based on what other structures they have. If they have additional structures on the property already, that total size of the ADU would be reduced potentially. Or they could seek a CUP to exceed that for their non-ADU buildings to go beyond that maximum square footage. And the rear yard area is mapped out with that hatched area. So that's where we take into account what the total square footage of the rear yard of those lots and then 25 percent of that or the alternative maximum size in that zone is what applies. In this case most of all of these homes have larger rear yard areas than what the maximum structures is permitted by right.

okay so I do believe that covers everything and I know we had comments from Commissioner Bromley that had specific considerations that I'd like to talk about but we can answer any questions now we're available after as well can open up a public hearing if you'd like

Yes, let's open the public comment period for this. And then we can take it back and bring it back to the commissioners. Thank you, Melissa. Thank you. All right. So let's open this item for public comment. If you're here in the audience and you'd like to speak to this, please come to the podium, state your name and address, and you'll have about three minutes.

All right. My name's Todd Vanderlinden. My address is 1875 Alabama Way. Sorry, I'm not good with speaking in front of people. No need to be sorry. Glad you're here. My concern is specifically how the proposed ordinance treats existing accessory structures, particularly when it comes to setbacks and heights. State Bill 284 requires a process for a homeowner to convert a legal accessory structure into a detached ADU. I believe Sandy's ordinance should provide a realistic way to do that. My own property is a good example. I have a half acre lot zoned R120A. I have a detached garage built in 2008 with a footprint of 936 square feet. It has seven foot setbacks to the side and the back and a height of 17 feet. All these measurements are under the maximum allowance for a detached structure. I would like the ability to convert that existing garage into an ADU initially to provide a pathway towards independence for my young children and in the future, my mother to maintain her independence while still having family nearby. I would also be removing a large amount of irrigated sod for the extra parking, which would save water in our drought. Under Sandy's current proposal, my detached garage would not qualify for an ADU due to setbacks in height. I asked Sandy to allow existing structures to be converted to detached ADUs while retaining their setbacks in heights that were previously allowed by Sandy. Please consider a meaningful path to allow this, letting Sandy families utilize their properties to support multi-generational needs, which is critical in today's economy and housing. I have a picture here of mine existing. It's got seven foot setback, seven foot height. It does not make sense to knock the structure down to kick it over to 10 feet. It is very hard for children nowadays to rent an apartment and to get ahead in life. I want this to be a stepping stone for my children to be able to get out on their own and be able to be part of society. Anyway, current zoning allows up to a 1500 square foot garage in my backyard with 20 foot height. two-foot setbacks to the fence. There is no difference to take that garage and convert it to an apartment than there is. It's not going to affect the neighbors anymore. The structure is existing. It is there. Even to kick back, as she talked about, you know, five, ten feet to the side, it's not going to change the exterior. It's not going to change the view of anything. It's not going to change anything. So I... I feel very strongly about this. I think it's something that needs to happen with everything that's going on today. My daughter is 20 years old. My son is 17 years old. He's a senior. She's in college. It is very hard financially. And to give them a path, we have better opportunities. Get an apartment, rent for two years, save up, buy a house. That is very impossible nowadays. It's very hard. So please consider allowing these things... I understand cities. I looked into Lehigh. I understand cities struggle. They allowed it. There will be no on-street parking. There will be off-site. So anyway, could I give this to you guys just to take a peek at?

Sure, if you can give it to Mike.

We did provide that to the Planning Commission. You got this? Okay. Yeah, we forwarded that to the Planning Commission after we received it. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thanks for coming and providing comments. Sorry I don't speak well, man. No, you did great. It looks like we have somebody else coming. Please come to the podium and state your name and address. You'll also have about three minutes.

Let me set my timer. Well, hello, everyone. My name is Dr. Wendy Davis. I live at 9066 South Jason K Circle. And I want to say thank you to Code Enforcement, who took care of the issue in my circle this week. They got that done, James. So thank you very much. I just had the privilege of running for House District 40 in a highly competitive Democratic primary. And I lost my 94 votes, which stings a little bit. But I had the privilege of talking to hundreds of Sandy voters. And the number one thing on their mind after the data centers, was affordability. They all talked about it. Young working people talked about it. Older people talked about it. Our families are getting squeezed, and housing is really out of control. I consider myself an advocate for the citizens that live by me, whether I'm their elected official or not. And I am so excited about these attached ADU possibilities. My yard happens to just squeak under the 11,000 square foot rule. So when I speak, I think I'm OK. So I want to say that. This isn't just about me. This is about the neighbors that I heard speak. My husband and I are silver handcuffed to our house right now. We have a reasonable mortgage. We have a super low interest rate. And we have a house that has six bedrooms and three bathrooms, and we are empty nesters. We have talked for years about building a beautiful cottage in our backyard in a neighborhood that we love and a city that we are proud to be part of. So my ask is you consider, and first of all, I do want to say, great job. For the first time I heard this presented, I was like, oh my gosh, you're going to restrict us to death. And I think that you've done a very amazing job at looking at the law and considering how we can really make this workable. If we can remove bureaucratic red tape all the lines and the this and the setback and the that, I'm like, what is happening? If I want to build an ADU, what are my choices? Can I have floor plans that are readily available? Can I have advisement? Can I put it into Claude and says, this is going to work or this is not going to work? How do we remove those barriers for people that do this really quickly and easily? I also agree, if there can be a path to these Illegal ADUs, my neighbors have them. I live in a really old neighborhood. They've built them. That's fine. Let's get them legal, right? This reminds me a little bit about eight or nine years ago when we talked about short-term rentals, which was a very big change culturally. And I think we were terrified about what was going to happen. And we permitted those. And I think it's been very well regulated. And there's probably still permits available, right? This is something that not everyone will be able to do. There'll be early adopters of this program and plan. And I would love to be one of those early adopters. And as I finish, as we can remove as many barriers as we can, this gentleman has children. My children are not welcome to live with me, so they're lucky. But I just want to commend the city for the work that you've done. If we can remove the bureaucratic red tape, make it as easy for residents to comply, make exceptions where it makes sense, I think that Sandy is going to elevate Sandy to even better than we are right now. Thank you for listening. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much. Good job on staying to time. Okay, good. We got another comment. I think you know the drill.

Yeah.

Okay.

Hopefully I can fit this within three minutes. Okay, good evening, chair and commissioners. At the beginning of the planning commission meetings... Please, I'm sorry, please state your name and address. Okay, my name is James Longstaff, and I live at 10095 East, 2285... 10095 South, 2285 East. So now my time starts right now, okay? Okay, good evening, chair and commissioners. At the... The Planning Commission two weeks ago, the Commission decided to recommend an additional parking spot within a half mile radius of a transit station. I'm here today to ask you to please reverse that recommendation. Requiring additional parking makes it more difficult and expensive for homeowners to build attached ADOs. Two weeks ago, it appears the Planning Commission wanted, oh, I already said that. Yes, most adults do drive a car, but the decision to build a parking spot should be between the homeowner and the tenant who is looking to rent the ADU. Many homeowners may choose to still build an additional parking spot even without the requirement. Removing a parking minimum still allows the homeowner to build a parking spot if they so choose. Most of the time, parking minimums aren't based on scientific principles, data, or rigorous studies. Most homes already have more parking spots than they currently use. Requiring, oh, I already wrote that. I'm so sorry. Requiring an additional parking spot with a half mile radius is an expensive and prohibitive requirement based on an arbitrary standard. Salt Lake City has made this change recently for properties within a half mile of a transit station, and they saw an increase in the number of ADUs that were built within that radius. I also would like to comment on the requirement concerning the direction of the door of the attached ADU faces. Like the parking requirement I just mentioned, that requirement seems to be prohibitive and the only benefit of aesthetics, nothing substantive. Could the Planning Commission please also lower the half acre requirement in order to build more ADUs on more lots? As mentioned two weeks ago, I'm a volunteer at Wasatch Advocates for Livable Communities. Please implement any other recommendations made by WACC in the proposal of the City Council. The housing shortage is putting an undue burden on me and other people like me, which in my opinion includes most residents younger than 40. Our schools are losing enrollment because Sandy is not attracting enough young families to our cities. Canyon School District is considering closing schools, including Park Lane Elementary, which is in my neighborhood. Sandy is and will continue to face many other challenges as we enable red tape that blocks homeowners from providing housing options to young families and seniors. Please consider the recommendation's walk, and I have proposed to you today. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity for me to speak to you today.

Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Anybody else in the audience would like to step forward. OK. Do we have 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 and we'll address you one at a time. I do have one hand. Miss Diane Nicholson you may unmute yourself. Please state your name and record for before you speak.

Good evening. My name is Diane Nicholson and I live at 2026 Ashley Ridge Road here in Sandy and I concur with the previous speakers about the goal of this proposal should focus on helping with our housing shortage a little bit more than just meeting compliance with the Utah code. And I'm specifically focusing on two items. The first is the lot size. When I look at the maps of the 11,000 square feet lots and 10,000 and 8,000, almost all those lots are east of Wasatch Boulevard or south of the Simple Dell gully. And I think there's a lot of people in other areas of Sandy that could benefit from having an ADU. I looked up on Google, not very accurate, but I looked up what the median lot size was in Sandy and it recorded it as 8,500 square feet. And so I'm suggesting that We go beyond compliance and reduce this lot size to help more people, people that are lower income than what the current plan seems to do. The other suggestion I would have is that the setback I believe that the setback requirements are often based on lot size. And so instead of having a 10-foot setback for all lot sizes, I think it should go down. The planning committee would know what that would be better than me for lot sizes that are smaller. So again, I'm requesting that the planning commission consider a reduction in lot size to look at the setback requirements to try and help more people in Sandy, more than the 20% or 26% that have lot sizes above 11,000 and 10,000 square feet, respectively. I think this is a really exciting thing that's going to happen with our city, and I'm excited to see what happens. And thank you very much for allowing us all to speak and considering this proposal. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Mike do we have anybody else?

I'm seeing no other hands.

Okay hearing and seeing no other hands we'll go ahead and close this item to public comment. Before we move it back to the commission for deliberation, I'd like to remind everybody that we do need to act on this tonight. We do need to move forward a recommendation to the council. Another reminder is, or not a reminder, but a huge thank you to Melissa and Mike and the team for all of the work that you put into this. It's been a whopper. I think that is an official planning commission term of an item. So thank you so much for your work on this. With that said, I know that the Planning Commission has six recommendations that differ slightly from the staff recommendations. And I would like to go through each of those individually and try to come to a consensus on each of these. And then we'll take a motion at the end and then move forward. Does that sound like a good path forward?

That sounds great. I also just wondered if any of these public comments should be addressed at this point as well. In particular I think the Vanderlin and one would be nice to maybe get a little more flavor on that aspect of it. Which one? The one with the accessory structure that has seven foot setbacks with 17 foot height. So I guess I have some questions on that. So anyway, are we okay to do that?

Thank you. I think it does make sense to get our questions answered. I imagine there will be more as we move through. But if we want to get some of these answered right off the bat, that sounds great.

Do you cover that at all?

I do not.

Do you want to talk about that first?

That's what I was wondering. I guess the questions I had on that, I'm very much in favor of trying to get paths forward for these structures and trying to figure out what makes the most sense overall. I think that what I've seen within the staff reports, Well I guess the first question I had on that was I heard that there was some way to move forward with regards to the height with it being 17 feet versus this 15 foot because it's so do we want that on record?

Why don't you come back up? It's fine.

It's fine, but it's not on record.

Yes, that would be allowed.

Okay.

So the height sounded like... That will not preclude them from... Because this is just a single story, but the portion... that they can use for habitable area as it's proposed would have to meet the standards.

So my understanding of the way this shows is that it would be the three feet that is inside the setback is the issue at this point, is that correct? That's correct. And that they would be able to have habitable habitating activities within the structure that is not that three feet.

Is that understanding correct? Yes but I wanted to mention that The intent behind some of this language or why we propose some things is because we believe that when you're living in it, there is more intense activity as opposed to a detached garage or shop or just detached structure you're you're Putting your lawn equipment in and things like that as opposed to someone's living in it coming in and out playing music You know, etc another caveat or something to consider would be you know, because it's closer than we normally would allow to that property line, is no openings, you know, on that. That's another way to consider it.

What are you calling an opening? A window?

Windows, doors, to mitigate the impact. That structure now is closer than we'd normally, if you're building it new.

So you're saying that if they had a window there and they covered it, that they would be okay?

I'm just saying that the way we have it proposed is that you couldn't use, basically, there's a difference of three feet on the perimeter of two sides. But just another idea, putting it out there, and perhaps that's complicating things, but it's intended to mitigate, you know, the... to the neighboring property. And so ways to mitigate or impacts can come from where you have windows and doorways where you're just going to hear and experience more activity that proximity to the property line.

So the issue with the setback is to deal with... Privacy to the neighboring property it's not neighboring fire Because the one thing I'm concerned about is let's say you have a subdivision where you've got a bunch of these that are a total of six feet apart because they put them three feet from the property line. And all of a sudden you've got something that's very close to each other. And does that come into it at all?

They do have to meet the building code, fire code. So that's already in there and that's actually in state law as well. So in that sense, any requirement with a building code, be it fire rated materials and the like, depending on proximity to property line, that will come into play.

So they can mitigate that through a fire suppression system of some sort?

Yes, just by building fire code and health and safety. So that's in there now and that just kind of layers on top of it.

Firewall requirements only kick in if they're closer than five feet to a property line.

So how close are you?

Seven. Seven feet.

Seven feet.

So let's flush this one out a little bit more because I think it will provide some good flavor to what I think would be allowed.

I agree. So my question is that we have thousands of these which would be nonconforming. that were built under the guise of maybe a shed or whatever. Sure. And now we're going to tell the neighbors who said the shed's fine, now we're telling them you have a living unit next to you. So sort of a bait and switch some way. In that way, everybody else will be 10 feet. But because you've got it in under a house, it'll come 7 feet or 5 feet or 3 feet or 4 feet.

I think you have to remember also what the state law is requiring us to do, and they're requiring us to provide a reasonable pathway forward. So that's why we're looking at it. It's not so much just converting it wherever they are. We can put things in and add things that are reasonable and so forth, but they are telling us in state law we have to provide a reasonable path forward. Steve, you can't convert a tough shed.

No actually you could. You could?

Absolutely. You'd have to meet building code for a habitable living space but yes you could do a lot of things. It's just a matter of how much it costs and how much you want to spend. But I'm not going to put on record that you can't do a tough shed because you could. It just may be cost prohibitive to do it that way. But there are ways to do it.

I guess you would. You'd have to put in a real foundation and deal with materials and everything else.

So again, meeting building code and all those things are always going to be required. So if they don't have some of those things, it may be cost prohibitive. And there's not a lot we can do about that. That's a very good point. So from a zoning perspective are the tools that we have to play with and that's where we're proposing that they meet the same standard as far as the habitable portions of the home. Areas that are to be occupied as living space for the unit. Now we may want to tweak some of the language here to allow for clarity regarding that height and specifically state something about single story structures being allowed to convert that are legal. And I think it's important that it's single story if we're talking about these structures that are really close because I don't think we want to inadvertently approve of multi-story structures that are built within you know closer than what we're calling out. But we could we could do some tweaking of this language in this section that I've got up on the screen to specifically address any legal structure that otherwise would have met height requirements but is still a single story. So we're not getting bonus spaces up in the attic or second story or other things in those structures but a structure that is lower. And then what our current provision would say is that the first three feet of that structure anything that's encroaching within that required setback couldn't be habitable space. So it could still be storage, it could still be an exterior shed that's access from the exterior or something like that. I would even say internal.

Why are you saying three feet?

Because the typical setback is ten is what we're proposing. I understand. So the structure is set at seven.

So there's a difference of three feet. We have the fire at five so why not say five?

Because that's not the standard. Because fire code is a different standard entirely.

I get that, but I'm trying to get to where you are with the three feet.

So what we're calling out is a setback standard, not a fire code standard. Okay.

No, no, I get that. I'm just trying to understand where the three feet is coming from.

Okay. So the typical setback for a guest house currently under a current ordinance is 10. Okay. Our proposal for these ADUs is to follow that same 10-foot setback to living space. So habitable living areas that are intended to be occupied, like Melissa said, full time, they have a different impact than a detached shed that's only used occasionally. And because of that increased impact, we believe that it's prudent to have an additional setback of 10 feet rather than the typical accessory structure setback.

So what we're talking about is – So you're saying the accessory structure setback is seven feet?

No, the minimum that they could go is two to three feet. That's the closest the structure can go.

Accessory structure. An accessory structure.

Not a habitable one. Correct. Now, they can move it back. So if they're within that two to five feet, they have to meet fire code. They can't have unprotected openings, no windows, doors, et cetera. They have to meet fire code rating. All of those things. They go beyond five feet. They don't have to meet those requirements. And then what we're talking about is this existing structure. Our proposal is that portions of that structure could be converted but not the entire structure.

Why?

Again, it's going back to those setbacks and the impacts that are increased by changing the occupancy and changing the use.

I think providing the path forward so the door and window issue gets there if there's not door and windows on the side. And then also I would say that having internal storage closets, whatever, within those three feet, I would say that ought to suffice too.

Those could be potential changes that could be proposed by the Planning Commission if you felt like that was appropriate.

You're saying that if there is three, four, five feet, because that's what it could be to avoid the fire code thing, right? We're not dealing with the fire code, but we're saying if they're within that area, right? So if they're over the 10 by 5 feet, they're out of the 5 foot fire code thing, but they're still over it by 5 feet.

So up to 5 feet.

You're going to take 5 feet of the potential habitable area and call it non-habitable. Call it a closet.

Because we're talking about a non-habitable structure now converting to a habitable. So the one that we're talking about that was brought up on Alapana is a garage.

It's a three-car garage. I think that's a reasonable path forward. I think that it does provide an avenue that can get predominantly there with the objectives.

Can I ask a question then? Does that non-habitable space that we've just not converted, right, does it count against the square footage? I understand it counts against the lot coverage, but does it count against the square footage of the space that you can have? In other words, could they do an addition of habitable space within the setbacks?

That would be reviewed on a case by case. I don't know. I haven't studied that a lot.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying is it possible.

It seems like it should be able to be not included. It should be just as an accessory structure.

Right.

You should be able to at that point add on to it. That's what makes the most sense to me. So that you have it make sense. Yes.

The habitable portion, even if they added on, would just have to meet the size requirements.

How do you want to handle that?

I actually agree with Mike on that. If it was a single story structure, it wasn't a one and a half or two story structure that was within the within the setback, had a lesser setback than what would be allowed. Than the primary structure? Than the primary structure. That one story structure, if it was above the 15 feet, should just be allowed.

So just to add to that, my concern would be, if we grandfather clauses them without doing what we're saying, I may not be able to put one in, a new one in, because I need 10 feet by 10 feet, and my neighbor who has this structure now can convert and use his. So I just want to make it fair that going forward, when people come in, that it's consistent rather than saying everybody else.

Part of that reason was why we put in this date, that an existing legal accessory structure constructed prior to October 1st of this year. Because we anticipated we don't want someone building this pool house or whatever a year from now and then six months later coming in and say, now I want to convert it all to a full-on ADO. But I built it not meeting the setbacks with that intention.

Yeah. I think yeah, it's a legit.

Yeah, it's a legitimate Concern, thank you.

Okay We have six other items that I hope we can get through So the way we want to handle this is we're gonna go through we're gonna go through each one of these items in front of us and And we're going to have a conversation. Hopefully we get to a consensus. We can ask Melissa questions and Mike questions and team if we have them. And then take a final motion at the end. I want to start with the entrances. I'm going to skip over number permitted.

Can I ask a question on that, though?

Yes.

Can we not vote on each one? Because I may not agree with all of them, but I may agree with the majority of them.

Then I would say when you do the end Then when they do a motion or whatever that you try to add what you agree or don't agree with the final version And then the vote will take place But you'll have a chance to absolutely agree with Let's get through everything think that what you're saying James is that a pine on record with the individual items we go over and

But it may not have been inclusive of the entirety of the motion and therefore you might not agree with the motion And I wouldn't recommend doing any type of item by item vote.

I agree so you can discuss each item It's good, but don't do a straw poll or vote on each item individually. I

10-4. All right. All right, team. We got this. Okay.

So do communicate is what I think, though.

Yes.

Yes.

No, we do want to communicate each one of them. We're going to start with entrances, section 21111F1A. The Planning Commission recommendation is that we allow corner lots the flexibility to locate the front entryway for ADUs and ELAs which are these extended living areas facing the additional street or streets bordering the lot. Are we all supportive of that amendment?

And that is for attached structures this section not detached just to clarify.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

Can I ask why we didn't start with one?

Because it's going to be tricky. We're going to come back to the tricky one. All right.

Okay. All right. I'm getting out my pen.

Okay. All right. I think we're going to move to the next one then.

Are you putting this up on? Yeah, good. Okay. Perfect. You're putting it up on. That's great.

Okay. We're good on two. Three, which is section 21111F1B5, which is design. The commission recommendation is as follows, that the addition must be connected to the existing home by means of a common wall or breezeway. So that loosens up the code and the staff recommendation.

Can I make an amendment to that? Yeah, what do you think? I'd like to say that the addition must be connected to the existing living area of the home by a common wall, breezeway, and or non-habitable space. We can have a connection and still have non-habitable space make the connection.

Okay. Does that?

I just want to give flexibility.

Let me just note, too, as we're going through these and I thank you, I just want to, if staff, if we say something that makes it so that it's not legal, let us know.

So I just wanted to clarify that, again, this design requirement is for attached. So if you were doing an addition or something adding on to the existing home, I think it's somewhat mitigated this issue or concern because we're allowing for detached ADUs as long as they're built within the envelope of the primary structure which in addition would have to follow that same envelope. This issue of attachment is somewhat moot I would argue.

It's not. No I don't think it is. I agree. I understand where you're coming from. You communicated your thoughts on this one before. Have they changed?

I think the unintended consequence of this is that we'll get some rather and I can already state that we've gotten some requests over the years that I've seen come across our desks of somewhat unintended How can I put this nicely? Not well done additions. And not all are created equal. We've seen some pretty rinky dink connections via Breezeway and kind of cherry stemming a whole other home. adding on to the house and only connecting it through a nominal connection point or breezeway. So I could see this getting abused and having some unintended results as a consequence.

And I think there's far more unintended consequences by not allowing this. And there's so many. The additional costs that are involved with it are massive. The locations where you have to attach onto habitable portions, many lots will be precluded. So you will not be able to provide a path forward if you do not allow these types of connections.

Dave and Mike, what about this thought? So if we kept kind of this language for 20% would be an attached living space, I don't know what we're calling them now, but if it doesn't meet that minimum, then it becomes a detached, even though it's attached with a breezeway per the building code, but for us to look at it, we would look at it as a detached as far as the setbacks and heights and everything else go. If it's not connected by the 20% living space.

Okay, first of all, I think that 20% living space connection is flawed as well.

I don't disagree with that. I'm trying to find some middle ground there.

I don't think there ought to be middle ground, frankly. I think this is a big enough issue on it that I don't – yeah. This is actually one that I think is one of the areas – so I actually do want to – I am concerned about rinky-dink connections, and that's what Mike is concerned about, too. I think that I – So I would be more in favor of staff coming up with some substantiality of defining what a breezeway connection can be. So what I've seen out there is that you know some municipalities have put some minimum so you don't basically just get this little cherry stem wall that comes over.

Here's an example of what I'm referencing. This was done many years ago. And they attached it, quote unquote, attached it through a breezeway. Essentially built a second home on their lot. And there's no substantial connection. This this is a prime example of what I'm concerned about based on your language. But that is my concern. You guys as a planning commission. I'm not trying to.

I'm not sure I would be concerned about that one. OK. I think that I've seen and heard of people doing like these you know just small you know one leg one leg connection and so forth. And I've seen municipalities create some standards around where they're being like a minimum of four feet or six feet or something Like that on that that one's about six feet or whatever it is. That's a long. That's a very long connection And I think you know our concern on this and as a Planning Commission you can decide and send your So I think that the issue though is is that we if we don't allow those breezeway tech connections We are going to preclude a lot of owners from doing this because the costliness of other type connections are massive. The roof lines, the foundations, the many other issues that you have to deal with and then also the locations of the home to be the non-habitable, to be habitable. So I think that those barriers are so big that we're going to not allow so many residents the opportunity and so that's why I feel strongly about all aspects of that.

How do we feel about adding that nonhabitable space?

I'm totally fine with that. So staff's portion had some aspects about it being attached to habitable areas. The revised portion that I put down there just was silent on that, but I'm fine with totally addressing it and saying that that's exactly what we're looking for.

Okay, so just as a reminder, the suggestion is that we would remove the staff language and replace it with, the addition must be connected to the existing home by means of a common wall or a breezeway or non-habitable space.

Okay. That may be attached to a non-habitable space.

Okay. Okay. Seeing no other comment on that, we're going to move on to the next one. Okay.

Number four. Oh, wait, let's see. There was a... No, that was it on that one.

Yeah.

Number four is section 21-11-1G3. This is exterior lighting.

Did you need to have any more discussion on the 20% stuff? So I actually think there ought to be paths of connection, like these connections. I actually just don't think that that 20% of those, where I've looked at municipal codes, I think that the most reasonable ones where they're doing stuff require 10-foot connection. So this one, you could have a 2,000 square foot building and you'd have a 32 foot wall.

I think as long as code doesn't have it in Utah code language for whatever reason, I think we'd be okay.

I was just making sure Cameron was okay.

I understand your point a little better.

Okay. The Utah code doesn't. Okay. Thank you, Melissa. All right. Back on to section or item four, which is the exterior lighting item. So this one is very minor.

I'm against this one.

The new sentence would be exterior lighting shall direct illumination downward and lighting shall be dark sky compliant.

I assume we're all good on that one.

Item 5, section 21.11 development standards. So there are one, two, three, four items within this section. We'll start with the minimum property size.

I'm good with that.

The suggestion is that we reduce the minimum lot size requirement for detached units from 11,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet.

I'm okay with that.

I think I've all told everybody that I'd like to go to 8,000, but I understand that that's a bridge too far right now because that might put too much pressure on the city. So I would like to see us go to 10, and then in a year take a look at seeing if we can go to 8.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. And I did some research, and West Jordan has 10, South Ogden has 10, Ridgefield has 10, Harriman has 10, St. George has 10, Provo is considering 10. Draper went to 12, I don't know why they did that. Anyway, so 10 seems to be sort of the consensus of most of the ones that have passed that.

That's good information, thank you.

I just said you couldn't go to 12 anyway because the law is going to say 11.

Oh, way to go, Draper.

And I will say, some cities have ordinances that have been on the books for years that haven't been updated to comply with the state mandate. And when you're looking at comparative analysis, not all of those have been updated yet.

Thank you for that clarification. Any other comments or feedback on this?

I have a comment on that. I kind of said this the first time we met. My preference would be if it's within the buildable area, going back to that 10 foot, right, on the side yard. I think any zone ought to allow that, but I know that's a bridge too far. But I would love to go to eight. I look at... the number of properties on those maps, one of the commenters commented on that, that I just, I think, They have that right to do an internal ADU, but we're not letting them have the right to do it attached, if they can meet the ordinance. But I'm not going to vote no.

Yeah, I'm with you. I think we ought to give it to everybody. But I also recognize that there's only so much staff can do. And if they get overwhelmed, that's not going to help anybody.

I would actually propose a little different on this aspect of it here. And I also agree that it ought to be lower. But what I wonder if we ought to maybe do is throw a little bit more signal out there and have in our recommendation here, say, reduce the minimum lot size requirement for detached units from 11,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet and work toward a smaller minimum lot size in the future. Yes.

All right. within the next year.

I think that's good because remember we're making the recommendation to the city council or the city council may come back and just say no no no no we're going to stay at 11 but they ought to know where we stand.

And that's why we wanted to provide the analysis of lots all the way down to R16 just to give everyone the information of what that looks like applied all the way down.

What I actually think would be help on those slides which I would suggest you include to the city is not just percent of land but number of parcels.

On these maps?

To include number of parcels that are 11,000 and higher, number of parcels.

No, we've got lots. You've got lots on there? Yeah, we've got lots. Lots, acreage, and percentage.

That's a good idea. We took out the big ones that had a school and a church.

You listed it first, though. Why would you list something like that first?

We want to hide it on the slide as best as possible.

Mission accomplished.

Your proposal would increase that availability by roughly 4,000, a little under 4,000. Additional homes could be eligible. And then you see it jump to 21,000 from the 11,000 that you – Are those lots all homes and they're not –

Yes, we did filter. We were filtering out the like schools or open spaces parks Yeah

To give an accurate count.

Well, as best as we could. I mean, it's an estimate, but I think it's a good visual and, you know, data exercise.

I really appreciated it because it actually helps clarify what we're doing. All right.

So just for clarification's sake, we are going to say that it reduces the new language is reduce the minimum lot size requirement for detached units from 11,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet and work towards smaller lot size in the future. Check. The next item is under location, and the suggestion is that we modify this section to allow new subdivisions with five or more lots to permit new homes to be built with ADUs or ELAs within any portion of the property's standard home setbacks.

So right now, from what we heard, if the lot is over a certain size, you can put a lot. 40,000. 40,000. Which I think is great. But I like this because it's focused on the new subdivision. So if somebody wants to design a subdivision where this all looks consistent, I think it's a great idea. I was one who mentioned last time we were together that I was concerned about individuals coming along and people starting to plunk things in front of their house. But I think if it's designed with the intention of the whole community being that way, I think it could be really nice. We can hope that they do a nice job but we can't basically tell them anything.

That's also why you keep the allowing breezeways because you can regulate design for those structures that are attached by breezeways.

You can. You're not going to be

I don't think the state will be able to come back and say just because that's an ELA or ADU that's attached by a breezeway that you cannot, it doesn't need to look like the home.

Okay. I think we've got consensus on that one and I think we can move to the next one. I'm going to ignore the shaking heads. Okay. The next one on here is maximum size of a detached ADU. So the modification for this section would be to allow larger properties, 40,000 plus or 60,000 plus square feet, and properties within an A or farm animal right designation to bypass standard accessory structure size limits per LDC 21112A2.

So what this is not doing is it's not laying out square footages yet. It's saying staff, you know, figure it out.

Are you looking for increase to the ADU size or are you looking to increase the total allotment allowed for accessory structures on these size lots? I was looking at what was germinating this because as I was demonstrating through those slides and kind of laying out these larger estate lots, they're allowed to have up to 2,000 square feet for an accessory structure. That's footprint, not square footage total. So if they have a basement, that's 4,000 square feet. If they had an upper level, That's up to 6,000. So I'm fine if you leave that. That's very large.

Okay. But also the problem is that there are very large barns that are out there. I have a very large barn on my property. And I would be severely limited on what I would be able to build as far as another accessory, an ADU, a detached ADU.

And that's where I'm wondering if this concern is more related to the total amount of accessory structure size that you're able to have on those lots rather than ADUs.

I'm fine if you keep the 2000 size of the ADU but also then you've got to increase the overall accessory structure from that max of the CUP of 3000 for the

Yeah, because if you maxed out your ADU at 2,000 square foot footprint, you'd be left through a CUP potentially to get up to 1,000 square foot for any of your other accessory structures. Yes. That is what I'm attempting to do. I think that makes sense.

I am totally fine with you.

And as of right now, we haven't opened up that section of code for noticing and things to amend our accessory structure standards. Yeah, you have.

It's part of this. It's referenced as far as this code goes.

Because it amends all the definitions.

Well, we amend some definitions, yes, but we're not amending, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Melissa, but we only notice section 2, or sorry, section 1 of 11, not section 2, which is our accessory structure.

Notice it by the time the city council meets. It's got to come here first before so if we want to open up that section That is what I'm referring to I'm not I'm fine with your mm.

Okay, but

But I'm not fine when that also is impacted by barns and other structures on larger lots that already eat that up. So that's my concern.

I don't think we should penalize somebody with a large lot that has accessory structures they're using and they want to build an ADU.

Because if you look at those diagrams, those exhibits that you had, look at the lot sizes and look at the size of those accessory structures that were out there. They were big. And look at the massive amount of land that was still there. It's big. So it's not a big deal.

So do we need to modify the modified language in any way?

No. I think they have to do some research.

So we can provide this motion, and you can just say, OK, great. This is how you deal with it.

They can make the policy on it. And if they like that, then they could approve everything else. And then we could bring that back as another one through the process.

Was everybody else – I spoke for – was everybody else – I said I'm fine with the max of the 2000. Was everybody else – I'm good. Okay. So, yes, it's the overall accessory structure size thing.

Cool. All right. The next item on this one is building height and setbacks from the side and rear property lines. and the recommendation is that staff should only limit the height requirement of the new adu or Ela to be no taller than the building height of the primary dwelling for lots smaller than 20,000 square feet Rather than have this restriction apply to all properties the height restriction in this section should be kept for all lots smaller than 12,000 square feet

So what you're basically saying then is it should yield back to what the code is for that governing area. Yes. So if a house is not the primary house, let's say code says you can go 32 feet to the top of the roof. If it does not do that, say it only goes to 28 feet, your accessory unit within the building setbacks could go to 32 feet.

Correct.

Can you put that in? It is.

Is it not state with the code? I mean, you can't put that code in there because it's based on the underlying.

No, I would just say based on code.

Based on code would be fine because I didn't know what unlimited we were saying.

The height restriction in this section should be kept for all lots smaller than... 20 feet and lots larger than that would refer to code. Okay.

So in that section, maybe if you pull that section up, I think it does, does it reference code? So if not, you know, according to the underlying property code, if we just make sure we have that.

That would make it better for me. Okay.

Just say property is it code you call it code or is it property requirements or building requirements underlying property. The underlying property zone.

The building the building for the primary dwelling in the underlying zone.

So let me clarify the underlying zone.

So the intent behind this is to not limit the height of a detached accessory dwelling unit for lots 20,000 square feet or larger.

So it is to limit it to based on whatever that property zone is.

Right. So it's not based on the height of the existing dwelling. It's based on the height of the zone. Correct.

Correct.

That's correct. That would be for 20,001 square feet. Correct. 20,000 and above.

Or 20,000 square feet or lower, smaller.

However you want to say it.

Okay.

Okay, I think we're clear on that one. Nice. Okay, moving to the next item, which is number six, which is section 2137.6. This is the definitions. The recommendation is that we modify the two definitions for ADUs and ELAs in order to not broadly include structures that have been built that are not intended to be ADUs or ELAs. Does this get at the both sections that you referenced earlier, Mike? You were saying section one and two or something. Do we need to worry about that?

Well, we have noticed the definitions because we are amending those definitions. What you're referencing back... And I wasn't very clear on this.

Aren't you dealing with structures when you say pool houses or kitchens, kitchenettes or other habitable areas, you're trying to exempt those so you can still do an ADU.

And I will just clarify that that was the intent of us amending these definitions from our first version was we had expressly limited in the number section to limit them based on no detached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory living area and you'd only get one of those. What we've revised this to state in the definition is that an ADU or accessory dwelling unit must be self-contained, habitable living unit, and includes the kitchenette, kitchen, bathroom, sleeping areas, and is used as a rental on a property. And then if you go back up to the number section, which is all the way back up.

Yeah, this way. This is what I was trying to.

So you're telling me a structure whether that's a pool house whether it's an office whether it's a workshop that has a three quarter bath and other area and a kitchen and then also other area will not get trapped in this in these definitions.

Correct. So what we're at least.

You were you didn't you in our last meeting you said the opposite.

I know because we did amend our definitions based on some of the feedback we got. Let me reiterate what we're doing here.

Let this dense brain sink in. I don't know what I'm not seeing. You're not used to us doing that. I don't know what I'm not seeing.

We actually agreed with you. I know it's hard to wrap your head around. But no, I'm kidding. So show me how I'm not going to get trapped in that. So only one detached self-contained habitable living unit. So again, that's a dedicated detached ADU space that if it's an ADU, it's rented out. If it's not rented, it's a detached accessory living area. Right? you get one fully self-contained space on a property, detached. All the other spaces, Pool house etc. Those if you go back down to the definitions they're covered under that but you're only limited by one detached accessory dwelling unit or fully self-contained. So if you have elements of say in your case in an A designated property you could have any number of structures as long as you're under your total square footage allocation. You're allowed up to 2,000 by right in a designated property. 500 square feet could be in an office and workout room. Another detached structure could be a pool house. Another detached structure with that remaining could be your detached ADU that had a three-quarter bath or more. and a sleeping area, a kitchen.

So those other structures can have bathrooms and kitchenettes and whatever too.

As long as they didn't have all three. Wait, what three? So going back to the definition. Sleeping area.

Sleeping area. That's your definition. Okay so because you can have an entertaining area but you just don't have a sleeping area. Okay.

Is that is that. That's where we revise this to include a kitchen or kitchenette three quarter or full bathroom and sleeping areas. That's what we're defining as a self-contained habitable living unit.

And it's based on your allotted 2000 square feet. Okay.

So we can bag six then.

Right. Likewise we did the same thing with the internal accessory dwelling units. You can have one that is fully self-contained

Okay, see, that's, we haven't addressed that one yet.

That's the other part of six, I think.

Well, number one. Oh, wait. Was that on one?

No, we got to go, we got to start with the number permitted. So going back to the very beginning, section 2111.

Well, it's related to this number permitted, yeah.

1E1B, number permitted. Okay. So right now, the recommendation from the commission is that only one Remove that and only one may be a self-contained habitable living unit and revise it by saying within the primary dwelling any number of extended living areas are allowed. I had a question to make sure because I wanted to make sure we limited the number of living areas, ADUs or self-contained habitable areas or whatever we're calling it.

I think we're only talking about extended living areas in this section, correct? No?

This is the number permitted.

It is only extended living areas.

Attached or detached and ADUs attached and detached. These are general standards that apply to all situations.

My suggestion is that we do not have more than two rental units on a property.

They're not even allowing two. It's one. Right.

Then, OK, then no more than one rental unit on a property and an unlimited number of ELA's.

And that's what I'm trying to get to. We did, you know. That's what I'm trying to get to.

So define that for me.

Define that for me. What does it mean? I could have five little ELAs in the backyard as long as they fit in my acre?

No. No.

No. Okay. So what are you not limited?

So again, you've got to go back to the underlying structure of this, is that you can only have one detached unit. whether it's an ADU or an ELA. So that's all you can have. And so then basically let's say you've got an ELA out there in your yard as a detached. Actually the way that this is written you couldn't have one inside.

No, you can't. You can't.

A self-contained? Yes.

You can have one self-contained detached. You can have one self-contained attached or internal. And only one of them can be used as a rental at one time.

I support that.

Well, I think that having a limitation on ELA's, the number of ELA's at all is a problem.

But we're not talking in a laser. Yes, we are.

Yes, we are. That's B is what he's referencing.

We are. That's exactly. My concern is that I'm not in favor of this, and primarily because what you end up then becoming is this is a permutation of it ultimately becomes or could potentially become like a duplex, triplex compound of an, you know, it's just, of Star Trek. You're just going to start replicating. And I'm not really in favor of that. If we keep it to one and one ADU, to me that seems like a reasonable piece of property versus when you have multiple ones, then at some point you're going to have that question of why don't we just subdivide the thing?

And why don't we say two self-contained units on there? Because then you could have a self-contained unit a self-contained unit outside and a self-contained unit inside.

But that's the proposal. Maybe it's not as clear as it should be.

It's saying that the primary can only have only one maybe self-contained.

Oh, rental. Oh, okay. If we're talking about the rental.

So that's the first line in number one. If you're wanting to allow for an internal and an external rented at the same time, is that what you were saying? No.

Oh, then I misunderstood. You could have a detached fully self-contained extended living area as well as one inside the house, but you could only rent out one of them. That makes sense. That's the proposal now anyway.

As I understand the current proposal is that you have a primary residence You can have a detached or an attached ADU and you can have one inside like in the basement.

But that's got to be for family purposes. You can't use that as a secondary rental property.

But you only get one of those to be a rental.

Yes. So why couldn't you have two attached ELA self-contained?

That's what I understand you could have. No, this is limiting that.

It's one or the other. No, this is saying you can only have one that's a self-contained habitable living unit that's an ELA. Within the primary dwelling. Within the primary dwelling. Oh, I see.

Like if you're saying you could have one detached and one inside the home, why couldn't you have no detached but you have two inside?

Can I ask a question, Melissa? For B, should the self-contained habitable living unit actually say internal ADU?

This is the LA. This is not ADU.

But if it's an internal self-contained habitable living unit, that's an internal ADU.

ADU also requires it to be rented. Rented. If it's not rented, it's an extended living area.

It's actually trying to be very flexible and to allow for extended families and things like that.

But what we're saying is you couldn't have fully self-contained space for your mother-in-law and your brother-in-law and your sister-wife and et cetera, et cetera. That's where we started getting in.

If we're concerned about having so many, then I would say at least put it at two.

Yeah, we don't judge here. But what we're saying is, and in fairness, in our previous submission to you last week, we did say any number of- You said 500. This is an ad.

You were worried about all my sister wives.

I did get a little worried about your sister wives, Dave. But we worried about the potential unintended consequences of creating multiple internal extended living areas that could very well end up being a fourplex or sixplex. That kind of use becomes a higher potential What we wanted to soften was not necessarily worrying about the game room wet bar or the party room. If it wasn't a fully set up kitchen or things like that, or if it wasn't associated with other living space, like a full bathroom and a full living area of bedrooms, we were trying to get away from over-regulating that, like we currently are.

So I guess I would say I understand where you're coming from now. But I think that we ought to allow for families that may want to have like a child and their family come in and have it be a little more self more self-contained as well as an aged parent that comes in and wants to have a separate area that's self-contained. So I think that a one limitation is too much and it ought to at least be two.

Internal or yes So clarify that so I'm fine when the ELA is a family that's what this is you're not gonna have any you also know Well, no, you could you could yeah under what? Yeah under what what I mean it's what does any LA I

is all part of a single family unit. They're all related by blood or marriage. Any number of people living as a convivious household unit can live under that same roof. A what?

What did you call that? Convivial. That you're not seeking rent from.

That you're not seeking rent from. Okay.

All right. I'm going to use that now. Expanding your knowledge base.

I think we ought to at least be two on that aspect of things.

How does the commission feel about two ELAs?

No.

We like one ELA.

I don't have a problem with that. You could set up quarters for sons, daughters.

I guess, again, I reiterate my prior concern is that ultimately the permutation is you allow two or more. It ultimately becomes a triplex. And I didn't move – I guess I worry about the consistency of single-family homes. I understand ADU and the purpose of an ADU single. But when you start adding in two or three, then that's multifamily housing at its ultimate – take it to its extreme.

So rather than gaming the system then, what I would maybe say on this, allow two as long as you don't have an ADU also.

That would be fine.

A detached ADU is what you're talking about.

You'd be able to have an internal ADU.

So the bottom line is you can have a primary residence and two.

Because you can game it and just say okay. So I'm saying allow two as long as you don't have an ADU.

Yeah. You can do a primary and one inside. Yeah.

If there is no detached.

So a primary living area with one ELA and one ADU or two ELA's.

Yes. That's in the attached portion.

Yeah, that would be 1B, E1B.

That could be qualified by a breezeway. No. That could be. That's what I'm saying. Yes, it could be, yes. I'm trying to figure out how to get around the fourplex.

Because you only have two.

Yeah, so, yeah. Okay. Any number allowed and only two if there is no detached Are we clear?

Are we good on that?

So the proposal is to adjust this so that, okay, existing right there you would be able to have two units. You could have an ELA and an ADU. What I'm saying is just rephrase it so that you can have two units. If you're going to have two ELAs, then you cannot have an ADU.

If you're going to have two internal – I don't think it should be two internal, but I think it should be one ELA and one ADU or two ELAs.

Internal ELAs? Or detached? Attached or detached?

You can have one ELA and one EDU or you can have two ELAs.

Internal? Yes. Is that the intent?

Yes.

ELA is internal for sure, but what about the EDA part? No, no, no.

Extended living there is, yeah.

Maybe we say you can have one internal, one external. I don't know. That seems to address yours.

And that's what it currently says.

That's what it currently says. Yeah. Or an external.

It's a maximum of two self-contained habitable living units and so you either get two inside or one inside and one outside.

What I'm saying is that so that you can actually have it so that it's if you do have two internal ELAs then

You don't get a detached.

You don't get a detached.

Right. Right. Does existing code say that already or no? Does not. No it does not. That would be a modification. It does not. Okay.

But that makes sense because the way it is right now is well you could have two self-contained but that's only in the situation where you have it. One is the detached and one is the internal.

So let me try an example. You could have a basement ELA. And you have an area over your garage that's an ELA and have the primary residence and that's what you're talking about?

Yes. But then you don't get the detached ADU.

But then you would preclude from getting a detached ADU.

Can you rent both of those or you can only rent one? No you can't rent any. As of now it's only one. I'm asking about the proposal. Would you be a proponent to renting them both? No.

But an ELA can become an ADU.

A self-contained ELA can become an ADU. You have to get a permission and get a license and then you can rent it out. Yes.

We did it. Are we good? Can we go to 7 again? I just want to make sure that we have this captured and as I understand it we may convert an existing structure that is within the setbacks

by the space that is beyond the setback to be non-habitable space.

Can you go to that example, Mike, that showed the graphic of the accessory unit that was in the setback and had a red line that said this part's habitable, this part's not?

Will you repeat that one more time?

So what I'm saying is that we may convert an existing structure, I guess it's a what do you call these structures?

Accessory.

existing accessory structure that is within the setbacks by the space that is beyond the setback to be non-habitable space and that the lot and the size of the footprint must not exceed the lot coverage that is allowable. There you go. And the height shall be limited to one story, not two or one and a half stories, but just one story. Is that what we're saying? Good.

Sorry, I missed some of that. If you wouldn't mind replying.

I'm kind of looking at Mike to see if I've gone off the rails. I'm catching up here.

He drafted this based on our conversation and the public comment.

Yeah, so it says we may convert an existing accessory structure that is within the setbacks by the space that is beyond or within the setback to be non-habitable space. So as I understand it, the example of yours would be that it, yeah, it's up here. So that space that is out there is not habitable.

Turn it to closets. Huh? Turn it to closets.

Closet space. It could remain a garage space. It could remain storage.

Right.

And that the footprint of that must not exceed the lot coverage allowable. Or are we going to let it exceed the lot coverage allowable or does anybody care? Footprint's already there.

Footprint's already there so we're just going to live with it? We don't need to worry about that. Okay. So we kill the footprint. Because we're just talking about conversions.

Okay. And that the height shall be limited to one story. Not two, one and a half, upper level lofts. It's just one story.

Is this so close to the next parking lot?

Is everybody happy?

Did you deal with the doors and windows?

That was a non-habitable space, right?

That would be non-habitable space, so I would assume there would be no doors or windows.

If they are, it's non-habitable. It's a storage door. It could be a storage door. You could do that. Sure.

Mike are you OK with all that?

I think so. OK. I just wanted to check. I don't know. Melissa did you catch?

I was concerned about the one story only because this was intended to deal with you could have a two story structure. It's just it's only the portion.

So you're saying that they could come in these fine folks could come in and they could build the three feet of non-habitable space and then they could modify the pace that is within the setbacks to be two stories.

No. Within the setback? No it's not. No no no no. That's not correct.

No I'm saying that's within the property that you can build in. So in this example where it says habitable ADU area they could tear the roof off of that and go two stories. No.

That's not at all what we're talking about. You're talking about something totally different.

No I'm not.

I'm the one who said one story.

Yeah, no, you did, and I was concerned.

Melissa is bringing up ones that have one and a half or two stories that are existing, and then if they peel off the habitable section.

Oh, they would have to cut it off is what you're saying.

Yeah, or partition it off with, you know.

I think, yeah, I understand.

I get what you're saying now.

But there could be an existing tall, you know, barn in there. But if they're set back enough, that habitable space – Melissa, you need to speak into the microphone.

We're not trying to come up with every possible macination. Can we just – can they deal with a variance on that issue? Say yes.

It would come to you through the conditional use.

So let's just say one story. Because I think most of these are probably one story existing.

If they're seven or five feet away from the property line, they're probably not 25, 35 feet tall. I think the way the staff has it written is how we ought to proceed. I'm okay with the way it is.

How do they have it written?

The way Melissa gave it to us in the presentation. Initially.

Okay. I think they were just talking about adding some clarity to it.

Right.

Let me pull up that language.

Yeah, and I'd be okay with that. And I do feel bad for Todd and his family, his situation that he's got three feet that's non-habitable, whatever that ends up looking like. But the benefit that he's getting is that he now has potential for an ADU, where before he doesn't. All he has is a garage, right? So he might have to deal with three feet.

Yeah, can you pull up his house again? We're just using you as an example.