Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews Giverny PUD amendment to accessory-structure setbacks
Summary
Staff presented a proposed amendment to the Giverny planned unit development that would change accessory-structure setbacks (including sheds, pergolas, gazebos) to bring some small, nonconforming structures into compliance; staff recommended approval but commissioners asked for fire-review and clarified definitions.
On July 16, 2025, at a Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission work session, planning staff presented a proposed amendment to the Giverny planned unit development (PUD) that would revise accessory-structure setback standards for the subdivision and could bring some small, nonconforming backyard structures into compliance.
Ian (planning staff) said the amendment would affect accessory structures including gazebos, pergolas and, after applicant clarification, sheds, within the Giverny community and that staff supports the request. "Based on this analysis, we're supporting this item," Ian said during the presentation. He added that the city's building official had no additional feedback on the application and that the staff's findings of fact and model motions were included in the staff report.
The proposal would deviate from the R-1-8 city standards in one principal way: the minimum separation distance from a primary structure. Current city zoning requires a minimum 3-foot setback from side and rear property lines for accessory buildings and a separate 6-foot distance from the primary structure; the applicant is seeking modified distances for some accessory elements. Staff described the proposal as allowing certain rear-yard structures to be located as close as 3 feet to a property line when their peak height does not exceed about 8 feet; taller structures would generally require a 5-foot setback. Staff emphasized that structures under 200 square feet still do not require a building permit, although zoning and building-code requirements must be met even when no permit is required.
Commissioners pressed staff for safety and definitional clarifications. Several commissioners said they wanted the city's fire department to review potential changes that would reduce separation between accessory buildings and dwellings; Ian agreed that a fire review should be completed before final action. Commissioners also asked whether the amendment would include sheds and how the city defines "accessory building." Ian noted that the city's definitions list "tool or storage sheds" within accessory buildings and reiterated that the applicant's clarified request adds sheds to the scope of affected structures.
Staff said the amendment was intended to reflect the smaller lot sizes and unique lotting of the Giverny PUD and to permit structures that have been built on small lots to better conform to zoning. The presentation noted that staff had received one public comment by email before the meeting and that the matter would be taken up in the commission's business session.
The presentation also covered procedural points: the application was processed as a conditional-use/PUD amendment (file CUP25011), and any building-code or fire-code requirements remain separate from the PUD amendment. Ian noted that the amendment would not change building-code triggers for permits and that building or fire-protection requirements (for example, rated walls where required by code) would still apply.
The commission did not take a final vote on the amendment during the work session; staff recommended approval to forward to the business session and to the city council as required by the city's review process.
