Commission forwards amendment to accessory‑building setback rules for rural residential zone

The Pleasant Grove Planning Commission on May 22 voted to forward a code text amendment request to the city council that would modify yard requirements for accessory buildings in the rural residential zone.

Planner Jacob Hawkins opened the item, noting it was continued from a prior meeting and reviewing the stated purpose of the rural residential zone: to allow residential uses harmoniously integrated with incidental agricultural pursuits and to retain parcels large enough to provide efficient, attractive development as urban uses extend. Hawkins said the code text amendment would allow more flexibility for accessory buildings to be located on the interior side of a dwelling in some cases, giving property owners more options for small barns, sheds or structures intended to support animals or other rural uses.

Hawkins explained the policy tension: the city can preserve the original rural residential vision by resisting changes, or allow limited amendments that reduce the need for piecemeal rezoning and that help property owners use their parcels for agricultural or accessory uses. He noted prior code changes over time have reduced some rural residential distinctions and said the amendment was intended to preserve rural character by offering placement flexibility rather than reclassifying lots. He also offered potential refinements — for example increasing the proposed six‑foot separation from the dwelling to 10 feet to preserve a sense of open space.

Commissioners discussed alternatives, including individual rezones to R‑1 (single‑family) for properties that are already suburban in character, and concerns that multiple text amendments could cumulatively alter the rural residential zone’s intent. A commissioner asked whether accessory buildings might be used to circumvent setbacks by building additions instead of accessory structures; Hawkins replied that accessory buildings have specific height and separation limits that generally make them more restrictive than additions.

After discussion Commissioner Fugle moved and Commissioner Patton seconded that the commission forward a recommendation of approval to the city council for the requested amendments to section 10‑9A‑8 (yard requirements) in the rural residential zone. The motion carried on a voice vote.

The amendment as discussed would alter placement rules for accessory buildings; if the city council approves the text change it would not rezone parcels but would change where accessory buildings can be sited. Hawkins said related definition work (for example clarifying 'attached' versus 'detached') is also underway and could affect application of the rule change. The commission did not set a specific numeric replacement (for example whether the separation should be 6 or 10 feet) in the motion; staff noted such refinements could be made in subsequent review.