Commission continues code text amendment on accessory buildings in Rural Residential zone to May 22

The Pleasant Grove Planning Commission on May 8 continued a public hearing on a proposed code text amendment to Pleasant Grove City Code 10-9A-8, which would change placement and setback rules for accessory buildings in the Rural Residential (RR) zone.

Planning staff explained the proposed change would replace a single 20-foot separation between a dwelling and accessory building in RR with three different distances depending on use: 6 feet for typical single-family accessory uses (garages, sheds, accessory apartments), 20 feet for agricultural accessory buildings, and 50 feet for accessory buildings used to house animals. Staff also proposed allowing accessory buildings in interior side yards (not only rear yards) with added corner-lot setbacks to prevent vehicle overhang into the right-of-way.

Jacob Hawkins, planning staff, summarized the proposal and said staff recommends approval of the proposed code text amendment. During the hearing, several commissioners raised concerns about unintended citywide consequences, including the potential for accessory structures on side yards to appear as separate houses on corner lots and to encourage on-street parking if vehicle access is not clearly defined.

Commissioner Fugel and others pressed staff for clearer language defining "access" and whether pedestrian access should trigger the larger corner setback. Commissioners suggested (and staff did not oppose) modifying the draft so that when "access to an accessory building or dwelling is provided, either vehicle or pedestrian access," a larger street-side setback would apply (commission discussion converged on increasing that setback from 20 to 25 feet, then settled on 25 feet as a proposed amendment during the discussion).

Applicant Ben Huntsman described his proposed project: he told the commission he wants to build "a garage with a my mom's getting really old. And at some point, I'd like to bring her over. She's gonna have to have someone to take care of her. So I thought if I just put, like, a small, big apartment above the garage, that's what I would like to do." He said either rezoning to R-1-20 or the code text amendment would allow his project; he indicated a one-month delay would be acceptable but that a multi-month delay would be problematic.

Commissioners discussed alternatives, including rezoning individual parcels to R-1-20 and whether a broader general-plan or zoning update would better match on-the-ground uses in areas now zoned RR. Staff noted multiple applicants are waiting on resolution of the setback question and suggested clarifying the code text before returning to the commission.

Commissioner Martineau moved and Commissioner Phillips seconded a motion to continue the request to the May 22 meeting so staff can clean up and reword the draft ordinance; the motion passed by voice vote.

The continued item will return with rewritten text addressing the commissioners' concerns about access definitions (vehicle and pedestrian), corner-lot setbacks when access is provided, and clearer placement and use distinctions (garage vs. agricultural building vs. animal housing).