Cottonwood Heights planners table request to relax accessory-structure setbacks in Giverny until August

The Cottonwood Heights Planning Commission on July 16 voted to table action on a request by Brent Johnson on behalf of the Giverny Community Association to amend setback standards for accessory structures in the Giverny Community Planned Unit Development.

The commission moved to postpone consideration to its Aug. 6 meeting to give staff and the applicant time to provide additional information on how the proposed changes would apply to sheds, potential fire-safety impacts and whether accepting the change in Giverny would create a precedent for R‑1‑8 zones elsewhere in the city.

The request asks the city to formalize lower setbacks for some detached accessory structures in the Giverny PUD, which was developed on smaller lots than typical R‑1‑8 subdivisions. Under the proposal, certain accessory structures could be sited as close as 3 feet from a side or rear property line when roof height does not exceed 8 feet; structures over 8 feet tall would require a minimum 5‑foot setback. The applicant also asked that such accessory buildings be treated as part of the primary dwelling for setback calculation when located within 6 feet of the primary structure.

Why it matters: Giverny’s lots are smaller than most of the city’s R‑1‑8 parcels, and residents and the HOA said many accessory features were built before owners understood how city setback rules apply. City staff told the commission that building permits typically are not required for structures under 200 square feet, and that some homeowners therefore may not have interacted with the city during construction even though code still applies. Commissioners said the request raises public‑safety and precedent questions that need fuller, written analysis before a final vote.

Staff presentation and applicant rationale Ian, a city planning staff member, explained the history: the original PUD approval established reduced setbacks for primary structures but did not specify separate standards for accessory structures. Ian said city staff recommends approval but noted the applicant submitted clarifications after the staff report was published. Brent Johnson, a board member of the Giverny Community Association, told commissioners the HOA is seeking a standard that will allow existing structures to remain or be modified to meet code without forcing removal. Johnson said the board’s goals are to ensure fire‑code compliance, retain community aesthetics and salvage as many existing accessory structures as possible. "The first and really probably the most important is we want to make sure that whatever we do is in compliance with the fire code," Johnson said.

Public comments and neighbors’ concerns Several residents spoke. Richard Herr, who said he bought his home less than a year ago and that a gazebo and shed were already on the property, asked the commission to include a grandfathering clause for existing structures, saying he received no HOA notice and that a 5‑foot side setback for sheds on narrow side yards is infeasible. "What I'm asking as an amendment to the petition is to grandfather in these existing structures," Herr said. Jill and Gary McGee, whose larger lot abuts Giverny, asked the commission to ensure the proposal would not affect large neighboring lots or common areas such as a nearby pavilion.

Commissioner concerns and direction to staff Commissioners repeatedly raised fire‑safety questions and asked staff to clarify whether sheds should be included in the request. Several commissioners said they were comfortable discussing pergolas and open structures, but that fully enclosed sheds raise higher fire‑rating and setback requirements. Commissioners also asked staff to evaluate whether treating accessory structures as part of the primary building would affect lot‑coverage calculations and whether the change would create an unfair precedent compared with other R‑1‑8 properties.

Formal action The commission voted to table the item to the Aug. 6, 2025 meeting and directed staff to gather specific information, including: a clear definition distinguishing sheds from pergolas and other detached structures; written fire‑code analysis from the fire and building officials about allowable proximity and required fire‑rating; implications for lot coverage and other R‑1‑8 properties; and any recommended conditions or design standards to preserve neighborhood character. The motion to table was made by Commissioner Simon and seconded (record indicates a second by Commissioner Barnes; minutes also reference Commissioner Mills’ support). The vote as recorded: Commissioners Shelton, Mills, Barnes, Paulson, Simon, Smith and Anderson voted yes; the item was tabled.

What happens next City staff will meet with the applicant and return to the commission on Aug. 6 with the requested information. Commissioners said they want a staff recommendation and clarifying documentation (including fire‑code interpretation) before taking a final vote on the conditional use permit request.

Ending note The commission’s request for additional technical analysis reflects an effort to balance homeowners’ interests in retaining existing yard structures with neighborhood safety and consistent application of R‑1‑8 standards across Cottonwood Heights.