Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews rewrite of accessory-dwelling-unit rules, asks for clearer owner-occupancy and privacy language
Summary
City planner McCain Yolstein presented a restructured ADU ordinance that adds creation, attached/detached and conversion rules and allows limited 30-foot heights for certain historic conversions; council members asked staff to clarify owner-occupancy periods, parking and second-story privacy measures before the April 1 public hearing.
City planner McCain Yolstein outlined a rewrite of Manti’s accessory-dwelling-unit ordinance at the March 4 council meeting, saying the proposal reorganizes existing provisions and adds clearer sections on creation, attached and detached ADUs, conversions of outbuildings and dimensional rules.
"On the left here, you can see the existing ordinance for accessory dwelling units and the proposed ordinance changes on the right," Yolstein said, describing the new sequence and several highlighted additions. He told the council that the draft keeps the ordinance’s core restrictions but consolidates and clarifies many provisions.
Council members focused on several practical points they said need clearer wording before a public hearing scheduled for April 1. Councilmember Mary Pipes asked whether an owner who moves off-site for an extended period could still rent an ADU. Yolstein acknowledged the need for language on extended absences and said the planning commission’s intent was to preserve a primary on-site resident: "From what I understand from the planning commission, their intent was that they wouldn't allow it because they want to maintain a primary-type resident in charge of the accessory."
Pipes also sought confirmation of parking requirements; Yolstein said the draft retains the existing one-additional-space-per-ADU rule. On second-story windows and balconies, residents and council members questioned privacy rules that would require nontransparent or high railings. John Van Allen, a member of the public, said the rules risk imposing stricter privacy measures on ADUs than on conventional homes and urged staff to check practical implications.
Another area of discussion was building height for conversions. Yolstein and a council member noted that allowing up to 30 feet for conversions of historic outbuildings could enable preservation and reuse of older structures. "One of the purposes is to support the economic viability of historic properties," a council member said, adding that most new ADUs would remain subservient to the main house.
Yolstein summarized the planning commission’s goals and agreed to return with sharper wording on owner-occupancy limits (suggested time thresholds were discussed), clearer privacy/balcony language and an analysis of how many existing buildings in town might exceed lower height caps. The council scheduled a public hearing on the draft ADU ordinance for April 1.
The council did not take a final vote on the ordinance at this meeting; staff were directed to revise the draft and provide clarifying language and impact analysis ahead of the public hearing.
