Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission begins rewrite of accessory‑building rules; staff outlines lot‑coverage, footprint and attachment proposals
Summary
In a lengthy work session the commission discussed proposed changes to accessory buildings in the Snyderville Basin Development Code: switching from a strict ‘minor/major’ count to a percentage lot‑coverage cap (proposal: ~10% up to ~14,500 sq ft), defining 'footprint' to include roofed/permeable cover, setting a 5‑foot minimum separation between accessory buildings, and clarifying rules for attached vs detached structures and agricultural exemptions.
Staff opened a work session on proposed amendments to accessory‑building rules in the Snyderville Basin Development Code and reviewed the history that led to the current restrictions (minor and major accessory‑building allowances and size thresholds). Staff proposed replacing rigid per‑building counts with a lot‑coverage approach (for example, 10% of lot area up to a maximum — an initial draft cap ~14,500 sq ft was mentioned) so property owners with large lots can build accessory structures without the current 'which child do you like best' choice between buildings.
Commissioners and staff discussed several recurring enforcement and design problems: the definition of "footprint" (whether porches, cantilevers and covered but unenclosed areas count), the perverse result where two smaller desired buildings would be disallowed because they would trigger a 'major' building classification, and a loophole where very long or enclosed breezeways could be used to turn outbuildings into a single primary dwelling. Staff proposed adding a clear footprint definition (the plan projection/perimeter of roofed or impermeable surfaces with a modest eave allowance), a 5‑foot minimum separation between accessory buildings to close the "paper between buildings" workaround, and clearer tests for attachment vs. detachment (distance/continuous enclosed connection rather than merely a roof or short breezeway). The commission also discussed agricultural exemptions (state agricultural permit rules can exempt building permits but not planning rules), ADU caps (ADU floor area remains limited by code), and tradeoffs between preserving rural character and limiting potential abuses (for example, large event or housing uses disguised as agricultural buildings).
Staff concluded by asking for commissioners' feedback before drafting specific code language and diagrams; commissioners generally supported moving forward with further refinement and asked staff to return with draft ordinance language, illustrations of the proposed footprint rule, and options for lot‑coverage percentages and caps.
