AMERICAN FORK CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 4, 2016

Transcription

1 AMERICAN FORK CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 4, 2016 The American Fork Planning Commission met in a regular session on April 6, 2016, in the American Fork City Hall, located at 31 North Church Street, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Present: Absent: Staff Present: John Woffinden, Chairman, Alternate Rebecca Staten Trent Andrus, Engineer I Adam Olsen, Senior Planner Wendelin Knobloch, Associate Planner Terilyn Lurker, Deputy Recorder Kriss Garcia, Fire Chief Doug Bateman, Battalion Chief Also Present: Councilman Rob Shelton, Shawn Argyle, Jaron Harral, Matt Swain, Mark Hampton, Tom Henroid, Joe Phelon, Ken Berg, David Wilding, and nine additional people. Chairman Woffinden welcomed everyone and those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. Hearing, review and action on the preliminary plan for Covington Cove Subdivision, consisting of 4 lots, located in the area of 600 North 300 East, in the R1-7,500 Residential zone Adam Olsen explain this project was located at 600 North 300 East and consisted of four lots. The lots do meet the size requirements. Two of the lots would have access off of an extension of 600 North and two lots would access off of 300 East. He noted this subdivision does meet the Development Code Requirements and Planning recommended approval. asked if this would complete 600 North and she was told it would not. Trent Andrus stated that the applicants would be giving right-of-way along 600 North and 300 East. As for road widths, 600 North does not quite match up with the normal city standards but the applicants have been asked to match the road width with the area. However, that was tricky as the road width changed several times through the course of the block. Mr. Andrus stated they would be working with the applicant on that issue. Engineering recommended approval of the project. Page 1 of 17

2 Public Hearing: There were no comments. Shawn Argyle was there to answer any questions. He commented they lived in the area and wanted to stay close to where they are from. They would be building homes for parents on the smaller lots. moved to approve the preliminary plan of Covington Cove with the findings as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the Engineering report. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Review and action on a commercial site plan for the Timp Rentals Parking Lot Expansion, located at 136 North West State Road in the GC-1 General Commercial zone Mr. Olsen explained this was an expansion for the Timp Rentals parking lot. This had been anticipated at the time of the zone change for the town homes. As part of that approval, this area was zoned the GC zone for this project. The subdivision plat has been recorded so this could move forward. Mr. Andrus stated engineering recommended approval. Joe Phelon represented the applicants and explained they want to expand the parking lot. He pointed out that the landscaping would be maintained by Timp Rentals, not by the Green Springs HOA as noted in the plat. moved to approve the commercial site plan for Timp Rentals located at 136 North West State Road, with the findings as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the engineering report. seconded the motion. Ms. Anderson asked if there might be any lighting issues with this project they needed to discuss. Mr. Phelon stated there were no lights being installed in the parking lot; the lighting would come from what was currently there. Chairman Woffinden called for a vote on the motion. The voting was as follows: Page 2 of 17

3 Hearing, review and action on an amendment to the commercial site plan for Chameleon Foods, located at 1636 South 580 East in the I-1 Industrial zone Mr. Olsen explained this was for the approval of an existing storage building as well as an expansion to that storage building. The existing building and the expansion are located on the west side of the property. This would be divided into four bays but no parking or landscaping adjustments needed to be made. Mr. Olsen recommended that any approvals be subject to the existing storage building and the proposed expansion being brought into compliance with applicable building and fire codes. asked why the existing building needed approval. Mr. Olsen explained that the project was done without any permits. They will need to work with the Building and Fire Departments to bring the entire project into compliance. commented that they were basically going to hold hostage the new building until the old building was brought into compliance. Mr. Olsen stated that was correct and could be done through the motion. Mr. Schellenberg asked if they could inspect an existing building. Mr. Olsen answered that it would have to be done and the inspections would have to be performed. Mr. Schellenberg did not know how you could inspect wiring, plumbing or heating that was covered up. Mr. Andrus had no engineering comment. Public Hearing: There were no comments. Jaron Harral was representing Rand Construction and Chameleon Foods and could answer questions or could take those questions back to those who could answer the questions. commented that the biggest concern was the likelihood that the existing buildings be brought up to current codes prior to the additional structure approval. Mr. Harral stated if they were required to bring it up to code, then they would do what had to be done to get it up to code. He explained that this was a storage building and would not be occupied and therefore there would be no electrical or plumbing to be inspected. This would be dependent upon the original building for lighting. Since there was no electrical, mechanical, or plumbing it should make it easier to inspect. moved to approve the site plan for Chameleon Foods located at 1636 South 580 East with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the engineering report and also subject to the existing Page 3 of 17

4 storage structure meeting all applicable building and fire codes. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Hearing, review and action on an amended commercial site plan for a warehouse located at White Castle/Seagull Book, located at 920 East State Road in the GC-1 General Commercial zone Mr. Olsen explained this was a proposal for a 27,500 square-foot warehouse at the rear of the property. The intent was to put materials in the structure so there would be no outside storage items. This would be constructed on two parcels, as was the warehouse built five years ago. At that time there was a zone lot declaration signed that would still be in effect and it was no longer a condition. Along with this approval, a portion of 400 South would be dedicated that would eventually allow access to 860 East and North Utah County Boulevard. Until that road went through, there was a fire turnaround to be constructed on a portion of the right-of-way. Mr. Andrus had no additional comments. Public Hearing: There were no comments. Ken Berg was present representing White Castle. This was the completion of their site plan and they were excited to have this building. moved to recommend approval of the amended commercial site plan for the White Castle warehouse expansion located at 920 East State Road with the findings as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the engineering report. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Hearing, review and action on a practice facility for the American Fork City Fire Department, located in the vicinity of 210 East 200 North in the PF-Public Facilities zone Page 4 of 17

5 Mr. Olsen explained the purpose is to construct a training facility within the public works yard; this would enlarge and replace the current training facility. This structure would be located south of the salt dome. They do have representatives there. Mr. Andrus stated engineering suggested a title report be obtained to verify there were no easements. He pointed out the power lines may present a problem. He commented that the City Engineer was also concerned with the drainage of water and where that water would go. Mr. Dupaix commented that when he saw the drawing, he was also concerned with the power lines. He asked if they had discussed with the Fire Department the possibility if the flames would get hot enough to affect the power lines. Mr. Franson pointed out that the river was right there, so the water quality introduced to that river was a concern. Mr. Andrus stated that any water discharge from an emergency fire was not regulated, but they would not be able to discharge the water into the river without treatment if it was for training exercises. Chief Garcia explained that there was a small storage facility on the plan that would be only one story. He did not think there would be an issue with the power lines. The fires were small, controlled fires on the other end of the structure and there would be no fire or heat under the power lines. The fires would be put out with about 100 gallons of water and the grade of the land would send all the water into the collection box and would not go into the river. The box would contain the water and they would most likely have to pump the water out and clean the box once a year. He noted they would only have training fires once or twice a month. Chairman Woffinden asked if the smoke would affect the apartments. Chief Garcia stated if there was any wind, they would not burn. The current fire structure was closer to residential homes than this proposed structure was and they have received no complaints in the three years they have been using that training building. Mr. Franson asked to see the location of the old facilities on a map. Chief Garcia stated this would decrease the footprint of the training facility greatly. Currently they were in a one-story structure, but new construction taking place throughout the city has buildings with two and three stories and this would allow the fire department personnel to train in a multi-story structure. Chief Garcia explained this was a state-of-the-art metal container modified to have walls, hallways, and stairs. The current site has two storage units to store their fire materials that need to keep dry and the current structure was wood framed. Chairman Woffinden asked how long the training lasted. Chief Garcia answered that it was a few minutes and was for those fire fighters who were on duty. They wanted to keep the training in town as they still need to respond to calls as they are practicing. Public Hearing: There were no comments. Page 5 of 17

6 moved to recommend approval of a site plan for a training facility located at approximately 210 East 200 North with the findings as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the engineering report including verification of a clean easement to make sure there are no easement encroachments. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Review and action on a storage building for the American Fork City Fire Department located in the vicinity of 96 North Center Street in the CC-1 Central Commercial zone Mr. Olsen stated this was a storage building 16 x 18 feet on the south end of their Fire Department s parking lot. Mr. Andrus indicated they would recommend verification of easements to make sure utilities were not affected. Chief Garcia stated they were re-locating the storage building from Public Works to the Fire Department property in order to use impact fees. This was necessary to store different items, such as physical fitness training course materials. The stored items were quite large and the larger door would allow easier access. Mr. Schellenberg asked if they could improve the aesthetics of the building by making it match their building. Chief Garcia indicated they were not opposed to improving the looks of the building and would try to match his building. Chairman Woffinden asked if there were any security alarm system. Chief Garcia did not think they would have an alarm as the building was located across from their building and there were people there 24/7. moved to approve the site plan for a storage building located at approximately 96 North Center with the findings as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the engineering report and subject to the aesthetics of the storage building matching the surrounding buildings. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Page 6 of 17

7 Hearing, review and action on a zone map amendment from the SC-1 Planned Shopping Center zone to the GC-2 Planned Commercial zone, located at 792 East 280 South Mr. Olsen stated the applicant would like to construct a retail warehouse which would be south of State Street. He noted that a majority of the property did not have visibility from State Street. In order for the retail warehouse to be constructed they needed a zone change, which would be in compliance with the underlying Land Use designation. Mr. Olsen stated there were renderings provided of what they could expect the building to look like if the zone change was approved. Mr. Dupaix asked if this was the best fit for the State Street corridor from the planning perspective; he felt it seemed out of place in this location. Mr. Olsen understood the concern. Mr. Olsen noted the current zoning was commercial, so they could look at all the future residential in the area it could develop as commercial or office. The use was allowed in the design commercial designation. Mr. Dupaix commented that there were offices in the area and he was trying to picture what their visual would be looking at a warehouse. Ms. Anderson agreed and commented that once the trees were gone there would be plenty of visibility from State Street, and she felt they wanted something more useful for the offices and people in the area. Ms. Anderson did not feel that the warehouse was a good fit. Mr. Olsen explained the Design Commercial would allow retail warehouse where Planning Shopping Centers were more retail oriented. Ms. Anderson felt shopping was a better fit for the area. Mr. Olsen stated that south of the office complex there would be single family homes, town homes, and apartments with one of the main entrance roads crossing this property. Mr. Andrus had no concerns. Matt Swain represented the owner, Perry Commercial. He stated that the Perry s have owned the property for 40 years and, until recently, owned the American Fork Shopping Center. They have tried time and again to put retail on this property, but because of the lack of visibility no one has wanted to locate there. Mr. Swain commented that there was not a market for a fullscale retail. Their proposal would have a street front similar to a retail shopping center, and they have added a pad building to accommodate the retail street front along State Street. Mr. Swain stated that with regards to the buildings, warehouses have come a long ways and the aesthetics of retail warehouses was nice. The only difference was that they had more space within the building allocated to warehouse. There would be retail showrooms in the front. They have been approached by a company that needs retail space but also warehouse. Page 7 of 17

8 Mr. Swain had a rendering of a retail warehouse project, which was similar to a retail warehouse project in Sandy. The building looked and felt like a retail establishment. He noted they were also the developers of the apartment complex project south of the proposed building. They do not want a bad looking facility at the gateway to their apartments and have every intention to make it a very aesthetically pleasing project. They develop all types of projects, from residential to commercial to medical offices. They thought this was the right use and best use for this property and felt this was consistent with the other land uses along the State Street corridor. They thought it would a nice addition to State Street and they would do the project nicely. Chairman Woffinden commented that the warehouses in back were hidden and he questioned what the use on the pad would be. Mr. Swain stated it would be the same; there would be a retail streetscape feel to it. For example, a bike shop would need a place to store their bikes but also a place to sell those bikes. Mr. Swain stated these were similar to what you would find in the Meadows project but with a slightly larger warehouse. Mr. Dudley was also concerned with the use. He has seen other projects in other cities, such as tile stores, and he asked if that was what was planned. Mr. Swain stated that was correct. They have been approached by a plumbing supply store who want a retail front and then storage. Mr. Dudley asked if outdoor storage allowed in the zone. It was stated that was not allowed and Mr. Swain stated they did not want that. Mr. Schellenberg stated that the building behind this project looked to be in the same zone but appeared to be office buildings. It was noted that offices were still allowed in the General Commercial zone. Mr. Olsen thought that the offices would have been constructed before the zone. Mr. Schellenberg stated he thought there could be some elements of the GC-2 zone in the area, but did not think the warehouse would fit in. He would have a hard time recommending this. Ms. Anderson thought that aesthetically it would be okay, but she did not think it was the right function. Mr. Swain stated that if they look at the American Fork Shopping Center, those buildings would be similar to this. The title warehouse was a little misleading. The only thing that qualified it as a warehouse was what was happening inside the building; the exterior would be similar to the rest of the shopping centers on State Street. Mr. Schellenberg felt it was different as the shopping centers had more public parking and more of the activity happening in the front, whereas in the warehouse the activity would take place in the back. Page 8 of 17

9 Mr. Swain stated the shopping centers have vast exposure to State Street, all the traits they look for in a shopping center. They have tried to get other tenants there, but those traits are just not there. If they were waiting for another shopping center, it just would not happen. Mr. Schellenberg thought that an office would fit better. Mr. Swain stated they develop office space, as well, but small office space was saturated for the area. Mr. Franson commented that they have some of this near his office and he did not believe they should get hung up on the warehouse. It did look and act like retail from the front. He would not be bothered by that type of structure if he were in that area. He liked the project and thought it would work well. Mr. Hight stated they were talking like Big O and AutoZone were great, nice buildings but they were similar. He thought it would be a good fit in the area. Mr. Swain stated that they want to clean up the area, as well. Chairman Woffinden also felt it would be a good fit and an improvement to the area. Ms. Anderson stated the aesthetics would be okay, but she disagreed with the function and wanted more of a shopping area. Public hearing: There were no comments. moved to recommend approval of a zone map amendment in the area of 792 East 280 south from the SC-1 to the GC-2 zone. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Nay Nay Nay The motion passed with a 4 to 3 vote. Hearing, review and action on a zone map amendment from the RA-1 Residential Agricultural zone to the GC-2 Planned Commercial zone in the area of 1020 West Pioneer Crossing It was noted this item and the next item would be discussed together but separate hearings would be held and separate motions would be made. Mr. Olsen explained that the underlying land use designation was design commercial so the zone change was in line with the underlying land use designation. The request was before them in anticipation of the Harts gas station site plan. He explained there would be two lots and an Page 9 of 17

10 out-parcel that would be combined with property to the north for that future apartment complex project. Mr. Dupaix was concerned with the high water table and the placement of gas tanks or anything else that could allow seepage into the ground. It was noted there was a geotechnical report on file. Mr. Andrus stated that he did not have the geotechnical report with him, but he believed the water table was quite high and he would have the applicant address that issue. He pointed out 1020 West was the proposed road for the Meadows Crossing that would connect to Pacific Drive. They have worked with the applicant on the road width and that was reflected in the plans. Engineering recommended approval. Mr. Franson noted that in today s environment, gas tanks were monitored so closely that if there were any problems they would know right away and have to take care of it immediately. David Wilding, Wilding Engineering, indicated he has been hired by Rinehart Oil for this project. They did the geo technical work and the ground water was at about 4 feet. He stated that they would be building the site up so the facility would be above the ground water. The service station was in a great location on Pioneer Crossing. They would have lighting at 1020 West, with a wider roadway to provide for a turn lane. They have worked with Engineering taking into consideration the future plans for the road. Mr. Wilding stated that the property to the west (Lot 2) would be sold to the Pecks, who own the property further on to the west. To the north, there would be a piece of property north of the proposed roadway that would be sold to Rimrock who would be building the apartments. He thought this was a great location for them and they have done a lot of work to get the project laid out. Mr. Dupaix stated that having worked on Pioneer Crossing he was familiar with the area, and another concern was that the soils were unstable. When they built the bridge over Mill Pond Road, they had to do additional stabilization to get the pilings down. He questioned how much material they were planning on bringing in to build up the gas station. Mr. Wilding stated they were planning on taking out the top soil, and then he thought there would be 18 inches of structural fill, 8 inches of road base and then 3 inches of asphalt. They have done considerable work on the geotechnical aspect of the project and are fully aware of the soil in the area. Mr. Dupaix indicated he was not opposed to the project but wanted to make sure the homework was done so there were not any long-term issues. Mr. Wilding appreciated that and noted that they were not taking this lightly. Public Hearing: There were no comments. moved to recommend approval of the zone map amendment in the area of 1020 West Pioneer Crossing from the RA-1 and PI-1 to the GC-2 zone. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Page 10 of 17

11 Hearing, review and action on a commercial site plan for a Harts Service Station located in the area of 1020 West Pioneer Crossing in the GC-2 Planned Commercial zone Public Hearing: There were no comments. moved to recommend approval of the commercial site plan for Harts Service Station and approve the preliminary plan for Harts Commercial subdivision located at approximately 1020 West Pioneer Crossing with the findings and conditions as listed in the staff report and subject to any findings, conditions and modifications listed in the engineering report. seconded the motion. Mr. Dupaix asked if they were approving signage other than what was on the building, such as a pylon or monument sign. Mr. Olsen stated that would be handled administratively if not on the site plan. It was noted there was a monument sign on Pioneer Crossing and that was allowed in the overlay zone. Mr. Franson commented that the first item was a zone map amendment and he questioned if they had enough discussion on the site plan. Mr. Olsen stated he had no further comments on the site plan; they follow the code requirements and had plenty of parking and landscaping. Chairman Woffinden called for a vote on the motion. The voting was as follows: Hearing, review and action on land use map amendment from the Design Commercial to the High Density Residential land use designation, located in the area of 79 North 1020 West It was noted this item and the next item would be discussed together but separate hearings would be held and separate motions would be made. Mr. Olsen stated that late last year, the council approved a land use map and zone map amendment for this area in anticipation of an apartment complex being constructed. As Harts Page 11 of 17

12 went along, there was a piece of property that would be incorporated with the apartments to the north. It would need to have the land use and zone change amendments or they would have a sliver of what was left over. Chairman Woffinden commented that it did create a buffer between the gas station and the apartments. Mr. Andrus had no comments. Public Hearing: There were no comments. moved to recommend approval of a land use map amendment for property located at approximately 79 North 1020 West from the design commercial designation to the high density residential designation. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Hearing, review and action on a zone map amendment from the RA-1 Residential Agricultural zone to the R-4-7,500 Residential zone, located in the area of 79 North 1020 West Public Hearing: There were no comments. moved to recommend approval of the zone map amendment. Geoff Dupaix seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Hearing, review and action on amendments to sections 17.4, 17.5 and of the American Fork City Development Code addressing accessory apartments. Mr. Olsen stated that this had been discussed a number of times and the comments have been taken into consideration and put into this final draft. They discussed different issues such as Page 12 of 17

13 parking, owner occupancy and such. He explained this was the potential ordinance that could move forward, but they could incorporate any changes they would like. Mr. Dupaix noted that the percentage was a big discussion and he questioned if that issue had been settled. Mr. Olsen stated that the ordinance states that the apartment shall not occupy space which is greater than 50% of the floor area of a single-family home in which it is located or 1,000 square feet, whichever was less. For example, in a 4,000 square-foot home the limit would be 1,000 square feet. Ms. Anderson stated that as she was talking with a neighbor about the proposed ordinance, an issue was brought up on how a 2,000 square-foot basement would be divided up for the basement; she wondered if they should have a 50% rule. Mr. Olsen stated that initially it was a percentage but they had decided on the square footage; they could take that out and leave it as a percentage which may be easier to go by. Mr. Schellenberg asked what it gained them to have a limit of 50%; he did not think it would help them to even put a percentage in the requirements. Mr. Olsen asked if they wanted them to take out the size restrictions. Mr. Knobloch stated that the difficulty without a size restriction was it became hard to say it was not a duplex; if it was 50% of the home, it was a duplex. It was a matter of the scale. If they have a basement apartment of 2,000 square feet then they could potentially have a family with 6 children in the apartment and then other issues such as parking come into play. It was noted that parking was addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Olsen explained that if they have an accessory unit, it would be a separate family living and would then follow under the definition of a family. Mr. Olsen stated this ordinance would provide a legal mechanism to have a legal accessory unit. Mr. Dudley stated he was in favor of this because it gave people an opportunity to do something legal that others were doing illegally. Mr. Dudley pointed out the two scouts in attendance. Mr. Dupaix asked what the commissioners wanted to do with the size requirement. Mr. Olsen stated he needed to have clear direction. Mr. Olsen asked if they wanted to take out the square footage limit and change that to a percent or if they want to take out the size requirement altogether. Mr. Olsen reminded them they had gone back and forth on this, and suggested changing the wording to no greater than 50%. It was noted that one of the units had to be owner occupied. Mr. Franson felt that if all the other items listed do what they want it to do, the size was irrelevant as to the function of an accessory apartment. Mr. Schellenberg stated he liked the wording the design and location of the unit must be subordinate to the principle structure. Page 13 of 17

14 Mr. Olsen suggested they take out the size requirement, but red-line it so the council could decide if they want. It was noted that if they send forward a recommendation, they should leave out any redlines and forward what they want. Mr. Olsen in the past has redlined any changes to ordinances forwarded on to the City Council, but this was a new ordinance. Mr. Olsen clarified that they wanted to eliminate Section 4, which was the size requirement. Mr. Andrus commented that it was entirely possible to have an accessory apartment with a family with 6 children. When he was a child, his family with six children lived in a three bedroom apartment. Mr. Olsen explained that the large portion of the ordinance would be establishing the criteria for accessory apartments, with smaller sections listing the zone districts accessory apartments would be allowed in and then the addition of the accessory apartment definition. Public Hearing: Councilman Rob Shelton was present for the public hearing. Councilman Shelton appreciated their dedication and service. The minutes were well read and he valued them and the discussion the members have. He might not agree on everything, but for the most part they do agree. He has looked into this issue a lot over the last two years. He commented that Pleasant Grove passed a similar ordinance, and it was interesting to hear them discuss it. Councilman Shelton thought there were a couple of items they need to take into consideration. They talk about size and occupancy and how many people can be in there. State law allows at least two people per bedroom, so if they have a 4 bedroom apartment 8 people could potentially live in the apartment. He wanted to make sure this fit with State law. Councilman Shelton commented that another issue was the number of off-street parking. He believed Pleasant Grove had 7 off-street parking spaces required, as that was the largest complaint they received. Pleasant Grove also would not allow for a second entrance from the front because it would give the feel of a duplex; they also wanted to keep the feel of a single family home. He stressed that off-street parking needed to be looked at and that 4 spaces may not be adequate. There were no additional comments for the public hearing. Chairman Woffinden asked if the ordinance addressed two front entrances. Mr. Olsen stated that one draft did address that, but this draft states that the entrance could be on any side of the single-family home. Mr. Olsen questioned if they want to make that change to the entrance being on the side or rear. It was felt that requirement would help maintain the feel of a single-family home. Mr. Olsen pointed out that this draft ordinance called for two off-street parking spaces in addition to the two residential spaces required. Page 14 of 17

15 Mr. Schellenberg asked if there were any building code requirements between the accessary apartment and rest of the home. Mr. Olsen stated there was the requirement that they would have to comply with all building codes. Mr. Franson left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Chairman Woffinden did like having only one single entrance in the front, and Mr. Olsen stated he could make that change. Chairman Woffinden liked not having an additional entrance in the front so that it still looked like a single family unit. Mr. Hight disagreed with not allowing two entrances in the front of the home. He stated there were homes that have a second entrance in the front that were very tactful. He did not think they should limit an existing home from having that entrance from the front. He did not think it looked unattractive. Mr. Dupaix understood what Mr. Hight was saying, but they needed to put together a standard that could be enforced. Mr. Hight felt they were taking the ability away for those existing homes to create an accessory apartment if they had that entrance in the front. Mr. Dudley was okay with that requirement. He felt they needed to draw the line somewhere. If a homeowner wanted the apartment they would need to invest the money for an entrance. Mr. Dupaix stated they need a clear ordinance so they could actively measure it. If they try to find exceptions, they may as well not go down the path. They needed to establish a guideline. Mr. Olsen asked if they wanted to change the entrance requirement to the side or rear of the home. Mr. Dupaix would prefer that. Mr. Hight did not think they were talking apples to apples. In a normal home, they would put in a back door and go down. The only way into the basements of some homes was through the outside entrance. His neighbor s home did not have access to the basement other than the outside entrance. He knows of two homes where the only access to the basement was through the outside entrance. Mr. Dupaix stated he was talking about a direct entrance into the basement needed to be on the side or rear; it would look more like a single family dwelling. He understood the neighbor s conditions were different. Mr. Dudley thought what would be bad was to have an existing home without an outside entrance that excavated out in the front yard. Mr. Hight agreed. Mr. Olsen stated the way it was worded now addressed Leonard s concern. If they change it to eliminate the front entrance, his neighbor would be affected. Mr. Schellenberg stated that if they allow a front entrance, it was subjective and they were putting pressure who was reviewing the plans to enforce the appearance of the home. Page 15 of 17

16 Ms. Anderson thought it would be nice to not allow the accessary entrance on the front of the home. Councilman Shelton commented that he wanted to point out the issues so American Fork could learn from Pleasant Grove s heartaches and what they debated. He felt the bigger concern was parking. It was pointed out they could not require more parking for accessary apartments than the home. Mr. Knobloch stated the standard for two parking spaces was low and they have had some problems in areas of the cities. Ms. Anderson asked if they could require more parking spaces if the tenants were unrelated, but was told that they could not require more than two. Mr. Knobloch also pointed out enforcement would be a problem; right now the only enforcement took place when the city received complaints. It was clarified that the size restrictions would be taken out of the ordinance and the entrances would be limited to the side and rear. moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance for accessary apartments subject to the size restriction being removed and the entrances limited to the side and rear. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Absent Nay The motion passed 5 to 1. Other business It was announced that there would be no meeting on May 18, Site Plan Committee Report Mr. Knobloch reported the following upcoming projects: Mitchell Meadows the property included in the Richards Annexation Timp Hollow the property included in the Smart Annexation; this would be on the upcoming Planning Commission meeting for the annexation agreement. Cottages at Lakeside this was the first parcel of the TOD area and would be a large apartment complex. Review and action on the minutes of the April 20, 2016 Planning Commission Regular Session It was noted one of the dates of the meeting needed to be corrected and needed to be listed as absent for the regular session. Page 16 of 17

17 moved to approve the minutes as corrected. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Absent Adjournment moved to adjourn the meeting. seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Terilyn Lurker Deputy Recorder Page 17 of 17