Brad Mertz; and Craig Huff. Director Fred Aegerter; Planner Laura Boyd; Planner Brandon Snyder and Secretary Darlene Gray

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 8, :30 PM Commissioners in attendance: Commissioners excused: Staff in attendance: Council Member excused: Brent Packard; Ryan Staker; Frank Young; Joyce Nolte; Brad Mertz; and Craig Huff Stacey Petersen Director Fred Aegerter; Planner Laura Boyd; Planner Brandon Snyder and Secretary Darlene Gray Mark Packard Call to Order: CM Huff called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. Legislative Session Richard Harrington seeking vacation approval for the Harrington Court Condominiums located at 134 West 300 North in the R1-5 Single Family zone. Planner Boyd indicated that a vacation request required a Public Hearing. Administrative Session Discussion regarding accessory dwellings. CM Huff asked if he should recuse himself because he was a landlord. Director Aegerter indicated that this was only a discussion item. CM Nolte asked if the Planning Commissioners would be making a recommendation to the City Council. Director Aegerter stated that the Commissioners could make a recommendation, but one was not necessary. Planner Boyd indicated that the City Council had given their direction already. CM Nolte asked if the Commissioners were making a recommendation to the City Council. CM Packard indicated that the Commissioners would make a recommendation because the City Council had sent the item back to the Planning Commission. Planner Boyd indicated that no recommendation would be necessary as this was only a discussion item. She reported that the council members had requested that accessory dwellings be looked at City-wide. CM Nolte asked if the council members felt the recommendation was arbitrary. CM Staker stated that Mayor Clyde had questioned whether or not the Commissioners had discussed frontage requirements. CM Packard asked if the decision was regarding accessory apartment being off the same meter as the primary dwelling or did the council members want to discuss the requirement of having two-meters; one for the primary dwelling and one for the basement apartment. Director Aegerter Planning Commission Page 1

2 responded that he did not recall. Planner Boyd indicated that the council members discussed water meters and indicated that separate meters would be required. CM Staker asked if the Commissioners were going to discuss the number of accessory apartments and added that currently, there are illegal accessory apartments in the City. Director Aegerter indicated that the number of illegal accessory apartments was not known. CM Huff indicated that the family had been redefined stating that the individuals did not have to be related. With the family defined as such there would not be any illegal apartments. Director Aegerter indicated that was based on dwelling units, meaning separate living quarters; cooking, sleeping, etc. He reported that State Law defined what constitutes as a family. CM Huff asked if someone could get around that by saying they were going to consider anyone as part of their family. Director Aegerter indicated that was no issue with anyone being related by blood, marriage or adoption. The challenge was with people with extended families. CM Packard asked if Director Aegerter would discuss the issues in Provo. Director Aegerter indicated that he did not know any of the details. Planner Boyd reminded the Commissioners that a dwelling with an accessory apartment had to be owner occupied. Director Aegerter indicated that the issue would be creating legal units. CM Staker stated that it would be nice to have the exact definition of an accessory unit and asked if a dwelling unit was different from an accessory apartment. Planner Boyd displayed and read the definitions of a dwelling unit versus an accessory apartment. CM Nolte asked about the proposed discussion scheduled for October regarding the Westfields plan. Director Aegerter reported that the discussion was postponed because of the elections. CM Huff asked if the School District would give the property to the City. CM Staker stated that the School District was still willing to do so. Discussion regarding Good Landlord Program. No discussion Approval of 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. No discussion CM Staker moved to close the Work Session. CM Packard seconded the motion. The vote to close the Work Session was unanimous. CM Huff adjourned the meeting at 6:50 PM. Planning Commission Page 2

3 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION NOVEMBER 8, :00 PM Commissioners in attendance: Commissioners excused: Staff in attendance: Council Member: Brent Packard; Ryan Staker; Frank Young; Joyce Nolte; Brad Mertz; and Craig Huff Stacey Petersen Director Fred Aegerter; Planner Laura Boyd, Planner Brandon Snyder and Secretary Darlene Gray Mark Packard (7:12 PM) Call to Order: CM Huff called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Approval of Agenda: CM Huff called for a motion to approve the agenda. CM Mertz moved to approve the agenda as presented. CM Nolte seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Approval of Minutes: August 23, 2011 and September 27, 2011 CM Staker moved to approve the August 23, 2011 and September 27, 2011 meeting minutes. CM Mertz seconded the motion. The vote to approve the meeting minutes was unanimous. Consent Agenda CM Huff explained that there were no Consent Agenda items. Legislative Session Richard Harrington seeking vacation approval for the Harrington Court Condominiums located at 134 West 300 North in the R1-5, Residential Single Family zone. Planner Boyd approached the Commissioners and explained that the Harrington Court Condominiums were condominiumized on November 12, She reported that the condominiums have been solely owned and managed by the Harringtons and they would like to return them back to one parcel. She explained that condominium plats were treated like a subdivision which required a public hearing. Planner Boyd indicated that the vacation approval was scheduled for the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting. She reported that Mr. Harrington had filed an Affidavit of Withdrawal at the Utah County Recorder s office. CM Huff asked if this would cause any detriment to the City. Planner Boyd indicated that it would not. CM Huff invited Mr. Harrington to approach. Mr. Harrington explained that this was a simple thing they were doing to qualify for a reverse mortgage which was important to them. He Planning Commission Page 3

4 reported that the property had been in the family for a long time. CM Huff asked how long ago the units had been built. Mr. Harrington indicated that the units were built in He added that this would be their primary residence and explained the benefits of living there. CM Young asked if any of the condominiums had been sold. Mr. Harrington indicated that none of the units had been sold. Public Hearing CM Huff opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone who would like to address. With no approaching the Commissioners, CM Mertz moved to close the Public Hearing. CM Young second. The vote to close the Public Hearing was unanimous. Consideration With no discussion, CM Mertz moved to recommend approval of the Harrington Court Condominium vacation located at 134 West 300 North in the R1-5, Single Family zone. CM Packard seconded the motion. The vote to approve the item was unanimous. Administrative Session Discussion regarding accessory dwellings. Planner Boyd approached the Commissioners and explained that on June 14, 2011 the Planning Commissioners recommended approval for accessory apartments in an area south of Plat A in a R1-8 zone. On July 19, 2011, the City Council Members considered the recommendation and moved to continue the item back for the Commissioners to consider if other areas should be included. Planner Boyd explained that the item was brought back for discussion and direction to redraft a proposal to make a formal recommendation to the City Council. CM Huff stated that those items had been addressed the first time and questioned if that was something to apply city-wide. CM Packard stated that with the current economic situation, a lot of children were moving back with their parents and they were determined to be family. Planner Boyd explained that the accessory dwelling applied to bringing in a separate family with separate living quarters. She stated that Portland Oregon was one of the first cities to take on the task and found that there was not a rush of applicants for dwelling units. Planner Boyd reported that she and CM Nolte participated in a tour of Salt Lake County during the recent American Planning Association Conference. She added that Salt Lake County was looking to limit the number of applications to 25 per year, but only twelve applications had been received. CM Packard stated that in Plat A, the historical area and his neighborhood, there were five homes that had separate entries. He indicated that was not supposed to happen according to Code. Planner Boyd stated that at one point, Plat A would have allowed up to eight units and there are those that exist in Plat A. CM Staker stated that this issue had been previously discussed and felt staff did an excellent job. He reported that the Planning Commissioners had unanimously made a decision and he did not think they should have to discuss it again. Planner Boyd explained that previous discussion focused on a particular area because of a certain applicant, but the Commissioners did discuss looking at other areas in the future. Planning Commission Page 4

5 CM Nolte indicated these were single family zones and when people purchase in those zones their expectation is that there will not be apartments. Director Aegerter commented that was the balancing act in this situation. The assumption would be that there were no apartments located in neighborhood, but some purchased houses and the only way they could afford the payment was to add an apartment. Other situations involved where in the life cycle the individual might be. Director Aegerter reported that the balancing issue was the expectation of the individual who buys in the R1, residential zone. CM Nolte reported that citizens have approached her regarding apartments and she commented that tightening parking and owner occupancy becomes critical. If the intent was for owners to stay in their homes, then they should. She stated that a city-wide ordinance that has strict parameters and require owner occupancy could be proposed. Director Aegerter stated that enforcement is a big issue because it is very uncomfortable going to someone and asking about an illegal apartment. CM Nolte indicated that she was not saying that the City has to go out and be the sheriff of everybody, but there would be a mechanism in place where action could be taken. CM Packard stated that the big problem would be the parking factor for smaller areas. He reported that one of the councilmen discussed deep lots and a right-of-way in back for parking which would be a mess. He stated that he did not think it would make sense to open accessory apartments city-wide because of the vehicle problems, snow plowing, etc. CM Staker stated that he was not in favor of opening up the whole city to accessory apartments. He indicated that the issue was not about children coming home to live with parents, but about separate families living in one house. CM Staker explained that the expectation of an individual who purchases a home in a single family neighborhood is just that; single family dwellings, but now the discussion is to reward the individuals who have broken the law. CM Young stated that a graphic might be better for the council members to see regarding parked cars on the 90-foot frontage lots. CM Huff asked which commissioner would not want to allow accessory apartments city-wide. CM Nolte stated that she was not opposed to allowing accessory apartments city-wide if an ordinance is in place addressing parking issues and the owner occupation. CM Staker asked where accessory apartments where currently allowed. Planner Boyd indicated that accessory apartments were conditionally allowed in Plat A. She added that even though the opportunity has been available for a long time, no one had applied for owner occupancy. CM Packard concurred that a visual would be helpful when presented to the council members. CM Young expressed his concern for the residents just outside the overlay zone. Director Aegerter reported that the Code Enforcement Officer received occasional calls regarding illegal apartments and added that there has been much support to remedy those. He added that his was an unpleasant situation from a political stand point. CM Nolte asked if the Code Enforcement Officer filed a report. Director Aegerter indicated that he does. CM Nolte asked where the report goes. Director Aegerter explained that by ordinance, the violator is given a certain amount of time to rectify the problem. CM Mertz asked what would happen if the landlord chose to ignore the violation notice. Director Aegerter responded that the case would be referred Planning Commission Page 5

6 to the court. CM Mertz asked how many violations have gone to court. Director Aegerter reported that none of the violations had been to court. CM Nolte asked when the paperwork was generated by code enforcement, if the community development staff then took it to the council members. Director Aegerter indicated that permission from the council members was not necessary. CM Mertz asked if legal accessory apartments required a separate power meter. Director Aegerter responded that for some years the power department did not notify the City about additional meters. CM Nolte asked what percentage or ratio of accessory apartments would be ideal for a city and asked if Springville City was meeting those standards. Director Aegerter reported that by State law moderate income housing had to be provided. CM Nolte asked how Springville stood regarding that. Director Aegerter indicated that the City fell short on legal apartments, but the requirement was probably met with illegal ones. CM Nolte explained the justification for the discussion regarding accessory apartments in Plat A when the Westfields was being developed. Director Aegerter added that the lots had to be 10,000 square feet with 90 feet of frontage to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. CM Staker commented that animal control also weighs in because along with people, animals come in too. He reported that animal control comes around his neighborhood twice a week. CM Huff felt that if accessory apartments were allowed in Plat A or other sections of the City, then he did not see why they shouldn t be allowed city-wide; if it s good enough for one section of the city, then it should be good for everybody. Director Aegerter asked if there should still be standards. CM Huff responded that standards should be definitely made city-wide; the 90-foot frontage; owner occupied; meeting building codes; etc. He stated that he felt it would be discrimination to single out one area. CM Mertz asked about Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R) and if amnesty would be granted for illegal apartments. He suggested that standards would be reasonable expectations that could be solved though CC & Rs. CM Huff stated that illegal apartments would not be granted amnesty. Planner Boyd stated that CC & Rs would require a good home owners association that would enforce them, but typically that is not the case. CM Staker asked what staff was recommending. Director Aegerter stated that staff valued the Commissioner s judgment and was awaiting their direction. He indicated that there was no right or wrong, but the Commissioners needed to keep planning principles in mind; e.g. parking and public safety. He explained that a random survey taken during the General Plan update process and in the most recent City survey, a lot of people indicated that they wanted accessory dwellings units. He indicated that staff was coming to the Commissioners for direction and a recommendation to take to the City Council. CM Packard asked that when the item is brought to the Council items of concerns to discuss would be public safety; congested streets; young children; inadequate parking, etc. He added that the City had to be tough on these things and Code must be enforced. Director Aegerter asked the Commissioners to think through who uses the accessory apartment and added that rental owners who occupy the dwelling would be more thoughtful. Director Aegerter explained Planning Commission Page 6

7 that the Good Landlord Program helps address accessory units and was more focused toward multiple units. He stated that typically young couple or college students are renters, but not too many young couples with babies. CM Staker asked if the average accessory apartment had two vehicles. Director Aegerter indicated that CM Staker was probably correct. He reminded the Commissioners that the proposed ordinance would require four off-site parking spaces. CM Huff asked the Commissioners for their direction to Planner Boyd. He asked if there would be any reason to lower the lot size requirement from 10,000 square feet. CM Mertz asked what the average lot size was in Plat A. Planner Boyd explained that to have an accessory apartment in Plat A, the lot had to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. She reminded that Commissioners that Plat A had already been established to accessory dwelling units. CM Huff asked the Commissioners what their feelings were regarding whether this should be applied city-wide or limited to Plat A and other areas. CM Packard indicated that it should be city-wide with controls. CM Young indicated that he felt the same. CM Nolte indicated that she felt the same if the controls were possible. CM Mertz indicated that he felt this should be applied city-wide with controls. CM Staker indicated that he felt no additional areas should be considered. CM Huff stated that the direction from the majority was to apply this city-wide with controls. CM Huff asked if there were any reasons to lessen the lot size requirement. CM Mertz stated that he felt the 10,000 square feet was good, but indicated that the focus should be on the offstreet parking issue rather than the lot size. CM Staker indicated that there should be no difference with lot sizes. CMs Packard, Young and Nolte indicated that they would prefer the 10,000 square foot lots. CM Huff stated that the general conscience was to maintain the 10,000 square foot lot. CM Huff asked for opinions regarding the 90-foot frontage. CM Staker stated that the council members felt the ordinance was being penal with the frontage requirement and suggested that this might be an expectation to address. CM Huff asked if there were any reason the frontage requirement should to be different. CM Staker suggested 80 feet, but opening up to 90 feet at the setback. CM Nolte reported that she walked off her property to be 100 feet, but her neighbor s property frontage was about 90 feet. She stated that the additional frontage was another protection and she indicated that she was in favor of 100 feet adding that parked cars become a safety issue. CM Staker recommended 90 feet and staying with the original recommendation. CM Packard agreed. Director Aegerter reported that typically a parking stall is 22-feet and enough clearance of either side of a driveway in terms of visibility. CM Young asked if the current ordinance addressed onstreet parking. CM Huff suggested staying with the 90-feet. He asked if the dwelling being owner occupied was an issue. Planner Boyd indicated that it was not. CM Huff indicated that the owner occupied requirements should be stated in the ordinance. He asked about building code requirements and having separate meters for each utility. Planner Boyd responded that according to the Building Official, each unit must meet a certain code. Director Aegerter explained that existing apartments had to be brought to code which were all life-savings issues. Planning Commission Page 7

8 CM Huff asked if Fire Code had to be met. Director Aegerter indicated that Fire Code had to be met and this was in the ordinance. Planner Boyd added that the ordinance indicates that all current building codes had to be met. CM Huff asked if too small of a window would be a Code issue. Planner Boyd indicated that it would be. CM Huff asked if there were restrictions regarding animals. CM Packard asked if the Good Landlord Program was applicable to accessory apartments. Planner Boyd indicated that it would apply to all rental income properties. CM Huff asked if there was direction to staff regarding any other areas or concerns. Planner Boyd stated specifically, the Commissioners wanted this looked at as a city-wide issue and research why the 10,000 square foot lot size and 90-foot frontage. CM Mertz added that bringing illegal apartments into compliance should also be addressed. CM Huff stated that would be an issue for the council members. He stated that if the City were serious about putting in a Good Landlord ordinance, then it must enforce it. CM Staker moved to recess for a five-minute break. CM Nolte seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn for a short break was unanimous. CM Huff adjourned for a short break at 7:55 PM. Craig reconvened at 8:00 PM. Discussion regarding Good Landlord Program. Planner Boyd approached the Commissioners and indicated that direction had been given by the council members because on August 16, 2011 a resident approached the council members with concerns regarding absentee landlords on rental homes in Plat A. She reviewed the information in the staff report and explained that Ogden was the first city to implement the Good Landlord Program. She reported that many other northern Utah cities have also adopted this program. Planner Boyd indicated that the Planning Department staff met with the Executive Director of the Utah Apartment Association who typically do training sessions. She suggested having him come and present the information to the Commissioners. Planner Boyd reported that Springville currently does not have business license fee for rentals. One benefit of the program is to obtain property owner information. She indicated that the City would require a study and if the property owner chose to not participate, that s where a disproportionate (larger) fee would come in. Director Aegerter reviewed rental licensing fees. CM Mertz asked if the property owner would have to participate in the training every year. Planner Boyd indicated that there would be a fee every year, but the training or refresher course would be every other year. CM Huff stated that he is a landlord and the fees were one thing, but now there would be a requirement of an eight to twelve-hour course with a four-hour refresher course every other year. He reported that his units were well cared for; they were in good condition, clean, presentable, etc. He stated that his time was worth a lot to him and now the City would require him to take an eight-hour course. CM Staker asked if anyone had taken the Planning Commission Page 8

9 training course. Planner Boyd indicated that no one had and explained that the course would teach the landlord about evictions, city regulations, zoning requirements, nuisances, etc. CM Huff asked about the disproportionate fee and what percentage of the calls the City receives are because the units are junky. Planner Boyd reported that the majority of the calls received by staff were on rental units; mainly the landlord absentee type of properties. She indicated that the purpose of bringing this before the Planning Commissioners was for them to think about it and added that this was still in the research process. CM Young asked if the City could send a bill to repeat landlords where there were continual problems. Director Aegerter indicated that there were legal issues associated with that. CM Packard added that it would have to apply to the city as a whole. CM Huff stated that it would also have to apply to accessory apartments. Planner Boyd commented that this might be a way to find which units have separate meters, etc. CM Staker added that this program could help with code enforcement. CM Huff stated that he was not opposed to the fee as much as he was opposed to the time. Planner Boyd reported that the training sessions would typically be on the weekends and the City could determine the length of time and the day. CM Mertz indicated that on-line sessions could also be an option. He added that Ogden was also the first city to implement on-line traffic school. CM Packard referred to Plat A stating that some of the rentals were run down; the yards have not been kept up; crime was an element, etc. He stated that he was in favor of this type of program. He added that it has been proven that in cities where this type of program has been applied, the crime drops dramatically. CM Packard added that this type of program makes sense and would be a great tool. CM Huff asked if the City could restrict landlords from renting to anyone who had been convicted of a drug crime, etc. CM Staker stated that would be a law suit waiting to happen. Planner Boyd reported that Salt Lake City s approach was the most ideal according to the Utah Apartment Association representative. CM Staker indicated that he liked the good landlord program and in a perfect world maybe the fees could be reduced for the experienced landlord who had no complaints. He added that he liked the idea. Planner Boyd asked the Commissioners if they would like her to invite Paul Smith to do a presentation. Director Aegerter commented that the main purpose for presenting the Good Landlord Program to the Commissioners was to gather comments and then have a joint work session with the council members. CM Packard asked if the City Attorney would also be invited. Director Aegerter indicated that he would be and stated that the City Attorney and City Administrator had been involved with the initial meeting with the Utah Apartment Association representative. Planning Commission Page 9

10 CM Huff indicated that the discussion comes back to the issue of code enforcement and reported that most of the complaints involve Plat A where the majority of the accessory apartments are illegal. If the units were owner occupied, he thought things would be different. CM Mertz indicated that he felt this was a good program, but the training should be kept at a minimum. CM Young asked what the fees would be based on. Director Aegerter explained that business license fees were based on the services provided. He reported that State law requires an analysis. Approval of the 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. CM Huff asked if there were any issued with the 2012 meeting schedule. CM Mertz reported that February 14, 2012 was Valentine s Day. With no further discussion, CM Packard moved to approve the 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. CM Young seconded the motion. The vote to approve the 2012 meeting schedule was unanimous. With nothing further to discuss, CM Staker moved to adjourn the meeting. CM Mertz seconded the motion. The vote to close the meeting was unanimous. CM Huff adjourned the meeting at 8:17 PM. Planning Commission Page 10