AMERICAN FORK CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 16, 2016 The American Fork Planning Commission met in a regular session on March 16, 2016, in the American Fork City Hall, located at 31 North Church Street, commencing at 7:00 pm Present: Absent: Staff Present: Also Present: Geoff Dupaix, Alternate* Eric Franson Nestor Gallo, City Engineer Trent Andrus, Engineer I Adam Olsen, Senior Planner Wendelin Knobloch, Associate Planner Terilyn Lurker, Deputy Recorder One citizen Chairman Woffinden welcomed everyone and those present repeated the Pledge of Allegiance. HEARING, REVIEW AND ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN FOR 860/900 EAST BETWEEN 50 SOUTH AND PACIFIC DRIVE Nestor Gallo explained that this amendment took the railroad crossing between 50 South and Pacific Drive for 860/900 East off the master plan. The goal was to move traffic to the main roads where signalization would make turning movements safer. In this case, they would be moving the traffic to Utah County Boulevard. There were two reasons for this change to the transportation master plan: to move traffic away from the Barratt Elementary school zone and the crossing over the railroad tracks would be difficult to get approved. In order to add a crossing over the railroad, two crossings needed to be closed. Mr. Gallo stated that if the City were to close two crossings there could be issues with the emergency personnel. In discussions with the Mayor, they have decided that the crossing at this location was impossible. Chairman Woffinden stated that adding a railroad crossing can be a hassle, as they have learned from years of fighting for a crossing over 540 West. Public Hearing: There were no comments. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 1 of 7
moved to recommend approval for the amendment to the Transportation Master Plan for 860/900 East between 50 South and Pacific Drive. seconded the motion. Voting was as follows: The motion carried. HEARING, REVIEW AND ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN FOR THE RELOCATION OF RECOMMENDED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN THE AREA OF 200 EAST MAIN STREET Adam Olsen stated that with the New Main Street Plan, the traffic signal was now at 300 East instead of 200 East. They determined that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan needed to be altered to meet the new plan so everything was shifted over one block. Wendelin Knobloch pointed out that there was one additional change to the plan on 140 South Street. With the development of the Z-Act Home Development subdivision, they were able to extend the bicycle boulevard from 200 East to 100 East along 140 South. Public Hearing: There were no comments. moved to recommend approval of an amendment to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the relocation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area of 200 East Main Street. seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: The motion carried. DISCUSSION ON CHAPTERS 4 THROUGH 6 OF THE FORM-BASED CODE TO COMPLEMENT THE STATION AREA PLAN (FRONTRUNNER) Mr. Olsen stated that at the last meeting they discussed Chapters 1 through 3. A brief outline of each chapter was given, a short discussion was held, and any questions or changes would be included in the chapters. Today they would discuss Chapters 4 through 6, with the remaining chapters being discussed at the next meeting. Chapter 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 2 of 7
Mr. Olsen explained that this chapter identified uses allowed in each district. There was a use table provided as well as the district in which those uses were to be found. This chapter also included a Definition of Uses that further defined what each use type was and the typical uses you would find within each designation. Chapter 5 Mr. Olsen noted this chapter addressed the building types found in each of the districts and the criteria related to the buildings such as the siding, height, façade requirement, etc. The chapter did identify some prototypical buildings throughout the chapter but it was not to show what was expected of each building but just showed the design standards. There were a range of building types that could be allowed as long as the design requirements were met. Mr. Olsen stated that earlier in the day they had a discussion about transparency and the requirement for the commercial buildings to have the main floor be transparent. The reason behind this was for the buildings to be visually stimulating and designed to lure people in; they did not want a blank wall. Chapter 6 This chapter addressed Open Space types and where they could be found along with the parameters. There was detail on coverage of water. This attempted to provide pockets of open space so they were not in a sea of buildings. The plan does identify a large public area, but as each development comes in it was important that those residents have some form of open space they can use. Mr. Olsen commented that they could answer questions tonight or the commission members could contact them at a later date. Chairman Woffinden asked if there were any comments or questions. With there being no comments, Chairman Woffinden encouraged them to read through the chapters in detail and get with Mr. Olsen or Mr. Knobloch with any comments or questions. DISCUSSION ON DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ACCESSARY APARTMENTS Mr. Olsen explained that at the last meeting, they introduced the concept of accessary apartments and introduced elements they felt were important if this ordinance were to move forward. Issues identified at the last meeting were included in the draft ordinance provided to them. One issue was how big or small an area they were comfortable with. They felt that 50% was too large so he included the requirement of 30% in the ordinance. Another inclusion in the ordinance was one unit must be owner-occupied so the owner did not turn the home into a duplex. That was one reason they proposed all utilities running off of one meter so it would not be considered a duplex. Another issue was how much parking should be required. *Geoff Dupaix arrived. Chairman Woffinden asked for the opinion on the size of the basement, noting size had been a concern at the last meeting. Ms. Staten commented that she was not here at the last meeting Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 3 of 7
but she could see where people might have problems with being limited to 30% in how they break up the basement to accommodate the apartment. She commented that in her home, the layout of her basement would make it difficult to follow the 30% requirement. Mr. Dupaix thought that a range would work on the area requirements. Mr. Olsen stated they could add a range of 30% to 50%; they could go less but not greater than 50%. Ms. Staten stated that most basements are less than 50% of the home, and she thought that would allow more flexibility for the homeowners. She thought it should be closer to 50%. Chairman Woffinden thought that a range would be a good way to go. Mr. Olsen stated that the draft ordinance in Section 8 says that the accessory apartment shall use existing entrances on any side of the homes that face the street or side or rear entrance. Basically, any entrance would work if it could be tied to the accessory apartment but a separate entrance was required. It was noted they could add an entrance if they did not currently have an entrance. Mr. Olsen stated he would re-word the draft to delete existing. Chairman Woffinden asked about the parking requirements and noted the draft says that two off-street parking spaces were needed; were two needed or would one space be sufficient? Mr. Schellenberg stated that it would restrict where accessary apartments are to bigger lots to accommodate the parking requirements. Ms. Anderson liked that tandem parking was allowed. Mr. Olsen stated that people cannot count off-street parking as part of the requirement and it does need to be an approved driveway so people cannot park in the front yard. Ms. Staten asked if there were restrictions on driveways on property and Mr. Olsen replied that there was a landscape requirement so the driveway could not take up the entire yard. Mr. Schellenberg asked if an accessory apartment could be located in an accessory building. Mr. Olsen commented that scenario was not allowed and that it would have to be contained in the home. He noted that when they look at accessory structures, one of the provisions was that it not be turned into a business or living area. Mr. Olsen pointed out that if the structure was closer than 12-feet from the residence, it would be considered part of the parent structure and would have to follow those requirements. Mr. Dudley noted that addressing would need to be included and Mr. Olsen stated he would add that provision in. With regards to the utility meters, Ms. Staten did like that provision and thought it would assure the residence not turning into a duplex. Mr. Olsen noted that there was the provision that there may be separate meters but the utility would need to be in the owner s name. Mr. Shellenberg stated that if they require the owner to live there, would it make a difference to require separate utilities? The issue was not wanting the residence to be converted to a duplex; it would also be a way to insure that they do not have an absentee landlord. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 4 of 7
Mr. Shellenberg stated that he liked 30% instead of 50%. If they require a minimum square foot size and then limit the percentage that can be used as an accessory apartment then that would control how much of the home could be used for that purpose. Mr. Olsen noted that he had not seen a square footage requirement for an accessory apartment, but there was a minimum requirement for the square footage footprint of a home. Chairman Woffinden asked if having accessory apartment allowed in all zones was acceptable. Mr. Olsen felt that they would run into issues if they do not allow it in all zones. It was noted this was in all residential zones but they could take it out of the R2, R3 or R4 zones since those zone already allowed for duplexes. Mr. Olsen commented that you could not have a duplex and then rent out an apartment in it. Mr. Schellenberg felt that would be best to take this out of the multiple family zones. Ms. Anderson asked if they need two parking spaces. Chairman Woffinden and Mr. Olsen felt that two spaces were needed; two spaces were required for a single family home and it was felt that two was a sufficient number for an accessory apartment. Ms. Anderson asked if they could tie the number of spaces required to the number of rooms; it was noted that would be hard to enforce. Ms. Staten thought that tandem parking would help and that it would meet the goal of getting parking off the street. Mr. Knobloch asked if they decided upon 30% or 50% and it was noted that they had decided on no greater than 50%. Mr. Knobloch stated that if they have a 4,000 square foot home, they could potentially have a 2000 square foot apartment with four bedrooms and potentially 4 single adults with cars. That could be problematic with off-street parking. The question was if that was considered accessory to the main use when it was the same size. Mr. Knobloch stated that they have had problems with parking because units had been rented out to students, which was allowed by State law. In other areas of the development code, it tied the square footage to the main floor of the structure. Mr. Knobloch would suggest a percentage of the basement as the limit for the accessary apartment, although it would make it harder for existing homes. He did not see it being an accessory apartment when it could potentially be the same size as the main use. Ms. Anderson asked if they could tie parking to two spaces for a single family or more if they rent it out to students. Mr. Knobloch didn t know how practical that was. Mr. Olsen stated that in ordinances he has seen, the square footage has been a percentage of the total square footage on the home and not the main floor. He didn t know if other communities have any issues. Mr. Schellenberg asked if they could make it 30% and include a maximum square footage; he was okay with keeping the apartments smaller. Ms. Anderson suggested that they limit it to up to 50% of the home but no greater than 1,000 square feet. Mr. Olsen stated they could change it to that limitation. The commission members were okay with that change. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 5 of 7
Mr. Schellenberg asked if there were other ordinances limiting parking on the street. Ms. Lurker commented that there was an ordinance limiting parking on the streets during the winter months for snow removal. Mr. Olsen stated the he would come back with the additional edits from tonight s discussion. He felt they needed one more discussion before they hold the hearing. Mr. Schellenberg asked why this change has come to the forefront. Chairman Woffinden commented that he did not like it, but this could be considered low-income housing. Mr. Olsen stated that they get a lot of phone calls and occasionally get comments from the City Council questioning why residents cannot have accessory apartments. It was noted that surrounding cities do allow accessory apartments and this was how Alpine and Highland met the affordable housing requirements as imposed by the State. American Fork does allow multiple family units in certain zones and that alleviates the affordable housing requirements. Mr. Olsen stated that the Planning Commission could ultimately say they do not agree with the proposed ordinance and recommend denial. He felt this was at a point where this issue should be forwarded to the City Council so they could make a decision. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Gallo attended a meeting with UDOT where they discussed a traffic study on 1100 North and North Utah County Boulevard where there has been a history of traffic accidents. In 2009, they had 5,000 trips per day and it has now doubled and keeps growing. The good news was that UDOT did the traffic study and although they do not have funding this year, there would be funding this July for a signal light at that intersection. It was noted there would also be a crosswalk at that location. Chairman Woffinden asked if there were plans to replace the water and sewer lines and redo the roads on 350 West between 500 North and 700 North. He thought there had been plans to address that road. Mr. Gallo indicated it was not on the list for this year or next year, but he would talk to Jay Brems about the issue. Mr. Gallo reported that UDOT received a federal grant for signal coordination in the communities. The project would bid out in April and should be completed this summer. Mr. Olsen stated that he would like to have the attorney come and give the Planning Commission a quick training on various issues that they deal with regularly. With the next Planning Commission meeting being during Spring Break, they felt the second meeting in April would be best for this to take place. SITE PLAN COMMITTEE REPORT Mr. Knobloch reported there would be one site plan for approval at the next Planning Commission meeting; IBC wanted to build a storage shed. He commented that Site Plan meetings have been relatively quiet. Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 6 of 7
Chairman Woffinden reminded the commission members of the Open House on March 23 for the 100 East project upgrade. REVIEW AND ACTION ON THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 2, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION Mr. Schellenberg moved to approve the March 2, 2016, Planning Commission regular session minutes. Mr. Dupaix seconded the motion. Voting was as follows: Geoff Dupaix, alternate Abstain Abstain The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dupaix moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Staten seconded the motion. All were in favor. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Terilyn Lurker Deputy Recorder Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 2016 Page 7 of 7