AMERICAN FORK CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 16, 2018 WORK SESSION MINUTES

Transcription

1 Members Present: Brad Frost Kevin Barnes Barbara Christiansen Rob Shelton Staci Carroll Members Absent: Clark Taylor Staff Present: David Bunker Camden Bird Wendelin Knobloch Aaron Brems Lauralee Hill Kyle Maurer George Schade Timothy Merrill Adam Olsen Darren Falslev Derric Rykert Scott Sensanbaugher AMERICAN FORK CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 16, 2018 WORK SESSION MINUTES Mayor City Administrator Admin Analyst Associate Planner Fire Chief Deputy Recorder Finance Officer IT Director Legal Counsel Senior Planner Police Chief Parks and Recreation Director Public Works Director Also present: Mike Hathorne, Deann Huish, John Woffinden, Ken Burg WORK SESSION The purpose of City Work Sessions is to prepare the City Council for upcoming agenda items on future City Council Meetings. The Work Session is not an action item meeting. No one attending the meeting should rely on any discussion or any perceived consensus as action or authorization. These come only from the City Council Meeting. The American Fork City Council met in a work session on Tuesday, at 4:00, in the City Administration Office Conference Room, located at 51 East Main Street, commencing at 4:00 p.m. Mayor Frost called the meeting to order. He excused Taylor who was traveling. He also welcomed Carroll who was participating remotely. He noted that Shelton would be arriving late. 1. Continued discussion on the proposed changes to the TOD ordinance. (Requested by Terilyn Lurker, Recorder) 1 P a g e

2 Mayor Frost stated that the item the Council was discussing would also come before the Council at the next City Council Meeting on the 23 rd of October. Adam Olsen gave a review of what was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. He acknowledged the presence of John Woffinden, Chair of the Planning Commission. He stated that this code was like other codes and would occasionally need amendments, just as other city codes had done. The Planning Commission made a recommendation for approval. Shelton stated that he appreciated watching this meeting on YouTube. He asked about the Planning Commission s questions. Mr. Olsen responded staff had addressed the questions and they were now included in the current documents. He then turned the time over to Mike Hathorne. Mr. Hathorne stated his intention was to discuss the code document s process. He explained the code was broken into eight sections and the version that was sent out recently was the code that addressed the Planning Commission's concerns. He noted it included hyperlinks. Barnes asked if there was only one red-lined version, to which he was given an affirmative answer. Mr. Hathorne explained that Sections 1 and 2 addressed the authority for the TOD code. Sections 3 through 6 addressed the process. Section 7 addressed public space which included thoroughfares within the blocks as well as open space. Lastly, Section 8 was the definition section. The definitions tied back into the document through italics included in the other sections. He then identified the areas where the TOD code would be implemented. He compared the 516 acre TOD area to a map of Salt Lake City to demonstrate the size of the property within the TOD. He stated that the development would take a lot of time. The development area plan had two issues. First was the establishment of the District Boundaries. Mr. Hathorne explained the previous boundaries were not accounting for land ownership. This led to some land owners having parcels within two districts. The new code addressed and corrected this issue. The second issue was the major thoroughfare plan. There was a lot of collaboration with the Public Works and Engineering Departments that addressed this issue. He explained they made adjustments to allow the thoroughfares to become natural boundaries between districts. At the level of the development area plan, the team created a virtual subdivision based on district boundaries. Mr. Hathorne continued by explaining that the boundaries were all sized within a pedestrian shed, and were all as compact as possible. The code provided information to the City and the development community on how to create the TOD. The next step was the district framework plan. At the district framework level, the team created a virtual subdivision of the blocks. Carroll asked if the block type would be 2 P a g e

3 separated definitively. Mr. Hawthorne answered in the negative and explained that the block types would not be tied to the operation overlay. They determined that the best way to enforce the block types as well as the sub-districts was to establish an operational overlay. This provided for communication between the City and the developer to determine the area s use. Using the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Hathorne explained that they made efforts to manage intensities. Their goal was to have a higher intensity at the core and feather to lower intensities as they reached the edges of the suburban areas. This was planned to be gradual to avoid leaps in intensities. Shelton asked if the higher intensity areas would be more walkable and the less intense areas would be less walkable. Mr. Hathorne answered in the negative. He explained they planned to make the entire TOD walkable. Shelton clarified there would be larger sidewalks in the core to carry more people with smaller sidewalks on the edges. Mr. Hathorne added that they needed to ensure that 200 South did not impede walkability. Shelton noted that 700 West was also important to consider. Mr. Hathorne agreed with Shelton. Mr. Hathorne explained the operational overlay served as a guide for developer s projects. Carroll asked if the operational overlay was created to be a definitive standard for development. Mr. Merrill explained that the operational overlay was essential for legal reasons. Their goal was to prevent the first developers taking all the most desirable areas at once. The operational overlay provided flexibility where the thoroughfares would be located. It also gave the City some regulatory oversight to the area s development over time. Mr. Hathorne explained the operational overlay gave flexibility while allowing the City to have regulatory oversight over a long period of time. The block type overlay was an attempt to create symmetry between the existing development patterns and future development patterns. The operational overlay also addressed the sub-districts. It provided information about what building uses were allowed in the sub-district. He explained certain uses required specific types of building construction and this tied the relationship of the uses and allowed mixed uses. Shelton asked for clarification. Mr. Hathorne explained that building codes would govern the placement of outlets, the number of toilets, etc. The zoning code would not address these types of things. It would, however, address the facades of buildings and other public realm issues. Mr. Hathorne explained they were able to project how much development would occur at the lot level based on the overlay model. He noted the west neighborhood and the garden district would be mixed use, general, and residential edge. These uses would be limited as they were on the edges and it was their intent to limit intensity on the edges. In referring to the PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Hathorne explained the detail for the garden district and the east neighborhood. There was enough information in the models to project the capacities. This allowed the City to be proactive with infrastructure and planning. He further explained that the City was responsible for the Development Area Plan. The District Framework Plan allowed for negotiation between 3 P a g e

4 the City and the developer. The Block Plan was the place that the developer makes direct application while showing compliance. Mr. Hathorne said there was deliberation on the approval for block plans. It was decided there would be staff level approval for the block plans. The block plan was a precursor to the developer submitting the subdivision plat. The developer s plans had to follow the approved block plan and needed to be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. Shelton asked if this would be the same as the technical review. Mr. Hathorne answered that this would be much more formal. Mr. Olsen clarified if everything was met it would receive staff approval. Shelton clarified that this was a similar process. Mr. Hathorne explained this process would help streamline development. It made things more cost effective for both the City and the developer. Mr. Hathorne explained they gave the code to a designer who was asked to lay out four blocks with the three districts represented for test purposes. The designer subdivided the block and broke the blocks down by sub blocks by adding streets, rear lanes, and alleys depending on lot types. There was subsequent discussion on the block shapes and it was noted there were orthogonal and rhomboidal shaped blocks. Their goal was not to emit a hard grid pattern within the TOD area. This gave some flexibility and allowed for various shapes. Shelton asked if the code had anything to do with access management and restricting the subdividing of alleyways onto arterial roads. Mr. Hathorne responded that this was an important point. He said he would examine the code to see if this was addressed. He noted UDOT controlled access to their roads and limited their access points. The City should have the opportunity to do the same. Carroll noted an alley way would have less impact than a driveway. Mr. Hathorne concurred, and explained that they did not want to allow alleyways to dump onto an arterial road. Mr. Hathorne explained the test design, stating that it allowed them to identify the specific points within the code they hoped to cover. The local thoroughfares with each block and block types were addressed. He then explained that the plan key gave the reviewer an easier understanding of the submitted design plans. Mr. Hathorne continued by explaining the lot plans. The previous code placed the emphasis on building types allowing for six different types. He noted they needed a much broader palette. They identified twenty potential building types to include in the code. The lot type included the various types of buildings that were permitted. When asked if 16 feet was too narrow for a lot, Mr. Hathorne explained that the housing products in Daybreak were smaller in width. He said the types of homes that would fit on this lot were the housing products that American Fork needed. Barnes pointed out a grassy space presented in the slides and asked if this was a common area. Mr. Hathorne answered affirmatively and noted that it was maintained by an 4 P a g e

5 HOA. It was noted there was no setback. Barnes clarified there was nothing behind the home that belonged to the homeowner; this area was also maintained by the HOA. Shelton asked if they were anticipating HOA type developments in this area. Mr. Hathorne responded this depended on the type of product the developer wanted to deliver. He explained they could reduce the shared space. Shelton commented the market would probably encourage an HOA in this area. A guest developer asked to what the percentage referred in the code. Mr. Hathorne said this referred to the acreage of the block. Shelton clarified there was no standard indicating that the building needed to be 16 feet; rather, this was the minimum requirement. Barnes stated this was the developer s decision. Mr. Woffinden noted there were already developments in American Fork that were 16 feet. Mr. Hathorne commented that the relationship between the lot type and the building type was what made the code function. He explained the lifestyle associated with narrower products may not be comprehendible. Their goal was to provide all type of homes. Mayor Frost said affordable housing was on the mind of the Council. He asked Mr. Hathorne to discuss price points of the housing. Mr. Hathorne responded they were providing the environment for affordable housing. Barnes asked how much a 16-foot-wide building cost in Mr. Hathorne s area. A developer responded the cost would be between $225,000 to $250,000. Barnes asked if developers would rent the town homes. Mr. Olsen responded town homes were typically sold. Mr. Woffinden said they needed to be concerned about the facades of these buildings. He explained if they put in a lot of these homes they needed to vary. Mr. Hathorne responded that the code considered this issue and covered what materials could be used for the buildings. Shelton said he wanted to talk about affordability. He explained there were some town homes in the City that were expensive because they were new. He said these homes would be pricier and would not have a yard. Carroll asked them to address the alleys and the snow plowing. Mr. Hathorne explained the alleys and lanes would be made private. Any of the products built with an alley or lane would belong to a HOA. Carroll asked if this should be addressed in the code. Mr. Hathorne responded that this was not necessary, but they could include it in the code. Council consensus was that it was necessary to include this in the code. Mr. Hathorne said the only thing they needed to do was to clarify these areas were private. Carroll asked Mr. Hathorne to address the 30-foot setbacks. Mr. Olsen responded the normal setbacks in the City were 30 feet. There was subsequent deliberation regarding the setbacks for Lots 7 through 9, and it was determined by Carroll 5 P a g e

6 that they were two feet. Christiansen asked why there was a one-foot setback from sidewalks. Mr. Bunker explained that this provided the right-of-way. It also gave room for public repairs to streets and infrastructure. Shelton asked if 200 South needed to be concrete. Mr. Hathorne explained that the details of 200 South needed to be added to the district framework plan not the code. Council Member Shelton stated if the setbacks must be concrete they must be in the code. Mr. Hathorne explained there would be nothing fronting 700 West, as it would be highly trafficked. There was subsequent discussion on the right-of-way on 200 South and 700 West. There was concern about the setbacks being made concrete to provide adequate sidewalk. Mayor Frost asked what they wanted to require in the code. Mr. Bunker noted they wanted to give options to the developer. Mr. Hathorne explained the issue was whether or not the City wanted to create uniformity. In response to a comment from Shelton, Mr. Hathorne noted this was not a code issue but a district framework issue. Shelton suggested the creation of a LT-10 on 200 South where 8 foot setbacks are required. Mr. Bunker responded they could include in the district framework code section language stating that the setbacks should be a smooth hard surface. Mr. Merrill suggested it be in the code. Christiansen asked if they could include in the code that the specific requirements for setbacks and their treatments could be found within the District Framework Plan. Mr. Hathorne stated he needed more time to think about how to include this language in the code. Carroll commented the City had the right to do land use regulations through the City code. Barnes asked if the code was the strongest place to put requirements, to which he was given an affirmative answer. Shelton suggested Mr. Hathorne, Mr. Merrill, and staff meet to create a solution. Carroll asked staff to discuss Section 6 concerning parking lots. She was concerned about the parking types. Shelton said the higher intensity would need a parking structure. Carroll said she did not want to limit these areas to only parking structures. Mr. Hathorne responded they needed to extend the use of parking lots into the higher density areas where they could later convert to parking structures when density requires. He also agreed that parking lots be allowed in LT-3 to allow for churches. Carroll asked about the lot width for front facing garages. She noted that the Tandem style garage had no required lot width listed. Mr. Hathorne stated they needed to discuss the right lot width, and said he recommended the same lot width as the Recessed: Mid 6 P a g e

7 garage which was 48 feet minimum. The Council agreed with Mr. Hathorne. Carroll asked why the code did not require recesses in front of garages. Mr. Hathorne responded that the code did require a recess in some cases. As the lot size narrows, the garage moves further back on the lot. Shelton asked about the appeal authority in the code. He noted the City already had a Board of Adjustment as an appeal authority. Mr. Merrill responded the Board of Adjustment was currently comprised of lay persons that did not have any experience with the code. He explained the appeal authority for the TOD would be an informed, independent referee. Mr. Olsen clarified how the appeals process functioned and expressed his preference that the City utilize a hearing officer. There was subsequent deliberation on the matter, and Shelton stressed that he wanted a zoning clearance officer. He suggested Planning Director (Adam Olsen) be appointed zoning clearance officer. Mayor Frost stated that he was in favor of having an independent person for the appeals process. Carroll asked who would serve the role of a hearing officer. Mr. Merrill responded that a City Planner or attorney from another city would cover this role when needed. Carroll responded that she was in favor of this type of independent person. Mr. Merrill added that Boards of Adjustment were expiring in most cities and were starting to utilize one individual. Christiansen said she liked the Board of Adjustment process. Shelton noted the Mayor appointed people to the Board of Adjustment. Barnes said he did not want one person to be the judge and said that a committee was better. Mr. Merrill suggested deleting the entire section of the code concerning the appeals process. He noted the board could not grant variances. Mr. Bunker noted the Board of Appeals could grant an adjustment but not a variance. He suggested in the TOD they should not have the power for either. Mr. Merrill agreed. Mr. Hathorne noted if there was nothing about the appeals process in the code they would have to follow current processes. He suggested they remove this fully from the code. Shelton noted the current City code did not address Airbnbs but the TOD code did. Mr. Olsen added that this was not a big issue within the City. Shelton suggested they allow Airbnbs close to transportation. Mr. Hathorne suggested the only place an Airbnb could not be used was in the office core section. Carroll suggested leaving this out of the code unless it became an issue. Shelton asked what a sub lot perimeter measurement was. Mr. Hathorne responded a sub-lot was the block subdivided within the block. Shelton suggested non-conforming uses be addressed by the designated zoning clearance officer and suggested that references to staff be designated zoning clearance 7 P a g e

8 officer. Mr. Hathorne responded the zoning clearance officer was a part of staff. He explained it would be cumbersome and tedious naming responsible parties within the code and wanted to continue the use of the word staff. Shelton continued by explaining why it was important to name this position specifically. Mr. Hathorne stated that he needed assistance identifying the one person who should be designated throughout the document when referring to City staff. Mr. Merrill asked Shelton who would be the zoning clearance officer. Council Member Shelton responded this would be the Head of the Planning Department. Mr. Hathorne commented they were asked to scale back to only identify City staff in general. He asked what Mr. Olsen thought about this change. Mr. Olsen responded they could identify the specific titles. Mayor Frost asked what they had done in other codes. Mr. Olsen responded that he did not know how the other codes addressed this issue. Christiansen stated that the City needed to be thorough to avoid future issues. Mr. Hathorne stated that he would go through the code and make specific assignments. Shelton asked Mr. Hathorne to address accessory apartments. Mr. Hathorne responded they had addressed this recently and explained where they could be located within the TOD. Shelton asked why the TOD was coded differently than the rest of the City for accessory apartments. Mr. Olsen said it would be similar to the existing code. Mr. Hathorne stated the current code might need to be reformed to be more consistent with the TOD zone. Christiansen noted the TOD was a different zone and it needed different standards. Carroll noted accessory apartments required off-street parking which limits the ability to have ADUs in the TOD. Shelton asked about the maintenance of trees. He noted the City s ordinance did not allow tree maintenance by private parties when trees were located on public property. Mayor Frost suggested joining the current City code with the TOD. Mr. Hathorne noted in Section 7 of the code there was a planting list for trees and ground cover. Carroll asked if the median qualified as open space. Mr. Hathorne answered in the negative. Christiansen asked if they needed to specify whether or not signage could be illuminated. Mr. Hathorne said the current sign ordinance dealt with auto scale signs not pedestrian signs. She also asked if they needed to limit sign sizes for address signs. Mr. Hathorne responded the sizes were addressed in the code. Christiansen noted a small error in the document. Christiansen noted there needed to be limitations on how far apart food trucks could park. She noted this was set in the City s code and the TOD code needed to match. 8 P a g e

9 Christiansen asked about liner buildings, and it was noted that this term referred to a shield for a parking structure. Christiansen explained that balconies, bay windows, and chimneys could encroach into the first lot layer by 60 percent. She asked if the 60 percent figure referred to width, to which she was given an affirmative answer. Christiansen asked who would interpret the use exterior materials in an authentic manner part of the code. Mr. Hathorne responded the code was intended to be a starting point and not to be specific. The developer was required to submit their plans to the City to be examined. He explained how the developer s architectural style was determined. Christiansen asked why they had a minimum of six feet and a maximum of eight feet. She was concerned people would have small fences in their backyard. Mr. Hathorne responded residents could put small fences up because this was private space. The fences addressed in the code were for shielding private back yards. It was agreed to make the maximum height for fences six feet. Barnes asked what a private civic space was. Mr. Hathorne responded this was open space. He said they could change the wording to open space in the document. Mr. Hathorne said he would address the issues discussed and bring a revised document to discuss at next Council Meeting. Mr. Woffinden asked about pervious materials. It was stated this was taken out of the document. Barnes asked if the Council could put off deciding until a later meeting. Mayor Frost stated they needed a special session. Shelton noted they needed to discuss the cross sections and requested that the moratorium be extended. Mr. Bunker said they could have a special session on the 30 th or extend the moratorium. Carroll said she was not opposed to a special session and asked when the moratorium ended. Staff noted that it would end October 31 st. Carroll said she was concerned about delaying developers. There was subsequent discussion about deciding the next meeting date. Mayor Frost said they would make extending the moratorium an action item for Tuesday night. He said they would discuss the cross sections at the November 7 th work session. They would then make the final vote November 13 th. 2. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Terilyn Lurker, City Recorder 9 P a g e