AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, …€¦ · Legislative actions require that the Planning Commission give a recommendation to the City Council. Typically, the criteria

AMENDED

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 AT 6:30 PM 505 EAST 2600 NORTH NORTH OGDEN, UT 84414

Welcome: Commissioner Thomas Invocation: Commissioner Lunt Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Waite

1. Roll Call

2. Consideration to approve the August 7, 2019, Planning commission Meeting minutes

3. Consideration to approve the August 21, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting minutes

4. Opening Meeting Statement

5. Ex parte communications or conflicts of interest to disclose

6. Public comments for items not on the agenda

CONSENT AGENDA

7. SUB 2018-18 Consideration and Action to extend the expiration date for preliminary approval of Mountain Valley Villas Subdivision; Presenter: Brandon Bell - Associate Planner

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

8. SUB 2019-03 Consideration and action for final approval of Northview Estates Subdivision, Phase 7; Presenter - Brandon Bell, Associate Planner

LEGISLATIVE ITEMS

9. ZTA 2019-09 Discussion on an amendment to revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards for the RE-20 and R-1 zones; Presenter - Jon call, City Manager

10. Public comments for items not on the agenda

11. Remarks from Planning Commissioners

12. Report of City Planner

13. Remarks from City Attorney

14. Adjournment

CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted within the North Ogden City limits on this 12th day of September, 2019 at North Ogden City Hall, on the City Hall Notice Board, on the Utah State Public Notice Website, and at http://www.northogdencity.com. The 2019 meeting schedule was also provided to the Standard Examiner on December 28, 2018.

The Planning Commission at its discretion, may rearrange the order of any item(s) on the agenda. Final action may be taken on any item on the agenda. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodation (including auxiliary communicative aids and service) during the meeting should notify Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, at 782-7211 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Planning Commission Members may be connected via speakerphone. S. Annette Spendlove, MMC, City Recorder Page 1

Planning Commission Meeting August 7, 2019 Page 1 of 7

NORTH OGDEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

August 7, 2019 The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on August 7, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on August 1, 2019. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the Standard-Examiner on December 28, 2018. COMMISSIONERS: Eric Thomas Chairman - Excused Brandon Mason Vice-Chairman Lisa Arner Commissioner Scott Barker Commissioner Alan Lunt Commissioner - Excused Nicole Nancarrow Commissioner Don Waite Commissioner STAFF: Rob Scott City Planner - Excused Brandon Bell Associate Planner – Excused Evan Nelson Planning Director Jon Call City Manager/Attorney Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant VISITORS: Terry Cevering REGULAR MEETING Vice Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Waite offered the invocation and Vice Chairman Mason led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Page 22.


1. ROLL CALL

a. Vice Chairman Mason conducted the roll call and noted that Chairman Thomas and Commissioner Lunt have been excused.

2. OPENING MEETING STATEMENT

Commissioner Waite summarized the opening meeting statement.

3. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OR CONFLICTS OF INTERST TO DISCLOSE

Vice-Chairman Mason asked if any Commissioner needed to declare a conflict of interest or ex parte communications; no disclosures were made.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were no public comments. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: a. Discussion on vision for area south and west of 1700 North Street

When the City is considering a legislative matter, the Planning Commission is acting as a recommending body to the City Council. The City has wide discretion in taking legislative action. Examples of legislative actions are general plan, zoning map, and land use text amendments. Legislative actions require that the Planning Commission give a recommendation to the City Council. Typically, the criteria for making a decision, related to a legislative matter, require compatibility with the general plan and existing codes. BACKGROUND A property owner who owns the southwest corner of 1700 North and Washington Boulevard has approached the City regarding whether or not this property would be approved for building storage units. City Staff felt it was appropriate to spend some time discussing this area of North Ogden, so staff have some guidance as to what information to pass along to the landowners, and prospective buyers. STAFF COMMENTS This property has not been annexed into the City yet, but is inside of the annexation declaration for North Ogden City. The general plan has identified this property as Mixed Use Multi-Family/Commercial with some low density residential on the western edge. The specific area we are focusing on was not assigned a specific type of use so this discussion is hopefully to focus on the type of things the Planning Commission might recommend to the Council as they look at this property.

Page 32.


The memo offered the following summary of potential Planning Commission considerations: • What uses or types of uses does the Planning Commission want to see in the area

south of 1700 N. and west of Washington Boulevard? CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN The General Plan provides general guidance for this area, but not a specific recommendation. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL No approval is required at this time. The memo concluded staff recommends the Planning Commission review this and consider a recommendation to the property owners on what types of uses they would support. City Manager/Attorney Call reviewed the staff memo in Planning Director Scott’s absence. He facilitated discussion among the Planning Commission regarding various land uses that could be considered for the area of land south of 1700 North and west of Washington Boulevard and the quadrant of the City in which the property is located. This will provide the landowner with some guidance as he considers proceeding with annexation of his property into North Ogden. He presented a map to orient the Commission to the Cevering property and he also identified land uses on adjacent parcels. He reviewed the Southtown Goals from the City’s General Plan, which provides general overall goals for this quadrant of the City. Mr. Call then encouraged the Commission to open the discussion to the property owner, Terry Cevering, and other residents present. Commissioner Waite made a motion to suspend the rules for this discussion item to allow open discussion among the visitors present and the Planning Commission. Vice- Chairman Mason seconded the motion. Voting on the motion:

Chairman Thomas excused Vice Chairman Mason aye Commissioner Arner aye Commissioner Barker aye Commissioner Lunt excused Commissioner Nancarrow aye Commissioner Waite aye

The motion carried.

Terry Cevering, 1659 N. 400 E., stated that his property is located in Weber County and when he approached that entity regarding potential development of the site, they suggested that he approach North Ogden due to the scope of the project. Additionally, he learned that the property is included in the City’s annexation plan. He discussed the layout of his property and he has envisioned locating storage sheds on the western most area of the property and screen it from other uses with a secure brick wall that is also aesthetically pleasing. He added

Page 42.


that he would like for the buildings to be climate controlled and for them to be approximately three stories in height. He is planning to conduct a feasibility study for the project, but before he incurs that expense, he decided to approach the City to learn if this is a use that would be allowed or desired on that area of the City. He feels the area would be good for another storage complex. Commissioner Barker stated that it would be an undertaking to develop the entire eight-acre parcel with storage units at one time. He asked Mr. Cevering if he plans to develop the entire parcel at once or in phases. Mr. Cevering stated that he would start at the west side and come as far to the east as he can and as close to his home as possible at this point. The house sits a way back from Washington Boulevard. Eventually he would like to develop all the way to Washington Boulevard if possible, though there have been discussions about other projects abutting Washington Boulevard. He concluded that at this point, he would likely pursue development of the six westernmost acres. Commissioner Lunt asked Mr. Cevering to identify the boundaries of his property, which Mr. Cevering did using the aid of an aerial photograph of the area. Commissioner Nancarrow asked if the entrance to the storage units would be from 1700 North, to which Mr. Cevering answered yes. High level discussion centered on the configuration of the storage unit business, including any requirements for on-site management and security, after which Vice-Chairman Mason expressed some concern about allowing for the construction of a storage unit facility at the point of the southern entrance into the City. He wondered if there may be other development opportunities for the property that may be more pleasing to the residents. Mr. Cevering stated that the storage units would set back quite a far distance from Washington Boulevard and the buildings would be designed in a manner that they would look like a business building. He would prefer low maintenance design, but would be willing to consider landscape requirements that would beautify the property. Commissioner Nancarrow discussed the ‘development horizon’ for this area of the City. To the north of this property, there is a large mixed-use project on which the City spent a significant amount of time in regard to negotiating a development agreement and design guidelines for the residential and commercial components. Additionally, there is another large multi-family development planned for the southernmost point of the City on Washington Boulevard. This means there will be a tremendous number of new residents in this area of the City and Mr. Cevering’s property and other undeveloped properties in this area will be desirable for commercial developments to cater to these new residents. She echoed the concern that Mr. Cevering’s property is one of the first that people will see when entering North Ogden and that is why there is a such a great concern about the appearance of Washington Boulevard. She stated that on the flip side, she can see the practicality of the desired storage unit use as it will cater to the increase in residents in this area. She concluded she is hesitant to commit to a firm development vision for the property at this time. Vice-Chairman Mason agreed and facilitated discussion about several different development types that may potentially be suitable for the property and other nearby properties in the future. Mr. Cevering stated that he shares many of the same concerns and he wants any development to

Page 52.


look nice and to avoid the appearance of an industrial use. He noted that his family has owned this property since the 1970’s and they are vested in the City and its future development. Commissioner Barker stated he is not conflicted about Mr. Cevering’s desired storage unit development. With the commitment that the design and construction will be high quality and aesthetically pleasing, he would support a use that would allow for other property owners to clean their properties by storing items elsewhere. Vice-Chairman Mason stated that one issue is the difficulty in ensuring that all storage unit projects look a certain way once the use is allowed on Washington Boulevard. Commissioner Waite stated that the City could consider specific design standards for any storage units that would be allowed on the street frontage or could limit such a land use to being set back by a specific distance from the road. He added that storage units are not an allowed land use in the City, so the first step would be to consider an ordinance amendment that allows the use. This led to high level philosophical discussion and debate regarding appropriate land uses for the City and specifically in the southern area of the City along Washington Boulevard. There was also a focus on limitations or design guidelines that would be necessary if the City were to allow storage units as a land use. Paul Rhoades, 611 E. 1750 N., stated that he is not opposed to the proposed development of the Cevering property, but he is concerned about the appearance of the City’s southern entrance. He suggested that specific design guidelines and standards be considered if the City decides to proceed with consideration of a code amendment that would allow storage units. He added that he would be curious to hear the input from the residents living northwest of the Cevering property given that they have been very concerned about the development that has occurred in that area - specifically the Village at Prominence Point project. Mr. Call called the Commission’s attention to existing storage unit facilities in the City, which are fairly hidden from public view along main corridors. Vice-Chairman Mason stated that he ran a Google search of storage unit building facades and found an image of quality landscaping around a storage unit office that would be aesthetically pleasing for development along Washington Boulevard. He then facilitated discussion among the Commission and Mr. Cevering about various guidelines that would be appropriate for a storage unit facility; this included hours of operation, security and access, fencing, lighting, and landscaping. Vice-Chairman Mason asked that Mr. Call pass the Commission’s thoughts about this issue on to Planning staff and the Mayor to determine whether it would be appropriate to hold a joint work session with the City Council regarding the potential annexation of the Cevering property and how that property could be developed in the future. Mr. Cevering stated he would be willing to work with an architect to provide a conceptual plan for the type of development that he envisions for his property. Mr. Call suggested that Mr. Cevering avoid that expense at this point in time and, instead, provide photographs of high-quality storage unit developments in other communities to serve as an example as the type of development he would like to pursue.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:

Page 62.


There were no public comments. 7. REMARKS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:

Commissioner Barker asked to be excused from the next Planning Commission Meeting. 8. REPORT OF CITY PLANNER: The City Planner was not in attendance. 9. REMARKS FROM CITY ATTORNEY:

Mr. Call reported that Finance Director Nelson will be participating in some planning endeavors in the City. He has past planning experience and can offer some support to the City’s planning staff. He then reported the City has received responses to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for a rewrite of the City Code and, specifically the land use code. The respondents have indicated they do not have the ability to only work on the land use code and City Administration is considering whether to pursue another RFP for that scope of work while selecting one of the respondents for a rewrite of the rest of the City Code. He then reported there are some residents who have requested pickleball courts east of the senior center. The City is researching its agreement with Weber County Library that provides for additional parking accommodations in that area to determine if that property could be used for pickleball courts.

10. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Nancarrow made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Barker seconded the motion.

Voting on the motion:

Chairman Thomas excused Vice Chairman Mason aye Commissioner Arner aye Commissioner Barker aye Commissioner Lunt excused Commissioner Nancarrow aye Commissioner Waite aye

The motion carried.

Page 72.


The meeting adjourned at 7:47 pm

_______________________________________ Planning Commission Chair _______________________________________ Administrative Assistant ______________________________________ Date approved

Page 82.

Page 9


NORTH OGDEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

August 21, 2019 The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting on August 21, 2019 at 6:31 p.m. in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, Utah. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was furnished to each member of the Planning Commission, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State Website on August 15, 2019. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the Standard-Examiner on December 28, 2018. COMMISSIONERS: Eric Thomas Chairman Brandon Mason Vice-Chairman Lisa Arner Commissioner Scott Barker Commissioner - Excused Alan Lunt Commissioner Nicole Nancarrow Commissioner Don Waite Commissioner STAFF: Rob Scott City Planner - Excused Brandon Bell Associate Planner Evan Nelson Planning Dept. Head Lynne Bexell Administrative Assistant Jon Call City Attorney/Administrator - Excused VISITORS: Diane Little Hilary Christiansen John W. Hansen Terry Bexell Dalene Poll

Julie Anderson Melanie Barker Stephanie Casey Dallas Nicoll Helen Butler

Ray Wojthasek Cord Belnap

REGULAR MEETING

Page 103.


Chairman Thomas called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Commissioner Lunt offered the invocation and Commissioner Arner led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL

a. Chairman Thomas conducted the roll call and noted that Commissioner Barker has been excused from the meeting.

2. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE JULY 31, 2019, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.

Commissioner Nancarrow made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 31, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting minutes as presented. Commissioner Lunt seconded the motion. Voting on the motion:

Chairman Thomas aye Vice Chairman Mason aye Commissioner Arner aye Commissioner Barker excused Commissioner Lunt aye Commissioner Nancarrow aye Commissioner Waite aye

The motion carried.

3. OPENING MEETING STATEMENT

Associate Planner Bell read the opening meeting statement.

4. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS OR CONFLICTS OF INTERST TO DISCLOSE

Chairman Thomas inquired as to whether Commissioners needed to disclose ex parte communications or conflicts of interest. No disclosures were made.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:

Ray Wojthasek, 624 E. 3350 N., stated that he is a former member of the Planning Commission. He served for eight years under a few different Mayors. After about seven years he grew frustrated and he hopes the same does not happen for the current Planning Commission members. During his tenure, the Commission was often asked to draft ordinances that were well intentioned and made good sense, to be passed on to the City Council for action. Later, however, he learned that the ordinances were not being enforced and there was no intention of enforcing them. He used the landscaping and property

Page 113.


maintenance ordinance as an example. Enforcement was eventually assigned to a building inspector who did not have time to handle that additional duty. He stated that he hopes the Commission does not experience that same thing. Also during his tenure, the Commission was asked to pass onto the Council ordinances for planned residential urban developments (PRUDs). The key word is ‘residential’ and for these types of developments, covenants were required and they were recorded against a project. The hillside protection ordinance was one of the actions that the Commission worked on during his tenure. The matter was long debated and was finally settled between lawyers. This matter will come before the Commission again in the future as a property owner will be approaching the City to develop condominiums, townhomes, and a convenience store in the vicinity of 800 East and 4000 North. He stated that campaign brochures for candidates for City Council reference their commitment to preserving the image of North Ogden City in its traditional form as a residential community. They have indicated they will work to control growth, but he asked how much evidence can be seen of that. Instead, candidates ought to say that they do not have control over growth because the Federal Government has passed laws requiring fair housing and other matters. He stated that he hopes the Commission will keep in mind that PRUD stands for planned residential urban developments and that the key word is ‘residential’.

Cord Belnap, 3358 N. 675 E, stated he wished to comment on the potential issuance of a business license to KT&T Ventures, LLC. While he can appreciate the effort of KT&T and their business operations, their attempt to secure a business license for a location across the street from his residence at 679 E. 3350 N., is inappropriate as that is not a suitable location for a business. The property is within the Lakeview Heights homeowners association (HOA) subdivision and the covenants for that development, in paragraph C of Section 7, state that no business, profession, or trade shall be operated or maintained in any residential lot or any structure thereon without the prior approval of the Board, except that this provision shall in no way limit or restrict developers and activities prior to the sale of the residential lots nor prevent owners from renting their living units to tenants. He stated that tenants is plural, which would fit inside the realm of the KT&T business operations, but the language in paragraph B should not be ignored, which states that residential lots shall be used only for single family purposes. He stated that Webster’s Dictionary defines family in three ways: (1) a social group made up of parents and their children; (2) a group of people who come from the same ancestors; and (3) a group of people living together; household. Although Webster defines people living together as a household, not as a family, the HOA’s covenants state that homes must be a single-family residence, not a single household residence. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination against race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability, but it does not discriminate against businesses. KT&T Ventures, LLC is attempting to operate a business in a residential single-family housing association. Paragraph D of the HOA’s covenants state that no activities or anything shall be done, or placed thereon, which may become a nuisance or cause unreasonable embarrassment, disturbance, or annoyance to the owners in the enjoyment of their residential lots or living units and common areas. KT&T’s business operations will increase traffic as there will be numerous employees coming to and from their employment. There will potentially be six different employees and the families of these six employees may also visit. There may not be adequate parking to accommodate the additional vehicles and any other logistics required to move clients in and out of the residential area may be lacking. The business will also increase security issues. Those living in the neighborhood typically know who does and does not belong in the

Page 123.


neighborhood. This type of business has a high turn-over rate and employees and clients of the business will come and go. This will make it hard for the neighborhood to understand who should and should not be there. He brings this up because neighbors want to be vigilant and identify potential risks and the high rate of turn-over will diminish the effectiveness of a neighborhood watch program. Precedence on this issue was set by the City approximately five to seven years ago when an individual operating an auto mechanic shop five miles north of this location was forced to close as it was not appropriate in a residential neighborhood. KT&T Ventures, LLC, is requesting to operate a business in a single family residential zoned HOA. He has four young children who walk to and from school and play outside in close proximity to this residential location. Based upon the HOA covenants and the precedence set by the City in the past, as well as the safety risk posed to his and other children in the neighborhood, the business license should not be granted. Vice-Chairman Mason asked that those wishing to speak limit their comments to three to five minutes. Chairman Thomas stated that the Commission has not yet seen the application referenced by Mr. Belnap. Therefore, there is not much the Commission can do to respond at this time.

Hilary Christiansen, 546 E. 3500 N., stated that KT&T Ventures, LLC, purchased the home referenced by Mr. Belnap with the intent of turning it into a group home. She stated that many residents in the neighborhood are concerned about the issues raised by Mr. Belnap. Increased traffic is of utmost concern. Additionally, the use is a violation of the HOA covenants, and she asked that the precedence set by the City relative to certain types of businesses in residential zones be followed in this situation. Chairman Thomas clarified that the City does allow home-based businesses of varied natures in residential zones throughout the City. He noted there are specific regulations for group homes, and he advised that the residents become familiar with those regulations. He stated that the Commission is not familiar with the HOA covenants, but he recommended that residents speak with City Manager/Attorney Call regarding that matter to see what kind of advice he can offer. The Commission’s discretion is limited. They must approve any business that meets regulations and requirements in the City Code. He reiterated that no business license application has been filed so the Commission can not respond at this time. Commissioner Waite agreed that it would be best for the neighbors to talk to Mr. Call. He referenced the comments made regarding precedence set by the City and noted there may be precedence on both sides of the issue. While the auto-mechanic business was not allowed in a residential zone, there was a group home approved just over 18 months ago in a residential zone and in that case, the City’s hands were tied because of federal regulations. A resident who did not identify himself asked who is responsible to enforce regulations imposed on a group home. Commissioner Waite stated that the State of Utah is responsible to monitor compliance of group home operations. Associate Planner Bell added that the City does have a Code Enforcement Officer who can perform enforcement of City regulations. Commissioner Waite stated that is correct, but the State of Utah’s regulations supersede City regulations for this type of use. He added that HOA covenants are not enforced by the City and he again reiterated that the residents should discuss their concerns with Mr. Call.

Page 133.


Chairman Thomas addressed code enforcement and indicated it is reactive in nature. The Code Enforcement Officer responds to complaints lodged by residents. Vice-Chairman Mason stated that he sympathizes with the residents. He lives near this development and also has young children. However, he was a member of the Commission when the last group home was approved and though there were strong emotions on both sides of the application, he felt the Commission had no choice but to approve it.

6. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:

a. SUB 2019-08 Consideration and action for preliminary approval for Northwood Hills Subdivision.

A staff memo from Associate Planner Bell explained when the Planning Commission is acting as a land use authority, it is acting in an administrative capacity and has a limited degree of discretion. Examples of administrative applications are conditional use permits, design reviews, and subdivisions. Administrative applications must be approved by the Planning Commission if the application demonstrates compliance with the approval criteria. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting preliminary approval of the Northwood Hills subdivision, a 58-lot subdivision located at approximately 2500 North and 1100 East. The proposed subdivision is located on 26.3 acres and is located in the R-1-10 zone. The R-1-10 zone requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet on interior lots and 11,000 square feet on corner lots with a frontage requirement of 90 feet. The property is currently vacant. A geotechnical report has been provided. STAFF / REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS The City Engineer has submitted a report dated August 2019 (See Exhibit C). There is a critical portion of the City’s trail masterplan that is required to connect through this subdivision, starting from Oaklawn Park just south of the subdivision to the City property west of the subdivision, just east of Barker Park. The Parks and Recreation Director has specified that this trail needs to be an actual trail through the subdivision, that meets the Public Works Standards, which requires 6’ of asphalt and a 10’ right-of-way. In order to meet the combined requirements of the Parks and Recreation Director and the City Engineer, the trail must be constructed of asphalt and six feet wide, and not along the front of the lots (meaning not where the sidewalk is typically), but rather in the rear or side of lots, on a separate parcel. Further, the applicant would like to locate the trail through the north side of city property west of the subdivision, (where the green trail segment is located). The City will pay for either the blue or green segment of the trail, that are shown in the diagram below, but not the red portion of the trail, (which is the portion of the trail that is beyond what is required by the City). The applicant will need to pay for the red portion of the trail, if the trail is located such that the red portion of the trail is needed:

Page 143.


The exact trail location will need to be determined prior to final approval. The sewer is shown as going across this City property to Barker Parkway, with the trail anticipated to be located over the sewer line for this subdivision on the City property, to connect to the existing sewer line. . Further, the applicant has not provided detention on the site for the subdivision and seems to be planning on using the City detention basin. Both of these issues, the sewer line going across City property, and using the City’s detention basin, would need to be approved by the City Council before final approval, if they are to occur. Additionally, the subdivision is currently laid out such that it will leave a remainder parcel. The boundary of the subdivision or the boundary line of the parcel will need to be adjusted prior to recording, so that a remainder parcel is not left. The applicant also needs to adjust the building envelope on Lot 5 to reflect that one segment of the property line is a rear lot line, not a side lot line, or demonstrate that the property line segment meets the criteria for a side lot line. Will-serve letters are still needed for secondary water for the subdivision as well as for sewer from Central Weber Sewer. Finally, the applicant will need to add a 40’ snow storage area in the cul-de-sac, behind which driveways on building lots will not be allowed. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS

• Does the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the applicable City subdivision and zoning ordinances?

CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the applicable North Ogden City ordinances and conforms to the North Ogden City General Plan. The General Plan map calls for this property to be developed as low density residential. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Page 153.


• Requirements of the North Ogden City Engineer’s Report. • Requirements of the TRC Meeting Letter. • Location of trail be finalized prior to final approval. • Trail needs to meet requirements of Parks and Recreation Director and City Engineer,

including the requirement that the trail be 6’ of asphalt on a 10’ wide (minimum) separate parcel.

• Additional portion of the trail beyond what is necessary, on City-owned property to the west of subdivision, be paid for by the applicant and not North Ogden City (for example, the red segment shown in the image in this report).

• Applicant obtain approval from the City Council regarding sewer line being located on City property for locating sewer line on City property.

• Applicant obtain approval from the City Council to use capacity in City-owned detention basin, or the applicant needs to provide on-site detention.

• Adjust or address subdivision boundary or property line on adjoining parcel or parcels at the northwest edge of property, so that a remainder parcel is not created.

• Adjust the building envelope on Lot 5 to reflect that one segment of the property line is a rear lot line, not a side lot line, or demonstrate that it meets the criteria for a side lot line.

• Will-serve letters need to be provided for secondary water and from Central Weber Sewer.

The memo concluded staff recommends preliminary approval of the Northwood Hills subdivision, subject to the requirements listed above in this staff report. Mr. Bell reviewed his staff memo and used the aid of an aerial image to orient the Commission to the location of the subject property and to illustrate the proposed trail connectivity between the property and Barker Park. He also discussed the applicant’s desire to utilize City property to provide connection to the sewer system and he oriented the Commission to the location of the City owned property. Commissioner Waite asked if the trail will need to traverse a private residential lot on Barker Parkway in order to provide the connectivity to Barker Park. Mr. Bell answered no and indicated that the portion of the trail referenced by Commissioner Waite would be located on City-owned property. Commissioner Nancarrow stated that the trail referenced by Mr. Bell has been included on the City’s trail master plan. Mr. Bell stated that is correct and noted it is actually a critical part of the City’s trail system. He stated that there will be a need to discuss the developer’s desires relative to the sewer connection, but it is his intent that the trail be constructed on top of the sewer line as it runs west of the subdivision. Mr. Bell then referenced the portion of his staff report dealing with water detention. The applicant would like to use the City’s existing detention basin, but this issue has not yet been addressed. This matter, along with the applicant’s desire to traverse City property to connect to an existing sewer line will need to be considered by the City Council before final approval of the project. He then completed his review of his staff memo with a focus on the recommended conditions of approval that have been developed by staff.

Page 163.


Chairman Thomas invited input from the applicant. Dallas Nicoll, Visionary Homes, stated that Mr. Bell and other members of City staff have been great to work with and he has nothing to add to Mr. Bell’s presentation. However, he indicated his willingness to answer any questions about the proposed project. Chairman Thomas stated that while preliminary approval can be granted, the project cannot proceed until recommended conditions of approval are met. He asked Mr. Nicoll if he has any objections to or concerns regarding the conditions. Mr. Nicoll answered no. He continues to work with the Parks and Recreation Director to ensure the proposed alignment of the trail is acceptable by both parties. Relative to the connection to the sewer line in Barker Parkway, he has worked with the City Engineer and does not believe there are any outstanding issues. He understands that City Council approval is needed for his use of the City’s detention basin and connection to the sewer line, but he is working to move in that direction. Chairman Thomas invited public comment. Julie Anderson, 940 E. 2600 N., stated that she is simply seeking some clarification regarding some aspects of this project. The real estate purchase contract (REPC) for the subject property indicates that it is 16.48 acres in size, but the application that was submitted to the City indicates it is 28 acres. Chairman Thomas stated that the application includes property to the east as well. Commissioner Waite agreed and stated that the recent rezone action for this project included two parcels, not just one. Ms. Anderson then stated that she is concerned about stormwater being dumped into a creek; there is a similar project near her property that discharges stormwater into Rice Creek, and she feels the City needs to be careful about the use of those water ways that are not technically designated as drainage channels. Melanie Barker, 2524 Barker Parkway, stated that she wanted to make the Commission aware of the contract the City has signed to receive grants to purchase the property upon which Barker Park has been constructed. She read the supporting statement for the grant, which indicated “Barker Park would help preserve the heritage of the area by maintaining the natural ravines and grasslands. Present and future residents will be able to enjoy the wildlife indigenous to North Ogden. The sightings of moose, deer, fox, and many species of fowl will continue because of Barker Park. Barker Park will allow people to access nature trails and experience the native environment that is quickly being lost to urbanization. These trails will be in walking distance of suburban divisions adjacent in the vicinity of the park.” She stated that this project calls for a trail on one side of the ravine in Barker Park and she is not sure why it is necessary for that trail to be asphalt when the grant applicant called for the environment to remain natural. Also, the City communicated in a letter to the granting agency signed November 27, 2001, the following: “the City would like to thank you and the State for its assistance in purchasing this wonderful piece of property. A substantial part of the park will stay in much the same condition that it is now. The ravines will definitely stay in a natural state and this is the portion of the project that the grant funds helped to purchase.” She stated she hopes the City sticks to those commitments. Residents have had many struggles with the City over Barker Park, and she thinks it is time for the City to stand behind the documents they have signed.

Page 173.


Vice-Chairman Mason asked Ms. Barker what is concerning to her about the trail component of this proposed project. Ms. Barker stated that it is supposed to be 10-feet wide and building the trail, especially a trail of that width, will be very disruptive to the wildlife living in the ravine. The asphalt will be six-feet wide with a two-foot shoulder on each side and that is huge. She stated she has also been told that the trail may abut her property, which abuts the south side of the ravine. If the trail goes through that area, it will need to go through her front yard because there is no where else for it to go without tearing up the ravines. Mr. Nicoll responded to Ms. Barker’s concerns regarding the trail; he anticipates constructing it on the north side of the ravine so it will not be in her front yard. The 10-foot references the parcel in which the trail will be located. The trail will be six-feet wide and will be above the ravine so it will not be as disruptive as Ms. Barker may have believed. Commissioner Waite stated that the trail will actually be located on City property. It is not on private property and will be constructed on top of the sewer line that will be installed to serve the project. Vice-Chairman Mason stated he understood Ms. Barker’s concerns to be more about the disruption of the natural state of the ravine than the actual presence of the trail. He stated he found the public comments insightful. Commissioner Waite stated that he feels there are a few significant items that are listed as conditions of approval and he wondered if it is appropriate to grant preliminary approval without an understanding that those conditions will be met. Chairman Thomas stated that granting approval at this point will give the applicant clear direction regarding the things that he needs to accomplish in order to receive final approval of the project. Vice-Chairman Mason agreed and stated the applicant has acknowledged the list of conditions and he understands the work he needs to do in order for the project to be considered further. Commissioner Nancarrow added that if the City Council does not approve the use of the City’s detention basin or traversing the City property to connect to the sewer system, the applicant will have direction regarding the changes he needs to make to his application before being eligible to receive final approval. Mr. Bell added that it was staff’s intention that the use of the City’s detention basin and traversing City property to connect to the sewer line be approved by the City Council in separate actions before final approval can be granted for the overall project.

Vice Chairman Mason made a motion to grant preliminary approval of SUB2019-18, Northwood Hills Subdivision, based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and based on the additional conditions that the applicant secure approval from the City Council for use of the existing detention basin and traversing City property to connect to sewer infrastructure before the final approval application is considered by the Planning Commission at a future date. Commissioner Waite seconded the motion. Voting on the motion:

Chairman Thomas aye

Page 183.


Vice Chairman Mason aye Commissioner Arner aye Commissioner Barker excused Commissioner Lunt aye Commissioner Nancarrow aye Commissioner Waite aye

The motion carried.

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA: There were no public comments. 7. REMARKS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:

Chairman Thomas noted that at the end of this meeting, staff and the Commission will participate in a site visit to several properties to get a visual idea for the properties in the City for which developers are pursuing development. Mr. Bell invited the public to attend the site visit as well and he proposed a mixture of public, staff, and Commissioners in each of the two vehicles. They will visit The Ranches, the site of a proposed future project being referred as Patriot Point north of the Montessori Academy on 2550 North, and Cherry Springs Villas in North Ogden. They will also visit a project in Harrisville at 775 W. Harrisville Road to view the types of development occurring in other cities. The overall purpose of the site visit is to get a first-hand glimpse of developments underway and other developments planned for the future. Chairman Thomas then noted that a joint meeting with the City Council has been scheduled for September 3. Commissioner Waite asked to be excused from the meeting.

8. REPORT OF CITY PLANNER: There was no additional report of the City Planner. 9. REMARKS FROM CITY MANAGER/ATTORNEY: There were no remarks from City Manager/Attorney Call. 10. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Waite made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Nancarrow seconded the motion.

Page 193.


Voting on the motion:

Chairman Thomas aye Vice Chairman Mason aye Commissioner Arner aye Commissioner Barker excused Commissioner Lunt aye Commissioner Nancarrow aye Commissioner Waite aye

The motion carried.

The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

Following adjournment, the Commission, staff, and some members of the public participated in the site visit discussed by Mr. Bell during the Planning Commission comments section of these minutes.

_______________________________________ Planning Commission Chair _______________________________________ Administrative Assistant ______________________________________ Date approved

Page 203.

From: Patrick Burns <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 Subject: RE: Lync Construction - Mountain Valley Villas To: [email protected]

Hi Rob, in reference to the email from Lorin Gardner on August 21st. It appears my preliminary approval needs extended. Lorin mentioned to just send you an email so you can get us in the next available PC agenda. Please let me know if you need anything else from me. Pat

Page 217.

SYNOPSIS / APPLICATION INFORMATION

Application Request: Consideration and action on an administrative application for final

approval for the Northview Estates Subdivision, Phase 7 located at

approximately 3700 North and 400 East

Agenda Date: September 18, 2019

Applicant: Cecil Satterthwaite

File Number: SUB 2019-03

PROPERTY INFORMATION

Address: 3700 North 300 East

Project Area: 14.32 acres (50 Lots)

Zoning: Hillside Protection Zone HP-1

Existing Land Use: Vacant

Proposed Land Use: Residential

Parcel ID: 160370102, 160370080, 160370008

ADJACENT LAND USE

North: Vacant South: Residential

East: Residential West: Residential

STAFF INFORMATION

Brandon Bell, Associate Planner [email protected] (801) 737-2216

APPLICABLE ORDINANCES

North Ogden Zoning Ordinance Title 12 Subdivision Regulations

North Ogden Zoning Ordinance 11-9 Hillside Protection Zones

TYPE OF DECISION

When the Planning Commission is acting as a land use authority, it is acting in an administrative capacity

and has much less discretion. Examples of administrative applications are conditional use permits,

design reviews, and subdivisions. Administrative applications must be approved by the Planning

Commission if the application demonstrates compliance with the approval criteria.

BACKGROUND

The applicant is requesting final approval of the Northview Estates subdivision, a 50 lot subdivision

located at approximately 3700 North and 400 East. The property is currently vacant. The project is 14.32

Page 228.

Northview Estates Subdivision, Phase 7 Page 2 of 3

acres, and is located in the HP-1 zone. This zone requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet with

a lot width requirement of 90 feet. The property is currently vacant.

STAFF / REVIEW AGENCY COMMENTS

The Technical Review Committee met on June 17, 2019. Further, the City Engineer has submitted a

report dated September 4, 2019 that identifies the items to be addressed for final approval.

The lots have been verified to meet the required lot width of 90’ at the 30’ setback. All lots have also

been verified to meet the minimum lot size and width requirement for this zone of 10,000 square feet.

The Northview Estates Phase 7 subdivision needs to be served by two companies due to its elevation.

Mountain View Irrigation company has provided a will-serve letter for secondary water for a portion of

the subdivision. However, Staff has not yet been provided a will-serve letter from Pineview Irrigation in

order to ensure the entire subdivision is provided with secondary water. Staff recommends that this

will-serve letter from Pineview needs to be provided prior to recording of the plat as a condition of

approval, Further, Central Weber sewer has provided a will-serve letter for the sewer, and a

geotechnical report has been provided for this property.

As mentioned previously, the Northview Phase 6 subdivision is in the HP-1 zone. During the time that

this subdivision was reviewed for preliminary approval, there was believed to be an issue with the

zoning, which has been resolved; the subdivision was thought to be in two different zones.

There was however, a prior rezoning of property that included the area for this phase of the subdivision,

that occurred at the time that Northview Estates Phase 6 was approved, so that the area for both Phase

6 and this phase (Phase 7) would be (and now is) all in one zone. However, in updating the zoning map

when that larger rezone occurred a few years ago, there was an oversight and the rezone of the

property specifically for this subdivision was not updated on the zoning map. Staff is working on making

sure the rezoning for this property is updated on the zoning map.

One final comment, future developments to the east will need to address the issue of connectivity by

connecting to existing streets, and doing so in a manner that is within the maximum block length

requirement of 1320 feet.

SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS

Does the proposed subdivision meet the requirements of the applicable City subdivision and

zoning Ordinances?

CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN

The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of applicable North Ogden city ordinances and

conforms to the North Ogden City General Plan, with the above noted exceptions. The General Plan map

calls for this property to be developed as low density residential (which is typified by single family

residential dwellings).

Page 238.

Northview Estates Subdivision, Phase 7 Page 3 of 3

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Requirements of the North Ogden City Engineer’s Report - Dated September 4. 2019

Requirements of the Technical Review Committee Letter - Dated June 17, 2019

Will-serve letter being provided from Pineview Irrigation to service the portion of the

subdivision that will not be covered by Mountain View Irrigation, prior to recording.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends final approval of the Northview Estates Phase 7 Subdivision subject to the

recommended conditions of approval listed above in this report.

EXHIBITS

A. Subdivision Application

B. Final Plat for Phase 7

C. City Engineer’s Report

D. Technical Review Committee Letter

AREA MAP

Page 248.

Page 258.

Page 268.

Page 278.

Page 288.

Technical Review Committee Meeting Letter June 17, 2019

Re: Northview Estates Subdivision, Phase 7

The North Ogden City Technical Review Committee met on June 17, 2019 regarding the proposed Phase 7 of Northview Estates subdivision. The following comments and responses were made regarding the proposed site plan:

North Ogden City Engineer: • Geotechnical report has been provided. • Street addresses - Please send a copy of the AutoCad file. • A land drain will be investigated for this subdivision to address the groundwater issues. This may

impact the ability to have basements or the elevation for basements. • The previously geotechnical report will be referenced in this review. • Temporary turn arounds need to be provided on or off the property.

• Street landing design needs to be built to city standards.

• Add stop sign @ 3700 N. and Lakeview. Replace

• Provide new layout of future streets/phases of adjacent properties.

Impact Fees: • Impact fees are required for all new development. The impact fees are shown on the

consolidated fee schedule. Dominion Energy:

• Need a P.U.E shown on plat. Applicant has stated that all open space will be dedicated as a P.U.E.

UDOT: • UDOT will need to review new plan to ensure it meets their requirements and meets agreement

in effect.

Storm Water: • Storm drain on site needs to be designed for 10 year design storm event. .1 cfs per acre release

rate. • The new retention requirements will need to be addressed; the depth of the basin may mitigate

these standards. Options will be investigated and submitted for review by the City Engineer. .65” inches of water is required to be retained on site in a storm event. Additionally, provide a

Page 298.

TRC Notes Northview Estates, Phase 7 Page 2 of 3

source for amount of storm water storage on site. City requirements for storm water retention varies from 0.60” to 0.85”

• The existing storm detention basins will be reviewed to determine if there is capacity for storm drainage for this project.

• Low Impact Development right-of-way standards may possibly be used as an option. Developer needs to send letter to City stating if they are or are not interested in using Low-Impact Standards and reasons explaining lack of interest.

• Need to have SWPP plan by pre-construction.

• Connect to storm drain system with a “cut-off drain” at north of phase 7 to intercept flow from the north side of this property.

Culinary Water: • Cecil will send Jason the circulation design to make sure that there is appropriate water loop for

this neighborhood. Jason will review this circulation. • Culinary water main lines and saddles need to follow City Standards. Individual service lines may

be according to developers own standards. Fire hydrants need to be to City standards, as well as corp stops, and water meters. We suggest running tracer along PVC pipes, if used, and services.

• 1” copper laterals and concrete meter vaults are required according to city standards.

Sanitary Sewer: • Sanitary sewer - Spacing and sewer per city standards based upon pipe slope. Install green

sewer pipe. • 4’ minimum cover for sewer lines. • Install green PVC sewer pipe. • Tracer wire on laterals. • Manhole covers must match corresponding pipe. • Land drain pipe needs to be white and not green. • Maximum one foot of depth for grade rings on any manholes. • Developer has to be able to locate all clean-outs on sewer system.

• Central Weber sewer will serve letter.

Parks and Recreation: • See email recommendation.

Northview Fire: • Fire hydrants should not be more than 500 foot separation. One hydrant will need to added

near the west end. Turnarounds will need to be provided on all stub roads.

• Fire flow tests will be required as needed.

Mountain View Irrigation\ Pineview Irrigation:

Page 308.

TRC Notes Northview Estates, Phase 7 Page 3 of 3

• Ben Lomond will serve secondary water. Applicant will send a copy of the will serve letter. There is an existing Pineview line which is being rerouted to the 3900 North and Lakeview Drive. Provide more separation between the Pineview line and the city culinary line.

• Pineview Water will provide secondary water the bottom road in the development. Pineview water will provide a will serve letter to the applicant.

North Ogden City Planning: • This is in an HP-1 zone. Previously submitted reports address the HP-1 requirements. • Financial statements were verified and updated regarding previously submitted upfront fees. • Applicant needs to provide verification of lot widths at front setback line, by means of a

dimension line with exact lot widths, using a straight line at the front setback line, tangent to the curve on the lot. Plat submitted prior to preliminary approval needs to demonstrate lot area and lot widths as specified above.

• Full set of plans in order to be scheduled for consideration of final approval by the Planning Commission. These plans need to be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to a given Planning Commission meeting to the City Engineer and Planning Department, in order to be scheduled for that meeting, and provide sufficient time for Staff Review.

• Do not include easements on side or rear of lots unless actually needed for utilities. • Please check our City ordinance and follow it exactly regarding the correct signature blocks for

subdivision plats. Please use the correct signature blocks on our plats, so that there are not issues with recording the plat or having the proper signatures on the subdivision plat at the time of recording. Incorrect signature blocks will create delays and potentially other problems with recording subdivision plats.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Rob Scott, our City Planner at (801) 737-9841 or the Planning Department at (801)782-7211.

Sincerely,

Robert O. Scott, AICP Planning Director 505 East 2600 North North Ogden, UT 84414 [email protected] (801) 737-9841

Page 318.

505 E. 2600 N., North Ogden, UT 84414 | Phone: (801) 782-7211 | Fax: (801) 737-2219 www.northogdencity.com

Staff Report to the North Ogden City Council SYNOPSIS / APPLICATION INFORMATION

Application Request: Consideration and action on a legislative amendment to revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards for the RE-20 zone and R-1 zones

Agenda Date: September 18, 2019 Applicant: North Ogden City File Number: ZTA 2019-09

PUBLIC NOTICE: Mailed Notice: None Newspaper: None City Website: September 12, 2019

STAFF INFORMATION Jon Call (801) 782-7211 [email protected]

APPLICABLE ORDINANCES North Ogden Zoning Ordinance Title 11-10-34 Accessory Dwelling Units

LEGISLATIVE DECISION When the City is considering a legislative matter, the Planning Commission is acting as a recommending body to the City Council. The City has wide discretion in taking legislative action. Examples of legislative actions are general plan, zoning map, and land use text amendments. Legislative actions require that the Planning Commission give a recommendation to the City Council. Typically the criteria for making a decision, related to a legislative matter, require compatibility with the general plan and existing codes.

BACKGROUND The North Ogden City zoning ordinance was recently changed to allow for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in all residential zones. In creating that ordinance the City combined two ordinances together and tried to incorporate all the essential language from each section of the ordinance. In so doing we carried over some language which prohibits the use of ADUs as short term rentals. We have one family who has concerns with this prohibition because of a desire to have some flexible space in their home and utilize an ADU for an AIR BNB or VRBO type rental.

Amendment Summary The only amendment is the elimination of the prohibition on short term rental properties.

Page 329.

ZTA 2018-11 ADU Amendment Page 2 of 2

CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN

Housing Goals Goal #1 – Increase Housing Quality and Variety

• Encourage adequate housing types which accommodate lifecycle transitions and changing population norms.

• Establish and adhere to high quality building and design standards for all housing types so that development enhances the community character.

• The General Plan housing goals and strategies are supportive of providing appropriate design standards and increasing housing types, e.g., adding accessory dwelling units.

Strategies • Proactively evaluate current ordinances and policies to determine whether there are obstacles

that can be removed or modified to achieve the community’s housing goals. • Create design standards to improve the overall quality of North Ogden’s housing. • Work with homeowners, landlords, and renters to maintain and improve existing properties.

SUMMARY OF LAND USE AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS • Should ADUs be allowed to be rented on a short term process? • Is the amendment consistent with the General Plan?

RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should consider the ordinance and make a recommendation to the City Council

EXHIBITS A. Amendment

Page 339.

1

ORDINANCE 2018- AN ORDINANCE OF NORTH OGDEN CITY AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE

OF NORTH OGDEN CITY TITLE 11 CHAPTER 7A ELIMINATING 11-7A-6 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AS A SECOND RESIDENCE, ADDING

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AS A PERMITTED USE IN 11-7A AND 7B, ADDING RESIDENTIAL ZONES RE-20 AND ALL R-1 ZONES AS A PERMITTED USE IN

11-10-34 E WHEREAS: The City has zoning regulations, and WHEREAS: The City is committed to providing zoning regulations that protect the long term viability of all residential zones, and

WHEREAS: The City recognizes that under specific circumstances that allowing accessory dwelling units is appropriate, and

WHEREAS: The newly revised accessory dwelling unit standards prohibit the use of either the primary dwelling or accessory dwelling as short term rentals, and

WHEREAS: The City has considered the benefits and difficulties associate with short term rentals in accessory dwelling units, and

WHEREAS: The City has determined it is in the best interest of the City to allow for short term rentals in accessory dwelling units.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the North Ogden City Council that the North Ogden City Code 11-10-34 Accessory Dwelling Units is amended.

SECTION 1: Language to be amended.

The following section shall be amended in Title 11, Chapter 10

11-10-34 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS A. Definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit: A subordinate dwelling, which has its own

kitchen, living / sleeping area, and sanitation facilities which is: 1) within or attached to a single-family residential building, or 2) within a detached accessory structure associated with a single-family dwelling.

B. Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of this section is to recognize the residential character of North Ogden City and to provide for supplementary living accommodations in the community. These provisions are intended to provide for affordable housing with reasonable limitations to minimize the impact on neighboring properties and neighborhoods, and to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the property owners and residents of accessory dwelling units.

C. Owner Occupied: No accessory dwelling unit shall be created, established, or occupied in a single-family dwelling unless the owner of the property occupies either a portion of the primary dwelling or a detached accessory unit on the same single-family lot. For the purpose of this section, the term "owner occupied" shall be defined as full time residency within the home by the bona fide property owner(s) as shown on the Weber County tax assessment rolls. 1. Definition of Owner Occupant

Page 349.

2

Owner occupant means, except as set forth in Subsection (c) of this definition: a. an individual who:

(1) possesses, as shown by a recorded deed, fifty (50) percent or more ownership in a dwelling unit; and (2) occupies the dwelling unit with a bonafide intent to make it his or her primary residence; or

b. an individual who: (1) is a trustor of a family trust which:

(A) possesses fee title ownership to a dwelling unit; (B) was created for estate planning purposes by one (1) or more trustors of the trust; and

(2) occupies the dwelling unit owned by the family trust with a bonafide intent to make it his or her primary residence. Each living trustor of the trust shall so occupy the dwelling unit except for a trustor who temporarily resides elsewhere due to a disability or infirmity. In such event, the dwelling unit shall nevertheless be the domicile of the trustor during the trustor’s temporary absence.

c. A person who meets the requirements of Subsections (a) and (b) of this definition shall not be deemed an owner occupant if the property on which the dwelling unit is located has more than one (1) owner and all owners of the property do not occupy the dwelling unit with a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit their primary residence.

(1) A claim that a person is not an owner occupant may be rebutted only by documentation, submitted to the Planning Department, showing that the person who occupies the dwelling unit has a bona fide intent to make the dwelling unit his or her primary residence as indicated by the following documents which show such person:

(A) is listed as a primary borrower on documents for any loan presently applicable to the property where the dwelling unit is located; (B) has claimed all income, deductions, and depreciation from the property on his or her tax returns for the previous year; (C) is the owner listed on all rental documents and agreements with tenants who occupy the dwelling unit, including any accessory apartment; (D) is the owner listed on all insurance, utility, appraisal, or other contractual documents related to the property; and (E) is a full-time resident of Utah for Utah State income tax purposes.

(2) Any person who claims to be an owner of the dwelling unit, but who does not occupy it, shall provide documentation to the Planning Department which shows such person:

(A) has not claimed any income, tax deduction, or depreciation for the property on the person’s tax returns for the previous year;

Page 359.

3

(B) is not listed as an owner on any rental document or agreement with any tenant who occupies the dwelling unit, including any accessory apartment; and (C) is not listed as an owner on any insurance, utility, appraisal, or a agreement related to the property.

(3) Any person, or group of persons, who fails, upon request of the Planning Department, to provide any of the documents set forth in Subsections (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this definition or who provides a document showing that ownership of a dwelling unit is shared among persons who do not all occupy the dwelling unit shall mean for the purpose of this chapter that such person or persons shall not be deemed an "owner occupant" of the dwelling unit in question.

d. A person who because of a temporary work, military, or non-profit related assignment which is less than 36 months is relocated outside of the City but maintains the property associated with the ADU as their legal residence as evidenced by providing proof annually of the temporary assignment and one of the following: the current years income taxes (with financial information redacted), driver’s license, vehicle registrations, or voting registration.

D. Dwelling Unit Occupancy: The occupants of an accessory dwelling unit shall be limited by one of the following family categories: 1. One person living alone; or 2. Two (2) or more persons all related by blood, by marriage, by adoption; by legal

guardianship or foster children; or 3. Up to four (4) related and/or unrelated persons living as a single housekeeping

unit. 4. Any of the above categories plus a temporary guest. A "temporary guest" is

defined as a person who stays with a family for a period of less than thirty (30) days within any rolling one year period and does not utilize the dwelling as a legal address for any purpose.

5. For purposes of the definition of family, the term "related" shall mean a spouse, parent, child, stepchild, grandparent, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, first cousins, great-grandparent, and great-grandchild. The term "related" does not include other, more distant relationships.

E. Zones: An accessory dwelling which meets ordinance requirements may be allowed in a single-family dwelling unit or in a detached accessory unit within the RE-20, R-1-8, R-1-8(A), R-1-8(AG), R-1-10, R-1-12.5, and RCC zone. No accessory dwelling unit may be allowed in any multi-family dwelling.

F. Number Of Accessory Dwelling Units: A maximum of one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed in each owner occupied single-family dwelling, or in a detached accessory unit associated with a single-family dwelling.

G. Address: The principal dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit shall have the same address number, but shall refer to the accessory dwelling unit as unit B. Addresses must be located in a visible location on the street frontage side of the home.

H. Separate Living Areas: An accessory dwelling unit must provide living areas for eating, sleeping and sanitation facilities separate from the principal dwelling unit.

Page 369.

4

I. Fire, Building, and Health Codes: An ADU shall comply with all building construction and fire codes in effect at the time the ADU is constructed, created or subsequently remodeled, including the obtaining of required building and other permits.

J. Utility Meters: A single-family dwelling with an accessory dwelling shall have one (1) but no more than two (2) meters for each water, gas, and electricity utility service, and each meter shall be in the property owner’s name. An impact fee is required when adding a detached accessory dwelling unit.

K. Not Intended For Sale: Accessory dwelling units shall not be sold separately from the primary dwelling unit. Neither the primary dwelling unit or ADU shall be rented on a transient basis (periods less than 30 days).

L. Accessory Dwelling Unit Registration / Business License: Any person owning an existing accessory dwelling unit that has not previously been permitted by the city, or any person constructing or causing the construction of a residence that has an accessory dwelling unit, or any person remodeling or causing the remodeling of a residence for an accessory dwelling unit, shall register the accessory dwelling unit with the building department. If the accessory dwelling unit is a rental unit a business license is required. This shall be in addition to a building permit for the work to be performed. In order to meet the requirements of the registration, the applicant shall: 1. Submit a fee as identified in the Consolidated Fee Schedule with a completed

registration form including a site plan that shows property lines and dimensions, the location of existing buildings and building entrances, proposed buildings or additions, dimensions from buildings or additions to property lines, the location of parking stalls, and utility meters.

2. Include detailed floor plans with labels on rooms indicating uses or proposed uses.

3. Pay building permit fees, if applicable, for the construction of a new dwelling, or the remodeling of an existing dwelling, in accordance with the established fees and charges.

4. Make all corrections identified as necessary to comply with building code requirements, as identified by the chief building official or his designee, and provide photos of the life safety items required by building code, including carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, and earthquake strapping on water heaters.

5. Existing non-conforming duplexes which were legally established prior to the elimination of duplexes from the underlying zone shall continue to operate as a duplex even if an Owner Occupant maintains one of the units as their primary residence, provided the Owner Occupant continues to treat the property as a duplex. a. The Owner Occupant establishes the intent to maintain the duplex use by:

(1) Obtaining the necessary rental license annually; and (2) Paying the required utility billing charges for two dwelling units; and (3) Paying all other necessary licensing procedures which may be

imposed in the future on all landlords throughout the City. b. Failure to maintain the license and pay all necessary utility and other fees for

a period of one year or more shall be interpreted as the intent to abandon the

Page 379.

5

duplex use in favor of the conforming Accessory Dwelling Unit use whether or not the unit is occupied.

c. Registering the duplex as an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a period of one year or more shall be interpreted as the intent to abandon the duplex use.

M. Failure to Complete Registration: If the property owner does not complete the registration as outlined above, the accessory dwelling unit shall not be considered legal or approved. Failure to complete the registration of an existing accessory dwelling unit within two (2) years of the passing of this section may result in a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) which may result in a lien on the property. After the fine is assessed, the building official or his designee shall determine an appropriate deadline for compliance. An additional fine may be assessed for each deadline that is not met.

N. Home Occupation Businesses: Home occupation businesses which may be approved in an accessory dwelling unit shall be restricted to a home office use which creates no customer traffic. No home occupation business shall be established within an accessory dwelling unit without the express written permission of the property owner.

O. Development Standards: 1. The total area of the ADU shall be less than fifty percent (50%) of the total square

footage of the primary residence for an attached accessory dwelling unit. The total area of the ADU shall be less than forty percent (40%) of the total square footage of the primary residence for a detached accessory dwelling.

2. ADUs shall not be located in a front or corner lot side yard and shall meet the same setbacks as required for the primary residence in the zone.

3. Appearance. The architectural design, color pallet, and materials for an ADU shall be similar to the primary dwelling unit.

4. ADUs and the primary dwelling must be on the same parcel and may not be subdivided.

5. The height of an ADU shall conform to the height limit specified for the zoning district in which it is located.

6. Location: Accessory dwelling units may be allowed as long as the zoning requirements for properties in a single-family neighborhood are met. The ADU shall not be within the building front, rear, or side yard setbacks for the zoning district in which the dwelling lot is located. In addition the following standards apply: a. All accessory dwelling units are allowed over the garage, provided the parking within the garage is not converted, or b. Attached accessory dwelling units are allowed:

(1) Inside the primary residential dwelling through an internal conversion of the housing unit as an addition or in the basement. (2) By an addition to the house, containing an internal connection between dwelling units provided that the addition will not alter the single-family character of the building.

c. Detached accessory dwelling units are allowed: (1) Over a detached garage.

Page 389.

6

(2) Only in the rear yard. (3) On lots having a minimum area of 20,000 square feet. (4) Shall have a minimum separation from the primary dwelling of 15 feet. (5) Subject to 11-7A-4, 11-7B-4, and 11-7J-4 Site Development Standards.

7. Building Entrances: An accessory dwelling unit shall have a separate entrance located on any side or rear of the single family home or at the front of the home if it is below grade and maintains the characteristics of a single family home. The purpose of this requirement is to preserve the single-family residential appearance of the building.

8. Parking: A single-family dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit shall provide at least three (3) off street parking spaces for the primary dwelling unit. In no case shall the number of off street parking spaces be less than the number of vehicles being maintained on the premises. This shall include covered parking, garages and tandem parking in driveways. Tandem parking within a driveway is allowed to meet the parking requirement. No parking spaces may be located within the front or side yard setbacks adjacent to a street, except for within an approved driveway. The minimum width of parking areas and driveways shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, masonry, or concrete pavers. No accessory dwelling may be allowed on any lot that cannot satisfy the parking requirements.

SECTION 2: This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.

PASSED and ADOPTED this ____th day of ______________ 2019.

North Ogden City:

______________________________ M. Brent Chugg North Ogden City Mayor

CITY COUNCIL VOTE AS RECORDED: Aye Nay Council Member Barker: ___ Council Member Cevering: ___ Council Member Stoker: ___ Council Member Swanson: ___

Page 399.

7

Council Member Turner: ___ (In event of a tie vote of the Council): Mayor Chugg ___ ___

ATTEST:

________________________ S. Annette Spendlove, MMC City Recorder

Page 409.

Documents

AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, …€¦ · Legislative actions require that the Planning Commission give a recommendation to the City Council. Typically, the criteria