Accessory building code amendment (17.5.105)
Changes to the size limits and approval process for residential accessory buildings. The council denied a version March 14, 2023, discussed accessory structures over 1,000 square feet in September, and on Dec. 12 tabled a version moving approval from the planning commission to the building official.
- Where it stands
- Tabled
- Type
- Code change
- Applicant
- American Fork City
Every hearing and vote
March 14, 2023 · City Council
Accessory building size code amendment (Section 17.5.105)
Denied · 5-0
Would reduce the permitted size of accessory buildings so they aren't larger than the home and clarify the approval process. Council members raised concerns about the size reduction, approvals and agricultural building materials; Frost asked for a work session and Shelton wanted it back before the planning commission. Denied.
September 19, 2023 · City Council
Work session: accessory structures over 1,000 square feet
Discussed
O'Brien said Section 17.5.105 sends accessory buildings over 1,000 square feet to the planning commission with only three review criteria, while residents now propose large shops, pool houses, sport courts and theaters, raising drainage, materials, open space, geotechnical and encroachment concerns. Shelton said the 2013 change was a mistake and building officials should handle permits; Building Official Dan Loveland said the development code has holes and conflicts with building code. O'Brien said the $200 code amendment fee is far below neighbors' $800-$1,200 and invites piecemeal amendments. Hunter objected to council members managing staff from the dais; Carroll said the council should tell staff to fix the system. Bunker proposed Shelton meet with staff and legal.
- Code amendment fee: $200 (neighbors $800-$1,200)
December 12, 2023 · City Council
Accessory building size and approval code amendment (17.5.105)
Tabled · 3-2
The amendment would move accessory building approval from the planning commission to the building official. Staff preferred the draft sent to the planning commission, which gave criteria such as 'undue negative impact'; the commission's version differed after a sharp split. Shelton, who originated the change, said residents complain about going to the planning commission and that setbacks belong in zone rules; legal counsel Cherylyn Egner said materials rules must stay, for example to restrict shipping containers. Council Member Ryan Hunter moved to table and take it to a January work session.