Politics & Government
Planning Commission work session topics: public art requirement, ADUs, and buffering modifications
Matt Hemmert | Lehi Free Press
On August 1, the Lehi City Planning Commission held a work session to learn about and discuss possible future changes to the development code. Public art requirements, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and development buffering requirements were discussed.
The first item discussed was how the city is contemplating a way to help beautify public spaces, commercial areas and higher-density residential developments. Other cities in the state have successfully implemented such requirements, with Ogden as an example for the presentation. Examples of public art included installation art, kinetic sculpture and traditional sculpture.
The city further explained what such a requirement would look like in practice. A designated city employee would look at a project development application and assign a monetary value. If the monetary value exceeds a threshold, a developer would need to provide public art that would cost one percent of the overall development value. Another possible way to determine the contribution value would be based on the project’s square footage. Suppose a developer does not wish to commission art for its specific project. In that case, it can pay a one-percent contribution to a public art fund overseen by a municipal public art committee. Such requirements and details around the requirements would be codified in an amendment to the Lehi Development Code.
Commissioners expressed concerns about what “art” meant and the need for a very tight definition in the code. Additionally, there was concern about developers trying to claim that a landscape feature that was already planned and budgeted, such as a water feature or plaza, should be considered compliant with the public art requirement. Other concerns were raised about developers passing the cost to companies and residents or utilizing the fee as a lever for other concessions.
The second agenda item was a reexamination of the city’s affordable housing issue through the use of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The city has some history with ADUs and how to best allow them while considering the impacts on city infrastructure and neighboring homes. Before the city updated and finalized its ADU code sections and General Plan, the state legislature stepped in to remove some latitude from municipalities. Currently, the city allows for ADUs internal to a home and detached from a home. There was a brief discussion about detached ADUs and that few have gone through the permitting process.
Another possible ADU approach the city presented was allowing the conversion of existing homes from single-family to multi-family units. The city showed examples from Springville, which have worked well and have not had the detrimental impacts that fuel public concern about ad hoc increases in density. The city said the idea of “gentle” density—meaning adding more density to existing residential areas—works well and does not carry the potential for the heavy impacts of large, commercial-scale high-density projects. The city added that this approach may also promote more diversity and more community.
For comparison, the city showed the ratio of homes converted in other cities by looking at specific areas within those cities. In the section studied in Springville, approximately one in seven residences are converted homes. In Provo, approximately one in five have been converted. In Ogden, the ratio is much higher at approximately one in sixty.
Commissioners had concerns about ensuring that a detached ADU could not be sold by itself, which would create a flag lot situation where a property owner creates an ingress/egress route to the back of the property for a new home to be built. Other concerns were voiced about the permitting process and the fact that there are few “legal” ADUs in Lehi. Only 198 are currently permitted. There was discussion about how to better assist residents in understanding the benefits of a permitted ADU and possible barriers that some homeowners see that lead them to build and operate ADUs outside the permitting process. Aside from a code violation and potential fines, the possible implications of an unpermitted ADU could be homeowners’ insurance not covering damage from a renter.
The third agenda item was a discussion of buffering and screening requirements related to commercial properties adjacent to residential or agricultural properties. Current screening requirements are a six-foot fence that must be masonry, reinforced concrete, timber or another suitable permanent material. Current buffering requirements include a minimum of 12 feet of landscaping for a one-story commercial building of 20 or fewer feet in height. As the height of commercial buildings increase, so does the length of the landscaping buffering. For buildings over 20 feet in height, hard surfaces—like parking—may be included as part of the buffer between the residential property.
Current landscaping requirements include the use of shrubs, trees and sod, and at least 25% of the landscaping must be evergreen. There are other height and size requirements for shrubs and trees as well. Modifications to landscape buffers may be allowed by the Planning Commission only if specific conditions are present.
The reason for discussing buffering and screening requirements with the Planning Commission was to provide information on a possible code amendment that would address certain development cases more specifically rather than generally. One example could be creating categories for different use types with certain prescribed buffering and screening requirements. Another example could be that landscape buffers with smaller widths would require more intense landscaping and screening requirements than those with larger buffer widths.
Work sessions are designed for the city to present long-term and broadly applicable issues to commissioners for questions, direction and input. The city then incorporates the commission’s direction and input for potential code amendment drafts before bringing those items back to a regular Planning Commission meeting, which requires public notice and input.
