Approved Minutes ofthe November 17, 2020 6:30 p.m. Sean Monson Councilwoman Kendalyn Harris Clinton Drake Lloyd Cheney Francisco Astorga Curtis Poole Kendal Black Darlene Baetz Sam Bawden  2 3 4 5 6 Present: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Excused: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION  Commission Chair Commission Members City Attorney City Engineer Planning Director City Planner Assistant Planner Recording Secretary Commission Member  Jesse Bell, Jim Clark, Lynn Jacobs, Sharon Spratley, and  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30j pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for October 20, 2020.  October 20, 2020: minutes to be reviewed and approved at next meeting.  3. Bountiful City Land Use Code Text Amendment Request regarding Accessory Structures in  the Single-Family Residential Zone.  Planning Director Francisco Astorga presented the item.  The Planning Commission reviewed this item during the October 20, 2020 Commission meeting where the Commission deliberated the proposed amendment. The Commission considered public comment as they opened and closed the Public Hearing, and the item was continued to the next available meeting. The Commission provided direction to stafft to add additional information for the Staffs showed aj presentation ofs several properties that are affected by the. Administrative Law Judge's interpretation. These photos show the City's current and historical interpretation have been Director. Astorga clarified the language about the accessory structure setback "An accessory structure shall meet all oft the setbacks ofaj primary structure, or it shall be eated-behimdtherer setback ten (10) feet from ai rear or interior side property line, and at least twenty (20): feet from a street side yard property line." He stated that the "or" should not be "and" because of the possible change if the primary structure changes to the accessory structure. Chair Monson was concerned that the accessory structure is parallel with the accessory structure. Director Astorga discussed the proposed changes. The Commission members discussed the measurement from the front wall plane and proposed  next meeting.  consistent.  language.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 17,2020 Page 2of5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  Director Astorga discussed the ambiguity of the applicable code as it can be much different with Chair Monson discussed the possible option of measuring from a midpoint of the primary structure Commissioner Spratley feels that the proposed 10 feet is a little light and wants it to be at least 15 Director Astorga stated that the staff was trying to keep the code simple using a setback since there are different footprints int the newer homes and could become quite frustrating for staff depending on their complexi roofforms. There was discussion about the simplicity ofthel language of10 foot behind City Attorney Drake stated that a property owner would not be able to expand a non-contorming use. The Administrative Law Judge's decision made a comment that the building was illegal and not a There was discussion about whether the Commission would allow comments from the public as there was already a public hearing on this issue and it was closed in the previous meeting. City Attorney Drake stated that regardless of whether they decide to listen to comment from the public, there will also be another public hearing at the City Council meeting on December 8, 2020 where the public Commissioner Jacobs made a motion to open another public hearing. Commissioner Spratley seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Harris, Jacobs,  every situation, which would be hard to identify every possible scenario.  regarding the placement ofthe accessory structure.  feet or more.  the primary structure.  non-conforming. The same interpretation would be applied to other structures.  will be able to speak on the item.  Monson, and Spratley voting aye.  Chair Monson opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:13 p.m.  Greg Roberts (legal counsel representing Mr. and Mrs. Jim Williams located at 2544 South 100 East) noted that the Williams do support the text amendment. He discussed the case Fox VS. Park City. Paragraph 36 states "A building permit that is applied for and issued in good faith is clearly an affirmative action of the municipality upon which a developer should be able to rely. Ifal building permit is issued based on a municipality's interpretation of the applicable zoning ordinances, the municipality would be estopped from later asserting a different interpretation and attempting to revoke the permit after the permit holder has incurred extensive expense in reliance on the permit." He feels that this is what is happening to his clients and believes that the structure should not be torn Ryan Tingey (2502 South 150 East) discussed the Administrative Law Judge decision and feels that his decision will not impact any of the properties that the city staff spoke about in the presentation. Emily Christenson (2502 South 150 East) is strongly opposed to the proposed changes and believes that the current code makes sense and is the best for the accessory structures. She believes that the  down.  He is opposed to making this code change.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 17,2020 Page3of5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  properties that was in the City's presentation is already in compliance with the code and feels that the Les Merrill (2347 South Orchard Place) thanked the Planning Commission for their time. He was concerned for the properties that would now be non-compliant and would not be able to remodel or No name given (Bountiful Citizen) is concerned that the code needs to be clear for setbacks. Thisis ac challenge and would like to ask the Commission members to be aware of the different building Jody Williams (2544 South 1001 East) spoke about the group site on Facebook that the neighbors were asking everyone to send a letter to the city offices. She stated that this garage was done legally and Assistant Planner Kendal Black read the emails that were sent to the Planning Department.. (These people were not present at the meeting and it is unknown if those without listed addresses are  information presented from staffi is not backed by any data.  build it ifthis code is not addressed.  types and styles.  had been given all the correct permits.  Bountiful residents.)  Donita Tingey feels sad that the planning department want to change the code.  Brock Anderson feels that the proposed 10-foot setback behind the front setback is not Kristin Whitlock (2480 South 150 East) is concerned about the proposed accessory structures Ben Hodgkinson stated that the proposed changes to the code should be for new projects. Brandon Handy feels that the current code has been working fine and urges Bountiful staff to Tim Pester is not a Bountiful resident but feels the proposed changes are disturbing and that Rachel Shaw feels that the City should prevent problems and not cover them up. concerned for the huge building that was built in their neighborhood. Matt Korpita stated that he does not know who this code change would benefit. Kristin Blanchard opposed any changes to the accessory structure.  appropriate. change.  do the right thing.  the City is involved in dirty politics.  Brent and Diane Russon wanted to commend all at the Bountiful City offices but was  Merrill Menlove (168 East 2450 South) was concerned about the large accessory structure in  their neighborhood.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 17,2020 Page 4of5  Sherry Robinson was confused about this meeting and this issue is being continued to be spoke about. She feels that the city officials are not doing the best for all concerned. Sheldon Turner stated that he has witnessed pure harassment from the neighbors on social media and flyers. He feels that the owner has received the correct permits, is building is on his property and the structure sits back far enough that it would not have an impact on  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  neighbors.  Jim Williams (2544 South 100 East) would like all of the emails read except the last one be struck from the record and feels that these emails are the Tingey friends who were asked to write an email against his accessory structure and not about the agenda item. Chair Monson noted his concern but stated that the emails are public comments and needs to remain with these minutes.  Chair Monson closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 8:06 p.m.  Chair Monson asked for clarification on the ALJ (administrative law judge) decision and size limits. He feels that the comments that have been made about this agenda item is being directed to the one building permit and wonders what the impact oft the decision oft the ALJ would be to other projects. City Attorney Drake stated would prefer not to answer the question about the impact oft the decision Chair Monson doesn not feel that this text amendment is what he wants to see. Director Astorga spoke that there are not that many lots that would be affected and believes that this proposed code change City Attorney Drake stated that this issue has been brought upon the City. This is not the City changing midcourse but trying to maintain and bring clarity to the code. If there had not been an Administrative Law Judge decision, then City staff would continue to interpret the ordinance as they have done in the past and as the code states. In preparing for this text change, the Planning Department staff have done a great deal of research to the impact of structures and stated that there Planner Black stated the change from seeing the accessory structure int the side yard to the rear oft the Commissioner Harris does not feel that the current code is perfect but feels that the historic Commission Jacobs feels that the text change does not match the historic interpretation and sees that City Engineer Cheney discussed that there would be very few lots in the City that could place al large Commissioner Clark recognizes that the code is not perfect but feels that we should move forward.  oft the ALJ, due to the fact that this building permit/project is in litigation.  solves the issue.  are very few lots in Bountiful that the proposed code changes would impact.  building and not the rear of the building lot was in 2007.  interpretation is good, and the staff proposed recommendation was the best. there are unique changes but does like the use ofa Conditional Use Permit.  accessory structure on it.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes November 17,2020 Page 5of5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  Commissioner Bell stated that we have discussed this at great length and believes that we need to stay close to the historic code and does agree that there are not many lots that this would apply to. He Commissioner Spratley does not feel comfortable about the 10-foot setback, she feels that this could City Planner Poole stated that the staffis] looking tot thei future and are thinking about property owners who would want to add on to the home but would be unable to ift they have an existing accessory Commissioner Harris made a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the Bountiful City Land Use Code Text Amendment regarding Accessory Structures in the Single- Family Residential Zone with the language recommended by staff. Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Voting was 2-4 with Commissioners Clark and Harris voting aye, and Bell, Jacobs, Commissioner Bell made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to City Council for the Bountiful City Land Use Code Text Amendment regarding Accessory Structures ini the Single-Family Residential Zone with the language recommended by staff changing from 10 to 20 feet behind the front building line. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-1 with Commissioners Bell, Clark, Harris, Jacobs, and Spratley voting aye, and Monson voting nay. 4. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  feels that 10 foot is a minimum but thinks that 15-20 feet is better.  impact al lot of properties in the city.  structure and could not expand beyond that structure.  Monson and Spratley voting nay. Motion failed.  The Brooks - Final and CUP Text Amendment - Temporary Sales Office. Next meetings will be Dec 1 and 15.  Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at  8:57p.m.  Commission Chair  Snt Planning