1 2 3 4 5 6 Present: 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 48 49 50  Approved Minutes ofthe October 20, 2020 6:30 p.m. Sean Monson Clinton Drake Lloyd Cheney Francisco Astorga Curtis Poole Darlene Baetz  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION  Commission Chair Commission Members City Attorney City Engineer Planning Director City Planner Recording Secretary  Sam Bawden, Jesse Bell (vice-chair), Jim Clark, Lynn Jacobs, Sharon Spratley, and Councilwoman Kendalyn Harris  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for October 6, 2020.  Commissioner Spratley made ai motion to approve the minutes for October 6, 2020 with the correction on page 2 line 44 "drafter drafted". Commissioner Clark seconded the motion. Voting passed 7-0 with Commission members Bawden, Bell, Clark, Harris, Jacobs, Monson, and Spratley voting aye. 3. Consider approval of Findings of Facts of a Variance to allow construction of a single-family Commissioner Jacobs made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact of a Variance to allow construction of a single-family dwelling on slopes 30% or greater, located at 1874 Ridge Point. Commissioner Spratley seconded the motion. Voting passed 7-0 with Commission members 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider forwarding a recommendation to the City Council amending the Bountiful City Land Use Code for. Accessory Structures in the residential zone.  dwelling on slopes 30% or greater, located at 1874 Ridge Point.  Bawden, Bell, Clark, Harris, Jacobs, Monson, and Spratley voting aye.  Planning Director Francisco Astorga presented the staff report.  Thel Planning Department recommended that the Commission review the proposed amendment, hold a public hearing, and consider forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Department started working on thisi item specifically due to a building permit that was issued in March 2020. That permit was appealed by an adjacent property owner and in July 2020 an appeal board hearing was held. The building permit was for a detached garage. Bountiful City's appeal authority is an Administrative Law Judge. The Administrative Law Judge interpreted the City code differently than the City and determined that the building permit did not comply with two specific provisions; that it was over 10% buildable lot area requirement as specified in the zoning code, and violated certain setback requirements. The proposed land use code text amendment will bring clarity to the setback requirements portion of the code. It does not address the 10% buildable lot area provision. The City has reviewed the impacts ofthe Administrative Law Judge's decision on existing sites and structures and has found that the decision will impact a significant number of sites and    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 20, 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 48  structures throughout the City. Director. Astorga stated the Planning Department staffi found that the City there are existing accessory structures that would now be considered illegal because of the administrative law judge's decision. He presented several sites that also had similar structures and noted that these are just a few and not all that are found in the City. He noted that the proposed amendment will bring clarity and consistency to accessory structures in this code. Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission forward aj positive recommendation to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Bawden asked ifs staff had reviewed properties with the proposed change to the code. Staff noted that most properties would be compliant with the code under the change. There is a small number oft the studied properties that would not comply even with the proposed change. Chair Monson noted that ift the Commission does not feel that the proposed language is acceptable Commissioner Jacobs said he was concerned about the wording "An accessory structure shall meet all ofthe setbacks of a primary structure, or it shall be located behind....." and feels that it should be "and". Mr. Astorga and City Attorney Clint Drake clarified that it is two standards, and the proposed Commissioner Harris asked what the impact would be if the appealed detached structure was to be moved. Mr. Astorga said the structure could be built with similar same square footage and footprint, would be closer to the street, and would be more prominent as it is closer to the street and would be perceived as a higher height. He said the amendment should not be about the property which has  then the Commission needs to find another option.  amendment doesn't change that.  been appealed but what the Commission considers is best for the entire city. Chair Monson opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:00 p.m.  Greg Robertson (Attorney representing the. Jim and Julie Williams) noted that the Williams detached garage has gone thru the proper approval process and built the structure at great expense. The structure would be more imposing in height and would impede the neighbors view more ifit should Emily Christenson (2502 South 150 East) noted that she is the neighbor that has brought this appeal forward and is opposed to the change in the code. She discussed the current City code and is Ryan Tingey (2502 South 150 East) said he is the neighbor that has brought this appeal forward and isc opposed to the change ini the code. He discussed the current City code and has a concern about the Sandra Mangum (190 West 1800 S) feels that the structure is in violation of the law and is an eye  ber removed and rebuilt within aj new buildable area.  concerned about the proposed change.  structure being in the side yard.  sore.  Ms. Balle (160 West 1950 S) noted her concern about the change in the code. Dave Bennett (1784 South Davis Blvd) said that he is opposed to the change in the code. Wade Tingey (Farmington City) said he was not from Bountiful and doesn'tsupport the change.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 20,2020 Page 3of5  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 48  Matt Webre (2585 South 100 East) talked about the code and overcrowding of the neighborhoods. We should look at both sides, those buildings that are in compliance and those that are not in City Planner Curtis Poole read an email that wasi received ini the Planning office from Brock Anderson (Bountiful resident) who noted concern about the change in code and feels the current code makes  compliance.  sense to the structures.  Chair Monson and City. Attorney Clint Drake temporarily left the meeting.  Commissioner Bell assumed his role as Planning Commission Vice Chair Bell and asked if there were any other letters to be read. Director Astorga noted that the City Council received several other letters/emails that were forwarded to the Planning Department but did not request that they be read  at this Public Hearing.  Vice Chair Bell closed the PUBLICI HEARING at 7:26 p.m. Vice Chair Bell asked for a 5-minute recess at 7:33 p.m.  Chair Monson and City Attorney Clint Drake returned. to the meeting.  The meeting was reconvened at 7:44 p.m.  Chair Monson said that he just learned that the law firm he works forl has been retained by Bountiful City involving the lawsuit. Chair Monson stated that he will not be working on this lawsuit and has no knowledge about the lawsuit. City Attorney Drake asked Chair Monson if he could be fair and impartial with this agenda item. Chair Monson noted that he could be fair and impartial and would City Attorney Drake stated that the Bountiful City Planning Department has not changed their position regarding the interpretation oft the code and noted the change is intended to bring clarity and be consistent with the City's historic interpretation. He said there are not unethical or illegal motives from the City and information regarding the appeal hearing information is available on the city website. He discussed the 10% permitted use and 15% conditional use maximum standards for City Planner Poole discussed the ditferences and similarities including side yard setbacks, heights, building separation of other cities in Utah and noted that Bountiful City is in line with other cities. Murray City is they only city that was surveyed that has aesthetics as ai requirement in natural or earth tones. Mr. Drake said that building materials are not regulated by the City and the City doesn't enforce CC&Rs (covenants, conditions, and restrictions) or HOA (homeowner's associations) matters. He said such an option may exist, but enforcement would be through a private action. Chair Monson asked about the historic interpretation. City Engineer Cheney stated he has over 20 years with Bountiful City and has been involved with both the site plan review process for single- family and accessory structures and the approval of building permit reviews. He stated these structures would have been approved through the City. Director Astorga noted that the new  like to continue with the meeting.  accessory structures that are currently in the code.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 4of5  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 48  administrative law interpretation would not allow an accessory structure unless it was completely The Commission discussed the maximum size and height of accessory structures and whether placement ofas structure should bei int thel back and not on the side near the front or in the front setback. They also discussed the possible approval ofac conditional use permit tol be allowed for abnormal lots. Commissioner Jacobs noted to the public that the Commissioners take this item seriously and do not want to forward this item to the City Council without careful consideration. The commissioners felt that this is a challenging issue, and they want to make sure that they have the best policy going Director Astorga noted that the City code does not have any aesthetic requirements for single-family dwellings. City Attorney Drake stated that there has been a lot ofthought that has gone into this code and the possible changes and asked that ifthe Commission members do not approve the propose code Commissioner Bell made ai motion to: forward ai negative recommendation to City Council and further consider the amendment. Jim Clark seconded the motion. City Attorney Drake mentioned that ifa recommendation is sent to City Council, then this item will not be considered by the Planning Commission for any changes in language. Commissioner Bell withdrew his motion. There was discussion about considering a midpoint ift the roof line of the structure for the purpose of determining where an accessory structure could be located. Director Astorga noted the potential Commissioner Jacobs made ai motion to table this item to the next available meeting and direct staff to consider potential changes such as conditional use permit, evaluating maximum cap based on percentage or square footage with new language and other discussed changes. Commissioner Bell seconded the motion. Commissioner Spratley stated that she likes the midpoint measurement ofthe structure wall on the side the accessory structure is proposed to be built. Voting passed 7-0 with Commission members Bawden, Bell, Clark, Harris, Jacobs, Monson, and Spratley voting aye. 5. Work Session Discussion for The Brooks, mixed-use development located at 220 North Main  behind the primary structure.  forward.  change that they give staffd direction to move forward  difficulties in determining what the midpoint ofar roofline.  St, Justin Atwater, applicant.  Justin Atwater and Phil Holland were present. City Planner Poole presented the item.  This item was approved on April 14 for a preliminary site plan. This is the first mixed-use project in the downtown zone on Main Street since the last amended mixed-use downtown code. Director Astorga stated that the Commission members have been given a copy ofthe Downtown code. Mr. Atwater discussed the changes that have been recommended from Planning Commission and City Council. As Council recommended that 3 parking spaces be removed and include a detailed landscape plan shown. The applicant has removed one entire unit and the parking space to add an ADA ground floor accessible unit, the project will have 20 units instead of21 units. The lower commercial units ofthe building willl be required to: meet commercial code. The rear unit on the north building has been mirrored and will have canopies to match. There will be a man door to walk out    Bountiful City Planning Commission Approved Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 5of5  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  onto Main Street that will be flush with the front oft the building. There will be 14 parking spaces City Engineer Cheney discussed the parking stalls sizes that may be a challenge and the measurements would need to be looked at. He also suggested that the east building have a driveway from the south. Commissioners thanked the applicants for their hard work and willingness to work thru the problems 6. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business. Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 9:33  that will be shared use.  with staff.  p.m.  Sean Plaming  Commission  a  Chair