BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, January 15, 2019  6:30 p.m.  NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bountiful City Planning Commission will hold a meeting in the Conference Room at City Hall, 790 South 100 East, Bountiful, Utah, at the time and on the date given above. The public is invited. Persons who are disabled as defined by the American with Disabilities Act may request an accommodation by contacting the Bountiful Planning Office at 298-6190. Notification at least 24 hours prior to the meeting would be  appreciated.  1. Welcome and Introductions.  2. Approval oft the minutes for December 18, 2018.  3. Consider final subdivision approval for Seifert Subdivision located at 3332 South 725 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider a request for a variance to Section 14-4-110 related to the parking setback standards for corner lots. The applicant proposes to reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 8 feet. The property for which the variance is requested 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider a request for a variance to the front yard setback standards of Section 14-5-105 to allow installation of carports for Orchard Gardens Apartments. The property is located at 2720 Orchard Dr, Becki Scymczak, applicant. 6. Consider approval of the Findings of Fact approving a variance request to modify the minimum corner lot width standards for an existing lot in conjunction with a subdivision application for the property located at approximately 1401 E 1800 South for Joe and Bette Eggett Subdivision Phase 6, Terry Eggett and Connie Woolley, applicants. 7. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2019. 8. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  West, Roger Seifert, applicant.  is located at 164 W 3300 South, Jacob Boyce, applicant.  -  R  Chad Wilkinson, City Planner    Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes December 18, 2018 6:30 P.M.  Present:  Vice Chair = Von Hill; Planning Commission Members - Jesse Bell, Jim Clark, Tom Smith and Sharon Spratley; City Council Representation - Richard Higginson; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; City Engineer - Lloyd Cheney; City Attorney - Clint Drake; and Recording  Secretary - Darlene Baetz Chair- - Sean Monson  Excused:  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Vice Chair Hill opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for December 4, 2018.  Richard Higginson made a motion to approve the minutes for December 4 as written. Tom Smith seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Higginson, Hill, Note: Items 3 and 4 were presented in combination but have been separated in the written minutes 3. PUBLIC HEARING- Consider a request for a variance to the lot width standards of Section 14- 4-104 of the Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance to modify the minimum corner lot width standards for an existing lot in conjunction with the Joe and Bette Eggett Subdivision Phase 6 application. The property is located at approximately 1401 E. 1800 South, Terry Eggett and  Spratley and Smith voting aye.  for clarity.  Connie Woolley, applicants.  Terry Eggett was present. Chad Wilkinson presented the staff report.  The applicants have requested a variance to allow for approval of a lot in a proposed subdivision that does not meet the minimum corner lot width requirements. The proposed Eggett Subdivision Phase 6 includes aj portion ofLot 1 ofthe East Peterson Subdivision. This lot, which is shown as Lot 605 of the proposed subdivision, fronts on both 1800 South and the proposed cu-de-sac. Since the lot fronts on both streets it is considered to be a corner lot and is required to meet the lot width standards for corner lots. In the R-3 zone, corner lots must have a minimum width of 90 feet along both frontages. As proposed, the lot meets the standard on 1800 South, but only has approximately 30 feet of frontage on Although the Eggett property could be developed without the inclusion of Lot 1 of the Peterson Subdivision, a small portion of the lot was included in the design of the subdivision in order to place the access road for the subdivision in a location that would lower the grade oft the street and reduce the grading required to construct the street. The applicant had previously submitted a plat showing the minimum configuration needed for compliance with the Code, but the result of that layout produces two lots which are unusual in shape, adds no useable ground to Lot 605, and is not wanted by the  the cul-de-sac.  current owner of the proposed Lot 605.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - December 18, 2018  Page lof5    1 Literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the land use ordinances; Staff Response: The proposed Lot 605 is made up of the remainder of an existing developed lot (Lot 1 of East Peterson Subd.) One of the purposes of lot width standards for corner lots is to create a lot that can take access from either street. A second purpose is to create a property that contains adequate buildable area even with the additional exterior setbacks required for a corner lot. In this case, the lot is already developed and has established access to 1800 South. The grade difference between the existing home located on Lot 605 and the proposed cul-de-sac is (ii) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other Staff Response: The portion of Lot 605 which fronts on the proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 30 feet in length and is separated from the developed portion of] Lot 605 by a 20 foot difference in grade. This is currently a natural area that is not maintained by the property owner and it is anticipated that this area' would continue to remain as a natural area. The east portion of lot 605 is already developed with a single family dwelling that takes its access from 1800 South. The owner of Lot 605 has no desire for the additional property that would be required to meet the standard for corner lot width and the difference in grade makes it extremely difficult to take access from the cul-de-sac, even if the lot width were provided. The special circumstances created by the difference in grade and the unusual lot shapes needed to meet the (iii) Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by  substantial, making access to the cul-de-sac unlikely and undesirable.  properties in the. same. zone;  standard justify a variance to the standard. other property in the same. zone;  Staff Response: Granting the variance in this instance will allow for orderly development of the applicants property without the need to create an odd shaped or unusable area for the proposed lot 605. Since the reason for including this Lot is to provide for a better access to the proposed subdivision, the variance will provide the property owner with the right to develop their property (iv) The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public Staff Response: The public interest will be served by not creating two odd shaped lots solely for the purpose of meeting the standard. While there are designs that would meet the Code, those designs will create odd shaped lots or portions oflots that are separated by substantial differences in grade from the main part of the lot. This grade separation will make those portions of the lot unusable by the owner of Lot 605 and maintenance oft these areas is unlikely. Allowing a variance to the standard will not have a substantial impact to the general plan of the public interest. (v) The spirit oft the land use ordinance is observed and substantial, justice done  in an orderly way with al better design.  interest;  Staff Response: The purpose of the corner lot width standard is to provide for additional opportunities for access and adequate area for building on corner lots. In this case the lot in  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - December 18, 2018  Page 2of5    question is already developed and differences in grade make it less appealing to provide access to the cul-de-sac. Therefore granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit of the land use Based on analysis of the required review criteria from State law included in the findings above and the materials submitted by the applicant, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance to the corner lot standards of Section 14-4-104 of the Bountiful Land Use  ordinance.  Ordinance  Vice Chair Hill opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 6:43 p.m.  Terry Eggett owner of the property expressed appreciation to staff and Planning Commission members Scott Cummings resides at 1475 Mueller Park. Mr. Cummings stated that he has no problem with this  and explained the history ofthis property.  proposal.  Vice Chair Hill closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 6:46 p.m. Mr. Wilkinson explained that the variance fits the state criteria.  4. Consider a preliminary subdivision approval for Joe and Bette Eggett Subdivision Phase 6  located at 1401 East 1800 South, Terry Eggett and Connie Woolley, applicants. Terry Eggett was present. Lloyd Cheney presented the staffi report.  Terry Eggett and Connie Woolley are requesting preliminary approval of the Joe and Bette Eggett Subdivision, Phase 6. This six lot subdivision proposes to include Lot 1 from the East Peterson Subdivision and Lot 502 from the Joe and Bette Eggett Phase 5 Amended plat. This location is best described as "the llama pasture" on the north side of 1800 South Street. The subject property extends The subdivision is located in the R-3 zone, which requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 sq. ft. and a All of the interior lots (602, 603 and 604) exceed the minimum requirements. Lot 601 exceeds the minimum requirements ofbeing 10 ft wider and 10% larger for a corner lot. Lot 606, which includes the former Lot 502 and additional property from the pasture area, also meets the minimum Lot 605 represents the modified configuration of the former Lot 1 oft the East Peterson Subdivision In order to construct the cul-de-sac as proposed, approximately 887 sq. ft. and 71 feet oft the tapered west end ofLot 1 is allocated to the cul-de-sac right of way and to the south east corner ofI Lot 601. This is an negligible impact to the useable area of] Lot 1 but it does have a significant consequence in the sense that Lot 1 not becomes a corner lot, and is not compliant with the requirements of the ordinance for minimum frontage on a corner lot. The applicant had previously submitted a plat showing the minimum configuration for compliance, but the result of that layout produces two lots which are unusual in shape, adds no useable ground to Lot 605, and is not wanted by the current owner of the proposed Lot 605. It is] preferred that access for Lot 601 be restricted to the cul-de-sac side of the lot.  from the 1800 South Right-of-Way line into the Mill Creek canyon to the north.  minimum frontage of8 80ft.  requirements for size and frontage.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - December 18, 2018  Page 3 of5    The proposed 54 ft. wide street section and 108' diameter cul-de-sac configuration are standard widths, and will be adequate to serve this development. On the 1800 South frontage, much of the existing curb and gutter is in poor condition, and needs to be replaced. This will also necessitate the All ofthe utilities which are necessary to serve this development are available in 1800 South Street. A detention basin is proposed on the west side ofLot 601. The basin sizing requirements will require a slight adjustment SO that the existing runoff from 1800 South can be properly accounted for in the operation of the detention basin. This will likely mean that the basin capacity and discharge rate will be: slightly larger than what would be required for just the subdivision itself. The existing storm drain system ends on the east side of the intersection at 1300 East Street, SO the developer will need to extend the system approximately 330 feet to the east toj provide an outlet for the detention basin. The Bountiful City Street Department is planning a pavement maintenance project in this location in the next budget year. Utility work and the installation of curb, gutter, waterways, etc. will need to be completed before the City's project begins to avoid additional requirements for restoring the Staff recommends preliminary approval of the Joe and Bette Eggett Subdivision, Phase 6 Subdivision  replacement oft the sidewalk where it has been constructed directly behind the curb.  pavement.  with the following conditions:  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.  Obtain approval of a variance from the Planning Commission for the reduced corner lot width  shown for Lot 605. Provide a current title report. Make all necessary red line corrections. Post al bond for the required improvements.  Extend the storm drain from 1300 E1 to the storm drain detention basin.  Pay all required fees.  Mr. Hill stated that the changes to the boundary of the lot 606 will include extra square footage is a Richard Higginson made a motion that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval for a preliminary subdivision approval for Joe and Bette Eggett Subdivision Phase 61 located at 1401 East 1800 South. Jessie Bell seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-0-1 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Higginson, Smith and Spratley voting aye and 5. Consider approval of the Findings of Fact denying a variance request to remove and replace the required 10 foot landscape buffer along the street frontage with asphalt at Antion Auto located Sharon Spratley made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for the denial of the variance request to remove and replace the required 10 foot landscape buffer along the street frontage with asphalt at Antion Auto located at 633 S 500 West. Tom Smith seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with  cleaner method for this project.  Commission member Hill abstaining.  at 633 S 500 West, Stephen Sandberg representing Antion Auto, applicant.  Commission members Bell, Clark, Higginson, Hill, Smith and Spratley voting aye.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - December 18, 2018  Page 4 of5    6. Consider approval of the 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar.  Richard Higginson made a motion to approve the 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Calendar as written. Jim Clark seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark,  Higginson, Hill, Smith and Spratley voting aye.  7. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  1. Next Planning Commission meeting willl be. January 15, 2019.  2. Election of] Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2019 will be on the agenda for Vice Chair Hill ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55  January 15, 2019.  p.m.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  Bountiful City. Planning Commission Minutes - December 18, 2018  Page. 5 of5    Commission Staff Report  Item 3  Subject: Address: Author: Date:  Final Subdivision Approval for the Seifert Subdivision 3350 South 725 West City Engineer, City Planner January 15, 2019  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  Department: Engineering, Planning  Background  Mr. Roger Seifert is requesting final approval of the Seifert Subdivision. This subdivision was  granted Preliminary Approval by the City Council on December 11, 2018.  Analysis  The existing parcels are located in the R-4 zone and combine to form a 1.384 acre parcel from which three lots will be created. The proposed area of each lot is more than twice the 8,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size requirement for this zone. Lot 1, which will include the existing home on the west side of 725 West, will have 90 ft. of frontage. Lots 2 and 3 will have widths of 109 The construction drawings propose the extension of 725 West Street to be constructed at a centerline grade of approximately 4.5%, which is acceptable. The drawings also identify a 4ft tall rock retaining wall which is to be constructed along the southernmost portion oft the right- of-way line oft the cul-de-sac. This feature could conceivably occupy 2-3f ftoft the 81 ft of right - of-way which is behind the curb line. Since no sidewalk is currently proposed (or required), this isar minor issue which could affect the construction of future sidewalk. Staff recommends that a vertical retaining wall be constructed in a configuration that will accommodate a 6 ft wide sidewalk (adjacent to the curb and gutter) along the southern portion of the cul-de-sac. Since it isp possible that the retaining wall structure would extend into the private property beyond the cul-de-sac right-of-way, the ownership and maintenance oft the retaining wall should remain  ft. and 112 ft. respectively (measured at the 251 ft. setback).  the responsibility of the owners of Lots 2a and 3.  Department Review  The proposed plat and construction drawings have been reviewed by the Engineering  Department and Planning Department.  Recommendation  Itis is recommended by Staff that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation for final approval of the Seifert Subdivision to the City Council, with the following conditions:    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Significant Impacts None Attachments  Provide a current title report for the property which isi included in the Sign a development agreement for the required subdivision improvements. Replace the west curb and gutter adjacent to the extension of the culinary water line and repair the adjacent asphalt pavement with a patch which is at least 3-0" Construct a vertical retaining wall in a configuration that will accommodate a 6ft  subdivision.  Post a bond for the required subdivision improvements.  wide.  wide sidewalk along the southern portion of the cul-de-sac. Make all necessary red line corrections to the plat. Pay all required fees (Storm Water Impact Fee, Power Fee).  1. Aerial photo showing the proposed location 2. AC copy of the plat and construction drawings.  lengyubdwsonslyieter. subdivision: 2018pci final approval seifert subdivsion, jan 2019.docx    Aerial Photo of the Proposed Seifert Subdivision  6  Elenglsubdwisionsisitertsubdivision: 2018pc final approval seifert subdivsion, jan 2019.docx    vwTs  183-413587904  ESN  D  E    725HESTSTREET  EEIES    Commission Staff Report  Item #4  Item:  PUBLIC HEARING - Request fora a proposed variance to the standards ofs section 14-4-110 oft the Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance to reduce the required parking setback on a corner lot. Curtis W. Poole, Assistant Planner  BOUNTIFUL EST.1892  Address: 164 West 3300 South  Author: Date:  January 8, 2019  Description of Request  The applicants, Jacob and Nadia Boyce, have requested a variance to City Code 14-4-110, which will allow for the reduction in the 10 foot, required parking setback on a cornerl lot. The purpose oft the variance ist to allow a recently installed concrete pad to remain. The  property is in the R-4 zone.  Authority  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance  requests related to yard setbacks. Appeal Procedure  Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance section 14-2-108 states that an applicant, board or officer oft the City, or any person adversely affected by a Land Use Authority's decision administering ori interpreting al land use ordinance or ruling on a request for a variance may, within fourteen calendar days oft the written decision, appeal that decision to the Appeal Authority. No other appeals may be made to the. Appeal Authority. The appeal must be in writing and specifically allege that there is an error in an order, requirement, decision or determination by the Land Use Authority. The appellant shall  state every theory of relief thati it can raise in District Court.  Background and Analysis  The applicants have requested a variance to allow for a recently poured concrete pad, which has been partially removed, to extend an additional 2 feeti into the required corner side yard setback. The home was built in 1961 within Davis County boundaries and was annexed by the City in 1992. The applicants purchased the property last year with renters living in al basement unit.. A citizen complaint initiated a code enforcement case regarding renting the unit without city approval. The applicants applied for a Conditional Use Permit  for an Accessory Dwelling Unit in their home.    During the notification period for the Conditional Use Permit the applicants installed a concrete pad which extended to the property line on the corner side lot. After a site visit and discussion with staff regarding the concrete pad and standards oft the code, the applicants removed all but two feet oft the concrete on the corner side yard. The Conditional Use Permit application has been placed on hold pending the outcome ofthe variance request. Thej property does have an existing retaining wall along the property line on the The newly approved section 14-4-110, oft the Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance, states, "street Side Yard (Corner Lot): Parking is only allowed on approved parkinga areas either within an approved garage or carport or located atl least 10 feet from the street side property line and behind a six foot screening fence. Fencing adjacent to driveways on corner lots shall be subject to required clear view requirements of Section 14-16-108." Should the variance be approved byt the Commission, and prior to approval ofthe Conditional Use Permit the applicants shall be required to install a six foot screening fence In order for a Conditional Use Permit to be issued for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, the City has to make ai finding that the property meets all oft the standards oft the Code. Ifthe applicants were to remove the additional two feet of concrete, they would still have a 9 feet 2i inch parking width, as measured from the garage wall to the edge oft the concrete, which would exceed the minimum parking space standard of 9 feet. Concerns such as areas to play basketball and trash can storage are not hardships that directly relate to the variance requested since the loti is large enough to accommodate recreation areas in other portions  corner side lot.  on the corner side yard oft their property.  oft the property and trash can storage could occur elsewhere.  Variance Findings  Utah Code 10-9a-702 establishes the criteria for review of a variance request. "In granting a variance, the appeal authority may impose additional requirements on the applicant that will: (a) mitigate any harmful effects oft the variance; or (b) serve the purpose of the standard or requirement thati is waived or modified." In order to grant a variance each of () Literal enforcement ofthe ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship. for the applicant that is noti necessary to carry out the general purpose ofthe land use  the following criteria must be met:  ordinances;  Staff Response: State law states that al hardship must be associated with and peculiar tot the property itself," and further states the hardship "cannot be self-imposed or economic." Furthermore, a "variance is not necessary ifo compliance is possible, even ifthe property owner has to alter desired plans." With modification to the width of the concrete pad compliance is possible. Therefore, thel hardship should be considered as self-imposed  and does not constitute the need for a variance approval.    (i) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply Staff Response: The property does have an existing retaining wall located on the corner side yard with a 4 foot grade difference between the sidewalk and property line. This feature is. unique to this property which may not exist on other similar corner lots within thel R-4zone. This grade difference may allow the applicants toj pour concrete closer to the property line due to the required screening fence which would further minimize the impact (ii) Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment ofas substantial property vright Staff Response: The ability to develop properties has always been constrained by characteristics and location of a lot. Regardless ofwhat aj property owner feels is needed to maximize the enjoyment oft their property, they cannoti install or erect: structures or surfaces which are contrary to the Bountiful Land Use Ordinance. Other lots in the R-4 zone share this common constraint. Therefore, requiring the applicants to meet the corner side yard setback as required by code does not deprive a property right that is available to other similarl lots, to the contrary, granting approval oft the variance will grant a right to the applicant's property which may not be available to other similar properties. (iv) The variance will notsubstantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to Staff Response: Allowing the applicants tol keep the two additional feet of concrete in the corner side yard setback will not substantially affect the general plan or publici interest. (v) The spirit ofthe land use ordinance is observed and: substantial, justice done Staff Response: The spirit of the land use ordinance is to promote open spaces which will help the City maintain its motto of"city of beautiful homes and gardens." A variance should not be considered an "escape clause" allowing property owners to disregard zoning regulations; however, having removed a portion of the concrete pad will allow the applicants toi install some landscaping and a screening fence which will be consistent with  too other properties in the same. zone;  ofstreetand neighborhood views.  possessed by other property in the same zone;  the public interest;  the spirit oft the Land Use Ordinance. Department Review  City Planner, City Engineer, City Attorney    Recommended Action  Staffr recommends denial oft the requested variance, based on analysis oft the required review criteria from State lawi included ini the findings above and the materials submitted by the applicants; however, Commissioners should consider circumstances which may be unique to this property and whether they constitute reasons for approval.  Attachments 1. Aerial Photo 2. Site Plan 3. Applicant's Narrative  Aerial Photo  164 West 3300 South  Boyce Property  GoogleE Eartho 02EG    E  V  E  =   0o A  -  0O    VARIANCE REQUEST Appealing: 14-4-1105ECTION1  2a  1. The parking pad on the side ofr my house wasi installed to provide a safer road for the community (a road thati is considered "high-traffic") and a safer area for myt tenants and Ito enter and exit our car. In the winter time the cement pad also provides a flat surface to step onto instead of a step grade the driveway provides. With the amount of snow and ice we receive in Utah it was necessary to provide a safe place for ai family to enter and exit their car. The flat concrete surface on the side ofr myl home provides that. The neighbors who have complained about extra cars being parked on the road due to our tenants living in the basement has also been al hardship. The concrete pad solves that  issue and allows us to not have to listen to neighbor complaints. The distance from my home to the end of the concrete is currently 11'5":  30 131 133 34  36 137  BUT there are 3 major obstructions: The over-hang of my soffit, the garbage cans and the A/C condenser. 1- Over- hang. Currently my over-hang measures 80" from the cement to the soffit and 26" from the tip oft the  gutters to the brick:    My truck currently sits at 78" high and doesn't have a lift. Any kind of lifted truck or a truck with a rack would cause extensive damage to the soffit and fascia ifitt tried to park underneath the over hang. 11'5" MINUS the 27" over would put us at 9'2". There is currently 9'2" of unobstructed space for a truck to park on the cement pad. If the city forced me tor remove the additional 2' of concrete that space would drop to 7'2" which is not enough according to Chapter 4 Page  22. This would be a hardship.    According to Chapter 4 page 22, a parking padi is to have 8' of unobstructed paved area. ThisIbelieve! is considerably small if you take into account that my truck with it's doors partially open measures at over: 135" (11):  33 34 135 136 137  Yes, an adult or a child can slip through a car door not opened all the way, but what about a car seat for a newborn? At least 2' of door clearance is needed for a car seat to be removed or loaded. It would be al hardship on my tenants andl to have to remove al baby car seat from a pad only 9'2" wide. It would be a safety concern and could cause the car door The garbage cans and A/C condenser are also considered obstructions on the parking pad. The garbage cans measure  tol hit the house causing damage to the door.  36" Wide:  SDE  With the pad currently measuring at 137" (11'5") that would leave 101"(8'5") ofunobstructed space to park car. Thatis agreat distance, BUTi ift the city forces me to remove the 2 additional feet the unobstructed area would drop to 6'5". Based on previously stated parking pad specs on page 22 of Chapter 4 there needs to be 8' of unobstructed area to    safely park a car. The removal of 2 additional feet would not allow me to meet those specs. Having to park a car with these garbage cans and A/Ccondenser obstructing our way would be al hardshipi for my family and I. The removal of 2 additional feet would also make it very difficult to enjoy a basketball hoop there. As an avid basketball fan I plan to one day play with my! kids ont this concrete pad. The 8' that was already removed makes it difficult to a game basketball, but Ibelieve Icans still make it happen. Removing more concrete would give us less room to dribble 2. The special circumstances on our home is that it is a corner lot. There are countless neighbors around me who have poured concrete to the edge oft their property line, but according to this code Ido not have that privilege. 3. Granting this variance will allow me, for the time being, to provide sufficient parking space for my tenants in the basement. Providing them with sufficient parking will allow me the right to receive a conditional use permit. Receivinga 4. The public interest in my area has been to get as many cars off the street as possible. The parking pad suffices that demand and provides a safer areat for the people driving on the road AND for those entering and exiting their car who had parked on the road. The 2' that we don'tr remove from my parking pad would not substantially" affect the general 5. The spirit of this law is to keep Bountiful beautiful. To continue the legacy that Bountiful is a place with beautiful landscapes and yards. With 8' removed already from the concrete pad the justice has been done and the 8' will be made  of  enjoy  a ball and therefor would be al hardship for my! kids andl I.  conditional use permit is a right all properties around me can enjoy.  plan  into a beautiful section of yard that will complement the City of Bountiful.    Item #5  Commission Staff Report  Item: Address: Author: Date:  PUBLIC HEARING - Request for a variance in order to allow for paving a corner lot not providing direct  access  BOUNTIFUL EST.1892  to a garage or carport. 2720 S. Orchard Drive Chad Wilkinson, Planning Director January 15,2019  Description of Request  The applicant, Orchard Drive Associates LLC, has requested a variance to Section 14-5-105 related to1 minimum setbacks from public streets for proposed carports tol be constructed at Orchard Gardens Apartments. The applicant proposes to reduce the required setback from 25 feet to 5 feet. Thej property for which the variance is requested is located at approximately 2720 Orchard Drive,  Authority  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance  requests related to setbacks. Appeal Procedure  Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance section 14-2-108 states that an applicant, board or officer oft the City, or any person adversely affected by a Land Use. Authority's decision administering or interpreting a land use ordinance or ruling on a request for a variance may, within fourteen calendar days oft the written decision, appeal that decision to the Appeal Authority. No other appeals may be made to the Appeal Authority. The appeal must be in writing and specifically allege that there is an error: in an order, requirement, decision or determination by the Land Use Authority. The appellant shall  state every theory of relieft that it can raise in District Court.  Background and Analysis:  The applicant has requested a variance to allow for construction of carports over existing parking spaces within the Orchard Gardens Apartment development. The requested setback variance would allow for a reduction in the required structural setback from 25 feet to 51 feet. The Orchard Garden. Apartments were constructed in the mid 1970's while the property was located in unincorporated Davis County. Because the property was originally developed in the County, iti is considered tol bel legal nonconforming related to parking lot setback standards. Current code standards would require that all parking along aj public street be setbacka a minimum of 25 feet from the street-side property line. The original approval oft the development included a widening of Orchard Drive which is not present in other sections oft the roadway. This "bump-out" reduces the landscaping and    places the parking closer to the street than in other areas oft the City, although this may have met the standard in the County at the time of development. Another unique circumstance on the property is related to the difference in grade between the street and the parking area. The parking area sits between four and six feet below the adjacent street and is screened by a landscape area located between the side walka and parking area. At the time of development: in the County, none oft the units were provided with covered parking. Current Bountiful Code requires atl least one covered parking space per unit. Because the provision of covered parking on site is desirable, this presents an interesting challenge in a  case where parking setbacks do not meet current standards.  Variance Findings  Utah Code 10-9a-702 establishes the criteria for review ofa variance request. In ordert to () Literal enforcement ofthe ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the land use  grant a variance each oft the following criteria must be met:  ordinances;  StaffResponse: The development was constructed around 1975 and as a requirement of development a portion of Orchard Drive was widened. Iti is uncleari ift the purpose was to provide for on-street parking or for future widening oft the street. But in any case the resulting parking lot setback is less than the current code standard of 25 feet. At the time of the development oft the property, no covered parking was provided for any oft the units. The applicant will bej providing other covered parking throughout the site but there is no good opportunity for providing convenient covered parking for the units along Orchard Drive without the approval of a variance. The parking location and configuration has not been changed since the original approval by the County and changing the configuration to meet the Code would require a total redesign of an existing site. Since the application involves covering existing legal nonconforming parking spaces, a variance in this case is appropriate and would avoid an unreasonable hardship of not being able to provide covered parking (i) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply  for the development.  to other properties in the same: zone;  Staff Response:  Besides the unique conditions related to the widening of Orchard  Drive, the proposed carports cover parking spaces that are several feet below the grade of the adjacent street, especially on the north east side oft the parking lot. The grade difference varies from approximately four feet to almost six feet. This will create a situation where the structures will be partially obscured by the retaining wall and vegetation along Orchard Drive. There may be a need toi include some additional vegetation to provide for better screening oft thej parking structures, but this difference in grade and the ability to screen the  parking with additional vegetation constitutes a unique circumstance.    (ii) Granting the variance is essential to the emlopmentofasubstantal propertyright Staff Response: The proposed variance will allow for the residents oft the development tol have conveniently located covered parking which is a property right provided by current (iv) The variance will nots substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to Staff Response: Because the development was legally constructed ini the County, the noncontormity is not a self-imposed violation of the current ordinance. Providing the carports will support the public interest of providing covered parking fori individuals residing in (v) The spirit ofthe land use ordinance is observed and. substantial justice done Staff Response: While a structural setback is an important component oft thel land use ordinance, the need for conveniently located covered parking and other amenities is alsoa concern and is outlined in several places in the multifamily ordinance, and is a requirement ofcurrent Code. Allowing construction of carports within the front yard to cover existing parking spaces will allow for the spirit ofthe ordinance to be observed for the residents of  possessed by other property in the same zone;  code standards.  the public interest;  multifamily developments.  this development. Department Review  This request has been reviewed by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Attorney. Staff recommends approval ofthe requested variance related to minimum setbacks from public streets for proposed carports to be constructed for the Orchard Gardens Apartments subject 1.Any dead and dying trees and/or shrubs along the frontage on Orchard Drive shall be 2. Constructed carports near the drive approach onto Orchard Drive shall meet the  Recommended Action to the following condition:  replaced in order to provide screening for the proposed carports.  clear-view standards oft the Code  Attachments 1. Aerial Photo 2. Applicant's Narrative    Aerial Photo  00    PROPERTY LINE 265-0"  3NNAIN3408d  "E TWELVESTALLS   E U  -  o -  0 a - O C) A - 0 S  >      -2 CLEAF TKLEAR. ATA ADA STALL    December7,2018  Orchard Gardens Car Ports Variance Application  What City Ordinance(s) do you want a variance from? Ordinance 14-5-105 Yard and Setback Requirements  The proposed variance request meets all of the criteria. See the following:  (2)(a)  (i)) Enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship as most of the parking at Orchard Gardens Apartments will have covered parking except next to Orchard Drive causing some tenants to not receive the same benefits that other tenants will receive. This will lead to many tenants wanting toi move apartments for covered parking, therefore causing additional work for managers. These inequalities would cause unreasonable hardship for tenants whol have to scrap snow and ice off their cars while other tenants do: not have to where carports exist on the property. In addition, the (ii) There are special circumstances attached to this property as it likely had a 25: foot setback from the road until a drive lane was installed into the 25 foot setback area for UTA bus stop purposes. Further, this property was likely built before this ordinance was written and the setbacks at the time were appropriate for the regulations at that time. The parking spaces already exist and simply need tol be covered. In addition, the property elevation where these parking spaces are located next to Orchard Drive are much lower than the road. Therefore, the top of the car ports would only be approximately 3 feet above road level, therefore not causing any visual obstructions for (ii) Other multifamily properties in Bountiful have carports next toi major roads and with Utah'swinters and snow season it is critical to the enjoyment of the owners' (iv) Carports over parking spaces that already exist and that willl be substantially lower in elevation than Orchard Drive should not affect any general plan or public (v) Wel believe this request is in the spirit of the land use ordinance and provides  owners will lose rent value for apartments without carports.  motorists on the road. See attached pictures.  property rights toj provide carports for tenants.  interest.  substantial justice.    BOUNTIFUL CITY (RM) - RESIDENTIAL MULTIPE FAMILY 14-5-105 YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS  The following minimum yard requirements shall apply in the (RM) Zone, except for single family A. The minimum setback along any public street at any point shall be twenty-five (25) feet. No dwellings, parking spaces, or other site elements other than sidewalks, landscaping, B. The minimum interior side yard setback shall be ten (10) feet or one-half (M) the height C. The minimum side building separation shall be ten (10) feet or two-thirds (2/3) the height D. The minimum separation between the rear of a building and a property line shall be twenty (20) feet. The rear ofal building shall be any side opposite a primary entrance. The minimum separation between the rear ofal building and any portion of another F.The minimum separation between the front ofal building and a property line shall be twenty-five (25) feet. The front of al building shall be any side with a primary entrance. G. Accessory Structure -E Each accessory structure shall be located within the minimum setbacks required for principal structures. The exception is that an accessory building may be located within three (3) feet of a rear ori interior side property line ift the following  dwellings which shall meet the setback requirements for the (R-4) Subzone:  and approved driveways may be allowed in the front setback.  oft the adjacent structure, whichever is greater.  oft thet tallest adjacent structure, whichever is greater.  building shall be thirty (30) feet.  criteria are met:  1. The entire structure is located more than five (5) feet to the rear ofa any main building on the same lot on which thel building is being placed. 2. No part of the structure is closer than twelve (12) feet to any dwelling on an 3. The eaves are at least one (1) foot from the property line. 4. The structure is designed to prevent roof runoff from impacting the adjacent 5. The structure meets all applicable provisions of the International Building Code. 6. The structure does not encroach on any easements, recorded or otherwise.  adjacent property. property.    TERSEVIO. OANO:  UwV STREET- 1264.02' s8geB35E  60.40 967,.19 939.56  BEING A PART OF MOMMENT 998.71, 4527.02  1/4 THE S.W. OF SECTION DAVIS COUNTY, UTAH  2600 E SOUTH 89-5/35'E  527.02' BIS89"S3SE WTDISECTION PONT o DEGAMING to 067.00 2 999.99  DAVIS COUR APPROVED TS- DMS cou DAVIS COUI APPROVDD THIS. DAIS Cou  s.W. CORNER- SECTION 31 T.ZN,RIE.,   C ROFOS E77343  E939.43  CCTON MENT  DIST. PENCE CN a RETARO MAT N  E17.57 s89-51'3 35'E 160.00',  80z.00 999.92  8, ag" br 35°E  EXISTING  FDVCE EN  €  GUTTER1 EbLgzEs Ebb22L58  CARC BIN  TOP 2664 Bot.  2652 RL54  0  OUNO  DAPE  5C4.75 779.22 34.96' NS9*3030  PA  70.18* 817.2 EREA CHURCH EB85.17 SAPRLE  DATE! DECEMBER, 1982  LEGEND DESICNKTID PRIVETE ARCA DESICNATED COWMON ARLA UNT NUMBERS- TDe LEVr  .  LIVEL-  -  BVKDING CORNER MORTH LASI  793,50 a70.C 79350 a33r 737.0G 070. 737.00 0331                12/5/2018  20181205_jpg  apssONASNwAwSeLw 1/1                5    Item #6  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Terry Eggett and Connie Woolley  APPLICANT:  APPLICATION TYPE: Request for a variance to the required corner lot width  requirements of the R-3 Zoning District. The proposed variance has been submitted in conjunction with an  application for subdivision.  I.  DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:  The applicants, Terry Eggett and Connie Woolley, have requested a variance to the required corner lot width requirements of the R-3 Zoning District. The proposed variance has been submitted in conjunction with an application for  subdivision.  II.  LAND USE ORDINANCE AUTHORITY:  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for  variance requests within the R-3 zone related to lot width.  III. APPEAL PROCEDURE:  Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance section 14-2-108 states that an applicant, board or officer of the City, or any person adversely affected by a Land Use Authority's decision administering or interpreting a land use ordinance or ruling on a request for a variance may, within fourteen calendar days of the written decision, appeal that decision to the Appeal Authority. No other appeals may be The appeal must be in writing and specifically allege that there is an error in an order, requirement, decision or determination by the Land Use Authority. The appellant shall state every theory of relief that it can raise in District Court.  made to the Appeal Authority.  IV. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE:  A. The basic facts and criteria regarding this application are contained in the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit A and is incorporated herein. B. The minutes of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 18, 2018 which are attached as Exhibit B summarize the oral testimony presented and are hereby incorporated  herein.    V.  FINDINGS OF FACT:  Based upon the information presented and oral testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission made the following findings: A. The literal enforcement of the land use ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out The proposed Lot 605 is made up of the remainder of an existing developed lot (Lot1 1 of East Peterson Subd.) One of the purposes of lot width standards for corner lots is to create a lot that can take access from either street. A second purpose is to create a property that contains adequate buildable area even with the additional exterior setbacks required fora corner lot. In this case, the lot is already developed and has established access to 1800 South. The grade difference between the existing home located on Lot 605 and the proposed cul-de-sac is substantial, making B. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not The portion of Lot 605 which fronts on the proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 30 feet in length and is separated from the developed portion of Lot 605 by a 20 foot difference in grade. This is currently: a natural area that is not maintained by the property owner and itis anticipated that this area would continue to remain as a natural area. The east portion of lot 605 is already developed with a single family dwelling that takes its access from 1800 South. The owner of Lot 605 has no desire for the additional property that would be required to meet the standard for corner lot width and the difference in grade makes it extremely difficult to take access from the cul-de-sac, even if the lot width were provided. The special circumstances created by the difference in grade and the unusual lots shapes needed to meet the standard justify a variance to the standard. C. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the district;  the general purpose of the land use ordinance;  access to the cul-de-sac unlikely and undesirable. generally apply to other properties in the district;  Granting the variance in this instance will allow for orderly development of the applicants property without the need to create an odd shaped or unusable area for the proposed lot 605. Since the reason for including this Lot is to provide for a better access to the proposed subdivision, the variance will provide the property owner with the right to develop their  property in an orderly way with a better design.    D. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be The public interest will be served by not creating two odd shaped lots solely for the purpose of meeting the standard. While there are designs that would meet the Code, those designs will create odd shaped lots or portions of lots that are separated by substantial differences in grade from the main part of the lot. This grade separation will make those portions of the lot unusable by the owner of Lot 605 and maintenance of these areas is unlikely. Allowing a variance to the standard will not have a substantial E. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice is The purpose of the corner lot width standard is to provide for additional opportunities for access and adequate area for building on corner lots. In this case the lot in question is already developed and differences in grade make it less appealing to provide access to the cul-de-sac. Therefore granting the variance is in keeping with the spirit of the land use ordinance.  contrary to the public interest;  impact to the general plan of the public interest.  done  VI. DECISION AND SUMMARY  The Planning Commission approved the requested variance by a vote of 5-0-1. FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVED BY THE Bountiful City Planning Commission  this  day of January, 2019.  Sean Monson, Chair  Bountiful City Planning Commission