BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, December 4, 2018  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 thei minutes for November 20, 2018.  3. Consider preliminary subdivision approval for Seifert Subdivision located at 3332 South 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval of a variance to section 14-6-109 of the Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance to allow for the required landscaping in the parkstrip and the required 10 foot landscape buffer along the street frontage to be removed and replaced with asphalt at Antion Auto located at 633 S 500 West, Stephen Sandberg 5. - Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit letter in written form for a 6-unit multi- family development located at 55 W 400 South, Brian Knowlton, applicant. 6. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  725 West, Roger Seifert, applicant.  representing Antion Auto, applicant.  Chad Wilkinson, City Planner    Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2018 6:30 P.M.  Present:  Chair - Sean Monson; Vice Chair - Von Hill; Planning Commission Members - Jesse Bell, Jim Clark; Tom Smith and Sharon Spratley; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; City Engineer - Lloyd Cheney; City Attorney - Clint Drake; and Recording Secretary - Darlene Baetz  Excused:  City Council Representation - Richard Higginson  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for November 6, 2018.  Jim Clark made a motion to approve the minutes for November 6, 2018 as written. Von Hill seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-0 with Commission members Clark, Hill, Monson, Spratley and Smith  voting aye. Jesse Bell arrived.  3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 6-unit multi-family 4. Consider approval of a preliminary site plan approval for a 6-unit multi-family development  development located at 55 W 400 South, Brian Knowlton, applicant. located at 55 W 400 South, Brian Knowlton, applicant.  Brian Knowlton was present. Chad Wilkinson presented the staff report.  The applicant, Knowlton General, requests Conditional use permit and preliminary site plan approval for a 6 unit multifamily development located at 55 West 400 South. The property has been vacant for many years and is zoned DN (Downtown). The site is surrounded by single family residential use on the east and west, mixed use and commercial to the north, and commercial property to the south. The proposed development is located on a .25 acre (+10,890) s.f. property. There appears to be some discrepancy between the legal description for the property and the actual area available for building. Prior to submitting for final site plan, the applicant will need to identify actual dimensions of the buildable area of the lot based on a survey of the property. This issue will impact the proposed parking layout on the site. Based on an analysis of the building design, the building official has determined that a disabled person parking space is not required based on the applicable building code. However section 14-7-112 C 9 requires that street-facing ground floor units be ADA accessible to provide for conversion to a future commercial use. Without the need for the accessible space, the proposal meets the parking standards oft the Code including required covered parking and guest spaces with room to spare. Ifan accessible space is required, it will be necessary for more detailed property information to determine ifthe lot can accommodate adequate parking for the development. Thej proposed building meets the required setback and height standards for the DN Zone. Because the building is located at least 200 feet from the 100 west right of way the maximum building height is 55  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - November 20, 2018  Page 1 of4    feet. Thej proposed building is approximately 46 feet and four stories in height with one unit located on the ground floor and the remainder above. The applicant proposes building materials consisting of an mix of EIFS and brick. Color renderings of the buildings are attached to this report. It is recommended that some brick be added to the south façade as this area will be highly visible from 500 South. The proposed structure meets the required articulation standards ofthe ordinance and complies with the maximum 2:1 height to width ratio requirements. Ground floor units have entrances facing The plan shows the minimum 10 percent ofl landscape area and the additional landscaping required by Code for multifamily development; however, a detailed landscape plan will need to be submitted demonstrating compliance with the minimum requirements of the landscape code. A sidewalk is shown on the west side of the property running along the proposed parking area. The Code allows for sidewalks to occupy a total of 30 percent of the required landscape area. Based on the required landscape area the sidewalk will need to be reduced. It is recommended that the sidewalk be pulled back to the south edge of the building in order to comply with the applicable standard. Access to the site will be via a single driveway on 400 South. Water and sewer will be provided via connections to existing lines in 400 South. Storm water drainage design will need to be further refined prior to submittal for final site plan approval. The proposed retention system may not adequately dispose of storm water and additional information is required to determine adequate permeability of The applicant will need to demonstrate how storm water impacts to the site will bel handled. Sidewalks will have to be repaired as part of the project. Other infrastructure in the area is adequate for the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for preliminary site plan review for the proposed 6  the public street and balconies or patios are shown for each unit.  soils to allow for retention on site.  impacts anticipated by the development.  unit multifamily building subject to the following conditions: 1. Complete any and all redline corrections.  2. Prior to submittal for final site plan approval, complete a survey of the property to determine total buildable area available on the property. Complete any revisions to the site necessary based 3. Revise the elevations to show some brick elements on the south side of the building in order to 4. Revise the site plan to show the sidewalk on the property ending at the south side of the building. 5. Submit a landscape plan meeting the minimum requirements of Sections 14-16- 104 and 14-16-  on the size of the parcel.  provide architectural continuity on this visible side oft the building.  109.  6. All damaged curb and gutter and sidewalk along 400 S. shall be replaced.  Mr. Wilkinson clarified the current ADA code and the accessibility for the ground floor. Mr. Monson would like to make sure that there is available ADA parking if the space was converted to business space. Mr. Wilkinson stated that after the required survey is completed then the ADA parking will be worked thru and would be brought to the Planning Commission at final site plan approval. Mr. Knowlton stated that he is anticipating that the lot is shorter than the County legal description. He has been in contact with the Fire Marshall for the clearance of the 6' X 13'cantilever on the north side. Mr. Bell discussed the possibility of extra windows. Mr. Wilkinson clarified that the plans for the  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - November 20, 2018  Page 2of4    building does meet code for the opacity ofthe ground floor. Chair Monson opened the PUBLIC HEARING at 6:47 p.m.  Randy Westergard resides at 75 W 400 South. Mr. Westergard was concerned about the 6-units on % acre, decrease in property values and the possible trash and traffic impact for this area.  Chair Monson closed the PUBLIC HEARING at 6:48 p.m.  Mr. Wilkinson stated that there will be a trash enclosure for the property and the project. We don't know what will happen with the property values and have no control over what happens. Mr. Knowlton will have a survey done for this property and the allowed size of the building will be The Commission members requested that the applicant uses appropriate sized trees on the east and west side. Staffstated that the completed landscape plan will be with the final site plan approval. Sharon Spratley made a motion that the Planning Commission approval the Conditional Use Permit for a 6-unit multi-family development located at 55 W 400 South with the 6 conditions outlined by  completed in the final site plan.  staffand the addition of21 more conditions,  7. Additional windows shall be added to the ground floor facing 400 South.  8. The project needs to include columnar trees on the east and west side of the building to provide Tom Smith seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Hill, Sharon Spratley made a motion that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval for a preliminary site plan for a 6-unit multi-family development located at55W4 400 South with the 6 conditions outlined by staff and the two additional conditions. Jesse Bell seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Hill, Monson,  screening for adjacent properties. Monson, Smith, and Spratley voting aye.  Smith, and Spratley voting aye.  Jim Clark and Clint Drake were excused to City Council Special Meeting.  5. Consider re-approval of a preliminary and final site plan for a 40-unit mixed use office and residential building located at 1501 S Renaissance Towne Dr (Pad A), Bruce Broadhead,  applicant.  Bruce Broadhead was present. Chad Wilkinson presented the staff report.  The applicant, Bruce Broadhead, requests site plan approval for "Pad. A" (shown now as Lot 9) oft the Renaissance Town Center Development. The plan was originally approved in April of2017 and a six month extension was granted In April of 2018. That extension has now expired and SO the site plan must be reapproved in order to move forward. The proposal still includes 40 units and retains the approximately 5,500 square feet of commercial space located on the street level originally approved. There have been no substantial changes to the Code in the intervening year and a half since the original approval. The project is very close to permit issuance and the reauthorization will allow the  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 2018  Page 3 of4    developer to move forward with the project. However, in order to avoid any conflicts with future code changes, building permits should be obtained in a timely manner. Therefore, it is recommended that a Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City  condition bei required to obtain al building permit within 61 months oft the re-approval.  Council for the site plan subject to the following conditions:  1. Obtain a building permit for the project within 61 months and keep the permit active. 2. At least one of the parking spaces for the development shall be a van-accessible disabled person Sharon Spratley made a motion that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval for the preliminary and final site plan for a 40-unit mixed use office and residential building located at 1501 S Renaissance Towne Dr (Pad A) with the two (2) conditions outlined by staff. Jesse Bell seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-0-1 with Commission members 6. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  parking space.  Bell, Monson, Smith and Spratley voting aye with Hill abstaining.  1. Next Planning Commission meeting will bel December 4, 2018. 2. Discussion about upcoming Legislation update.  Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 7:02  p.m.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - November 20, 2018  Page 4 of4    Commission Staff Report  Item 3  Subject: Address: Author: Date:  Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the  Seifert Subdivision 3350 South 725 West City Engineer, City Planner December 4, 2018  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  Department: Engineering, Planning  Background  Mr. Roger Seifert is requesting preliminary approval of the Seifert Subdivision. This three lot subdivision proposes toi include the existing single family home at 3332 S 725 W and the vacant parcel at the end of the street into a three lot subdivision. Iti is proposed that a new cul-de-sac be created in the existing vacant parcel, resulting in a new lot on the east and west sides oft the cul-de-sac. The existing vacant parcel slopes from east to west at approximately 5% on the north property line and increases to approximately 20 % towards the south-east corner oft the  parcel which abuts the. Jenkins property.  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 90ft. of frontage. Lots 2 and 3 will have widths of 109 Utilities are already serving the four lots which front onto 725 West, north of the proposed subdivision. A: South Davis Water District 6" culinary water main is located behind the west curb. This line will need to be extended approximately 145 feet to the south side of the cul-de- sac and have a fire hydrant installed at the termination oft the line. An existing 8" sewer main extends to the south through the property, sO the installation of2 new sewer laterals to serve the lots which front the cul-de-sac are all that is necessary to provide sewer service. Overhead The street improvements as proposed deviate slightly from the standard right of way requirements because of the limited north-to-south dimension of the vacant parcel and the width of the adjacent parcel 33335725 W. Because oft these conditions, the cul-de-sac is proposed with a 501 ft. radius (measured at the property line). Since there is no sidewalk on 725 W, sidewalk is not proposed to be installed at this time, however, the 81 ft. separation between the curb and gutter and the proposed property line would accommodate a 41 ft. wide park strip  ft. and 1121 ft. respectively (measured at the 25 ft. setback).  power lines are located on the south side of the vacant parcel.  and a 41 ft. wide sidewalk.    Its should be noted that the extension oft the culinary water line as shown will require that the existing curb and gutter on the west side of725V W be removed and replaced. A3ftwide  asphalt patch will be required ini the existing pavement.  Department Review Planning Department. Recommendation  The proposed preliminary and final plat has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and  Recommend preliminary approval of the Seifert Subdivision with the following conditions:  1. 2. 3.  Provide a current title report. Make all necessary red line corrections. Pay all required fees (Storm Water Impact Fee).  Significant Impacts None Attachments  1. Aerial photo showing the proposed location 2. A copy oft the preliminary plat.  lenglsupdwsonsyieer: subdivision: 2018pc preliminary approval seifert subdivsion, dec 2018.docx    Aerial Photo oft the Proposed Seifert Subdivision  a  Elenglsubdwisionsisiefertsubdvision: 2018pcp preliminary approval seifert subdivsion, dec 2018.docx    snpalug  183413S  2599 107  133NISIS3AISL    Item # 4  Commission Staff Report  Item:  PUBLICI HEARING - Request for a variance to allow for the standards of section 14-6-109 ofthe Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance to allow for the required landscaping in the parkstrip and the required 10 foot landscape buffer along the street frontage to be removed and replaced with asphalt.  BOUNTIFUL EST.1892  Address: 633 South 500 West  Author: Date:  Curtis Poole, Assistant Planner October 9, 2018  Description of Request  The applicant, Durbano Law Firm, is requesting a variance to allow for the standards of section 14-6-109 ofthe Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance to allow for the required landscaping in the parkstrip and the required 10 foot landscape buffer along the street frontage to be removed and replaced with asphalt. The purpose of the variance ist to allow the applicanta additional room for cars to be displayed. The property is located in the C-H  zone. Authority  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance  requests related to landscapingand parking setbacks.  Appeal Procedure  Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance section 14-2-108 states an applicant, board or officer of the City, or any person adversely affected by a Land Use. Authority's decision administering orinterpreting a land use ordinance or ruling on a request for a variance may, within fourteen calendar days oft the written decision, appeal the decision to the Appeal Authority. Thea appeal must be in writing and specifically allege there is an error in an order, requirement, decision or determination by the Land Use Authority. The appellant shall  No other appeals may be made to the Appeal Authority.  state every theory of reliefit can raise in District Court.  Background and Analysis:  On May 25, 2018, the City received a code enforcement complaint explaining the applicant had removed the parkstrip and buffer landscaping of their property and replaced it with asphalt. Case #76-2018 was opened and notifications were sent on June 7 and 19,2018. After no response from the applicant a final certified letter was mailed on July 12,2018. On    Mr. Sandberg agreed to submit a landscaping plan tol be approved by the Planning Department by August 20, 2018. On August 20, 2018, Mr. Sandberg requested additional time to submit the landscaping plan, and ai new deadline of August 31, 2018 was given. Mr. Sandberg emailed on August 31, 2018 indicating the applicant would be considering other The applicant's property is in the C-H zone and the existing business, Antion Auto, has been operating from this location since 2012. City Code 14-6-109 requires there shall bea a10 feet wide landscape buffer installed along all frontage areas except for drive approaches. It further states landscaping shall bei installed in all parkstrips, and prohibits any non-vegetative material in the parkstrip. This part of the City Code has been in force since it was adopted in 1982. Aerial photos show that through at least) June of 2017 the applicant was meeting thel landscape area requirement for the setback buffer and thej parkstrip. Landscaping was required as aj part of the original approval oft the site in 1988 and removal oft the landscaping makes the site noncompliant with the original approval. It appears from aerial photos the landscaping on site has been slowly allowed to deteriorate up and until the landscaping was removed sometime after) June 2017. City Code requires continuous  options.  maintenance ofl landscape areas in accordance with approved plans.  Variance Findings  Utah Code 10-9a-702 establishes the criteria for review ofa variance request. In ordert to (i) Literal enforcement ofthe ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose ofthe land use  grant a variance each oft the following criteria must be met:  ordinances;  Staff Response: City records show the landscaping oft the property was originally installed in 1988. Since then property owners have continued to maintain the landscaping until at least June of2017. The landscaping was removed voluntarily by the applicant to increase their vehicle inventory and parking. State Law 10-9a-702 S (b) states "the appeal authority may not find an unreasonable hardship ift thel hardship is self-imposed or economic." The fact the applicant removed the landscaping voluntarily should be considered. a self-imposed event. Also, any potential economic impact alleged by the applicant cannot be (ii) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do notgenerally apply Staff Response: The applicant's property is located in the C-H zone. Iti is a middle lot with frontage on 500 West. The City Code adopted in 1982 required all new commercial developments in the zone to submit a landscaping plan as part oft their site development plan. Ifother properties involving auto-sales or similar businesses were to develop in the C-H zone they would be required tol keep and maintain the current landscaping required by  considered an unreasonable hardship by State Law.  to other properties in the same zone;    the ordinance. There are no unique circumstances which would allow this property to be (ii) Granting the variance is essential to the emjopmentofasuhstontal propertyr right StaffResponse: All commercial development which occurred after the 1982 Code was adopted have been required to install and maintain landscaping: according to this ordinance. Within the C-H: zone the properties which were developed prior to the adoption ofthe 1982 Code were not required to meet the landscaping code and are considered legal non-conforming, as in the case of properties such as Bountiful Bowl, Flower Patch, and Robintino's. As these legal non-conforming properties have been developed, they have been and will be required to meet the current landscaping requirements, as ini the case of the current Culver's and Stout business developments as well as the recent development of the Fordham Commercial Park. There are also circumstances where aj property was forced tor remove their landscaping by UDOT as expansions to thei intersection of500 West and 500 South occurred, as in the case of Walgreen's, McDonald's, Sherwin Williams and KFC. These properties are now considered legal non-conforming. Ift these properties were to redevelop in the future they would bei required to meet the current landscaping code. Properties which have removed their landscaping voluntarily and do not comply with the current landscaping code have been and will be subject to code enforcement proceedings. (iv) The variance will not substantiallyaect the general plan and will not be contrary to Staff Response: As thej property is located in thel high traffic corridor of 500 West, iti isa very visible part oft the city and maintaining the landscaping code is a publici interest. (v) The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and. substantial justice done Staff Response: Granting a variance would be contrary to the spirit oft the land use ordinance. Landscaping required by ordinance serves as an aesthetic benefit to the Citya and also provides valuable pervious space to assist in capture of storm water runoff. Granting the variance to thel landscaping ordinance is noti in keeping with the spirit oft the ordinance.  considered for a variance to the landscapingordinance.  possessed by other property in the: same zone;  the public interest;  Department Review  The request has been reviewed by the City Planner, City Engineer, and City Attorney  Recommended Action  Staff recommends denial oft the requested variance to allow for thel landscaping in the parkstrip and setback buffer to be removed and replaced with non-vegetative material. Landscaping shall be restored in order to comply with the originally approved landscape  plan for the property.    Attachments  1. Recent Property Photos 2. Aerial Map Progression of Property 3. Applicant's Narrative 4. 1988 Approved Landscape Plan    Sitel Photos - June 2018  Map Aerial Progression July 17, 2010 Durbano Properties LLC  a    June 4,2013 Durbano Properties LLC  E6  8 3  a  fc  June 15,2015 Durbano Properties LLC    July8,2016 Durbano Properties LLC  DE  EEg -  June 15, 2017 Durbano Properties LLC  -  E a    Variance Application - Attachment  Antion Auto, L.C., 633 S. 500 W., Bountiful, Utah 84010 What City Ordinance(s) do you want a variance from?  Antion Auto, L.C., ("Antion") respectfully requests a variance from the requirements of  Bountiful City Ordinance 14-6-109 (the Landscaping Ordinance").  How does the proposed variance request meet all of the requirements of Utah Code  S 10-9a-702? i.  Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant and is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the land As a car dealership, Antion's s parking lot serves as both its store-front and warehouse. While the space in which Antion operates is clearly finite, they can only store and show their inventory within the boundaries oft their property, the Landscaping Ordinance restricts Antion's use ofits property. This restriction places an unnecessary and unreasonable hardship on Antion by further limiting its usable space and preventing it from fully utilizing and enjoying its property. The Landscaping Ordinance, specifically subsection (4), requires a "minimum ten (10) feet wide landscape buffer. : along all frontage areas" (the "Setback") and literally shrinks Antion's store front and storage space. Although Antion maintained the Setback for some time, due to Antion's unique circumstances as described below, the Setback was, from the beginning,  use ordinance.  al hardship on the business.  Additionally, literal enforcement oft the Landscaping Ordinance is not necessary. Although Antion seeks a variance from the requirements oft the Landscape Ordinance, it operates inal Heavy Commercial subzone which, under Bountiful City Ordinance 14-6-109(1), only requires 15% oft the property to be landscaped. Because there remains a strip ofl land between the sidewalk and the road that can bel landscaped, Subsection (4) oft the Landscape Ordinance is not  necessary to carry out the general purpose oft the land use ordinance.  ii.  There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally As noted above, Antion operates in a Commercial Zone, and, more specifically, a Heavy Commercial subzone. The stated purpose oft the Commercial Zone is to "provide areas dedicated primarily to retail, office, and service related uses." Bountiful City Code 14-6-101. The typical uses in the Heavy Commercial subzone are "Big-box retail, light manufacturing, planned commercial developments, office towers, automobile repair and service, outside storage yards, and office/warehouse buildings." Bountiful City Code 14-6-101(A). Clearly, the Commercial and Heavy Commercial zones were established toj promote business development and commercial enterprises, not thwart the ability to grow and thrive in the community. The Setback, however, acts as a legislative barrier to Antion's business growth leaving it with only two options: (1) comply with the Setback and lose approximately 20% ofits inventory or (2) move to a different location. These limited options create a special circumstance for the property  apply to other properties in the same zone.  in addition to an unreasonable hardship under section (i) above.  lof2    Variance Application - Attachment  Antion Auto, L.C., 633 S.500 W., Bountiful, Utah 84010  iii. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property  right possessed by other property in the same zone.  While the need for many businesses to: maintain large parking lots for visiting customers is declining due to online retailers, car dealerships still rely almost exclusively on customers physically visiting their business. Unlike retailers selling clothes, office supplies, or auto parts, a car dealership'si inventory is not stackable nor easily housed on shelves but requires substantial amounts of space in addition to the need for parking spaces for customers. Thus, Antion's industry faces unique circumstances and needs that are not present for other retailers in the zone. Because other property owners do: not face the same unique circumstances as Antion, they are not negativelyi impacted by the Landscaping Ordinance and, therefore, are able to fully use and enjoy their property. The Landscaping Ordinance, however, prevents Antion from being able to fully utilize and enjoy its property. Additionally, a cursory search of Google maps reveals that the following businesses have similarly removed, or never had, the Setback: Sherwin-Williams Paint Store, Intermountain Homecare-Woods, Charlie Fuller's Appliance, Robintino's of Bountiful, Andy's Lube and Service, Utah Direct Auto, Cottage Dental, Appliance Discount Center, Bountiful Utah Homes for Sale, Flower Patch, Walgreens, Subway Restaurants, Bountiful Bowl, McDonald's, Wok Lin, and Show & Tell AV Solutions. These are just ai few ofthe businesses that do not have the Setback along the frontage of 500 West in Bountiful. Thus, granting the variance is essential to Antion's enjoyment ofa substantial iv. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be  property right enjoyed by other property in the same zone.  contrary to the public interest.  As noted in Section i above, Antion would only be required tol have 15% ofits property landscaped, which could be accomplished through less oppressive means than the Setback. Additionally, Antion operates in a commercial zone, the stated purpose ofwhich is "to provide areas dedicated primarily to retail . Bountiful City Ordinance 14-6-101. The variance does attempt to change the zoning or sub-zoning oft the property and, therefore, does not affect the general plan oft the area. Likewise, the variance is not contrary to the public interest because it does not create a safety hazard, create potential environmental hazards, or have a negative visual impact as the lot is maintained and the vehicles are clean and, arguably, more aesthetically  pleasing than a shrub or potted plant.  V.  The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed because, as noted, the aesthetics oft the property are at least maintained, ifr not improved, no neighboring properties are negatively impacted by the variance, and the variance does not create al health or safety hazard. Substantial justice is done because a profitable, tax-paying business can continue to operate in Bountiful without having to sacrifice approximately 20% ofitsi inventory and, again, the variance does not  negatively impact neighboring properties or the: zone.  2of2    Aug:as. 10, 1988 Video LSA 633 So. 500 W. Bountiful, U2 84810 Gentleuen  Wo are roturnirg your chock #6462 in the arount of $5,323 which you posted for laniscaping al your MAVE msiness loantion.  Sincornly, Jon Reed Hoothe Plaming mirecior    16E9/  o MsEes  d  0129  2.96 7.79,65,59N  0 2  3    When Recorded, Please Return to: Bountiful City Planning Department 790 S. 100E. Bountiful, UT 84010  Conditional Use Permit  Aj public hearing was held on November 20, 2018, at Bountiful City Hall to consider the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 6-unit multi-family development located at the following location:  55 West 400 South, Bountiful City, Davis County, Utah  Parcel: 03-032-0081 BEG ATI NE COR LOT 2, BLK: 5, PLAT A, BOUNTIFUL TSSURVEY, THW The Bountiful City Planning Commission heard the matter and considered the statements of the applicant, the City staff, and the public. As a result, the Planning Commission makes the following  66 FT, THS S 1651 FT, TH E661 FT, THI NI 1651 FTTOI BEG. CONT. 0.25 ACRES  findings:  1. This matter is properly heard before the Planning Commission. 2. Appropriate public notice has been provided and aj public hearing held.  The Bountiful City Planning Commission hereby grants this Conditional Use Permit for a 6-unit multi-family development located at 55 W 400 South, Bountiful, Davis County, Utah, with the  following conditions:  1. Complete any and all: redline corrections. based on the size ofthe parcel.  2. Prior to submittal for final site plan approval, complete a survey oft the property to determine total buildable area available on the property. Complete any revisions to the site necessary 3. Revise the elevations to show some brick elements on the: south side oft the building in order 4. Revise the site plan to show the sidewalk on the property ending at the south side of the 5. Submit a landscape plan meeting the minimum requirements of Sections 14-16- 104 and  toj provide architectural continuity on this visible side oft the building.  building. 14-16-109.  6. All damaged curb and gutter and sidewalk along 400 S. shall be replaced. 7. Additional windows shall be added to the ground floor facing 400 South.  8. The project needs to include columnar trees on the east and west side of the building to The Conditional Use Permit was approved on November 20, 2018, and this written form was  provide screening for adjacent properties.  approved this 4th day ofDecember 2018.  Sean Monson  ATTEST: Darlene Baetz Recording Secretary  Planning Commission Chairman