BOUNTIFUL CITY Tuesday, August 14, 2018  PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA  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. July17,2018.  3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval of a variance to section 14-4-105J.2.b.to allow for the building footprint of accessory structures to exceed 15 %ofthe lot or parcel 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval for a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 12-unit multi-family development located at 105 South 100 West, Brian Knowlton, 5. Consider preliminary site plan approval for a 12-unit multi-family development located at 6. Consider preliminary and final subdivision approval for Nathan's Subdivision located at 7. Consider preliminary site plan approval for Alphagraphics located at 265 S Main and 295 8. Consider the approval of the Findings of Fact for an approved sideyard setback and lot width variance in conjunction with an application for subdivision located at 306 W 400 9. Planning Director'si report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  area.  applicant.  105 South 100 West, Brian Knowlton, applicant. 306 and 292 W 400 North, Nathan Polatis, applicant.  SMain, Spencer Anderson, applicant.  North, Rafael Chavez. Jr, applicant.  Planner  GE    Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes July 17,2018 6:30 P.M.  Present:  Chair - Sean Monson; Vice Chair = Von Hill; Planning Commission Members - Jesse Bell, Jim Clark, Tom Smith and Sharon Spratley; Asst. City Attorney - Clint Drake; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; Asst City Planner - Curtis Poole; City Engineer - Paul Rowland; and  Recording Secretary - Darlene Baetz  Excused:  City Council Representation - Richard Higginson; City Attorney - Clint Drake  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for June 19,2018.  Sharon Spratley made a motion to approve the minutes for June 19, 2018 as written. Smith and Spratley voting aye and Commission member Monson abstaining.  Von Hill seconded the motion. Voting passed 4-0-1 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Hill, 3. Consider preliminary and final plat approval for 5th West Flex Offices located at 1051 S 500  West, Jeff Beck, applicant.  JeffBeck was present. Paul Rowland presented staffreport.  Mr. Jeff Beck, applicant, requests preliminary and final plat approval for the 5th West Flex Office Condominiums, which encompasses the recently constructed commercial building at 1051 S. 500 West. The building is located on Lot 1 of the 5th West Office Park Commercial Subdivision and already exists as a commercial structure. The building meets all oft the requirements that were inj place at the time of the original commercial subdivision approval and this change is solely for the purpose of producing a condominium plat oft this lot sO that the individual units can be sold independently.  Chair Monson temporarily left the room. Condominiums, with the following conditions:  Staff recommends approval for preliminary and final plat approval for the 5th West Flex Office  1. Submit the signed, final mylar ready for utility signatures.  2. Submit a current title report. 3. Payment of fees Vice Chair Hill asked for ai motion.  Tom Smith made a motion that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation for preliminary-and final plat approval for 5th West Flex Offices located at 1051 S  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes -July 17, 2018  Page lof7    500 West with the three conditions outlined by staff. Chair Monson returned to the table. Monson, Smith and Spratley voting aye. 300 East, Robert Zesiger, applicant.  Sharon Spratley seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Hill, 4. Consider preliminary and final subdivision approval for Hayward Subdivision located at 153 S  Robert Zesiger was present. Paul Rowland presented the staff report.  Mr. Robert Zesiger is requesting preliminary and final approval of the Hayward Subdivision. This two lot subdivision proposes to split the existing residential property at 153 South 300 East Street. The property is currently occupied by a single home with an attached garage which will end up on one of The property at 111 and 153 So. 300 East contains 0.524 acres and is located in Plat A of the original Bountiful Townsite Survey. This division creates two lots, one containing 13,982 sf. and the other containing 8,842 sf., both of which are larger than the required minimum lot size for the zone. Both All utilities are already serving the corner lot. The water and sewer services for the south lot will be connected to the main lines in 300 East Street. The power, phone, and cable lines are all overhead in the area and already serve the existing lot. Some modifications to the existing power poles and lines Recommend preliminary and final approval of the Hayward Subdivision with the following  the two proposed lots.  lots also have more than the required frontage for lots in the R-4 Zone.  will need to be made in order to accommodate a home on the new lot.  conditions: 1. 2. 3.  Provide a current title report. Make all necessary red line corrections. Pay all fees, including the Storm Water Impact Fee.  Mr. Rowland would like it on the minutes that a bond will not be required at this time. A bond will be required when a building permit is issued. The developer/home owner will be responsible for moving Sharon Spratley made a motion that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation for preliminary and final subdivision approval to with the 3 conditions outlined by Jim Clark seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-0-1 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Monson, 5. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval for a sideyard setback and lot width variance in conjunction with an application for subdivision located at 306 W 400 North, Rafael Chavez Jr,  the power line and the easement will be shown on the final plat.  staff and a notation that no bond will be required at this time. Smith and Spratley voting aye and Hill abstaining.  applicant.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - July 17, 2018  Page 2of7    Rafael Chavez Jra and Nathan Polatis were present. Mr. Poole presented the staff report.  The applicants, Rafael Chavez Jr. and Nathan Polatis, have requested a variance to allow the property to be subdivided without meeting the minimum corner lot setback and width requirements. The property is located in the R-4 zoning district. The applicants would like to subdivide the properties of 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 The applicants have requested a variance to allow for subdivision of the property without meeting the current corner lot set back requirements in the R-4 zone. The existing home is 17: feet from 325 West. Thel home was constructed in 1902. In 1984 Meadow Brook Acres Plat B was approved to the north of the property. In addition to the plat approval 325 West was expanded which explains the current setback of17: feet of the home. The need for the variance arises from thel location oft the existing home. Section 14-4-105 C: states that a corner lot side yard setback "shall not bel less than twenty (20) feet... ? Because oft the expansion of 325 West which caused the home to become non-compliant a variance is needed. In addition to the issues related to the required setback, the lot does not meet the minimum width standard of the R-4 ordinance. The property is currently approximately 58 feet wide and the resulting Lot 1 oft the proposed. subdivision would maintain that lot width. The minimum lot width for a corner lot in the R-4 zone is 80 feet (ten feet wider than an interior lot). The resulting lot will be approximately 22 feet narrower than the minimum lot size. Section 14-2-404 A stated that a nonconformity shall not be changed except in conformance with the provision of the land use ordinance. Therefore in order to modify the property a variance must be obtained for the lot width Staff recommends approval of the requested variance in order to allow the property to be subdivided without meeting the minimum corner lot setback and lot width requirements ofthel R-4 zone. Staff mentioned that the approval for the item at this meeting is for the variance and the flood plain  306 West and 292 West to create at third property to the north.  made to the Appeal Authority.  that it can raise in District Court.  standard.  map will be discussed at the subdivision approval meeting. Chair Monson opened the Public Hearing at 6:55 pm.  Duane Mills resides at 317 W 600 North. Mr. Mills is concerned that this property would be multi- family. Staff confirmed that this property is zoned single family and not multi-family. The property owner would need to request a: zone change which is a public hearing ifthere is a change to the current Cory Willey resides at 280 W 400 North. Ms. Willey is concerned about the small size of the new  zone.  Bountiful City. Planning Commission Minutes - July 17, 2018  Page 3of7    parcel. Staff verified that parcel #3 will have an easement that will be recorded at the County to  accommodate the creek channel.  Chair Monson closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m.  Mr. Wilkinson stated that the owners of the properties have signed and given permission to proceed. Sharon Spratley made a motion to approve for a sideyard setback and lot width variance in Von Hill seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Bell, Clark, Hill, Monson, Smith and Spratley 6. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider a Zoning Text Amendment to allow for private schools in the DN (Downtown) zoning district, Jill Thompson representing Liberty Hills Academy, applicant.  The setbacks run with the land regardless of the property owners.  conjunction with an application for subdivision located at 306 W 4001 North.  voting aye.  Chad Wilkinson presented the staffr report.  The applicant, Liberty Hills Academy, requests a zoning ordinance text amendment in order to add The Downtown zone has been the focus of a great deal of discussion over the past year, mostly related to architectural and design standards and the appropriate mix of uses in the area. The Downtown Zoning district was originally adopted in 2006 as a mixed use commercial and residential zone. The purpose and objectives section for the district states that the zone was "established to provide a district primarily for the preservation of the mixed use character of the commercial and residential uses in and adjacent to the Main Street downtown area." As with each of the zones in the City, a table listing permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses was adopted with the zoning district. The table of allowed uses does not currently include public or private schools as an allowed use in the Downtown zone. The proposed amendment would include private schools as and allowed use in order to develop a private school use in the Wight House building. While it is impossible to know all the potential reasons schools were excluded from the list of allowed uses when the Downtown zone was adopted over a decade ago, there are some significant policy issues that should be considered when deliberating a Main Street remains the most viable location for businesses and restaurants in Downtown. While the proposed amendment would allow school uses throughout the downtown zone, the pending application would locate a school along Main Street in the core area of downtown. This core area, starting at 200 South and extending to 100 North, was the first portion of the downtown targeted for redevelopment by the City and has seen a significant investment in infrastructure by the Redevelopment Agency of Bountiful. This area has also seen a tremendous amount of private reinvestment with recent redevelopments of Zion's Bank, the Hepworth mixed use buildings at 100 South and Main, the Creative Arts Academy, and others. Recent discussions and direction from the Council over the past year have included a desire to continue to focus commercial use and higher densities to areas near Main Street. Because frontage on Main Street is a limited commodity, the uses allowed on Main Street should be carefully considered. During the recent policy discussions regarding Main Street, it was acknowledged in Code adopted by the Council that ground floor Main Street frontage should not be  Private Schools as an allowed use in the Downtown (DN) zoning district.  possible change to the ordinance.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - July 17, 2018  Page 4 of7    taken up by residential use, but should be preserved for commercial use. Similarly, it is appropriate to discuss whether a school use is a good fit within this core commercial area in downtown. This is not a reflection on the use itself, but a question as to whether this is thel highest and best use for the Main Street area. The Zoning Ordinance includes private schools as an allowed use on most lands within the City. Approximately 79 percent of the land area in the City is currently zoned for private school use. All residentially zoned properties, including those zoned single family and multifamily, include private schools as an allowed use. The areas where private schools are not allowed are limited to those zones where there is a higher potential for commercial use. These areas include commercial corridors such as 500 West, 500 South and the historic Downtown area. Main Street is specifically the portion of the downtown area most likely to support commercial use. While individual non- commercial uses have been allowed in the past on Main Street, it is critical that the Council preserve as much Main Street frontage for commercial and restaurant use, particularly in the core area of In recent policy discussions, the Council has expressed a desire to attract additional restaurants to the downtown area. This direction is consistent with the 2009 Downtown Master Plan which identifies insufficient dining, entertainment and shopping opportunities as an issue of concern and establishes goals and policies to attract additional dining opportunities. One of the challenges in establishing restaurants in the City is finding locations that allow for alcohol licenses. State law requires minimum separations from community locations, such as churches, parks, libraries, and schools. This limits the Although there are uses such as the existing dance school and educational uses associated with The Joy Foundation and the BDAC, these types of educational facilities are included in a separate category in State Law and are not subject to the same distance restrictions as a school use. The school use would limit issuance of restaurant alcohol licenses within 200 feet of the school as measured in a The Downtown zone already contains a large area where restaurants could not gain approval for alcohol licenses based on the location of the Tabernacle and the soon-to-be constructed public plaza. Allowing schools in the Downtown zone could potentially further limit opportunities for the City to attract restaurant uses to the downtown or to allow for existing restaurants to add alcohol service. Although the current application is a legislative decision impacting the entire Downtown zone, some discussion oft the characteristics oft the Wight House property is appropriate. One of the main concerns in establishing a school use in the Wight House location is the lack ofnearby outdoor recreation space for students attending the school. Although the applicant has indicated that students will use the interior of the building for recreation, this does not seem ideal and it is anticipated that there will be a desire for some outdoor recreation space in the future for the school. Parking areas to the rear of the building are shared by all businesses on the block and include a large parking lot owned by the Redevelopment Agency. In addition to serving the adjacent businesses, these areas are currently used tos support downtown events and must remain open to the public. Another operational concern is the There would be several major impacts associated with adding private schools as an allowed use in the Downtown (DN) zone. As mentioned above, the inclusion of private schools could impact the City Council's goals to attract additional restaurant uses to the downtown area because of distance  downtown.  number ofl locations where ai restaurant serving alcohol can locate.  straight line or within 300 feet as measured by the shortest pedestrian route.  potential impact of drop-off and pick-up ofs students on adjacent businesses.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - July 17, 2018  Page 5of7    restrictions for alcohol licenses placed on restaurants by State Code. Although specific to the proposed location on Main Street, the inclusion of a school in the Wight House property will also occupy a portion of the frontage on Main Street in the core area of downtown. This area is critical for maintaining adequate property to attract commercial and restaurant use to the downtown. While the City supports the establishment of private schools (as evidenced by zoning almost 80 percent of the City to allow the use) this location is not conducive to the goals and policies the Council has set for the Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the City Ms. Thompson stated that the school has 50 students and school hours are 8:30 -2:30 and there will be plans to use the building for afterhours tutoring, recitals, receptions, or general meetings. She discussed the Bountiful City master plan and asked if the property is considered commercial or  Downtown zone.  Council for the proposed amendment to the Downtown (DN) Zone.  residential zone? She discussed beer licensing for existing restaurants. Chair Monson opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 p.m.  Tiffany Hess - Vice Principal of the school. Ms. Hess stated that the drop-off of students happens before all businesses open for business and the school would bring significant improvement to the Peter Cannon resides in Farmington. Mr. Cannon is the Chairman for the Board ofTrustees to Liberty Hills. He stated that a restaurant in this location would be a challenge with the two stories. Beverly Cannon resides in Farmington. Mrs. Cannon believes that this school will bring customers to Mark Milburn resides in Centerville. Mr. Milburn believes that this building is ill-suited for a Betty White - owner of Wight House Clothing Ms. White is in favor of the school and likes the idea Dan White owner oft the Wight House Reception Center. Mr. White stated that the kitchen has been Jason Thompson - Co-founder of Liberty Hills. Mr. Thompson stated that the plans have classrooms on the second floor, event center on the first floor and student activities with supervision on the roof. Gary Davis resides at 2148 S 500 West. Mr. Davis spoke about the possibility of placing restrictions  building and be a jewel to the downtown area.  the shops. restaurant.  of an after-hours event center.  removed and could be a used as an evening event center.  on this business in this area.  Chair Monson closed the Public Hearing at 7:49 p.m.  Mr. Wilkinson stated that he understands that the Planning Commission has a difficult decision to make. He discussed that the direction from Council for the Downtown zone has been to increase the commercial and restaurants in the area. The approval is not just for this property it is a broad zone  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - July 17, 2018  Page 6of7    change and has impacts to the entire Downtown zone. There are long term impacts to the decisions that are made. Ifthis is a zone change that the Commission members want to approve then the best policy is to change the entire zone and not "contract" zone as things change in the years to come. Private schools are allowed in other zones with a Conditional Use Permit with conditions being placed Mr. Bell thanked the applicant for presenting a nice project however he believes that the approval of this item goes against everything that the city has been working sO hard in creating the Downtown There was discussion between Commission members and applicant about the type of business this school is. Staff stated that this is a private school. Applicant wonders ift the school can be defined as a different type, perhaps tutoring to meet the code. Staff showed on the map the area that would be Sharon Spratley made a motion that the Planning Commission forward a denial to City Council to consider a Zoning Text Amendment to allow for private schools in the DN (Downtown) zoning Jim Clark seconded the motion. Voting passed 4-2 with Clark, Hill, Monson, and Spratley voting aye Mr. Wilkinson verified the next steps for this item. The item will go forward to the City Council who can decide to open the Public Hearing to hear this item. This item has been noticed for City Council 7. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business. 2. Utah APA meeting will bel held at. Jordan Commons on October 4 and 5, 2018.  on the schools.  zone.  available for al beer license.  district.  with Bell and Smith voting nay.  on August 7,2018.  1. Next Planning Commission meeting - August 14, 2018.  Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 8:23  p.m.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes -July 17, 2018  Page 7of7    Item #3  Commission Staff Report  Item:  PUBLIC HEARING - Request for a variance to allow for the building footprint of accessory structures to exceed 15% oft the lot or parcel area. The variance is being requested in order to construct a detached  BOUNTIFUL EST.1892  garage  Address: 146 West 100 South  Author: Date:  Curtis W. Poole, Assistant Planner  August14,2018  Description of Request  The applicant, Jan Rawlins, has requested a variance to City Code 14-4-105J.2.b b., which will allow for thel building footprint of accessory structures existing and proposed to exceed 15% oft the lot or parcel area. The purpose oft the variance is to construct: a detached  garage. The property is in the R-4 zone.  Authority  Section 14-2-1llauthorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance  requests related to accessory structures.  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 ori 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 tot 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 applicant has requested a variance to allow for a detached garage tol be constructed that would exceed the 15% total lot size maximum footprint of all accessory: structures. The home was built in the 1930's, and the two car garage is proposed by the applicant to meet her current needs. On August14, 2017, the applicant received approval ofal lot line adjustment that increased the lot size to .261 acres or 11,369 square feet. On the new parcel that was conveyed to the applicant was an old barn. Section 14-4-105J.2. b.states, "The total building footprint of any and all accessory structures shall not exceed fifteen    percent (15%) oft the entire lot or parcel area, and no lot or parcel shall be reduced in area after the construction of an accessory building, such thati iti is in violation ofthis provision." Based on the new lot size, the total square footage of accessory structures that can be built on thej property is 1,705. The existing barn, which the applicant would like to keep, is 1,322 square feet. Thej proposed detached garage is 728 square feet, which exceeds the maximum  allowed by 345 square feet, or an 18% total footprint.  Variance Findings  Utah Code 10-9a-702 establishes the criteria for review ofa variance request. In order to () 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 of the following criteria must be met:  ordinances;  Staff Response: State law states that a hardship cannot be self-imposed or an economic hardship. A variance will not be necessary if compliance is possible with an alteration to proposed plans. With modifications to the size oft the proposed garage or existing barn footprints compliance is possible. Therefore, the need for the variance is self-imposed and (ii) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply Staff Response: The lot does have an existing barn that was acquired through a lot line adjustment which is not common among similar properties in the R-4 zone. However, the applicant could choose to remove a portion oft the barn or to construct a smaller garage without the need for a variance. The lot size and shape are similar to other lots in the zone and the variance is requested not because ofa unique circumstance but rather in order to (li) Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment ofas substantial property yright Staff Response: The ability to construct accessory buildings is always constrained by the available square footage ofa a lot. Other lots int the R-4: zone share this common constraint. Therefore, requiring the applicant to meet the standard footprint for accessory units as required by code does not deprive a property right that is available to other similar) lots. (iv) The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to Staff Response: One oft the purposes ofl limiting building square footage for accessory structures is to ensure that accessory structures do not become the primary use on a lot, and toj preserve open space. The code requires that accessory structures should not exceed  does not constitute a hardship.  to other, properties in the same zone;  exceed the maximum lot coverage.  possessed by other property in the same. zone;  the public interest;    15% oft the total square footage oft the property. Increasing the allowable building footprint and decreasing the amount of open space is contrary to the public interest. (v) Thespirit oft the land use ordinance is observed and: substantial justice done Staff Response: The land use ordinance includes maximum accessory building standards in order to preserve open space and to make sure that accessory structures do not dominate al lot. Approving a variance to these standards is not consistent with 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 of the required review criteria from State lawi included in the findings above and the materials submitted  by the applicant. Attachments 1. Aerial Photo 2. Site Plan 3. Applicant's Narrative    Aerial Photo  146 W1 100S  a    ESTSTREET  4  RON MARSHALL  HA &    What city ordinance do you want a variance from?  (1)Accessory Structure Footprint-Accessory Structures should not exceed My house was built in the 1930's when there was only a need ofas small accessory shed or garage. My house is very small with only 1800 square feet. Itwould be a great addition tol have at two-car garage, which is very practical for this decade. I have. had a one-car garage for several years but iti isi inadequate for my needs. A new garage is more functional for maintaining and keeping my car out oft the weather and offt the: streets. Ilive on an access road for the Post Office and the Maverik store at the end oft the block. A two-car garage would keep my cars and that of visitors off the street. Mosthouseholds: have one or more car in this decadea and it would fit my needs more adequately. In addition to a new garagelwould install ai new driveway. Currently the old garage, Tuff Shed and driveway would be torn down to make room for a new larger functional two-car garage. But in order to do thatIn need this variance because it would exceed the 20% parcel area ordinance due the fact thatI When Ij purchased the additional property it was to solely maintain the original "Plat Ioriginally wanted to tear down the barn. Iti is not deep enough to converti itintoa garage. Ilooked at selling the barn and it's not stable enough to move. But it could be converted into a useable space. The barn has a rich history that is original to Bountiful. It was built during the time Coy and Cora Hayward owned my property and adjacent properties. The Hayward's worked and lived in Bountiful for many years and the barn was used by them tol house their horses during the 1940's- 1960's. Thereforel Iwould like tol keep the barn buti it would put the new construction over the allotted 20% for accessory structures. Itwould be nice to Original Property: 66'X139' which is 9174 sq.ft. (didn'thave: access toi ita all because  20% of parcel area.  purchased additional property that has a barn on it.  A" plot size. Also to maintain my home as a single-family dwelling.  keep a piece of Bountiful's History.  ofthe fenceline).  Additional Property 68.37'x26.48 which is 1810 sq ft. Total property square footage is 10,984 or 11,000 - 1761  Barn 64.6'X20.3" = 1322 sq ft. Proposed Garage 26' X28' = 728 sq ft. Total area is 2339 Sq ft. or 21% ofl lot: size Other dimensions to consider:  IfIam granted this variance Iwould also apply for a Mother in Law apartment to be build as a second story oft the garage= 15.5'X18.59": = 289' sq ft. Without Mother in  Law apartment is 2050 sq ft. and 19% ofl lot size    House 25.83'x30.83: = 796.34 sq ft (Basement: 1593) House is 7% with basement is 14%  There is enough space on my property to abide by thel building codes. Currently there is 69 feet between the back of myl house and the barn. Which would give me adequate footage between structures of12' between each building and overhangs. Ihave been very pleased with the City Council to re-evaluate the single-family dwelling status ofl Plat A. Ihave been very involved in the process and have attended many City Council meetings and have completed survey's. Ihave been a resident of my home for 30 years, and Iintend to stay for al long time.  (2)  (a)i Enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship due to thel barn was already in existence when I purchased the property. Itwould take thousands of dollars to have it removed. Twould rather convert the barn to a useable outdoor living space. Itl has a large footprint and it takes away from having a two-car garage useable space that would update my property and improve it for ii By building a two-car garage it would upgrade my property and land use. The special circumstances that exist is that thel barn is an historical feature to my property. Most neighbors and others don'teven know it exists. Ithas been land locked for several years. No one has taken care oft thel barn for many years and itis in disrepair. By keeping itIwould give it a new life and take care oft the surrounding property. For years it has been neglected and had overgrown trees, weeds and other shrubberies causing a fire hazard. Ihave removed most oft the unwanted elements and will re-landscape around the barn as the second phase oft this project. iii Itv would bei ideal tol have at two-car garage that would be updated and meet the needs of today's homeowners. New cement would make ite easier to pull my vehicle in and out of the space. The new garage and driveway would keep cars off the street. The variance would be necessary to keeping the barn and giving it a new iv Iintend to make the garage look: similar to the house SO it would be pleasing tol look at but more functional than my existing garage. Id don'tseei the variance making a difference in the general plan other than the size. Ithink the neighbors would be especially happy that someone was maintaining the property vIbelieve building a new two-car garage would bei in thel besti interest of most! homeowners. It would keep cars off the street and be a well maintained upgraded building structure. It think maintaining city ordinances are important. I wouldn'tl be asking for this variancei ifIdidn'tfeel it would improve Bountiful's Historic feel and the use of my particular property which is unusual.  future use.  life by making ita useable outdoor space.  and making it more functional.    The property on the west side of mine has been neglected for many: years. Itis currently full of weeds and untrimmed trees. Ihave taken many hours to clean out dead limbs and try to clean out the barn to make it accessible and viable. My understanding is the property has been sold and they will be building byt the end ofthis year. Itwill be nice to update that part of my property at thes same time to  improve the neighborhood.    Rawlins Update Projects  Tear down garage and tuff shed.    Build New 2-CarGarage (side by side) with Mother In Law: apartment upstairs.  Replace drive way and entrance tol back door. Replace fencing to match lot line survey.  Remodel Barn: side oft the barn  The westside oft the barn will be an open patio with wooden floor. Exposingrafters: and access to the north  The East side oft the barn will bel kept as three Barn will be rewired with electricity, new: roofing,  separate stalls for storage or projects. paint, and repair where needed.  New Sewer line  Restore front porch floor, new railing and stairs    082  HONES  a   F4aI  0aC  0L -01 .07 saans de  06  OI    Commission Staff Report  Item #s 4&5  Subject: Author: Date:  Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Site Plan fora1 12 unit Multifamily  development Chad Wilkinson, City Planner August 14, 2018  Address: 105S S. 100 West Description of Request:  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  The applicant, Knowlton General, requests preliminary site plan approval fora12 unit multifamily development located at 1055 S100 West. The property is located within the DN  (Downtown) zone. Background and Analysis:  The property is zoned DN (Downtown) and is surrounded by multifamily residential to the east, single family residential to the west, the post office to the north, and vacant property to the south. The plan is to remove the existing single family residence on site and construct a new 3-story approximately 15,000 square foot building with 4 units per floor. The proposed development is located on a. .26 acre property but is part oft thel larger Hepworth mixed use development located to the east. No new driveways are proposed in conjunction with the development. The applicant will close the existing approach on 100 South and will use the approach to the Hepworth Apartments located on 100 West. The proposal meets the parking standards oft the Code including required covered parking and guest spaces. The parking for the development is shared with the existing development to the east and utilizes excess parking developed with the previousapartments to meet the The proposed building meets the required setback and height standards for thel DN Zone. The applicant proposes building materials consisting ofai mix of fiber cement siding and brick. The buildings are compatible with the existing apartments to the east. Color renderings oft the buildings are attached to this report. The proposed structure meets the required articulation standards oft the ordinance and complies with the maximum 2:1 height to width ratio requirements. Ground floor units have entrances facing the public The plan shows the minimum 10 percent oflandscape 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 oft the Water and sewer will bej provided via connections to existing lines in 100 South. Storm water drainage was designed in conjunction with the previous development and is sized to handle the minor change to the site anticipated with the current development.  minimum standards.  street: and balconies or patios are shown for each unit.  landscape code.  G:ENGISite PlansOne: and One -1 105 S100 W CUPIPC CUP and Preliminary Site Plan 1055100WB14-1Bdoc    Although iti is not required to combine the properties in order fort the building to meet setbacks, the development of thel building requires the use of parking located on an adjacent parcel. Therefore, iti is recommended that either thej parcels be combined or that an easement or agreement for shared parking be recorded on thej property to the south and  east.  Department Review and by the Fire Marshall. Significant Impacts  This proposal has been reviewed by the Engineering, Power, and Planning Departments  The development is occurring in an area with urban levels ofinfrastructure alreadyi in place. Impacts from the development ofthis property have been anticipated in the design ofthe existing storm water, sewer, and water and transportation system.  Recommended Action  Staff recommends that thel 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 12 unit multifamily building subject to the following conditions:  1. Complete any and all redline corrections.  2. Priort to issuance oft the building permit, either consolidate thej parcels or provide a shared parking and access agreement or easement in favor of the new development. 3. Submit al landscape plan meeting the minimum requirements of Sections 14-16-1 104  and 14-16-109.  Attachments 1. 2. 3.  Aerial photo Site and utility plans Building elevations  G:IENGISite Plans) One and One- 105S1 100 W CUPIPC CUP and Preliminary Site Plan 1055100WB141B4oc    Aerial Photo BEED  G:ENGISite Plans/One and One- 105S1 100 W CUPIPC CUPa and Preliminary Site Plan 1055100W81418doc    1  - - - S  SNne    (L3SVHGN NIVW GNVH HINOS 1SI) 1019NIHVd7 "X3  SNldso    (T3SVHdN NIVWO ONVI HINOSI ISI) "X3  BAV    HII  ISIMOOL  SE      D    D        0001 Rooe9  0000 000 0    Commission Staff Report  Item 6  Subject: Address: Author: Date:  Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the  Nathan's Subdivision 306 West 400 North City Engineer, City Planner August 14, 2018  BOUNTIFUL EST.1 1847  Department: Engineering, Planning  Background  Mr. Nathan Polatis is requesting preliminary and final approval of the Nathan's Subdivision. This three lot subdivision proposes to combine and then split the existing residential properties at 292 West and 306 West 400 North Street. The properties are currently occupied by a two single family homes with a couple of sheds and a detached garage. All oft the structures are proposed to remain on their respective lots while the combined rear yards will be divided offt to  create the new third lot. Analysis  The two lots combine to form a 0.73 acre parcel which will be divided into three lots, each with enough area to meet the minimum lot size requirement for the R-4 zone, in which they are located. Lot 1, a corner lot, was the subject of a variance granted by the Planning Commission on. July 17, 2018 to allow for at frontage along 400 No. St. less than the required 80ft. The lot was turned into a corner lot and reduced in size when 325 West Street was extended to 400 North ini the late '70s or early '80s. Lot 1 has the zone required frontage along 325 West and contains 8,806 s.f., which exceeds the minimum lot size of 8,800 s.f. for a corner lot. The other two lots both exceed the minimum required size and frontage requirements for the zone. All utilities are already serving the two lots along 400 North Street but the new lot will require a full set of utilities. Since no sewer exists in 325 West, a sewer lateral will need to be extended under the Barton Creek culvert to meet the sewer main ini the intersection of 600 N and 325 There is a existing 10" culinary water line in 325 West which will be used to provide the culinary water service to a new house on lot 3, however there is no fire hydrant with in the code minimum distance from the property, sO a new fire hydrant will be required across 325 West from the new lot. The Developer will be required to bond for and install the new: sewer lateral and pay the City tol have the hydrant installed before any building permit will be approved for this lot. The power, phone, and cable lines are all overhead ini the area and already serve the existing lots. A new Public Utility Easement will be required on the final plat to cover the overhead power lines that cross the property near the new south boundary of lot 3  West.    Because the concrete channel containing Barton Creek occupies the north 151 ft. ofthis property, a new easement to cover the actual channel and additional ground along the channel for access is required. The final plat will need to show a 301 ft. wide easement along the north side of lot 3 to cover the needs of Barton Creek and the Davis County Flood Control. Because all ofl lot 3 is in the currently mapped 100 year flood plain, a Flood Plain Development Permit will be required from Bountiful City, along with an elevation certificate showing that there are no openings into any home built on lot 3 which are below the 100 year flood All oft the necessary surface improvements (C&G, sidewalk, etc.) are already in place, and the improvements along 400 North have recently been replaced. Any damaged street improvements along the lot 3 frontage will be required to be repaired with the construction of  elevation.  the sewer lateral. Department Review  The proposed preliminary and final plats have been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Planning Department, and the proposed plat has been given a complete technical review  by the Engineering Department. Recommendation conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Recommend preliminary and final approval of the Nathan's Subdivision with the following  Provide a current title report. Make all necessary red line corrections.  Post a bond for and install the sewer lateral in 325 West St. to serve lot 3. Provide an elevation certificate for any home proposed on lot 3. Pay all fees, including the new fire hydrant and the Storm Water Impact Fee.  Significant Impacts None Attachments  1. Lovely Color Aerial photo showing the existing condition and proposed plats location;  2. Acopy of the preliminary plat and final plat.  MBMAoANPANNN 2018pc preliminary andi final subdivision nathan's subdivision, aug 2018.docx    Aerial Photo of the Proposed Nathan's Subdivision  WGOCN  eydranlocalion.  W4 400 N  206coape  RGMAMPANAASNSN 2018pcp preliminary and final subdivision nathan's subdivision, aug 2018.docx    MOOMBAEAISAAA A3AIAS TIAID PSOS-66-(1081 3NOHd Ivov8IN'N NOLAVI 8315 403 3d0131NV3 3LLI  HVIN 'ALIDT TAHIINAO8 HIJON 004. 1S3M9081 262 NOISIAIGENS SNVHIVN  ON/33NI9NE VEIdHEATIS  133815 ISJM SZE    13781S. ISTH O0E  1338IS JSTH SZE    Commission Staff Report  Item #7  Subject: Author: Date:  Preliminary Site Plan for addition to Alpha Chad Wilkinson, City Planner August 14, 2018  Graphics  Address: 265 S. Main Street Description of Request:  BOUNTIFUL EST.1 1847  The applicant, Spencer Anderson, representing Alpha Graphics, requests preliminary site plan approval for an addition to the existing Alpha Graphics use and accompanying property improvements. Thej property is located within the DN (Downtown) zone and will incorporate the existing Alpha Graphics site and the former Bountiful RV: site. The application includes the construction/ remodel ofapproximately 24,000 square feet which  includes a +3,000 square foot future tenant space.  Background and Analysis: owned by Bountiful City.  The property is zoned DN (Downtown) and is surrounded by commercial development on the north, south, east, and west. To the northeast is the existing soccer field property The proposed development is located on a 1.02 acre property consisting oft two parcels. Prior to construction oft the proposed addition, the) parcels will need to be consolidated. Access to the project will be via two driveways on 300 South. The applicant will close the two existing approaches on Main Street. Based on the square footages shown on the plan, the proposal meets the parking standards ofthe Code. However, once the specific use of the tenant space has been identified the submittal of additional parking analysis may be The proposed building meets the required setbacks and height standards for the DN Zone. The applicant proposes building materials consisting ofa a mix off fiber cement panels, metal panels and aluminum or metal trim. Color renderings oft the buildings are attached to this report. The newly adopted standards of the Code require certain articulation oft the building. While the Main Street frontage appears to meet the standard, the 300 South frontage does not appear to provide the required articulation at the 25 foot intervals required by Code. As a condition of approval, the applicant shall demonstrate how these The plan shows the minimum 10 percent ofl landscape area; however, a detailed landscape plan will need to be submitted meeting the minimum requirements oft the landscape code. One revision that will be required is toj provide a minimum 5 foot wide landscape area along the north east portion oft the property where the paved area abuts the property line. Storm water will be collected on site in an underground detention facility with excess flows conveyed to the existing storm drain system to the north in Main Street via new storm drain lines installed in the existing soccer field property. Waterand sewer will be provided  required, in order to demonstrate compliance with the Code.  standards have been met.  GENGISite! Plans/265 SI Main St- APhgphcyCPtimniy Site Plan Alphagraphics remodel 8-8-18.docx    from existing lines in 300 South and Main Street and will include the extension of an 8-inch water line and onsite fire hydrant. Plans have been reviewed by the City Engineer with redline changes required in order to meet City standards and obtain final approval.  Department Review and by the Fire Marshall. Significant Impacts  This proposal has been reviewed by the Engineering, Power, and Planning Departments  The development is occurring in an area with urban levels ofinfrastructure already in place. Impacts from the development of this property have been anticipated in the design ofthe existing storm water, sewer, and water and transportation system.  Recommended Action  Staffrecommends that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council a recommendation ofa approval for preliminary site plan review for the proposed addition to the existing Alpha Graphics building subject to the following conditions:  1. Complete any and all redline corrections.  2. Prior to issuance of building permit, consolidate the two parcels. 3. Show a minimum 8: foot wide disabled person unloading aisle.  4. Submit al landscape plan prepared by al licensed landscape architect meeting the minimum requirements of Sections 14-16- 104 and 14-16-109. The plan shall also show a minimum 5 foot wide. landscape area along the north east portion oft the site 5. Demonstrate how the plan meets the standards of section 14-7-112 C. 7. related to 6. Enter into an agreement with Bountiful City toj provide an easement in favor ofthe subject property owners for the use of the west 10 feet oft the soccer field property  where parking and drive areas are adjacent to the property line.  required articulation along the building facades.  for the proposed storm water outfall line.  Attachments 1. 2. 3.  Aerial photo Site and utility plans Building elevations  G:ENG/Sitel ams65Mans-AphenyCPelminn, Site Plan Alphagraphics remodel8-8-1B.docx    Aerial Photo  06  G:ENG/Sitel Plans! 265 SI Main St- APlagphsycPeiminny Site Plan Alphagraphics remodel 8-8-18.docx    MAINSTREET    ALPHACRAPHICS REMODEL BOUNTIFUL, UTAH LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 2N NORTH RANGE PVEE LAKE BOUNTI SE TOMNSITE SURVEY  region Engineering & Surveyir ing 1776N. States St. #II0 Orem, UT 84057 801. 376.2245    ALPHACRAPHICS REMODEL BOUNTIFUL, UTAH LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP NORTH RANGE EAST, PLALAF LAKE JOUNTI E AND  region Engineering 1776N. State St. #IIO Orcm, UT 84057 2245    MAINSTREET  113715 E  ALPHACRAPHICS REMODEL BOUNTIFUL, UTAH LOCATED IN SECTION TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH RANGE  EAST, ME BOUNTIPUL LAKE BASE AND SURVEY  region Eny 1776N. State Orem,    MAINSTREET  :e  1 1114  ALPHACRAPHICS REMODEL BOUNTIFUL, UTAH LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH RANGE EAST. PEE BOUNTI LAKE SE AND FOWNSTTE SURVEY  region Engino 1776N. State St. #II0 Orem, UT 84057 801. 2245    MAINS ST  139    MAIN ST  0              @ -0  -  E 0    S  ALPHA GRAPHICS REMODEL BOUNTIFUL, UT    ALPHA GRAPHICS REMODEL BOUNTIFUL,UT    Item#8  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Rafael Chavez Jr. and Nathan Polatis  APPLICANT:  APPLICATION TYPE: Request for a variance in order to allow the property to be  subdivided without meeting the minimum corner lot setback  and width requirements.  I.  DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:  The applicants, Rafael Chavez Jr. and Nathan Polatis, have requested a variance to allow the property to be subdivided without meeting the minimum corner lot setback and width requirements. The property is located in the R-4 zoning district. The applicants would like to subdivide the properties of 306 West  and 292 West to create a third property to the north. LAND USE ORDINANCE AUTHORITY:  II.  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for  variance requests related to setback requirements.  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, July 17, 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 existing home was constructed in 1902 prior to the expansion of 325 West. In order for the home to become compliant with the setback three feet of the home along 325 west would need to be removed which would cause an unreasonable hardship for the property owner. The construction of 325 West also impacted the lot width. Therefore, the applicants' request for a variance to the lot standards is a reasonable request. B. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the district; Based on the Meadow Brook Acres Plat B approval and subsequent expansion of 325 West the property became nonconforming in the current R-4 zone. Other properties in the R-4 zone usually are constructed after the road improvements have been made which would cause them to follow the zoning setback and lot width requirements. Based upon the fact that the home was constructed prior to the expansion of 325 West results ina circumstance that generally does not apply to other properties in the R-4 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;  zone.  Approval of a variance will allow the property owner the ability to continue toe enjoy access to a legal nonconforming home and property in the R-4 zone. The need from the variance arises from a condition that was not created by the applicants or a previous property owner but instead was D. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be  created by the construction of 325 West. contrary to the public interest;  Allowing the home to continue in its current location will not affect either the general plan or create a public safety issue. The proposed Lot 1 will meet the minimum lot area requirement of 8,800 square feet and will continue to function as it has for years which is not contrary to the public  interest.    E. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice is The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed. The applicants will continue to enjoy the use of the home that became nonconforming through  done  no fault of the property owner.  VI. DECISION AND SUMMARY  The Planning Commission approved the requested variance by a vote of 6-0.  FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVED BY THE Bountiful City Planning Commission  this  day of August, 2018  Sean Monson, Chair  Bountiful City Planning Commission