BOUNTIFUL CITY Tuesday, April 17, 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 March 6, 2018.  3. Consider approval of the Findings of Fact for a Variance to allow for a parking space within the required front yard. The property is located at 3457 S Bountiful Blvd, Ryan 4. Consider approval of the Findings of Fact for a Variance to allow a third driveway. The property: is located at located at 9921 E5501 N, Kevin Menlove, applicants. 5. Review of proposed Agriculture Protection Area for Bangerter Farms located at approximately 1280 N 400 East, Alan Bangerter and Randall Edwards, applicant. 6. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  and Sandra Call, applicants.  Chad  City Planner  dE.    Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes March 6, 2018 6:30 P.M.  Present:  Chair - Sean Monson; Planning Commission Members = Jesse Bell, Jim Clark, and Tom Smith; City Council Representation - Richard Higginson; City Attorney - Clint Drake; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; City Engineer - Paul Rowland; Asst City Planner Kendal Black Planning Commission Member - Sharon Spratley and City Council Representative  and Recording Secretary - Darlene Baetz  Excused:  Richard Higginson  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30j pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for February 20, 2018.  Jim Clark made ai motion to approve the minutes for February 20, 2018 as written.  Tom Smith seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, Hill, 3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval of a variance to allow for a parking space within the required front yard. The property is located at 3457 S Bountiful Blvd, Ryan and Sandra  Monson, and Smith voting aye.  Call, applicants.  Ryan and Sandra Call were present. Kendal Black presented staff report.  The applicants, Ryan and Sandra Call, have requested a variance to allow for the addition of a concrete parking pad in the front yard setback and concrete in the parking strip at 3457 Bountiful Boulevard in order to allow parking within the required front yard setback. The property is located The applicant has requested a variance to allow an existing concrete parking pad and concrete in the parking strip constructed at 3457 Bountiful Boulevard to remain. The issues were discovered when performing an investigation of a code enforcement complaint mentioning a vehicle parked on the sidewalk. A code enforcement case was started to address the concrete in the park strip, a vehicle parked on the sidewalk obstructing the public right-of-way, and the noncompliant parking pad. The parking pad was constructed without permit and does not meet City standards for driveways and allowed parking. The Cityinitiated enforcement action in order to obtain compliance with the Code and the applicant has elected to request a variance rather than removing the noncompliant parking The parking pad in question does not meet the standards in Section 14-18-105 (f) or the R-F zone. Single family residential requirements include a maximum drive access width of thirty (30) feet. The drive access at the applicant's home is approximately fifty (50) feet wide. It is mentioned in  ini the R-F zoning district.  pad and concrete in the park strip.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - March 6, 2018  Page Iof5    the applicant's narrative that the drive access has been in place like this for over 25 years. City staff determined that this was probably built this way to access the utility easement that runs along the northern part oft the property. Iti is important to note that at the time the driveway was originally constructed, the northern parcel was not a part of the applicants' property. The existence of the drive access did not make paving this area legal and should not be paved or used for parking. The parking pad and concrete in the park strip do not meet the standards of the Land Use ordinance. The applicant's written narrative has been included in this items file. The City will not approve of this variance in the public right of way and therefore the variance is limited to the concrete work on the applicant's property. The property has adequate off-street parking to meet code standards and therefore the elimination of the parking space will not cause an unreasonable hardship. Instead, The applicant has listed several special circumstances including the steepness of the terrain on the north side of the house impeding the ability to add an RVi pad for additional parking and adding an RV pad to the south of the home not being possible due to the proximity oft the North Canyon Creek as justification for a variance. The street view image on Google Earth from May of2016 shows that there was sufficient space and the grade was not too excessive to add an adequate RV pad. The applicant has changed the landscaping on the north side of the house since then. The current landscaping creates a difference in grade creating a "shelf". The portion by the existing driveway is leveled off to join in the same slope and elevation as the existing driveway, whereas the portion behind the driveway (to the north oft the house) is raised up to create the shelf. Other options such as excavating the area: near the house to provide additional parking could be accomplished without the Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow for the continued use of the recently constructed parking pad for parking in the front yard setback in the R-F zone. Staff recommends removal oft the parking pad and the concrete in the park strip in order to comply with the standards  elimination will bring the site into compliance with the original approval.  need for a variance.  oft the Land Use Ordinance.  The easement can be accessed from the top ofthe property.  Mr. Wilkinson stated that parking is not allowed in the front yard 20 ft setback. Staff clarified that the concrete to be removed would bet the pad next to the driveway and under the trashcans. Mr. Call described the area as not landscaped. He stated that the steepness doesn'ta allow for an RV pad on the northeast side oft the home and that he was unfamiliar with the City code.  Chair Monson opened and closed the Public Hearing at 6:45 p.m.  Staff and the Commission discussed the location of the sewer line and that the pad was poured in November 2017 and discussed the possibility of additional parking that could be added on the north east side of the home. Mr. Hill clarified the easement and original setback with Mr. and Mrs. Call. Mr. Rowland discussed the repair or replacement of structures, landscaping, or flatwork within an easement. Structures and retaining walls on an easement are replaced at the owner's expense. Chair Monson explained the variance process and the Planning Commission approval process.  Landscape and flatwork would be replaced at the Utility's expense.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - March 6, 2018  Page 2of5    Von Hill made ai motion to deny the variance to allow for a parking space within the required front Jesse Bell seconded the motion. Voting passed 4-1 with Bell, Clark, Hill and Monson voting aye 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval of a variance to allow a third driveway. The  yard at 3457 S Bountiful Blvd. and Smith voting nay.  property is located at located at 992 E5 550 N, Kevin Menlove, applicants. Kevin Menlove was present. Chad Wilkinson presented the staff report.  The applicant, Kevin Menlove, has requested a variance to allow for a third driveway for the property located at 992 E. 550 North. Thej property is located in the R-4 zoning district. The applicant has requested a variance to Section 14-18-109 B to allow an existing paved area to remain and to be authorized as a driveway. The variance request is the result of enforcement action on the property which was initiated in June 2017 by the City in relation to an RV parked on a nonpaved surface and the use of a third driveway on the northwest corner of the property. The applicant has removed the RV and has petitioned the City to allow the paved area to remain and to The existing residence on the property was constructed in 2008. At the time of construction, the City identified an existing driveway approach on the northwest corner of the lot and required that the approach be removed. The City did not approve an access to the lower garage on thej property at that time or subsequently. Many residences include lower garages used for the storage of yard maintenance equipment and other general storage and the City did not approve a vehicle access to this garage at the time of construction. The City also has no record of approval of a basement apartment on the property as this would have required the approval of a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The permit issued for the property indicates a rough basement and did not indicate a basement finish. Based on aerial photography the paved area appears to have been constructed sometime between 2011 and 2013 after final inspection of the property by the City and has been used as a parking area for vehicles since its construction. A driveway approach was not installed and no permit was issued for the construction of a driveway. From aerial photography and street view images it appears that the paved area was accessed by a metal ramp placed in the right of way in the past. When the neighboring property to the west was constructed in 2015, a paved connection was constructed that was not shown on approved plans. This access appears to have been constructed as a way for vehicles to access the paved area on the applicant's property. The applicant has submitted a narrative that describes the paved area as a "sidewalk. E However, itis clear from photographic evidence that the paved area has been used as a parking area for several years. Section 14-4-105 F requires that driveways accessing parking on an interior side yard be at least 12 feet in width, requiring a 12 foot setback for the home. Based on the approved site plan, the home was constructed at the minimum 8 foot setback which would not provide adequate setback for  be used a third driveway to the property.  the required driveway.  Bountiful City. Planning Commission Minutes - March 6, 2018  Page 3 of5    The site plan approved with the building permit did not include the paved area and the existing driveway approach was required to be removed in order for the property to comply with Code. The property has adequate off-street parking to meet code standards and therefore the elimination oft the paved area will not cause an unreasonable hardship. Instead, elimination will bring the site into compliance with the original approval. State Code stipulates that a variance cannot be based on a hardship that is based on financial considerations or is self-imposed. The choice ofbuilding design The applicant has listed circumstances related to access oft the basement garage and ai mother-in-law, apartment. The City has no record of approval for a basement apartment (which would have required the approval of a conditional use permit and recording of a deed restriction on the property). The issue is related to the number of allowed driveway accesses on a property. The Code limits the number to two access points. The applicant has elected to use both allowed accesses on the east side of the home. There are no special circumstances that apply to the property that do not apply to other similar lots in the zone. The design of the home with two driveway accesses on 1000 Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow for a third driveway in the R-4 zone. Staffrecommends: modifications be made to the paved area to prevent vehicle parking in the future. Mr. Wilkinson stated that an 8-ft setback was on the original plans and that a 12 ft setback is required for a driveway accessing parking in a rear yard. Anything less would need to go thru the Mr. Menlove presented pictures and plans to discuss with the Commission Members that the City did not have. He also discussed that the basement apartment was set up for his mother-in-law and other family members. Mr. Menlove showed the Commission Members his set oft the original plans for the driveway and garage in the rear yard as were drawn up and the intended use.  and setbacks were a self-imposed condition.  East was a choice ofthe property owner and is self-imposed.  variance approval process.  Chair Monson opened the Public Hearing at 7:16 p.m.  Eric Nelson resides at 995 E 550 North. Mr. Nelson stated that it is hard to understand the definition and stated that the driveway is not a true driveway. There is no code definition for the John Hilton resides at 89 W 1200 South. Mr. Hilton asked if this pad is a patio or walkway should  driveway width.  there be parking located there.  Chair Monson closed the Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m.  Mr. Wilkinson shared the definition ofa driveway. "Any off-street parking area has to be accessed through an approved drive exit or curb cut." "It is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle on any sidewalk, park strip or other area behind the curb within the public right away with the exception of Mr. Rowland stated that Lloyd Cheney, Bountiful Assistant City Engineer, reviewed the proposed plans and wrote comments before the plans were released. Staff produced a copy of the approved  an approved drive approach."  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - March 6, 2018  Page 4of5    site plan with notes from Mr. Cheney.  Mr. Menlove commented that the approved plans showed all of the proposed changes before they were approved. Staff responded that the building permit did not include a finished basement and Mr. Bell commented that this is an unfortunate set of events but there are a lot of mother-in-law, apartments don't have vehicular access - iti is not a requirement to have a driveway. This doesn't meet the code and Planning Commission members don'thave the latitude to approve variance that  that the driveway was not shown on the approved plans.  can't be approved.  Chair Monson summarized the variance criteria and feels that they have not been met. Mr. Hill asked staffift the third driveway could be left and used as a walkway or patio.  Mr. Wilkinson verified that the driveway should be cut back 25 ft to the front set back line in order to be considered a patio. And that in order to be considered a sidewalk the width would need tol be Jim Clark made a motion to deny the variance to allow for a third driveway for property located at Tom Smith seconded the motion. Voting passed. 5-0 with Bell, Clark, Hill, Monson and Smith 5. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  reduced or other modifications made to prevent a vehicle driveway.  992 E550N. voting aye.  1. No Planning Commission meeting March 20, 2018.  2. J&LGarden Center has been demolished, work is moving forward.  Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48  p.m.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - March 6, 2018  Page 5of5    Item#3  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS  APPLICANT:  Ryan and Sandra Call  APPLICATION TYPE: Request for a variance for the addition of concrete parking  pad and concrete in park strip to allow for parking within the  required front yard setback  I.  DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:  The applicants, Ryan and Sandra Call, have requested a Variance to allow the addition of a concrete parking pad and concrete in the park strip on the northern  portion of their property ini the R-F Residentia-Foothil, zone.  II.  LAND USE ORDINANCE AUTHORITY:  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance requests related to the setback standards of the Ordinance.  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 ona 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 March 6, 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 property has adequate off-street parking to meet code standards and therefore the elimination of the parking space will not cause an unreasonable hardship. Instead, elimination will bring the site into B. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not The applicant has listed several special circumstances including the steepness of the terrain on the north side of the house impeding the ability to add an RV pad for additional parking and adding an RV pad to the south of the home not being possible due to the proximity of the North Canyon Creek as justification for a variance. The street view image on Google Earth from May of 2016 shows that there was sufficient space and the grade was not too excessive to add an adequate RV pad. The applicant has changed the landscaping on the north side of the house since then. The current landscaping creates a difference in grade creating a "shelf". The portion by the existing driveway is leveled off to join in the same slope and elevation as the existing driveway, whereas the portion behind the driveway (to the north of the house) is raised up to create the shelf. Other options such as excavating the area near the house to provide additional parking could be accomplished without the need for a variance.  the general purpose of the land use ordinance;  compliance with the original approval.  generally apply to other properties in the district;  C. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the district;  Approval of a variance would actually grant a right that is not possessed by other property in the same zone. The applicant has sufficient parking in the D. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be  driveway and in the garage. contrary to the public interest;    Limitations on the number and location of parking areas within required E. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice is Granting a variance would be contrary to the spirit of the land use ordinance. The driveway spacing standards of the Code are meant to enhance public safety by limiting the number of locations vehicles may enter the public right-of-way. Restrictions on parking within ai front yard provide opportunities for additional landscape areas in front yards which  front yards are in the public interest.  done  enhances the beauty of the community.  VI. DECISION AND SUMMARY  The Planning Commission denied the requested variance by a vote of 4-1.  FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVED BY THE Bountiful City Planning Commission  this  day of April, 2018  Sean Monson, Chair  Bountiful City Planning Commission  GAPLAMVAariances34575Bountiu1Blwd-alPcVariance Report- Call (3457 Bountiful Blvd): 3-6-18    Item # 4  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS  APPLICANT: APPLICATION TYPE:  Kevin Menlove driveway  Request for a variance in order to allow for a third  I.  DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:  The applicant, Kevin Menlove, has requested a variance to allow fora third driveway for the property located at 992 E. 550 North. The property is  located in the R-4 zoning district. LAND USE ORDINANCE AUTHORITY: for variance requests related to driveways.  II.  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body  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 al 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 made to the Appeal Authority. The appeal must be iny 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.  IV. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE:  A. The basic facts and criteria regarding this application are contained int the staff report, which is attached as Exhibit A and is  incorporated herein.  B. The minutes of the public meeting held by the Planning  Commission on Tuesday, March 6, 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 general purpose of the land use ordinance; The site plan approved with the building permit did not include the paved area and the existing driveway approach was required to be removed in order for the property to comply with Code. The property has adequate off-street parking to meet code standards and therefore the elimination of the paved area will not cause an unreasonable hardship. Instead, elimination will bring the site into compliance with the original approval. State Code stipulates that a variance cannot be based on a hardship that is based on financial considerations or is self-imposed. The choice of! building design and setbacks were a self-imposed condition. B. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the district; The applicant has listed circumstances related to access of the basement garage and a mother-in-law apartment. The City has no record of approval for a basement apartment (which would have required the approval of a conditional use permit and recording of a deed restriction on the property). The issue is related to the number of allowed driveway accesses on a property. The Code limits the number to two access points. The applicant has elected to use both allowed accesses on the east side of the home. There are no special circumstances that apply to the property that do not apply to other similar lots in the zone. The design of the home with two driveway accesses on 1000 East wasa  choice of the property owner and is self-imposed.  C. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the district; Approval of a variance would actually grant a right that is not possessed by other property in the same zone. The Code limits the number of driveways to two for all properties in the zoning district. The approved design of the home showed both of the allowed driveways on 1000 East.    D. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will  not be contrary to the public interest;  Limitations on the number and location of driveways and parkingareas within required front yards is in the public interest. Requiring compliance with the approved site plan is also in the public interest. E. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial  justice done  Granting a variance would be contrary to the spirit of the land use ordinance. The driveway standards of the Code are meant to enhance public safety by limiting the number of locations vehicles may enter the public right-of-way. Restrictions on number of driveways provide opportunities for additional landscape areas in front yards.  VI. DECISION AND SUMMARY  The Planning Commission denied the variance to the minimum driveway separation standards and lot coverage standards by a vote of 5-0. FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVED BY THE Bountiful City Planning  Commission this Sean Monson, Chair  day of April, 2018.  Bountiful City Planning Commission  GPLANVatancesi992 E 5501 N-Menlovel992 E5 550 NI Menlove Variance Findings of Fact.doc    Commission Staff Report  Item #5  Subject: Application for Agriculture Protection Area Property Addresses: Approximately 1280 N 400 East Author: Chad Wilkinson, Planning Director  Department: Planning Date: April 17, 2018 Background  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  The applicants, Alan Bangerter and Randal Edwards, have requested the creation of an agriculture protection area for property located at approximately 1280 N. 400 East. The property is approximately 11.85 acres in size and is currently zoned R-4. Utah Code Title 17 Chapter 41 provides for aj process by which the legislative body ofa City or town may create an agricultural protection area. The process provides for coordination with the County including review and recommendation by a County appointed agriculture protection advisory board. The proposal is also required tol be considered by the Planning Commission with al recommendation forwarded to the City Council.  Standard of Review  State Code Section 17-41-305 provides criteria for evaluating a proposal for creation ofa an (1) whether or not the land is currently being used for agriculture production or foran (2) whether or not thel land is zoned for agriculture use orindustrial use, as the case may (3) whether or not thel land is viable for agriculture production or industrial use, as the (4) the extent: and nature of existing or proposed farm improvements or the extent and nature of existing or proposed improvements to or expansion oft the industrial use, as the (5) (a) in the case of an agriculture protection area, anticipated trends in agricultural and (b) in the case of an industrial protection area, anticipated trends in technological conditions applicable to the industrial use oft the land in question.  agriculture protection area. The criteria include the following:  industrial use, as the case may be;  be; case may be;  case may be; and  technological conditions; or  Analysis:  The Chas W. Bangerter and Son farm has been operating in Bountiful for over 100 years and continues to be a viable and productive farm. Development has occurred around the property and the farm is now hemmed in by residential development on all sides. The farm  is one ofaf few remaining viable farm parcels in the City limits.    A review of the evaluation criteria provided in State law shows that thej proposal is consistent with the intent oft the agriculture protection area statute. The property is currently used for agriculture and the farm use. has existed for decades. The Bangerter farm is an active participant in thel Bountiful Farmer's Market and supports the recent trend for increased demand for locally grown produce. The one criterion that merits further discussion relates to the zoning oft the property. The property is currently zoned R- 4( (Single-family Residential) and the adoption oft the agriculture protection area will not change the underlying zoning oft the property. The City does not have an agricultural zoning designation at this time. The R-1 zoning district focused around the Val Verda area is the closest designation to an agriculture zone buti is still primarily a single family zone that allows for limited farm animals and agricultural use. Although State Code lists existing zoning as a consideration, in this case, because the use has been operating for over 100 years, the agriculture use is considered tol be a legal existing nonconforming use. Because of thej preexisting nature oft the use, the currentzoning is not: a limiting factor on the continued use of the ground for agricultural purposes as the use may continuei in perpetuity as long as the agricultural use is not abandoned or discontinued for more than Notice oft the proposal for an agriculture protection area was sent to all property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property. The City received a few comments in response to the notice all generally in support oft the proposed protection area. A copy oft these  oneyear.  comments is attached to this report.  Thej proposal was considered by thel Davis County Agriculture Protection advisory board on April 9,2018.A copy oft the minutes oft that meeting is attached to this report. The advisory board unanimously recommended approval of the proposed Agriculture Protection Area.  Department Review Significant Impacts  This item has been reviewed by the City Planner and City Attorney.  State law limits the land use authority of Cities pertaining to property within an agriculture protection area. As an example a City may not change the: zoning designation or regulations affecting land within an agriculture protection area withoutwritten approval ofall owners within the boundary oft the agriculture protection area. In addition, the protection area requires additional procedures should the City wish to exercise eminent domain on the property. These impacts should be considered as thel Planning Commission and City Council review the application. State law also requires additional notice to appear on new subdivisions within 300 feet of an agriculture protection area. Since there are not any other properties within 300 feet ofthe property with significant development potential, this  requirement is expected to have minimal impact    Recommendation:  Iti is recommended that thel Planning Commission forward a recommendation ofapproval  to the City Council for thej proposed agriculture protection area.  Attachments 1. Aerial photo 2. Application Materials  3. Minutes From April 9, 2018 Agriculture Protection Advisory board meeting  4. Letters from adjoining property owners    Aerial Photo    RIGID  CHAS. W. BANGERTER & SON, INC.  1304 North 400 East Bountiful, Utah 84010 (801)295-3056 (801)631-1374  **** AMENDED PETITION-*,  PETITION:  DESIGNATION AND APPROVAL OF AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREA WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF BOUNTIFULMUNICIPALITY pursuant to UCA 17-41-  202 et seg.  March 8, 2018 Mayor Randy Lewis Bountiful City Council City Hall 790 South 100 East Bountiful, UT 84010  Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council Members:  This] petition was filed originally February 28, 2018. After communication with Bountiful City regarding the original acreage included in the petition, it was determined that a portion ofthe original acreage was located in unincorporated Davis County. Imet with the Davis County Recorder about this issue (the plots were combined several years ago), we have done deed work and have separated the acreage (replacing 02-070-0085 with 02-070-0102 and 02-070-0103). The new deed indexes have been updated by the County Recorder, and we are resubmitting this Amended Petition to include all land currently located in the city of Bountiful. Again, by way ofthis Amended Petition, the Bangerter family farms requests that you protect  our: farmland in Bountiful  OUR HISTORY IN BOUNTIFUL  Bountiful City's history and roots rest in its legacy as the garden spot ofUtah and was, at one time, an agricultural center renowned for raising livestock, grain, alfalfa, orchard crops, fruits and vegetables. Land in Bountiful (and throughout Davis County) has sustained many family farm operations, and continues to do SO for a dwindling family of farmers who make a  1    living working the land, managing their crops, and distributing produce and farm goods to local  markets, restaurants, businesses, and homes in Bountiful and elsewhere.  As urbanization of the corridor between the mountains and the Great Salt Lake has taken place in Davis County, there has also come the inevitable entrance ofinfrastructure, rewaystransportation upgrades, subdivisions, home building, and the expansion of commerce. Bountiful has not been immune from these changes. The street that was once known as Orchard Drive because, as its name says, was full of orchards, but is nowj just another residential street. And while some residents of] Bountiful -1 the name of which embodies farming as central to its identity - pride themselves on this town retaining its rural feel and small-town atmosphere. Tragically, most traditional family farms have gone by the wayside in the wake ofa aj push for development and residential homes, which have overtaken the: rich and fertile arable soil for which Bountiful is known. Actual farm land in Bountiful is becoming more and more scarce;  but farmland still exists and needs to be protected.  The Chas. W. Bangerter & Son family farms have been an active grower of produce in Bountiful and surrounding Davis County for well over 100 years (since 1902, in fact). We hire local employees every growing season. Many of] Bountiful's businessmen got their first job working for us as teenagers during the summers. We pay out wages in excess of $400,000 per year, which is a boon to the local economy. Bangerter Farms harvests and delivers the equivalent oftwo semi loads of fresh vegetables per day to local warehouses during our peak growing season. Our local production ofhigh quality vegetables means that the cost, pollution and inconvenience ofimporting the equivalent amount of those vegetables from outside the state  is avoided.  The Bangerter family farms has been affected by urbanization and development in different ways, including having a large portion of their family land "taken" for creation oft the Legacy Parkway and Legacy Bike Trail. From what wel have been able to gather, plans are afoot to "take" even more of] Bangerter Farms' farm land, including a substantial portion oft two lots in unincorporated Davis County, which currently produce a large percentage ofBangerter produce, for the planned new West Davis Corridor. Each foot of farm land lost will be gone forever as crop-producing acreage. The preservation oft the remaining areas offarm land in Bountiful as well as Davis County is vital. Not only do we: feel that we are losing ground -1 literally - but that  arich rural heritage is being paved over.  For this reason, the Bangerter family now asks you to protect our generations-old family business by utilizing existing laws to protect two plots of] producing farmland (Plat 02-070- 0077/ 9.16 acres, and Plat 02-070-0103/2.695 acres), by approving and formally designating an Agricultural Protection Area within the boundaries ofBountiful City Municipality, as outlined below. Preservation of this plot of land will not only support the local economy and preserve Bountiful's legacy of farming, but will also protect our family'sa ability to: remain a sustainable  business for many generations to come.  The legislature of the State ofUtah has set forth statutory protection for sustainable farmland, specifically to protect agricultural operations from encroachment of urban development. After inquiry with Bountiful City, we have been informed that, at present,  2    Bountiful City does not have formal procedure in place for designation of Agricultural Protection Areas pursuant to the mandates ofUCA 17-41-202 et. seg. (hereinafter referred to as "APA"). We are ini the application process, under the APA, toj protect all remaining farmland held by the Bangerter Farms family within Davis County, both incorporated and unincorporated. Please accept this communication as formal petition for designation and approval of Agricultural  Protection Area within the boundaries of] Bountiful Municipality.  SUMMARY  We seek the designation and approval for creation of an Agricultural Protection Area, or an amendment to an existing Agricultural Protection Area within the incorporated boundaries of the City of] Bountiful. This designation shall identify specific parcel(s) of property within the City of Bountiful, for a period of twenty (20) years, at the expiration of which a review is required  under the statute for continued designation under the. APA.  Creation of an Agricultural Protection Area is crucial toj promote and encourage viability, development, sustainable local business, community employment, and ongoing continuity of agriculture within the City of Bountiful. Designation of an Agricultural Protection Area shall afford the landowners and farmers within the designated areas the highest priority use status, as  envisioned by the Utah State Legislature.  Protection of farmland is a necessity for the city of Bountiful, its citizens, and its local businesses. Designation under the. APA allows farmland owners to protect the integrity ofviable farmland from non-farm encroachment and to minimize or eliminate detrimental impact on  agriculture and local businesses.  3    AGRICULTURE PROTECTION AREA APPLICATION  1. BOUNDARIES OF THEI LAND PROPOSED TO: BECOME PART OFTHE  AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREA  Please see attached boundary map with proposed APA designation area. highlighted. 2. LIMITS ON THE TYPES OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION TO BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE. AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREA There should bei no limitation to the type of agricultural production allowed within the proposed Agricultural Protection Area. Currently, the farmj production for Bangerter Farms includes beans, beets, sweet corn, peas, radishes, summer & winter squash, eggplant, jalapeno and other peppers, pumpkins, tomatoes, melons, cucumbers, green onions, bell peppers and other crops. This production may expand, based upon the needs and requests ofthel local population, local businesses, and local grocers who benefit from Bangerter Farms' production. 3. NAMES OF OWNERS OF RECORD OF THE LAND PROPOSED: TOBE INCLUDED WITHIN THE AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION AREA  (Attached hereto as. Exhibit A)  Applicant Information Family Trust Phone: 801-631-1374  Property Owner: Alan B. Bangerter and Diane F. Bangerter as Trustees oft the Bangerter  Address: 1290 North 400 East, Bountiful, UT 84010 E-mail Address: lamhngeter@omasines  Appicant/Authorized Agent: Randall K Edwards and Jeanne DI Marshall  Address: 188 North 100 West, Bountiful, UT 84010 Phone: 801-328-0300 Facsimile: 801-328-4822  E-mail Address: randal@randallkedwards.com, smedmarhal@mmailen 4.  IDENTIFICATION OF PARCEL(S); TAX. PARCEL NUMBER; NUMBER OF  ACRES  PARCEL ADDRESS  PARCEL TAXID NUMBER 02-070-0077  ACREAGE 9.16  Farm Address (Main Entrance): 13041 North 400 East Bountiful, UT 84010 Farm Land reaches from 400 to 600 East and 1250 to 1550 North  4    Bountiful, UT 84010 Legal Description:  BEG 1.52 CHAINS E. & 9.825 CHAINSI NI FR THE SW COR OFSEC1 17-T2N-RIE, SLM, & RUN THI N4.875 CHAINS, THE E18.47 CHAINS, THS5.05CHAINS, TH Wi 18.47 CHAINS TOBEG. CONT.! 9.16 ACRES. RESERVING A LIFE. ESTATETO CHARLES WI BANGERTER, AKA CHARLES BANGERTER. RESERVING. A LIFEI ESTATE1 TO ALAN BI BANGERTER Farm Address (Main Entrance): 1304 North 4001 East Bountiful, UT 84010 Farm Land reaches from 400 to 600 East and 12501 to 1550 North Bountiful, UT 84010 Legal Description:  02-070-0103  2.695  BEG. AT NW COR OF HILLS NO 1, THE; SDI PT IS 984.23 FTS & 1330.90 FTEC OF W1/4 COR OF SEC 17-T2N-R1E, SLB&M; THI N 0415'20" W 509.50 FT; TH E3 3.40 FT; TH S 509.50 FT; THW1.OFT TO POB. CONT. 0.025 ACRES ALSO, BEG AT A PT 1158.59 FTS S & 1330.50 FT E FR W 1/4 COR OF SEC 17-T2N-R1E, SLB&M; RUN TH N 174.36 FT; TH E2.40 FT; TH: S 174.36 FT; TH W2.40 FT TO POB. CONT. 0.01 ACRES ALSO, BEG. AT A PT S 89447' E 104.3 FT & N970.2FT FR THE SW COR OF SEC 17-T2N-R1E, SLB&M; THI N 88459' E 830.64 FT; THN 294.9 FT TO THE N LINE OF BOUNTIFUL CITY; TH E: 385.19 FT; TH: S 305.25 FT; THW 18.47 CHAINS TO THE POB. CONT. 2.66 ACRES TOTAL ACREAGE  2.695 ACRES  5    SUPPORTING MATERIALS AND INFORMATION HISTORY OF BANGERTER FARMS AND HISTORY OF DESIGNATED Bangerter Farms has been inj production in our family for six generations in Davis County. We are proud of our heritage, and continue to actively cultivate and farm our lands for the benefit of our family and community. We are truly a family business and intend to remain a  I.  APA LAND  viable and active part of our community for generations to come.  Nicklas Bangerter, my great grandfather, and a renowned farmer in Davis County, purchased some of the Bangerter family's current farm acreage in 1902. In fact, Plat 02-070- 0077, the subject oft this application, was one oft the first pieces of] property purchased by Nicklas, and has been farmed by the Bangerter family since that time. (Nicklas' total farm property included land on both sides of] Pages Lane, all the way to 200 West from 300 East, and even entailed property where the J.A. Taylor Elementary School is located.) Nicklas owned the first grain thresher and one ofthe first automobiles ini the area. In 1906, Nicklas' son, Orson N. Bangerter, my grandfather, married and build a home on some oft that farm property, and started farming the land. Orson raised 12 children (101 boys) on the: farm and was an active farmer and crop producer until his death in 1946. He called his operation Orson N. Bangerter and Sons. My father, Charles W. Bangerter, was born on the family farm in 1918 and worked the farm continually for more than 80 years, untill his death in 1999. "Charley" worked with his father, and then took over the farm when Orson died. Charley raised six children on the farm. He: named his operation Chas. W. Bangerter and Sons. I,A Alan Bangerter, (one oft the sons), was born in 1951, and soon thereafter began learning the ropes ofr my family's legacy. In1953, my family began to farm additional property in the area, first by purchasing the south section oft the farm. We rented the north portion for years and then finally purchased it in approximately 1968. This added another 10.353 acres = what was identified as Plat 02-070-0085, aj piece that has now been updated in the deed index toi include a 2.695 acre plot in Bountiful City (02-070-0103), subject ofthis application, and another ploti in unincorporated Davis County (02-070-0102) an additional land which the Bangerter Farms family has requested bej protected under the APA through the County. These pieces of property have been consistently farmed by the Bangerter  families for decades.  Ifarmed with my father my entire life, and we worked together diligently to expand our acreage, especially when we saw the urbanization and growth in the area. South Davis County is our home, and is land-locked from growth. Once developers began moving into the area, we realized we: needed to do everything we could toj protect not only our legacy and way oflife, but also our ability to farm and maintain the ability to make al living wage and care for our growing  families.  We incorporated our family farm business in 1973 and started Chas. W. Bangerter & Son, Inc., our current company. Ofmy six children, three are currently still working the farm lands with me. We are all partners in the current operation (Charles [named after his farmer grandfather), Nicklas [named after his farmer great-great grandfather), and Bryce). These three    children have 10 children between them, who, like past generations, all work the same farming property. Our families work full-time and are supported by our: farming operation. In 1972, my father and I decided to expand our farming operations to other places in Davis County. We began purchasing Farmington and unincorporated Davis County, first obtaining nine acres just south oft the State Street overpass. Within a few years, we were able to purchase 21 more acres extending south from the first field - west of] Interstate 15 and the railroad tracks; a total of 30 acres. We hoped to expand the family business in Davis County but, given the encroachment of urban development, good farmable property was becoming scarce. In 1988, we were able to purchase 46 acres from the Smoot family that was located further west in Farmington, just below1 1100 West, between 500 South and 900 South. To our dismay, however, in 2000, we heard about the construction project for Legacy Parkway and were informed that the construction oft the new: roadway would require the "taking" ofthe first 30 acres oft that rich and fertile farmland. We were then forced tol begin the search for increasingly scarce farmland elsewhere. Negotiations with UDOT for the land did not provide acre-for-acre exchange for the property taken. Thus, when we. lost our first 30 acres for Legacy Parkway, we were only able to find a 22.37 acre lot to replace it, part ofwhich, Iunderstand, is to be "taken" for the new corridor build. Its seemed that we were being hemmed in by development on every side.  We can scarcely afford tol lose more. land, especially in light oft the time, effort, money and sweat we. have invested in making the small acreage we. have productive. The designation of this property as an. Agricultural Protected Area is in the best interest ofthis community, and specifically for the ongoing productivity and viability ofour small family farm.  II. QUALITIES, CHARACIERISTICS, AND PROCESS FOR CREATING AND MAINTAINING VIABLE FARMLAND FOR GROWING PRODUCE  A. Location  As mentioned above, we run a small family operation in Davis County that provides  produce for local businesses, which include the following:  Mountain States Produce (Ogden, Utah) distributes Bangerter Farm produce to all Associated Food Stores, delivered to and distributed from its distribution center in  Smith's Food & Drug Stores in Utah. Hartley's Produce (Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah WalMart Stores; and  Farr West, Utah.  Sysco Intermountain (restaurant supplier in Utah) Muir Copper Canyon Farms (Salt Lake City, Utah) A&Z Produce (North Salt Lake, Utah) Winder Dairy (West Valley City, Utah) Eagle Eye Produce (Layton, Utah) KP: Distribution LLC (Riverton, Utah) Craig Roberts Produce (Centerville, Utah)  Albertson's Safeway Distribution Center (North Salt Lake, Utah)  7    Bangerter Farm Vegetable Stand (Bountiful, Utah) Salt Lake Farmer's Market (Salt] Lake City, Utah) Bountiful Farmer's Market (Bountiful, Utah)  Mandarin Restaurant (Bountiful, Utah) and other local eateries  In order to maintain our family business, it is imperative we keep all of our properties within a 10 mile radius. Otherwise, it is not economically feasible keeping the business running and profitable. As referenced above, iti is worth mentioning that in addition to our family, wel hire over 100 local teenagers per season to help farm the land. This has been our practice for over 70 years. In order to maintain our farming operation, we, must not only move. heavy equipment  from field to field, but also move employees. B. Irrigation System and Water  Itisn necessary that there be water rights allocated to and associated with each plot of] land we: farm. In this area, most water: rights are distributed through Weber Basin Water or one ofits  affiliates.  In order to farm land, our family has had to install multiple water delivery systems on our properties inl bountiful and other properties in Davis County. This has been done at substantial time and expense to our family operation. In order to do SO, we had to go through the process of having pipes installed underground throughout the property with corresponding faucet attachments above-ground. From these faucets, we then ditch-irrigate each crop using delivery hoses that are attached to precision "gated pipe," tol best control the water through these faucets. Because over-watering is a cause for poor production, an adequate watering system is essential to apply the optimal amount of water. We utilize this watering system for several purposes, one ofwhich is to ensure that water is directed where needed, and another of which is to facilitate tight control of water use: for each furrow and crop. This watering system and method also  conserves precious water resources. C.L Land Leveling  In order to grow sustainable crops and to facilitate the irrigation system, the farm land must be laser leveled with proper slope sO that the water will flow correctly and efficiently. If there is too little slope, the water: may not reach the bottom oft the crop, causing loss of production. Ifthere is too much slope, the water will run through the ditch too fast without proper soaking, also causing loss of production. Proper slope ensures that the crops obtain  optimum soaking during the watering period.  D. Fertility oft the Soil  Itt takes many years tol build up aj piece ofl land to ensure it will grow and produce at optimum capacity. This is not an: instantaneous process, but requires years and years of investment and working the land.. As mentioned above, the original piece of property purchased by our family, Plat 02-070-0077 has been actively farmed since 1902, and the rest oft the property  we want protected has been farmed for decades as well.  8    In order to ensure the fertility ofthe soil, we do annual soil testing and analysis oft the soil. We use both organic manures and chemical fertilizers to cultivate the soil, build the fertility, and maintain the proper pH oft the soil sO that it will grow abundant vegetables of high quality. Our efforts in this regard have paid off, the soil is now at optimum productivity for vegetables. In addition, we must remedy and control the weeds in the soil as well as the carry-over weed seed growing on the land. The adequate control of weeds is a large part ofmaintaining farmland and is] part of our family's business formula for producing the highest quality vegetables in Davis County. It has taken years of constant hand weeding, hoeing, and cultivation in order tol keep the current growth of weeds at an acceptable minimum.  E. Improvements  As with most plots ofland used in farming vegetables, there are certain other improvements that must be done aside from the watering system, leveling, fertilization, and elimination of weeds. As a farming family, we: must assess the land, often including removal of canals, trees, shrubs, and roadways. As part oft the farming process and improvements to the land, we must designate roads to and from the fields where we willj produce the vegetables to harvest, pack the vegetables, and then transport it from the fields. There is substantial planning that goes into each plot of] land owned by our family farm. In addition, because our operations are "Food Safety Certified", there exists ai need tol keep out human and animal traffic. We are also required to utilize signage that helps to control outside influence that could be cause for food  safety concern.  III. EVALUATION OF PROPOSED APALAND creation of an Agriculture Protection Area is as follows:  Under Utah Code Ann. 17-41-305, the criteria tol be applied in evaluating aj proposal for the In evaluating aj proposal and in determining whether or not to create or recommend the creation of an agriculture protection area or industrial protection area, the advisory committee, planning commission, and applicable legislative body shall apply the  following criteria: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)  whether or not the land is currently being used for agriculture production; whether or not the land is zoned for agriculture use; whether or not the land is viable for agriculture production; the extent and nature of existing or proposed farm improvements; and anticipated trends in agricultural and technological conditions.  9    As outlined above, when these criteria are applied to the Bangerter Farms properties, iti is clear that each meets all the requisites for designation ofan Agriculture Protection Area. Our  farm land:  Isc currently being used for agricultural production;  Each plat is current on its Utah State Application for Assessment and' Taxation of Each plat is designated as Irrigated Crop Land with the State ofUtah; Is viable for agricultural production - and is] producing currently;  Agricultural Land;  Has had major improvements done to it in order to make it a viable and producing plot Isas scarce commodity and resource and should bej protected at all costs by Bountiful City Municipality. Given the growth oft the community and continued development of  for Bangerter Farms;  the area, agricultural land is being depleted at record pace.  CONCLUSION  Wel look forward to working with you in bringing about the Agriculture Protection Area for the land described above. We are proud to bej part oft the Bountiful community, continuing to carry out the rich and important tradition of farming here. We will, ofc course, provide any further help and support you need in order to make this vital designation.  Sincerely,  Chas. Bangerter & Sons, Inc.  By Alan Bangerter, President  10    46-S 0 A  00-po 9 :  ars V  -Zo 335  002 =,I 37VOS N C3T ISV 040-20 x13ud  #S5E.8  pIcvera    2B-39-10 A received  agaict SHadp 552 Bust 14504ecb BadgGLaEHaIs.  Bsuntifal City Counel  Waxck.23,2019  ounye lamnins grngobis agriceliine Buteatic ares 790 Sorith 100 gante Bowntpub, Mt 84010  Clalutashy Boand  Res Bhe eposal fozhu aaten  ofayt dhe ol agcbuct propery pritertiert lodatka al appreamactay 1250YE6u 4008 Eaaruch atetal azea s afpigimatly 1LSic aees  S dorsbotariy ecemmenes hat  ayppove thss  J hroue  R  ppoaal.  atiths Maszitencs frabvst 51 yaw anél Jor aue akhe onolerfae vegztaeeg o Setal, 3 suk o-Lpeewtty &vcd  sluy BKR  - yot onby JR LLSA  Commwkay Aoctremnndow - Dyuy hava famad enalerg pvedwe heugpe myamy yeurs th-cbmpen fer  th-i-HA.d.  deingat.  ymagaet er    MINUTES  DAVIS CONSERVATION DISTRICT (DCD) MEETING  Regular Meeting, April 9, 2018 Location, Kaysville Botanical Center, UT  ATTENDANCE:  Appointed Davis Conservation District Supervisor Representatives DeVan Packs, Supervisor Jake Jacobson, Supervisor, Chairman Nile Carlson, Supervisor, Vice Chair Tyson Roberts, Supervisor/lreasurer  Conservation Partners Jenny Jo Cox, Natural Resource Conservation Services (NRCS) Shawn Olsen, Utah State University (USU) 4H Extension. Agent Chet Fitzgerald,NRCS Conservation District Employees Nikki Mortensen, District Clerk  Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF): Loralie Cox, Resource Coordinator District Members Absent: Rulon Fowers, Supervisor Joe Hill, Associate Member Members oft the Public  Jeff Oyler, Davis County Planning Commission Charles Bangerter, Bangerter. Farm Alan Bagerter, Bangerter Farm Jeanne Marshal, Attorney. for the Bangerters David Petersen, Farmington City Eric. Anderson, Farmington City Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Sterling Brown, Utah Farm Bureau Fed.  SUMMARY OF DISTRICT ACTION  1. Ag. Protection Advisory Board Discussion  Page 2-4 Page4 4 Page4 4  2. Minute Review 3. Financials  Davis Conservation District meeting minutes April9, 2018, Farmington Page 1of1    4. NRCS 5. USU 6. UDAF  Page4 Page 4 Page4-5 Page5 5  7. Calendar of Future Events  DAVIS CD MEETING- CALLTO ORDER  Davis Conservation District (DCD) Chair/Supervisor Jake Jacobson called the meeting to order  at 12:04 pm.  AG. PROTECTION ADVISORY BOARD DISCUSSION  Davis County Planner, Jeff Oyler, reviewed the Staff Report from Davis County Planning Department with members present. The report addressed four ag. protection applications, but all parcels ofland in question were owned by the Alan Bangerter farm. Jeff summarized the Bangerter farm's history as well as current processes. There have been no known objections to thel Bangerter Farm's proposal submitted to the Davis County Planning Department. There have however, been several favorable submissions supporting the Bangerter Farm's ag protection application. Jeffi reviewed the seven requirements necessary for the farm to receive the. Ag. Protection Advisory Board'si recommendation for protection under the Ag. Protection Act. The parcels ofland are in separate cities and therefore will be reviewed in both Bountiful and Farmington for approval. An approximate, 5.5 acres of approximately 43.72 acres ofproperty in Farmington, taxid#08-081-0066, is being impacted by the West Davis Highway. Itl has been proposed that this strip ofland, approximately 5.5 acres, be withheld from the ag. protection application. A second parcel in Farmington, tax id #08-076-0010, is applying for ag. protection. There are three parcels in Bountiful, tax id#'s 02-070-0102, 02-070-0103, 02-070-0077, applying for ag. protection as well. The Advisory Board questioned the exclusion ofthe Farmington 5.5 acres from the application. Jeff explained that Utah Department ofTransportation (UDOT) would most likely obtain the property through Eminent Domain ifthe acreage were included. It also mayincrease the approval potential for the other parcels to exclude the 5.5 acres. Davis County supports both the West Davis Highway and Agriculture. The commission may find approval easier ift they could support both issues with their decision. Nile discussed an unofficial proposal that cut directly through the Bangerter property early on in the Highway's planning. The proposal was never discussed with the Bangerter farm. DeVan informed attendees that property was procured from Pack's farm as well as Bangerter's by UDOT for Legacy Highway. Tyson asked for al breakdown ofunincorporated parcels into Davis County as well as incorporated. Davis County will have final approval on unincorporated parcels and Bountiful and Farmington cities will have final approval of the incorporated parcels. Tyson discussed the ag. protection easement on his farm. He asked how much weight the Ag. Advisory Board's  Davis Conservation District meeting minutes April9, 2018, Farmington Page: 2of2    recommendation would actually carry. Jeff explained that ag. protection easements are relatively uncommon in Davis, but when one comes before the commission it is most often approved. Chad Wilkinson from the Bountiful city planning department informed the Board there were no objections to the Bangerter farm application. He expected thei recommended approvals for the Farmington" 's Community Development Director, David Petersen, recounted Farmington's continued effort to protect open space and agriculture in Farmington. He discussed the succession of decisions which led to the current situation involving the city and Bangerter farm. Field Stone Homes purchased property in West Farmington which under city mandate required open space. Farmington city encouraged Field Stone Homes to put aj park rather than homes next to a portion ofland that ran along the West Davis Highway. In UDOT's revision oft the highway they determined that the park would need to be eliminated to make room for the road. UDOT: is legally obligated to replace the eliminated park with another; equally comparable and within the city limits. The suggested location for thej park is in a section ofBangerter's farm. Jeffinformed the. Advisory Board that the Davis County's Planning Commission intends to Alan Bagerter discussed the generational succession ofl his farm. He would like to continue farming and pass that opportunity tol his posterity. The farm supplies large warehouses in the state ofUtah. Ifthey lose acreage the Bangerter's will have to find acreage somewhere else to keep their production levels up and maintain contracts. The property in Farmington would bea devastating loss. DeVan noted the inequality between laws that protect ag. land and laws that protect parks and recreational property. Farm land is important to the community. Alan pointed out that there are communities trying to bring back farming and yet there is no action to protect the existing farms. Shawn feels the Bangerter farm meets all criteria requirements listed on the planning department's Staff Report. DeVan motioned to recommend tax id#'s 08-081-006, 08-076-0010, 02-070-0102, 02-070-0103, 02-070-0077, for ag. protection easement approval, Nile second the motion. Tyson amended the motion to include after UDOT purchases what they need of the approximately 5.5 acre strip in Farmington, the remainder will be absorbed back into the farm, Nile second the motion, motion passed. There will be ai new tax number for the 5.5 parcel before it goes to the commissions for final approval. Alan emphasized that ag land cannot be recovered once lost. He would like to seel his property continue ini this legacy. Alan feels a strong support from the community which has been encouraging. Tyson wondered when the Bangerter's application would be reviewed. Farmington Planning Commission meets on April, 19th and the City council will review their affected areas on May 5. Bountiful Planning Commission meets April 17th and Bountiful City  parcels in Bountiful.  approve the Bangerter farm Ag. Protection Application.  reviews on May 22.  Davis County Planning Commission will review the application on May 1St.  Davis Conservation Districtr meeting minutes April9, 2018, Farmington Page 3of3    Shawn wondered ifthere were other properties in Farmington that could be utilized for a park. DeVan feels that the issue is more about location than available land options. Jake wondered if DeVan would represent the Board's opinion at the Farmington City review. DeVan is going to  make his best effort to attend.  MINUTE REVIEW  The Davis Conservation District (DCD) Board read over the minutes from March, Nile motioned  toa accept, DeVan second the motion, motion passed.  FINANCIALS  An invoice was received in the amount of$100 for the Soil Health Workshop. Devan motion to Nikki will bring aj proposed budget for next month's meeting, and the Board will review the  pay the full amount, Nile second the motion, motion passed.  scopeofwork.  NRCS  Chet Fitzgerald introduced himself as the area manager in the Ogden NRCS office. He announced Craig McKnight resignation and advised the board to direct any question to. Jenny Jo until Craig's position could be filled. NRCS is currently working on contracts and hopes to be  finished up by the first part of] July.  USU EXTENSION  The Board discussed Water Fair and Ag. Field Day assignments.  UDAF  Loralie went over the new legislation in House Bill 130 and Senate Bill 170. She also discussed projections for population growth in Utah in the next 25 years. Development will happen Nile asked about the vote on the 11th for the UACD Board election. Each District needs to have a Supervisor available to vote. Jake said he would make arrangements to represent DCD's vote. The DCDI Board needs to come up with some on the ground projects. DeVan wondered ifthe Board could purchase and release puncture vine weavles for several years within the County. Loralie said that would be something to consider. She will contact Brandon and discuss it as a need in the community. DeVan also proposed a 3 month calendar that promotes Ag and  primarily in the South.  Davis Conservation District meeting minutes April9, 2018, Farmington Page4of4    Conservation Districts. Loralie will check to see ift that would qualify as aj project. The Board agreed, it would be al better option for next year. Nikki will make an agenda item to discuss  projects at next month's meeting.  CALENDAR OF FUTURE EVENTS  1. Davis CD: monthly meeting: May 24 at 9:00am at the Kaysville Botanical Center  ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 2:01 pm.  Davis Conservation District meeting minutes April9, 2018, Farmington Page5ofs    EARL C. TINGEY 1286 SUNDANCE CIRCLE BOUNTIFUL, UTAH 84010 (801) 298-0705 631-6744  Qpril 0,2018  Ly 100 Eest  790 FE  Boertfek, Mhak 84010  ABeat Menebers Sihelily Counaik,  suyppsit Gna MaMAMpwAA  ollackel prspmal f ciedte an agrerltai protedion RR DR the poputy  1Z8N 500E-  Apyg Bonet is C ereellert  sibooail Kthe lerd. he pepety a pepaly cared for, atliectee ausl a henefz  the comnndly.  he simek emplopes heersliedki WBesl  cayene andl pivirdes eyccllenk graaty podare fa tée Locck metheb seirl  ccommg  MeLgymeN  fark L. eipey    April3, 2018 Jeff Oyler Planning Manager Dear Sir,  Wei find it disturbing that there is even a reason for a proposal for the creation of an agricultural Wel have been residents of Centerville for 46 years and the farm existed long before we moved here. The fact that the Bangerters have provided summer employment for children has been a great way to teach responsibility: and money management. Our Children and grandchildren have worked ont thet farm We propose that farm remains in this neighborhood. We don'tneed any more houses and the increase  protection area in what wel know as the Bangerter Farm.  We love the fact that the farm is close by. We like the open space.  as well as many neighborhood children and their friends.  int traffic.  Thank you for your consideration. Sus Succten  Mary! Melton  Fred Melton fud Mhthn  Cc: Bountiful City Planning and Zoning