BOUNTIFUL CITY Tuesday, March 6, 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 February 20, 2018. 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 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval ofa variance to allow a third driveway. The 5. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business. and Sandra Call, applicants. property is located at 992 E550N N, Kevin Menlove, applicants. Chad Wilkinson, City Planner AE Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2018 6:30 P.M. Present: Excused: Chair - Sean Monson; Planning Commission Members - Jesse Bell, Jim Clark, Tom Smith and Sharon Spratley; City Council Representation - Richard Higginson; City Attorney- = Clint Drake; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; and Recording Secretary - Darlene Baetz Vice Chair - Von Hill; City Engineer - Paul Rowland 1. Welcome and Introductions. Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present. 2. Approval of the minutes for February 6, 2018. Sharon Spratley made a motion to approve the minutes for February 6, 2018 with the following Paragraph 3. "Mr. Drake stated that the Planning Commission 's responsibility depends on the type of application. With many applications their role is mostly administrative in nature making. For Public Hearings on zoning amendments they are acting in a legislative role and they consider the standards and listen to and take comment from the public. This item about the Downtown standards is considered a legislative decision and the Commission will take comments from the public into account when making Paragraph 7. "Mr. Higginson proposed that the frontage on 100 W and 100 E be 35 ft façade and get Paragraph 8. "Von Hill made a motion to table this item and propose that staff change language for: 1. Thel building height on 100 W and 100 E1 be 35f ht stepping up at 50f ft to 45f. 2. With the maximum of25 foot interval for articulation instead of201 foot. corrections toj page 9. decisions for the entire city.". more aggressive with the setting stepping up ofthel height....". 3. Standards the same for Mixed Use and residential. 4. Landscaping as proposed. Richard Higginson seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0 with Commission members Bell, Clark, 3. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued, from February 6, 2018) - Consider amending the standards of the Downtown (DN) Zoning District found in Chapter 7 of the BountifulLand Use Ordinance. Higginson, Monson, Smith and Spratley voting aye. Chad Wilkinson presented staff report. The changes to the DN ordinance included the revisions requested by the Planning Commission at the Modifying the ordinance toi include a' "step up" provision for building heights along 100 West (and A change to the proposed architectural standards to: require changes in horizontal and vertical last meeting. The following summarizes the proposed changes: East) at 50 feet instead of 100 feet. articulation at intervals of25 feet instead of20 feet. Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - February 20, 2018 Page 1 of4 Modifications that remove distinctions between multifamily and mixed use developments related to A change that requires ground floor development standards in order to facilitate future commercial development standards. uses including 12 foot floor to floor heights on ground floor residential. Chair Monson opened Public Hearing at 6:46 p.m. Eric Egenolf with Process Studio PLLC in SLC is working on a project in Bountiful. Mr. Egenolf asked about staff about his concern over the proposed code that would require the 50% flex commercial Kenny Knighton is a business owner on Main Street. Mr. Knighton spoke about the concern about the 50% requirement and for the lack of demand for commercial projects in this area. He discussed the option for ground parking under the building and let parking dictate and limit the density. Brian Knowlton is a developer in Bountiful. Mr. Knowlton was comfortable with the proposed revisions but wanted clarification of the proposed 50% commercial space is for street fronting units Todd Willey resides at 66 E 1200 South. Mr. Willey agrees with the other public. He is concerned about the allowed types of commercial businesses with the ability to obtain financing. He would like to see the parking as part oft the 50% commercial use and to: strike the mixed usel language. Jessie Bell asked Mr. Knighton about his concerns about parking. Mr. Knighton likes the idea of ground Bryce Moulton resides at 3206 Sunset Hollow Way. Mr. Moulton feels that the ordinances as written and residential uses, the parking screening and his concern for the 2:1. only. level parking under new buildings and showed plans. are more effective ift they allow the design process to be more open. Chair Monson closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. Ms. Spratley asked for clarification about the mandate for the changes for the mixed use ordinances. Mr. Wilkinson reviewed the history of the planning process for the Downtown. During the original planning process in 2006-2008, Mixed use was identified as the preferred development pattern for downtown. That was reiterated by a majority of respondents in the survey on the Plat A neighborhood that was administered last summer. The standards are an attempt to allow for multifamily residential while facilitating the mixed use development pattern that was anticipated in the original plan and that was supported again last summer. The proposed codes have been based on the work that other communities have done in relation to promoting mixed use pedestrian neighborhoods. Bountiful has made changes to parking standards and other development standards to facilitate mixed use development. The proposal would allow for residential use while not precluding development of ground floor space as residential in the future. Ms. Spratley stated her agreement about the commercial space facing the street. Mr. Smith is concerned about taking away the retail focus from Main Street and spoke about the possible 9 ft ceiling height for office space instead oft the 12 ft commercial ceiling. He would prefer the space be for non-retail and limit the space to professional businesses. Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes- - February 20, 2018 Page 2of4 Mr. Wilkinson stated that currently there is not a high demand for commercial space in this area. Ift the space would include a 12 ft ceiling, this would give the most flexibility for future commercial or Mr. Bell stated that he likes the idea of a plan to allow for future changes in the commercial or Mr. Higginson agreed with Mr. Smith about encouraging the retail businesses to be kept on Main. Commission members and staff discussed the impact of the 50% flex space for commercial or residential use change. residential use. residential uses and the possible parkingissues. Chair Monson reopened the Public Hearing at 7:52 p.m. Mr. Knighton and Mr. Egenolf spoke about standards for parking and possible more efficient solutions that would preserve the site. Mr. Egenolfwould prefer to not use the percentage for commercial uses. Bryce Moulton feels that the community and design would be able to determine a presence on the ground floorinstead of using aj percentage. Mr. Higginson explained that the code is written for all designers. Mr. Smith stated that the major concern for this area is streetscape. Mr. Sebright discussed the language from research done on other city's code. 25 ft was a minimum standard in most codes for the depth oft the office using both percentages and standard length. Mr. Bell suggested that the depth of the office be 25 ft minimum and the predominant side of the street Mr. Monson feels that flex space should have as much flexibility as possible. He would not be in favor ofputting on restriction on the flex space. The street facing units makes sense to have street access. would be the primary entrance would be oriented toward the street. Chair Monson closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Sharon Spratley made a motion to approve the amending the standards of the Downtown (DN) Zoning District found in Chapter 7 oft the Bountiful Land Use Ordinance with the following changes to Section 14-7-112-C-9: 1. Commercial flex space standards shall only apply to buildings 200 ft from 100 West and 100 2. Flex space should apply to only those buildings fronting the street and be required a East in areas where 55 ft buildings are allowed. minimum depth of25 ft from the street. Jesse Bell seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-1 with Bell, Clark, Higginson, Smith and Spratley voting aye and Monson voting nay. Chair Monson explained that his nay vote was based on his opinion that the mixed use should be encouraged throughout the downtown. 5. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business. Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - February 20, 2018 Page 3of4 1. Land Use issues in with the state including building permit review, home business licensing, Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m. billboards, and food trucks. Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes = February 20, 2018 Page 4 of4 Item #3 Commission Staff Report Item: PUBLIC HEARING- Request for a variance for the addition ofconcrete parking pad and concrete in park strip to allow parking within the required frontyard setback. Property Address: 3457 Bountiful Boulevard Author: Kendal Black, Assistant Planner Department: Planning Date: March 6, 2018 Description of Request BOUNTIFUL EST.1847 The applicants, Ryan and Sandra Call, have requested a variance to allow fort the addition ofa concrete parking pad in the frontyard setback and concrete int the parking strip at 3457 Bountiful Boulevard in order to allow parking within the required fronty yard setback. The propertyi is located ini the R-Fzoning district. Authority Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance requests related to parkingand: setbacks. Background and Analysis: 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 ofa code enforcement complaint mentioning: a vehicle parked on the sidewalk. A code enforcement case was started to address the concrete in thej park strip, a vehicle parked on the sidewalk obstructing thej 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 Cityi initiated 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 pad and concrete in the The parking pad in question does not meet the standards for the R-F: zone. Section 14-18-105 (F) states that, "No off-street parking shalll be permitted in any required residential frontyard ors street side yard other than in approved, paved driveways. And no vehicle, trailer, ors similar device may be parked on a lawn, park strip, or any other non-paved: surface." (Emphasis added). Additionally, Section 14-18-105 (H) states that, "Off-street parking spaces shall be located at least ten (10)) feet from anys street property line except for driveways serving one and two-family dwellings. Fors single family and two-family: residential uses, at least one (1) ofthe required on-site parking spaces perz unit shall be provided behind the minimum frontyard setback. No driveways or paved vehicle areas ofany) kind are allowed in a street: side) yard setback unless they provide access to a garage, carport, or other approved parking area located beyond the minimum setback parks strip. area." Single family residential requirements include ai maximum drive access width ofthirty (30) feet. The drive access at the applicant's home is approximately fifty (50) feet wide. Iti is mentioned in the applicant's narrative that the drive access has beeni inj 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 thej property. Iti isi important to note that att the time the driveway was originally constructed, the northern parcel was not aj part ofthe applicants' property. The existence oft the drive access did not make paving this area legal and should not bej paved or used for parking. The parking pad and concrete int the park strip do not meet the standards oft the Land Use ordinance. The applicant has submitted a written narrative which is attached to this report. The submittal includes photographs ofe existing areas that have concrete: ini the park strip throughout Bountiful. The existence of other non-permitted and/ori illegal installation of concrete: in the parks stripi is not aj justification fora a variance. Its should also be noted that the park: strip is City right ofway and not owned by the applicant. The City will not: approve oft this variance in the public right ofway and therefore the variance is limited to the concrete work on the applicant's property. Variance Findings Utah Code 10-9a-702 establishes the criteria for review ofa variance request. In order to grant a variance @ Literal enforcement oft the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship, for the each oft the following criteria must be met: applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose ofthe land use ordinances; Staff Response: The property has adequate off-street parking to meet code standards and therefore the elimination oft the parking space will not cause an unreasonable hardship. Instead, elimination will bring (ii) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to Staff] Response: The applicant has listed several special circumstances including the steepness ofthe terrain on the north side oft thel house impeding the ability to add an RV pad for additional parking and adding an RV pad to the south oft thel home notl being possible due to thej proximity ofthel North Canyon Creek: as justification for a variance. The street viewi 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 oft 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 thej portion behind the driveway (to the north ofthel house) is raised upt to create the shelf. Other options such as excavating the area near the house to Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment ofa substantial property right possessed by Staff Response: Approval ofa 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 driveway and int the garage. the site into compliance with the original approval. other properties in the. same. zone; provide additional parking could be accomplished without the need fora a variance. other property in the. same. zone; The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest; Staff Response: Limitations on the number and location of parking areas within required front yards is int thej publici interest. (iii) The: spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial, justice done Staff Response: Granting a variance would be contrary to the spirit oft thel land use ordinance. The driveway spacing standards ofthe 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 a front yard provide opportunities for additional landscape areasi in front yards which enhances the beauty oft the community. Department Review City Planner, City Engineer. Recommended Action Staffrecommends denial oft the requested variance to allow for the continued use ofthe recently constructed parking pad for parking in the front yard setbacki 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 ofthe Land Use Ordinance. Attachments 1. Aerial Photo 2. Recent Photographs of thej property a. Google Earth Street viewimage May 2016 b. Photo ofhome taken November 2017 3. Applicant's Narrative 4. Proposed Site plan (Existing) 5. Photos of other properties with concrete in park strip Sr a M Google Earth 05193 570 S57R G063 SRO 1140AM 12018 69s0 - - 9 GoogleEarth a A dD Torcde e0geB G56P9 S8W S5 SGR The letter addressed to us (Ryan and Sandra Call) states that in order to comply with the code, we need to remove the noncompliant park pad and concrete from the park strip and remove any noncompliant parking spaces from the front yard". We have moved the vehicle that was parked in the park strip. We wish to keep the concrete park pad and the concrete in the park strip. The 16' x2 25'6" and the 7'x8 8'6" concrete pad allows us to keep all vehicles off the street and onto a safe parking location. Keeping the concrete ini the park strip willl help keep the park strip looking nice in that location due to lack of watering since there is not water extended to that area. The city ordinances we wish to gain a variance from are: 14-18-109A&B 14-18-105F&H i) Due to the steepness of the terrain on the north side of the house, adding an RV pad for additional parking is not possible. By adding concrete to the park strip, it will keep a consistence look with the drive approach and concrete pad. Adding an RV pad/additional parking to the south side of property is not possible ii) By adding this concrete pad, it will enable us, the property owners, to comply with the ordinance of no overnight street parking during the winter months. The concrete iv) The zoning and general plan for the property is residential and by granting this variance, it simply allows the homeowners to park 2 vehicles on the additional concrete pad, and allow easier access to it by adding concrete in the park strip. The new concrete pad and concrete in the park strip extends the driveway to the existing drive approach that has been in place for over 25 years. ii) due to the proximity oft the North Canyon Creek. ini the park strip will enable easier access to the concrete pad. v) Search Google Maps 9 Bounteld Google BountuBld Google Exploret food & drinks neary you ProfosEP NJEW CONCPETE PARK PAD I'y 2C'L" PPOPOSED CONCPETE N PRELSTEP Pxpu'(mdy) NOT WFFICIENT GPACE TO ADP ANJ F-V PAD By BIRE Of HOVSE 4 3 o PZOPEPTIES IN BOONTIFUL WITHI CCNCRETE INTHE PARA STEIP Item #4 Commission Staff Report Item: Author: Date: PUBLIC HEARING - Request for a variance in order BOUNTIFUL EST.1892 to allow for a third driveway Chad Wilkinson, Planning Director Address: 992 E550 North March 6, 2018 Description of Request The applicant, Kevin Menlove, has requested a variance to allow for a third driveway for the property located at 992 E. 5501 North. The property is located in the R-4 zoning district. Authority Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance requests related to driveways. Background and Analysis: The applicant has requested a variance to allow an existing paved area to remain and to be authorized as a driveway. Bountiful Code Section 14-18-109 B states, "Each residential lot shall be allowed not more than two drive accesses."Ther 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 ofa 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 be used a third driveway to the property. 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 (see attached site plan note). The City did not approve an access to the lower garage on the 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 ofa a basement apartment on the property as this would have required the approval ofa a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The permit issued for the property indicates aj rough basement and did notindicate a basement finish. Based on aerial photography the paved area appears to havel been constructed sometime between 2011 and 2013 after final inspection oft the property by the City and has been used as a parking area for vehicles since its construction. A driveway approach was notinstalled and no permit wasi issued for the construction ofa driveway. From aerial photography and street viewi images it appears that thej 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, aj paved connection was constructed that was not: shown on approved plans. This access appears tol 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." However, iti is 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 thel home. Based on the approved site plan, the home was constructed at the minimum 8 foot setback which would not] provide adequate setback for the required driveway. 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 oft the following criteria must be met: ordinances; Staff Response: 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 thej 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 bel 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. (ii) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do notg generally apply Staff Response: The applicant has listed circumstances related to access oft the basement garage and a1 mother-in-law apartment. The City has no record of approval for a basement apartment (which would have required the approval ofa conditional use permit and recording ofa deed restriction on the property). The issue isi related to the number ofa allowed driveway accesses on a property. The Code limits the number to two access points. The applicant has elected to usel both allowed accesses on the east side oft 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 oft thel home with two driveway accesses on 1000 East was a choice oft the property owner and is self-imposed. to other properties in the. same zone; (ii) Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment ofas substantial propertyright Staff Response: Approval ofa variance would actually grant a right that is not possessed by other propertyi in the same: zone. The Code limits the number of driveways to two for all properties in the zoning district. The approved design oft the home showed both oft the allowed (iv) The variance will not: substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to Staff Response: Limitations on the number and location of driveways and parking areas within required front yards isi in the publicinterest. Requiring compliance with the approved site (v) Thes spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial, justice done Staff Response: Granting a variance would be contrary to the spirit oft the land use ordinance. The driveway standards oft the Code arei meant to enhance public safety by limiting the: number of locations vehicles may enter the publicright-ofway. Restrictions on number ofdriveways provide possessed by other property in the. same. zone; driveways on 1000 East. the public interest; plan is also in the public interest. opportunities for additional landscape areas in front yards. Department Review City Planner, City Engineer, City Attorney Recommended Action parking in the future. Attachments Staff recommends denial ofthe requested variance to allow for a third driveway in the R-4 zone. Staff recommends modifications be made to the paved area to prevent vehicle 1. Current Aerial Photo 2. Historic Aerial Photos a. 2010 b. 2011 2013 d. 2015 e. 2016 3. Applicant's Narrative 4. Original approved Site Plan Current. Aerial Photo (2017) Google Earth 2010 Aerial Photo % Ogle Earth 2011 Aerial Photo agAzISarga GoogleEarth 2013 Aerial Photo o0 gleEarth 2015. Aerial Photo e gleEarth 2016 Aerial Photo 94 gle Earth Kevin Menlove 992 East 550 North Bountiful, UT 84010 The City Ordinance we would like a variance from is 14-18-105(C). Noted: 14-18-109(B) There is no cut approach to the sidewalk. The proposed variance request meets all of these criteria: (I) The literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for us by causing us to remove part ofour sidewalk and restricting our access to the backyard The special circumstances attached to the property are that our house plans that were submitted to and approved by Bountiful City shows a garage in the backyard. Italso has an office and mother-in-law on the west side oft the house. The sidewalk on the west side of the house is the only access to the backyard and the office and mother-in-law apartment. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment ofa substantial property right of accessing the backyard, office, and mother-in-law, apartment, and the sidewalk has been The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the publici interest as the The spirit oft the land use ordinance is observed and garage. (II) (III) there for 8 years. (IV) (V) sidewalk does not affect the public. substantial justice is done. 900 EAST STREET NOMGIE 13ANY S0ISCFE-BAN 1000 EAST STREET PROPERTY SURVEY REQUESTED BY KEVIN MENLOVE LOCATION OF SURVEY WASATCH. SURVEYINGLLC: PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 3037 soun 200 EAST BOUNTIHLLUIAH MAID,801)296-16- (311)2 295-0014