BOUNTIFUL CITY Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:30 p.m.  PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA  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 May 16, 2017.  3. Consider approval of an amended site plan for a parking lot at Ridgewood Condominium at Maple Hills located at 1374 E Ridgewood Way, Ralph Mabey, representing the 4. Consider preliminary and final subdivision approval for Hepworth Farms Subdivision 5. Consider approval of the Findings of Fact for a Variance to allow installation of a 6 foot fence in the front yard at 2933 Lewis Park Cove, Rudy Larsen, applicant. 6. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  Ridgewood Condominium at Maple Hills HOA Board, applicant.  located at 444 N 400E E, Janet Gold, applicant.  Chad BL  Wilkinson, City Planner    Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes May 16, 2017 6:30P.M.  Present:  Chair - Sean Monson; Planning Commission Members -Dave Badham, Jesse Bell, Von Hill, Tom Smith and Sharon Spratley; City Council Representation - Richard Higginson; City Attorney - Clint Drake; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; City Engineer - Paul Rowland; and  Recording Secretary - Darlene Baetz  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for May 2, 2017.  Tom Smith made a motion to approve the minutes for May 2, 2017 as written. Dave Badham seconded the motion. Voting passed 7-0 with Commission members Badham, Bell, Hill, Higginson, 3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval for a Variance to allow installation of a 6-7 foot tall  Monson, Smith and Spratley voting aye.  fence in the front yard at 2933Lewis Park Cove, Rudy Larsen, applicant. Rudy Larsen was present. Chad Wilkinson presented the staffreport.  The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 6-7 foot tall fence within the required front yard. Section 14- 16-110 (B) limits the height of fences within the required front yard to 4 feet for an "open style" fence and 3 feet for a solid fence. The applicant proposes an open style wrought iron fence in order to provide a barrier between the sidewalk and a culvert associated with a creek running through the property. The owner plans to extend the fence onto an adjoining property that they own on the other side of the creek. The predominant issue is safety and providing a physical barrier to prevent falls into the deep creek/culvert area in this location. The applicant submitted an e-mail from Davis County indicating conditions for the fence to facilitate access to the creek for flood control maintenance of the culvert and creek. The applicant's plans indicate that the fence would be extended out to the front property line surrounding the creek and then quickly transition back to the required 25 One note not related to the variance is that the pool shown on the applicant's future plan will require the combination of the two lots. Accessory structures and uses, such as the pool, are not allowed on a Staffrecommends approval of a variance to allow for a 6-foot tall fence within the required front yard 1. Maintain access for Davis County Flood Control with size and type of access to be determined  foot front yard setback on the other side oft the creek.  lot without a primary use.  subject to the following conditions:  by the County.  Chair Monson Open and Closed the Public Hearing at 6:33 p.m. without comments.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May. 16, 2017  Page lof3    Richard Higginson made a motion to approve a variance to allow for a 6-ft tall fence within the required front yard with one condition outlined by staff. Von Hill seconded the motion. Voting passed 7-0 with Commission members Badham, Bell, Higginson, Hill, Monson, Smith and Spratley 4. Consider final PUD Plat and site plan approval for a five unit townhome style multifamily  voting aye.  development, located at 958 N 200 West, Robert Gibson, applicant. Robert Gibson was present. Paul Rowland presented the staffreport.  Mr. Robert Gibson has completed the PUD site plans and the plat map for this development and is now requesting final approval for the 5 unit Enclave PUD. This PUD was granted preliminary approval by the Council on April 18, 2017. The proposed PUD consists of5 units on 0.73 acres with attached parking for each. The developer has modified his plans to show the necessary private areas and front yards. The site plans, landscaping and building elevations were previously reviewed and approved with thel Preliminary Plat/Final Site Plan approval on. April 18, mentioned above. With the conditions listed below, the proposed development meets the requirements of the Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance and design standards and the Planning Commission sends a positive  recommendation for final approval to the City Council. 2. Make all: necessary red line corrections to the drawings.  1. Post al bond to cover the costs of construction ofr required site improvements.  3. Prior to building permit, submit a final landscape plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 16 of  the Bountiful City Zoning Ordinance. 4. Payment of all: required fees. 5. Provide a current Title Report. 6. Sign al Development Agreement with the City  Sharon Spratley made a motion that the Planning Commission pass a recommendation for approval to the City Council for the final PUD Plat and site plan approval for a five unit townhome style multifamily development located at 958 N 200 W with the 6 conditions outlined by staff. Richard Higginson seconded the motion. Voting passed 6-0-1 with Commission members Badham, Bell, 5. Consider approval of the Findings of Fact for a denial of a Variance to Section 14-5-105 A in order to allow for parking within the required front yard setback at 157 W 300 South, Robert Sharon Spratley made a motion to approve the Findings of Fact for the denial ofa variance to Section 14-5-105A in order to allow for parking within the required front yard setback at 157 W 300 South. Dave Badham seconded the motion. Voting passed 7-0 with Commission members Badham, Bell,  Higginson, Monson, Smith and Spratley voting aye with Hill abstaining.  McArthur, applicant.  Higginson, Hill, Monson, Smith and Spratley voting aye. 6. Discussion of Downtown zone (DT) - Plat A Neighborhood.  Chad presents background on Plat A. The Plat A is located from 4001 Nt to 500 S and 400 E to 200 W.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2017  Page 2of3    Between 2006 and 2008 the City went thru a planning process with committee members made up of Bountiful City citizens and Bountiful City stafft to discuss ai master plan for the Plat A area. After numerous meetings, the committee provided recommendations to the City Council. Some of these recommendations included specific building types and site design standards that could be incorporated into a Master Plan for the area. The Committee discussed having higher densities on Main Street while preserving the residential neighborhoods that flank the main street corridor. In 2009, the City Council adopted the Downtown Master Plan as part oft the General Plan for the City. While some oft the recommendations oft the committee were incorporated into the plan, many were: not. During recent public hearings many residents and participants in the original planning process expressed concern that the Downtown was not developing consistent with the recommendations oft the  2006 planning process, particularly with regard to multifamily development.  There are several items to revisit and consider. 1. Building height standards 3. Horizontal or vertical mixed use 5. Design standards for Multi-family  2. Lot size - minimum lot size in our codei is 20,000 sq ft. 4. New home on existing lot doesn'tmeet the current code.  Staff outlined that over the next several weeks the citizens would be invited to participate in a survey  to decide on the next steps to be taken. Questions to be included: 2. Ist this still the vision that the citizens still want? the residential areas west of100 W: and east of 100 East.  1. Main Street corridor - should wei make changes in code specific to Main St.  3. Citizens have stated that they understand there will be a bit of density, but would like to preserve  Commission members suggested:  1. That the survey results are shared with them. 2. Meetings to bel held with residents outside this area.  3. Public planning and documenting should be done in a conscious and public process.  Mr. Wilkinson explained that postcards would be sent to the properties in the Plat A area. Staff will  give the Commission members an update of the survey results.  5. Planning Director's report, review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  Chair Monson ascertained there were no other items to discuss. The meeting was adjourned at 7:19  p.m.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May 16, 2017  Page 3of3    Commission Staff Report Subject: Site Plan Amendment for Ridgewood of Property Address: 2135 Ridgewood Way Author: Chad Wilkinson, Planning Director  Item #3  Maple Hills Condominiums Department: Planning Date: June 6, 2017 Background  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  The applicant, Ralph Mabey, representing the Homeowners Association ofthe Ridgewood of Maple Hills Condominium development, is requesting a change to the site plan approved with the original development. The request is to convert an area currently occupied by two tennis courts into parking for nine vehicles and a modified recreational area. The revised recreation area will: include a pickle ball court, basketball court and open grass area for use  by residents and guests oft the development.  Analysis  The site plan was originally approved in 1977 as part oft the overall plan for the Ridgewood of Maple Hills Condominium development. As with all condominium communities, the original approval included the provision of common area open space and recreation areas as a part ofa set of amenities for the residents of the development. The applicant states that the tennis courts have had declining use over the years and that the additional parking proposed is desirable for the residents ofthe development. The application materials also cite a need for additional parking for the clubl house located to the north west of the At the time ofapproval, the development was required to provide 800 square feet cof recreational open space per unit. This totaled approximately 120,800 square feet based on the number of units proposed. According to approved plans, the development originally provided approximately 126, 242 square feet of recreation space which was +5,400 square feet in excess oft the minimum required. The proposed parking area would reduce the recreational open space by approximately 4,900 square feet. Based on this reduction the development would still exceed the minimum requirements at the time of development by approximately 500 square feet. The parking will still benefit the residents and guests ofthe development by providing parking adjacent to the recreation area and club house. The submitted plan also shows the' "filling in" ofas sloped area to the south west oft the tennis courts. This change does not: seem to be necessary and is not recommended for  existing tennis courts.  approval by staff.    Aerial Photo  Google Earth  G:ENGISite Plans! Maple Hills Condo Amended Site Plan 6-6-17/PCStaff! Report- Maple Hills Condo Amended! Site Plane 6-6-17.docx    D  L  E  EAS  Er E3 Ca E a   ru  -  Ea    Item #4  Commission Staff Report  Subject: Address: Author: Date:  Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Hepworth Farms Subdivision 444 North 400 East City Engineer June 6, 2017  Department: Engineering,  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  Planning  Background  Ms.. Janet Gold is requesting preliminary and final approval for a five lot subdivision at the northeast corner of 400 North and 400 East. The property is noti in a subdivision and consists oft three parcels which combined contain 3.21 acres and currently have four single family homes  and al large detached barn/garage.  Analysis  The proposed subdivision consists of five lots that front onto 400 North and also 400 East. Currently the three parcels consist of a large flag lot which fronts on to 400 East, a corner lot parcel with a single home and al large lot fronting on 400 North which contains two homes. The owners are anxious to subdivide the property sO that each of the existing homes is on al lot that isc compliant with current zoning regulations. The remaining property is then placed in a new This property is located int the R-4 Zone. All of the proposed lots exceed the minimum lot size and frontage requirements, with the smallest lot at 8,532 sq.ft., and the largest at 70,983 sq.ft. Although the lots are not nice rectangular parcels, they have been divided sO that all of the Currently, there is al large overhead power transmission line running over what will become lot 3and lot 4. A new 151 ft. wide utility easement will need to be shown on the final plat covering The proposed new lot faces 400 East along the newly reconstructed concrete street. Culinary water is available from a 6" fire hydrant line just north oft the lot, irrigation water is already stubbed into the property and while 400 East was under construction, a sewer lateral to serve the lot was installed sO that the new street would not have to be excavated to provide for utilities. Obviously, all of the other homes are already attached to utilities. Power in the areai is Because the only new lot fronts onto the recently reconstructed 400 East Street, the walk and the curb and gutter are almost brand new. No overall bond will be required fori the subdivision, however the damaged curb and walk and drive approaches along the 400 North frontage will be required to be removed and replaced with Bountiful standard improvements. In addition,  single family lot.  existing houses meet the required setbacks and side yards.  the power lines.  all overhead and will be available to the new lot.    the concrete will be required tol be removed from the park strips and replaced with landscaping meeting Bountiful City ordinances along the 400 North frontage ini the area where the walk and With this being an already developed area, no on-site storm water detention basin will be required, rather the developer will be required to pay the normal Storm Water Impact Fee.  curb are replaced. A bond will be required to cover that work.  Department Review Department. Recommendation  The proposed preliminary plat has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Planning  With the conditions listed below, the proposed development meets the requirements of the Bountiful City Land Use Ordinance and design standards. Staff recommends the Planning Commission pass along a recommendation for preliminary and final approval with the following 1. Remove and replace the damaged C&G and walk along 400 North and remove the corresponding concrete park strip and replace with approved landscaping 3. Post al bond and sign a development agreement for the required subdivision  conditions.  2. Payment of all required fees. improvements 4. Provide a current Title Report.  Significant Impacts  This places! 5 homes where there has historically only been four sO all of the impacts are minor  and will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area.  Attachments  Aerial photo showing the area to be subdivided A copy of the Hepworth Farms Subdivision Preliminary Plat. A copy of the Hepworth Farms Subdivision Final Plat.  Asubdwsionsthnepworth farms 2017pc preliminary subdivision! hepworth farms subdivision, june 2017.docx    Aerial Photo of the Proposed Hepworth Farms Subdivision  a  BR  99y  Asubdiwisionsnepwortn farms 2017pcp preliminary: subdivision hepworth farms subdivision, june 2017.docx    snpayua 4 VH  YIA 97S 3w"  N3 NOISLAIGHASSAAYAI HINOAId3H IYVAYYNINITAN  wam  00D30  ISV3001    33333  37D8DD W3IHDINOIS  -  28202 3.85.01.00S  133AISISV3009  7.00.110005  13AHISISYIOOF  13IHISNIVY    Item #5 5  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS  APPLICANT: APPLICATION TYPE:  Rudy Larsen  Request for a variance in order to allow installation of a 6 foot fence within the required  front yard  .  DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:  The applicant, Rudy Larsen, has requested a variance to allow for installation of a 6t to 7-foot high fence within the front yard of the residence  located at 2933 Lewis Park Cove. LAND USE ORDINANCE AUTHORITY: for variance requests related to fencing.  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 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.    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, May 16, 2017 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 proposed variance is limited to the area immediately adjacent to the creek and culvert and will provide for a barrier between the culvert and the sidewalk. While the purpose of the ordinance isto provide for open areas adjacent to the street and limit fence height inf front yards, the location of the creek and culvert is a unique circumstance not anticipated by the land use ordinance. Because the variance should be limited to the minimum necessaryt to overcome the hardship, the height of the fence should be limitedt to B. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the district; The location of the creek and culvert constitute a special circumstance that does not apply generally to properties in the :. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the district; Other property owners have a right to a 4-foot open style fence in their front yard. In this case, because of the culvert and creek location, a four-foot fence would not provide enough of a barrier between the culvert and the sidewalk. In addition, extending the six foot fence across the creek at the front setback line is not desirable as it will potentially collect debris and could contribute to flooding.  six feet.  neighborhood.    D. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will  not be contrary to the public interest;  Providing a barrier between the public sidewalk and the culvert crossing is in keeping with the public interest as long as access is maintained for Davis County Flood Control maintenance. E. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial  justice done  The applicant has limited the encroachment of the proposed fence into the front yard area to the minimum required to enclose the culvert. These limits are consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.  VI. DECISION AND SUMMARY  The Planning Commission approved the variance to allow for a 6-foot tall fence within the required front yard by a vote of 7-0. The approval is 1. Maintain access for Davis County Flood Control with size and type of  subject to the following condition:  access to be determined by the County.  VII. FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVED BY THE Bountiful City Planning  Commission this  day of May 2017.  Sean Monson, Chair  Bountiful City Planning Commission  GAPLANVananceszsss Lewis Park Cove-Larsen Fencel2933 Lewis Park Cove Variance Findings ofF Fact.doc