BOUNTIFUL CITY Tuesday, May 16, 2017  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 May 2, 2017.  3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval for a Variance to allow installation of a 6-7 foot tall fence ini the front yard at 2933 Lewis Park Cove, Rudy Larsen, applicant. 4. Consider final PUD Plat and site plan approval for a five unit townhome style multifamily development, located at 958N 1200 West, Robert Gibson, applicant. 5. Consider approval of the Findings of] Fact for 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  McArthur, applicant.  6. Discussion of] Downtown zone (DT) - Plat Al Neighborhood.  7. Planning Director'sreport; review of pending applications and miscellaneous business.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  A    Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes May 2, 2017 6:30 P.M.  Present: Excused:  Chair - Sean Monson; Planning Commission Members -Dave Badham, Jesse Bell, Tom Smith and Sharon Spratley; City Attorney Clint Drake; City Planner - Chad Wilkinson; City Planning Commission Member - Von Hill and City Council Representation = Richard  Engineer - Paul Rowland; and Recording Secretary - Darlene Baetz  Higginson  1. Welcome and Introductions.  Chair Monson opened the meeting at 6:30 pm and welcomed all those present.  2. Approval of the minutes for April 18, 2017.  Tom Smith made a motion to approve the minutes for April 18, 2017 as written. Dave Badham seconded the motion. Voting passed 4-0-1 with Commission members Badham, Bell, Smith and 3. Consider preliminary and final site plan approval for a Verizon Telecommunication Tower at the South Davis Recreation Center located at 550 N 200 West, Jared White representing  Spratley voting aye and Monson abstained.  Verizon, applicant.  Jared White was present. Chad Wilkinson presented the staff report.  Mr. Jared White, representing Verizon Wireless, requests preliminary and final site plan approval for a new telecommunications tower located at the South Davis Recreation Center. The proposed tower is to be located on the north side of the Recreation Center in an existing landscape area. The subject property is located within a Single Family Residential (R-4) zone. Telecommunications towers are an The Land Use Ordinance encourages location of telecommunications facilities on public properties and more specifically states that the policy of the City is to make available to telecommunications companies such sites that the City owns which can reasonably serve the needs of the companies, the citizens and the City. When located on a City owned property, a telecommunications tower is The proposal includes the installation of an 80-foot high telecommunications monopole tower along with antennae. The application also includes the installation ofa fenced equipment area approximately 20 feet by 36 feet in area (720 square feet). A 10-foot wide access easement is proposed across the Recreation Center parking area to provide for routine maintenance of the facility. The applicant proposes to provide power to the facility from an existing pole located to the north west of the tower. An additional easement is proposed across the north side of the Rec. Center site in order to provide access to fiber optics and power. The precise location oft these easements will be subject to review and  allowed use in the R-4 zoning district.  considered aj permitted use and does not require aj public hearing.  approval by impacted City departments.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May 2, 2017  Page Iof4    The applicant has indicated that they are willing to install a 60-foot tall tower instead of the 80 foot tower. However, the installation of a lower tower will limit the ability for Co-location by other providers in the future. Co-location is encouraged by City Code in order to minimize the number of towers in the City. The 80 foot height requested is consistent with other towers installed in the City including the tower at Mueller Park Junior High. The proposed tower is effectively screened from public view to the south by the Rec. Center building and is located several hundred feet from 200 West and Main Street. The closest of the existing residences is approximately 150 feet from the proposed tower and a large tree exists between the tower and the residence. The conditions below include a The proposed tower will create visual impacts to adjoining properties. Impacts to traffic and existing Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of preliminary and final site pan approval for the requested elecommunications tower subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall meet all requirements oft the Bountiful Power Department. 2. Provide easement documents, including legal descriptions for review and approval by the City. 3. The communications tower shall not exceed 30 inches in diameter at the base and shall taper to 4. The maximum tower height allowed shall be 80'. Antennas and appurtenances shall not extend 6. At no point shall any part of an antenna array, including the antenna pads, extend more than 80" 7. The tower shall be constructed in such a way to allow for at least three different services, meaning the original applicant equipment and two co-locations on the same tower. 8. The applicant shall consent to at least two future co-locations on the tower. 9. The applicant shall obtain al building permit before commencing construction.  maximum width for pole and the antennae array in order to mitigate visual impacts.  utilities are expected to be minimal.  no more than 20 inches in diameter at the top oft the pole. 5. The color oft the tower is to be determined by staff.  more than 6 feet above the tower.  inches from the exterior oft the communications tower pole.  10. Any and all fees shall be paid.  Mr. White stated that the closest tower to the proposed location is located at Viewmont High School Tom Smith made a motion that the Planning Commission pass ai recommendation to the City Council for preliminary and final site plan approval for a Verizon Telecommunication Tower at the South Davis Recreation Center located at 5501 N 200 West with the ten conditions outlined by staff. Sharon Spratley seconded the motion. Voting passed 5-0 with Commission members Badham, Bell, Monson, 4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider approval for 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 McArthur, The applicants, Robert McArthur and Alan Mortensen, have requested a variance to allow for a parking space within the required front yard setback area of a property he developed at 157 W: 300 South. The property is located in the RM-19 zoning district and is part of the DuMc Planned Unit  and the new tower will offload the strain oft the existing tower.  Smith and Spratley voting aye.  applicant.  Development.  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May 2, 2017  Page 2 of4    Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance requests related The applicant has requested a variance to allow an existing driveway and parking area constructed at 157 W 300 South to remain. The DuMc Planned Unit Development was originally approved in 2013 as a three unit multifamily development. The site plan approved by the City Council and Planning Commission did not include the driveway and parking space and the site plan approved as part of the building permit set did not include the driveway and parking space. Subsequent to the issuance oft the building permit for the site, the driveway was constructed and was discovered during a bond release inspection by City Engineering staff. The driveway approach for the parking space was constructed without permit and does not meet City standards for driveway approaches. The City initiated enforcement action in order to obtain compliance with the Code and the applicant has elected to The parking space in question does not meet the standards for the RM-19 zone. Section 14-5-105 (A) states that, "No dwellings, parking spaces, or other site elements, other than sidewalks, landscaping, and approved driveways may be allowed in the front setback". Additionally, Section 14-5-117 states that, "Driveway and parking areas in multifamily projects shall be designed SO that vehicles do not The staff report for the original Planning Commission review of the item noted that the units "are effectively attached single family dwellings, and SO the parking standard, driveway width, etc, applied are those for single family dwellings." Single family residential requirements include a minimum 35 foot separation between driveways located on the same property and a restriction on parking of vehicles within a required front yard except for on an approved, paved driveway. Whether the development is treated as a single family dwelling or a multi-family dwelling, the driveway does not meet the standards of the Land Use ordinance. The applicant has suggested that the development be deemed a townhome style" residential development in order to utilize an exemption in the multifamily zone standards. However, this is inconsistent with the original approval and would still not address the parking of vehicles in the front yard which is prohibited in the multifamily zoning The applicant submitted photographs of existing driveways and parking spaces throughout Bountiful. Some of the driveway examples appear to be illegally constructed with several of the examples using metal plates or ramps instead of a legally constructed driveway to access aj parking area. Others appear to access the parking areas by mounting the curb. This is expressly prohibited in the Code. The existence of other non-permitted and/or illegal driveways is not aj justification for a variance. Variance Findings in Utah State Code were included in the Planning Commission packet and in the Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow for a parking space in the required front yard of a multifamily development in the RM-19 zone. Staff recommends removal of the parking space and driveway leading to the parking space in order to comply with the approved site plan and  toj parking and setbacks.  request a variance rather than removing the noncompliant driveway.  back on aj public street."  standards.  applicant's file.  the standards ofthe Land Use Ordinance.  Applicants discussed the reasons of] hardship tol keep the driveway.  1. Buffer from storage 2. Visual buffer power plant  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May. 2, 2017  Page3of4    3. Off street parking 4. Public Safety access 5. Beautification  6. Security and safety from other properties Chair Monson opened the Public Hearing at 6:59 p.m.  Larry Dupax resides at 145 W 300 South. Mr. Dupax worked with Mr. McArthur in 2013 to present this project for approval and believes that the driveway is functional and creates benefit to the Alan Mortensen resides at 157 W 300 South. Mr. Mortenson purchased the subject property and loves  community. It creates a buffer from the storage units and improves the area.  the house and wants to stay in the downtown area. Chair Monson closed the Public Hearing at 7:03 p.m.  Commission members and staff discussed the code that allows for a second driveway or a circular driveway. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the existing approved plans on record don't meet the requirements for a driveway in a single family zone or a multifamily zone. The commission members agreed with the fit and aesthetics of the driveway but also agreed that it did not meet the code Sharon Spratley made a motion to deny the requested variance to allow for a parking space in the required front yard ofai multifamily development in the RM-19 zone. Jesse Bell seconded the motion. Voting passed 4-1 with Commission members Badham, Bell, Monson, and Spratley voting aye with Mr. Wilkinson stated that this issue is currently with the prosecutor's office and will be working out an  requirements.  Smith voting nay.  option for the sidewalk/curb cut.  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 7:16  p.m.  Chad Wilkinson, Bountiful City Planner  Bountiful City Planning Commission Minutes - May 2,2017  Page 4of4    Item #3  Commission Staff Report  Item:  PUBLIC HEARING - Request for a variance in order to allow installation ofa 61 to7-foot fence within the  required front yard May 16, 2017  Address: 2933 Lewis Park Cove  BOUNTIFUL EST.1892  Author: Date:  Chad Wilkinson, Planning Director  Description of Request  The applicant, Rudy Larsen, has requested a variance to allow for installation ofa 6t to 7-foot high  fence within the front yard oft the residence located at 2933 Lewis Park Cove.  Authority  Section 14-2-111 authorizes the Planning Commission as the review body for variance  requests related to fencing. Background and Analysis:  The applicant is requesting a variance to allow fora6 6-7 foot tall fence within the required front yard. Section 14- 16-110 (B) limits thel height off 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 al 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 ofthe creek. A narrative prepared by the applicant explaining the request is attached to this report. The predominant issuei is safety and providing aj physical barrier toj prevent falls into the deep creek/culvert area in this location. The applicant has also submitted an e-mail from Davis Countyi 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 quicklytransition One note not related to the variance is that the pool shown on the applicant's future plan will require the combination oft the two lots. Accessory structures and uses, such as the pool, are not  back to the required 25 foot front yard setback on the other side ofthe creek.  allowed on a lot without a primary use.  Variance Findings  Utah Code 10-9a-702 establishes the criteria for review of a variance request. In orderto  grant a variance each of the following criteria must be met:    () Literal enforcement oft the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose ofthe land use  ordinances;  Staff Response: 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 oft the ordinance is to provide for open areas adjacent to the street and limit fence height in front yards, thel location oft the creek and culvert is a unique circumstance not anticipated by the land use ordinance. Because the variance should be limited to the minimum necessary to overcome the hardship, the height of the fence should (i) There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally vapply Staff Response: The location ofthe creek and culvert constitute a special circumstance that does (iii) Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment ofa substantial property right Staff Response: Other property owners have a right to a 4-foot open style fence in their front yard. In this case, because oft the culvert and creek location, a four-foot fence would not] provide enough ofa 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 (iv) The variance will notsubstantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to Staff Response: Providing a barrier between thej public sidewalk and the culvert crossing is in keeping with thej public interest as long as access is maintained for Davis County Flood Control (v) The spirit ofthe land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice done Staff Response: The applicant has limited the encroachment oft the proposed fence into the front yard area to the minimum required to enclose the culvert. These limits are  bel limited to six feet.  to other properties in the: same zone;  not apply generally to properties in the neighborhood.  possessed by other property in the same zone;  will potentially collect debris and could contribute to flooding.  the public interest;  maintenance.  consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.  Department Review  City Planner, City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Police Department    Recommended Action  Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow fora a 6-foot tall fence within the required 1. Maintain access for Davis County Flood Control with size and type of access to be  front yard subject to the following conditions:  determined by the County.  Attachments 1. Aerial Photo 2. Applicant's Narrative  Aerial Photo  3041 Ganygoa  GoogleEarth  GAPLAMVarianes2933 Lewis Park Cove-Larsen Fence/PCVariance Report- 29331 Lewis Park Cove Larsen) Fence 5-16-17.docx    Bountiful City  RE: Larsen's Home 2933 Lewis Park Cove Variance Request  Bountiful City Planning Council,  Below you will find our request to install up toa a6to 7-foot fence in our front yard. We wish to only install this fence around the Spring/Creek: which runs through our front yard and under the street (Lewis Park Cove)' Wel believe that installing this fence will benefit Bountiful City and our Community. The reason for this is the creek now: stands 20 feet wide and 101 feet deep (see photo 1 below), only inches away from the sidewalk (see photo 21 below). Even the current fence sits 8-10 inches below the sidewalk. This is an enormous risk and problem for neighbors and any children or teenagers, as many of these kids love to climb over and play and through rocks in the creek. To date we have had 1 young man named Blake Finklea (see photo 3 below) who has fallen into the creek and cut open his head, requiring him to We also believe iti is in the best interest of the Larsen's to install at taller fence to insure our neighboring kids are kept safe and reduce anyl liability or risk that we might have due to the Spring located on our  get 10 stitches.  property.  Wet thank you in advance for your time and consideration of our Variance.  Rudy Larsen  a  Photo #3  Photo #2  Photo #1    What city ordinance do you want a variance, from?  14-16-110 Fence Wall and Lighting Standards for a Single Family or Two Family Dwelling B. Ini the minimum front yard setback area, an open style fence shall be a maximum of (4) feet in  height.  How does the proposed variance request meet all of these criteria?  2.-A.-i- Hardships that may include additional liability to the Larsen's if someone was to get 2.-A.-ii-There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally Our home is one of the only homes in the neighborhood that has the Creek/Spring running through our front yard. We wish to install al larger fence (upi to 6-7f ft) then the maximum 41 foot allowed. Additionally, where our front yard and creek is located there is no more than 61 inches from the sidewalk before the area drops down 101 ft to hard stone. Other people in the same zone have the creek in their  seriously hurt or injured.  apply to others int the same zone.  backyard or they have a nice slope down to the creek. front yard due to the possible liability or fear of possible injury.  2.-A.-ii-lft there is no fence or only a small fence allowed it may limit the ability to enjoy our 2.-A.-iv- We believe that a taller fence will bei int the best interest of the communityand 2.-A.-V- We don't see how this may impact the spirit oft the land ordinance.  neighborhood as it will add additional safety.    Louss  Auk Coze  y 2    Coze  3  1023  1333: 7  25  Lenl-    Neighboring Fence Across Street -  MOUNT STATESF SALTLAKECI 801-261-4    Rudy Larsen From: Sent: To: Subject:  Rudy Larsen Friday, April 28, 2017.4:49PM Rudy Larsen  FW: Culvert Fence Stream Permit No. 16-31-0001  From: Robert Smith oberl@odAYSILuR Date: April 28, 2017 at 7:10:01 AMMDT To: Carson Jensen curon@laynbuter.ne  Subject: Re: Culvert Fence- Stream Permit No. 16-31-0001  Carson, Iwill need hinged gates over the box culvert. Bolted would take tol long to undo in the event of an emergency. Adam Wright, Davis County Public Works Director, isi in agreement with the hinged gates.I understand that you will remove the existing chain link fence when the new fence is installed. Let me. know ift that is correct. Bountiful City may contact either of us if  they need anything. Robert B. Smith Operations Manager Davis County Public Works  On' Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Carson Jensen aronlwnbuler.ne wrote:  Robert,  We are currently working with the City ofBountiful to obtain a variance on the fence height within the 25' setback oflots #614 and #615 in the Lewis Park Phase 6 subdivision. Asyou may be aware we originally installed the same perimeter fence which wel have installed thorough out this project (see attached photos). The owner received a letter from Bountiful City indicating non-compliance oft the 25' setback. According to Bountiful City code 4' fences are currently permitted; we would like to extend that height to 6'-7' with approval ofthe city. As part of the variance process Bountiful City has requested that we gain County approval as well. What can we do to appease Davis County in this matter? It would be my proposal to install access like the 15' right of way along the creek. We can make the (2) panels above the culvert easily removeable for County access. Ifthis is not sufficient for the needs oft the County we can installed hinged panels for quicker access. Please let mel know if either of these  solutions would meet the minimum requirements for the County.  Please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns. Otherwise your final approval and  direction would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks,    Chrbsen Carson Jensen  Lawn Butler I 86 South 1250 West Centerville, Utah 84014 Cell (801)664-5524 I Office (801)298-3330 I Fax (801)335-0506  CONQUERING EXPECTATIONS  lB  Robert B. Smith Operations Manager Davis County Public Works 801-444-2230  2    Commission Staff Report  Item #4  Subject: Address: Author: Date:  Final PUD Plat Approval for Enclave PUD  50 East 3100: South City Engineer May 16, 2017  Department: Engineering, Planning  BOUNTIFUL EST.1847  Background  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.  Analysis  To review, the proposed PUD consists of 5 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 the  Preliminary Plat/Final Site Plan approval on April 18, mentioned: above.  Department Review Department. Recommendation  The proposed final 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 and staff recommends the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation fori final approval to the City Council. 1. Post al bond to cover the costs of construction of required site improvements. 3. Prior to building permit, submit a final landscape plan meeting the requirementso of  2. Make all necessary red line corrections to the drawings. Chapter 16 of the Bountiful City Zoning Ordinance.  4. Payment of all required fees. 5. Provide a current Title Report. 6. Sign a Development Agreement with the City  Significant Impacts  This places 5 homes where there has historically only been one home and a corn field. The corresponding increase to storm water runoff and traffic on 1000 North and 200 West will be  minor and will not have a detrimental effect ont the surrounding area.    Attachments  Lovely color aerial photo oft the property in its existing condition.  Copy of the final plat  Aerial Photo of The Enclave PUD  pud'slenclave pud, robertg gibson, 2017pcf final pudp plata approval enclave pud, may 2017.docx    5944934333939594  APPPPBBPPPBBPAE  5835  BPBBBBDBDODODDEBDDBEBBE59B969BDDDD  PEPBPBPDRABAE  FF  MBHIYN  Bi  J4D,A0S JEIHIS ISIMOOZ        Item #5  BOUNTIFUL CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS Robert McArthur and Alan Mortensen Request for a variance in order to allow parking within the required front yard setback.  APPLICANT: APPLICATION TYPE:  I.  DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:  The applicants, Robert McArthur and Alan Mortensen, have requested a variance to allow for a parking space within the required front yard setback area of a property he developed at 157 W: 300 South. The property is located in the RM-19 zoning district and is part of the DuMc Planned Unit  Development.  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 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 ini 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 2, 2017 which are attached as Exhibit B summarize the oral testimony presented and are hereby  incorporated herein. FINDINGS OF FACT:  V.  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 additional parking space and driveway were not discussed at the Planning Commission or City Council meetings approving the development. In addition, the site plan approved with the building permit did not include the extra parking space. 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 compliance B. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the district;  with the original approval.  The applicant has listed several special circumstances including proximity to a power plant, a drug rehabilitation center and personal storage units as justification for a variance. In order for a special circumstance to be considered in granting a variance, it must relate to the standards for which the applicant seeks a relief. The applicant does not indicate how an extra parking space addresses or provides relief from the proximity to the power plant, or storage units or the drug rehab facility. The parking space does not provide buffering to surrounding uses, and is not needed for emergency access to the property. Replacing the parking space with landscaping would more effectively buffer the residential unit  from the neighboring storage use.    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 submitted photos of other driveways in the City that do not appear to meet the standards of the Code. Many of these are non-permitted driveways that violate the ordinance. These non-permitted and/or illegal driveways are not aj justification for a variance. D. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will  not be contrary to the public interest;  Alimitation on the number and location of driveways and parking areas within required front yards is in the public interest. The development was approved in conjunction with a site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Requiring compliance with the approved site plan is also in the public E. The spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial  interest. justice done  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 a front yard provide opportunities for additional landscape areas in front yards which enhances the beauty of the community.  VI. DECISION AND SUMMARY  The Planning Commission denied the variance request to allow parking in the required front yard. The vote on the motion to deny was 4-1.  VII. FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVED BY THE Bountiful City Planning  Commission this  day of May 2017.  Sean Monson, Chair  Bountiful City Planning Commission  GAPLANVatiances157 W: 300 South- McArthur157 W: 300 SI Macarthur Variance Findings ofF Fact.doc