OCR Text |
Show It was only one-acre, but Bountiful Council denies zoning request By GARY R. BLODGETT BOUNTIFUL - After two hours of public hearing, Bountiful City Council denied a request for rezon-ing rezon-ing of a one-acre lot on Orchard Drive from residential to commercial. commer-cial. The three-member council, in attendance at-tendance for the last regularly scheduled meeting of the year, denied de-nied the zoning request by Glen E. Jessup to change the designation of his property at 1950 South Orchard Drive from Neighborhood 9 District 5 to Neighborhood 9 District 6 (commercial). Several residents of the area voiced opposition to the rezoning, and asked the council why Jessup's property should be rezoned at the sacrifice of others who live in the area? Most of those who opposed the rezoning told the council that traffic on Orchard Drive has increased substantially in recent years and that nearby businesses have created additional traffic congestion. They admitted that the vacant lot for the past 30 years has been an eyesore to the neighborhood. "But we can live with this type of a situation situa-tion better than having all the problems prob-lems which an additional business to the area would bring," they agreed. Jessup petitioned the council for the rezoning to allow a "wider range of options for development of the property and utilize the best use for the vacant land." Some uses other than residences are already permitted under the present pre-sent zoning ordinance, it was explained. ex-plained. These include permitted use of churches and schools and conditional use of duplexes, a bank, professional office building, a private school, library and a museum. mu-seum. The zoning request, had it been approved, would have extended uses to include a service station, bank, commercial goods and services ser-vices (convenience store), department depart-ment store, general comparison sales, business offices, professional offices, and restaurant Options available under conditional condi-tional use include multi-family (apartments and condominiums), laundromat and fast-food restaurant. restau-rant. Although it was not an issue before the council during the rezoning rezon-ing proposal, Jessup recommended to the council that he intended to. develop the property to feature a single "home-style" building with four or five shops within. These shops could be a boutique, dry cleaners, flower shop, copy and mail center, beauty shop and barber shop. 5 ' The council cautioned Jessup that if the property was rezoned under the city's neighborhood-district format any property within that area could be developed under the extended commercial zoning. Neighbors complained that the vacant lot is being used as a dumping dump-ing ground for trash and even the' unloading of cement trucks. Jessup said he knew this was happening, but that he could not stand guard over the property nor could he expect ex-pect the city (police) to have constant cons-tant surveillance. A petition with 225 signatures of residents of the area protesting the rezoning request was given to the council. Protesting residents said they were most concerned that a service station and convenience store would be built on the site, but would oppose most businesses that would be permitted under the zoning zon-ing ordinance. A spokesperson for Jessup emphasized, em-phasized, however, that a convenience conve-nience store would not be considered con-sidered because sale of beer would be essential for the success of the business and this would not be possible under city ordinance because of the "close proximity" of the property to churches in the area. |