Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Petition No. PLNBOA North I Street Public Hearing: November 7, 2012

Transcription

1 APPEALS HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT Applicant: Mark Taylor, property owner Staff: Thomas Irvin (801) Tax ID: Current Zone: SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Petition No. PLNBOA North I Street Public Hearing: November 7, 2012 Master Plan Designation: Low-Density 4-8 Units per Gross Acre Avenues Master Plan (Adopted July 1987) Council District: Council District 3, Stan Penfold Community Council: Greater Avenues Community Council John K. Johnson (Chair) Lot Size: 4,620 square feet (0.11 acre) Current Use: Single Family Dwelling Applicable Land Use Regulations: 21A.18 Variances 21A SR-1A Special Residential Zoning District 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures Notification: Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting websites October 22, 2012 Notices Mailed on October 23, 2012 Property posted on October 24, 2012 Attachments: A. Site Plan & Elevation Drawings. B. Photographs C. Additional Applicant Information Planning Division Department of Community & Economic Development Request The applicant, Mark Taylor, is requesting approval of a variance for a 567 square foot detached accessory structure within the SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District. Salt Lake City s Zoning Ordinance limits the surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings to 40% of the lot area. The proposed accessory building would exceed this requirement by 222 square feet. Additionally, the SR-1A zoning district limits a principal accessory building to 480 square feet. The owner s proposal exceeds this by 87 square feet. The Appeals Hearing Officer has final decision authority for a variance petition. In order to approve the petition, the Appeals Hearing Officer must find that all of the standards for a variance are met. Recommendation Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff s opinion that the project does not satisfy the required standards of review and therefore recommends the Appeals Hearing Officer deny the request. 1

2 Vicinity Map Project Information Project Description This proposal is for a 567 square foot garage to replace an existing garage at 369 North I Street. The proposed garage would be located in the rear yard and be accessed from a private right of way. Initially, the owners submitted for a Special Exception to exceed the height limitations of the SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential Zoning District. Upon review, staff noted that the construction of the garage would also exceed the 40% lot coverage requirement for which there is no Special Exception process. The owner s contention is that since their property is undersized for the zoning district and many other garages in the neighborhood are similarly sized, they have a property related hardship for which a variance should be granted. Additionally, since the adjoining alley is not public, it cannot be used in determining coverage. Under the coverage requirement, they could only construct a 345 square foot garage which would not be large enough to allow for two vehicles. 2

3 Project Details Regulations for Accessory Buildings in the SR-1A Special Proposed Compliance Residential District Maximum Building Coverage in the Zone: 40% 44.8% NO 50 % Maximum Rear Yard Coverage 35% YES 50% or Less of the Footprint of the Principal Structure 37.7% YES 480 Square Feet Maximum Size for Primary Accessory Structure 567 NO 14 Foot Height Limit for Pitched Roof Structures 19 ½ Feet NO (Can Apply for a Special Exception) Section 21A B.2 of the Zoning Ordinances states the following: Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least four hundred eighty (480) square feet of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection B1 of this section. This allowance does not address the maximum building coverage requirement of the zoning district. Comments Public Comments No Public comments have been received at the time of this writing. Transportation Division Comments Barry Walsh, Engineering Technician VI of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, reviewed the request and submitted the following comments: The existing site (2010 aerial photo) shows an auxiliary building single stalls garage /shed 12x16 = 192 SF. For a standard two stall garage with 9 stalls and a one foot buffer next to walls is 20 deep and 21 wide for 420 SF. The applicant is proposing a 21 x27 building 567 SF for an additional storage area of 147 SF. I would recommend some compromise from the 345 SF allowed to provide for the current two car on site stall requirement. Analysis Options If the Appeals Hearing Officer denies the variance, the owner would have the right to construct a new 345 Square foot garage after demolishing the existing one. He could also provide hard-surfacing in the rear yard for vehicle parking where there is sufficient space. If the Appeals Hearing Officer approves the variance, the Appeals Hearing Officer must find the proposal complaint with all five of the approval standards. The approval of a variance does not authorize construction of the garage, it simply authorizes the submittal of a building permit for the garage and modifies the zoning regulations specifically authorized. 3

4 Findings General Standards of Review The standards of review for a variance are set forth in the Utah Code and Salt Lake City Code 21A , which standards are provided below. If the Appeals Hearing Officer finds that the following standards are met, then the variance to allow an additional monument sign may be granted. Standards 1: Does literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance? Section 21A B of Salt Lake City s Zoning Ordinance provides direction to the Appeals Hearing Officer in determining if an unreasonable hardship exists. Specifically, it states that the Appeals Hearing Officer may not find an unreasonable hardship unless: 1. The alleged hardship is related to the size, shape or topography of the property for which the variance is sought; and 2. The alleged hardship comes from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions that are general to the neighborhood. 3. The alleged hardship is not self-imposed or economic Findings: The minimum lot area and width for a single-family home in the SR-1A Special Residential District is 5,000 square feet with a 50 foot width. The subject property is 4,620 square feet with a 35 foot width. The average of all lots on the same block face is just over 5,000 square feet with the majority having around 40 feet of width. These facts do limit the potential size of a new garage after taking into account the size of the existing home. Lot coverage limitations in the ordinance are determined by percentages. This means that similar property rights are granted to each property based on the size of the lot. Smaller lots have less development rights than larger ones. Salt Lake City s Zoning Ordinance defines lot area as: The total area within the property lines of the lot plus one-half (1/2) the right of way area of an adjacent public alley. Since the private right-of-way adjacent to the property is not public, it cannot be used in determining the lot coverage. Salt Lake City has a policy of not maintaining public alleys and provides a process to vacate them. Since the long rang goal is to have public alleys incorporated into adjacent properties, owners have been allowed to include half of their square footage when determining lot coverage. In this circumstance, the city does not have control of the private right-of-way and cannot direct its future use. If the private right-of-way could be used, the owner would be able to construct a 480 square foot garage. The SR-1A limitation of only allowing 480 square foot primary accessory buildings would still be applicable and the proposed 567 square foot garage would not be allowed. Staff finds the size and shape of the lot do create difficulties in the construction of a garage, and that these circumstances are indeed peculiar to the property, however, after taking these facts into account, they still do not justify the size of the structure the owner is requesting. Even if the lot was larger and the alley a public one, the size of proposed garage would not be permitted. Standard 2. Are there special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district? 4

5 Section 21A D provides direction to the Appeals Hearing Officer in determining whether or not there are special circumstances attached to the property. Specifically, it states that the Appeals Hearing Officer may find that special circumstances exist only if: 1. The special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship; and 2. The special circumstances deprive the property of privileges granted to other properties in the same zoning district. Findings: There are two special circumstances noted by the applicant; the slightly undersized lot dimensions and the fact that the adjacent alley is private and not public. As mentioned earlier, the use of public alleys in calculating coverage is a policy intended to support the eventual vacating of these properties and is not applicable for private right-of-ways. Building coverage limitations are uniformly applied to all properties in the zone which means smaller parcels with less development potential. In this case, the size of the home that was built has created a situation where there is limited building coverage remaining for accessory buildings. This circumstance is self-imposed and not directly related to the size of the parcel. Staff finds that the slightly smaller lot is a special circumstance, but since lot coverage requirements are applied uniformly, it is not directly responsible for depriving the owners of having a reasonably sized garage. The size of the home is the primary cause of this limitation. Standard 3. Is granting the variance essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same district? Findings: All properties in the SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District are limited to only having a 480 square foot principal accessory dwelling. While having a garage may be considered a substantial property right, the size of the garage is not. Staff does not find that constructing the garage as proposed is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right. Standard 4. Will the variance substantially affect the general plan of the City or be contrary to the public interest? Findings: The Avenues Community Future Land Use Map designates this parcel as low density residential (4 to 8 units per gross acre). The requested variance would not affect this designation as the primary land use will not change from single family residential. Standard 5. Is the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance observed and substantial justice done? Findings: Section 21A of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states: The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly single-family and two-family dwelling neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The intent of the proposal is to construct a garage that provides sufficient space for two vehicles to park. This use is compatible with the SR-1A District; however, the applicant is seeking more than the minimum square footage required to meet this need. All other properties in the neighborhood are also limited to the 480 square foot maximum standard. Staff finds that since this request involves more than would be allowed for an appropriately sized lot, approving it would not afford substantial justice or uphold the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance. 5

6 ATTACHMENT A Site Plan & Elevation Drawings 6

7 Proposed Size Plan Proposed Elevations 7

8 ATTACHMENT B Photographs 8

9 Subject Property Adjacent Private Right-Of-Way Existing Accessory Building Rear Yard of Subject Property Private Right-Of-Way 9

10 ATTACHMENT C Applicants Written Request 10

11 11

12 12

13 13