BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 18, 2010 The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment on Zoning for Salt Lake City, Utah, was held on Monday, October 18, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. at the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in Room 326. Members present were Edward Radford (Chairperson), Gary Jones, and Catherine Dunn. Cheri Coffey (Assistant Planning Director), Lex Traughber (Senior Planner), John Anderson (Principal Planner), Elizabeth Reining (Principal Planner), Anna Anglin (Principal Planner), Josh Beach (Planning Intern), Michael Maloy (Senior Planner) and Paul Nielson (Senior Attorney for Salt Lake City Attorney s Office) were also present. Board of Adjustment Members Ken Bullock, Tom Berggren and Rod Julander were not present. Chairperson Radford called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. He informed those present that the Members of the Board have visited the properties and the testimony given during the meeting is recorded. Mr. Radford further explained a simple majority vote (or three concurring votes in some cases) is necessary to pass or defeat a motion. All decisions of the Board of Adjustment are made effective immediately and may be appealed to the Third Judicial District Court. The appeal must be filed within 30 days from the day the Notice of Decision is posted on the City s website the following day of the meeting. Administrative Session 5:51:06 PM Mr. Jones made a motion for the Board of Adjustment to approve the September 20, 2010 minutes. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote 5:52:25 PM Director s Report Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director announced Salt Lake City Planning has new employees on the Planning Staff some of whom would make the presentations including two interns who worked with Staff on projects. They were introduced as the meeting progressed. 5:52:43 PM Public Session PLNBOA2010-00553 Sondrup Residence Variance: a request by Todd Sondrup for 2 Variances on his property located at approximately 1369 South 900 East. The Variance would allow an addition to the home that would extend into the required side yard setback by 4 feet 4 inches and to allow an air-conditioning condenser unit to be located 3 feet from the property rather than the required 4 feet. The property is located in the R-1/5000 Zoning District. John Anderson, Principal Planner stated, the request is from Mr. Todd Sondrup who requested 2 Variances at 1369 South 900 East located in the R1/5000 Zone. The requested Variances would allow 1
the Applicant to construct an addition to the south side of the structure extending 4 feet 4 inches into the required 10 foot side yard setback and allow air-conditioning condensing units to be placed 3 feet from the north property line rather than the required 4 feet. Mr. Anderson presented pictures of the property and reviewed the location of the addition and air-conditioning units. Mr. Anderson said, based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, it is Staff s recommendation for the Variances to be denied due to the fact the requests do not meet the five standards for a Variance and a hardship was not proven. Mr. Jones asked if the recommendation was to deny both Variances. Mr. Anderson stated yes. The initial hardship claim refers to the narrow nature of the lot. It was found throughout the neighborhood and listed that along the block face there are numerous lots with less than the required 50 foot minimum width including one with only 21 feet so Staff did not feel there was a hardship and was simply a characteristic of the neighborhood. The second request was for the airconditioning units to be placed in a required side yard setback and requires the Applicant to adhere to Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulations. Salt Lake Valley Health Department regulations allow for a maximum of 50 decibels of noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The specification sheet submitted by the Applicant stated the lowest number of decibels emitted from the units was 70. Obviously there was not a way to prove what the neighbors will hear but there was not any evidence that the number would be lower than stated. Chairperson Radford asked for questions. Hearing none Mr. Sondrup was asked to come forward. Todd Sondrup, 815 East 300 South, Salt Lake City, stated all the lots in the neighborhood are quite narrow. The reason the addition was constructed at the current size was to try to allow for some cross ventilation in the east/west direction. Mr. Sondrup discussed the air-conditioner placement. It was his understanding that Variances for the three foot rule were granted frequently. He stated there is not a better location to put the air-conditioners. If the air-conditioners are not located there he is not sure they would be allowed at all. Mr. Jones asked if the units could be located in the rear of the home. Mr. Sondrup stated the units would be sitting on a patio hindering the full use of the patio. Ms. Dunn inquired about the amount of buildable space in the backyard as it exists to the property line, keeping in mind there has to be a setback. Mr. Sondrup stated the width is 39 feet with the 2 Variances which leaves 25 feet of buildable space. Ms. Dunn asked Mr. Soundrup to restate why the units could not be located in the back yard. Mr. Sondrup stated the units would sit on a patio and he was unsure how long the air-conditioning cords would be if the cords would have to be buried or located above ground. Mr. Soundrup was concerned over the hazard the cords would create and if the units would properly operate with the added distance. 2
Chairperson Radford asked for further questions, hearing none he opened the meeting for public comment. Members of the Public were not present to speak for or against the issue. Chairperson Radford Closed the Public Hearing. Chairperson Radford asked if Mr. Sondrup had any further information regarding the issue he would like the Board to hear. Mr. Sondrup asked the Board to grant the Variances. If the room was built smaller it would be of no use, currently it is only 8 feet wide. Mr. Soundrup stated without an operating window it will probably get pretty hot in the summertime. 6:00:10 PM The meeting was taken into executive session. Chairperson Radford asked for discussion or a motion. He reminded the Board this is a Variance so it had to meet all five conditions by law. Ms. Dunn stated as she looked through the standard and felt the project failed on all five standards. Therefore, the Variances could not be granted. Mr. Jones explained under the State Statute the Board could not approve the Variances even though only a foot was needed for a side yard and few feet were needed for the extension. The project did not satisfy the requirements. Mr. Jones stated the Applicant will have to decide to move the air-conditioners into the backyard and not have the patio or go without the unit altogether. 6:01:40 PM Mr. Jones moved that from the evidence and testimony presented that the Board of Adjustment deny the Variances that would allow the Applicant to construct an addition, to the existing structure, extending 4 feet into the 10 foot required side yard and the placement of air-conditioner condenser units to be installed 3 feet from the property line rather than the required 4 feet. The subject property is located at approximately 1369 South 900 East. The project does not meet the standards for a Variance under the City Code and State Law. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote 6:02:36 PM PLNBOA2010-00386, Rich Special Exception for Unit Legalization : A request by Joseph Rich for a Special Exception to allow the legalization of four (4) dwelling units located at approximately 972 East Garfield Avenue (1875-1850 South). The property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single- Family Residential Zoning District and in City Council District Seven. Mr. Lex Traughber, Senior Planner announced BreAnne McConkie, Planning Intern, would be presenting the case. Mr. Traughber offered to assist as needed. Ms. BreAnne McConkie, Planning Intern, stated Mr. Rich requested the Board of Adjustment grant a Special Exception for legalization of four dwelling units. Based on Staff s research, records found indicated only three dwelling units since 1970 have been used consistently. Ms. McConkie presented photos of the property depicting the layout and location of the proposed 4 units. Based on the findings 3
listed in the Staff Report, Planning Staff believes the project does not meet the applicable standards for a Special Exception and therefore, recommended the Board of Adjustment deny the request. Chairperson Radford said he noticed, staff requested the applicant to present evidence of three or four dwelling units and the applicant did not respond. Ms. McConkie stated that was correct. The request for additional documentation regarding the number of units on the property was not answered. Based on Staff s research, three dwelling units have been continuously used since 1970 and therefore meet the standards for three separate dwelling units at the subject property. Chairperson Radford asked how the petition was advertised. Was it advertised for three or four dwelling units? Mr. Paul Neilson, City Attorney stated the hearing was advertised for four units and as long as the number of units approved does not exceed four units, as advertised, a motion to allow three units would be allowed. Ms. Dunn asked which of the units in question has been used continually. Ms. McConkie stated the Polk Directory indicated the occupancy of each unit varied from year to year. Mr. Jones inquired if the Applicant was asking for three or four units to be legalized. Ms. McConkie stated the Applicant asked for four, but proof of consistent use as three is all that was found. In order for the Board to approve four units there would have to be records proving consistent use of the four units. Mr. Jones clarified, there are three units of record proving continuous use and those units met the standards for the Special Exception. Mr. Traughber stated research from the Polk Directory only supported the consistent use of three of the units. The Applicant requested the legalization of four units. Staff s recommendation was to deny the fourth unit. However, keeping in mind there is evidence that supported consistent use for three units, Staff would recommend approval of three units. Mr. Jones asked what constituted the denial of the fourth unit. He asked if the utilities were separately billed or billed all as one. Mr. Traughber stated the lack of the consistent use of the unit constituted the denial of the fourth unit. Staff requested utility bills and tax records proving the number of units. However, the Applicant did not produce this information. Consistent use of the four units could not be established. The Polk Directory states there was consistent use of three units. The Board and Mr. Traughber discussed the use of the property and the records indicating which units were occupied. The exact address for which units were used and which units were not used was not 4
available. The Board discussed how to justify three units and not four units on the property with the evidence presented and available to the Board. Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, asked Mr. Traughber to report on the parking issues on the property and if all of the units complied with the health and safety standards. Mr. Traughber reported the history of the project that actually started in 1996 and was bounced back and forth between Enforcement and Planning. One of the issues was parking. In order to allow four dwelling units on the property, there needs to be four parking spaces. The Transportation Division reviewed the application and the site plan. The parking on the property does not comply with Transportation standards as far as the size and number of spaces is concerned. The second issue is an enforcement issue. The Housing Team has inspected the units on the property and the basement unit does not meet the ceiling height requirement above the stairway and other areas in the unit. Therefore, if the forth unit was approved by the Board the structure must be brought up to code which can be a very costly venture and very difficult. Ms. Dunn asked if it had been the failure to meet the Health and Safety standards that brought Enforcement to the case. Mr. Traughber stated it had actually been before the HAAB (Housing Advisory and Appeals) Board. Mr. Traughber stated that after the HAAB Board reviewed the project, HAAB tabled the issue until the question of the number of legal units recognized could be answered. Even if the four units were approved the Owner would still have to bring this structure up to building code. Ms. Dunn asked if the applicant were not capable of complying with the HAAB Board s recommendations for Health and Safety then what happens. Ms. Dunn questioned if the Applicant would have three units in the structure anyway. Mr. Traughber stated that was correct. Chairperson Radford asked Mr. Rich to step forward. Mr. Joseph Rich, 2207 Berkeley Street, reported the Board received the Polk Directory information in their packet which reflected in 1967; five people started living in the structure. Mr. Rich understood once a person has a phone number that person received an address and establish a residence. He stated he was unaware of the previous letters and problems with the property. There have been four people living in the structure since Mr. Rich has been managing it. However, the directory states there are only three dwelling units. The existing tenant, an 85 year old man, living in 972 ½ has been there since 1977. Mr. Rich s contention was there have been at least four people living there since 1967, and there was a signed affidavit that stated there have been four to five people residing there. Mr. Radford stated the Applicant needed to present evidence proving the occupancy of the structure. Mr. Rich stated because the tenants pay for the power he cannot provide evidence of power bills. The building has one gas meter and one water meter and separate power meters. The tenants all pay their 5
own power bills and he doesn t have access to them. Mr. Rich could have created a spreadsheet that showed there were four tenants and compiled a rent roll, but he figured the Board could say he just created that. Mr. Radford stated the spreadsheet would indicate who lived in which apartment and when they lived there. At this point the Board does not have evidence to support the Applicant s claim and it is up to the Applicant to supply that evidence to the Board. Mr. Rich stated he understood, and noted that the Polk Directory does show there were more than three people living there since 1967. Chairperson Radford stated the Polk Directory has to show four people and where they lived in the structure in order for the Board to legalize four units. Mr. Rich stated it did show four people starting in 1967. In 1977 the basement tenant, who still lives there, was not shown. In some years the basement tenant s name is recorded and in some years it is not. As far as the parking, Mr. Rich was willing to adhere to the requirements for the parking and to make the necessary adjustments to acquire the extra foot for parking. He further stated, as a landlord he was responsible to make sure the units are up to code no matter the cost. Ms. Dunn asked the applicant the meaning of rear unit as noted in the Polk Directory. Mr. Rich stated it was in reference to a back door that was rented as a room but is not rented any longer. He reviewed the floor plan of the structure. Chairperson Radford opened the Public Hearing by asking Mr. Bruce Roundy to step to the microphone. Mr. Bruce Roundy, 958 Garfield Avenue, stated, He has lived here since right after he was born in 1952. It has always been five dwellings in one building. Most of the people lived in the back halves in one bedroom efficiency apartments and never had a phone because they lived there for six months. The tenants have never caused a problem and it has always been a great place to live. Mr. Rich stated he has always tried to be a good neighbor. When he was first asked to help his father - in-law take care of the property there were some bad tenants, however the tenants were evicted and the building was fixed up. The neighbors are great and don t mind the building. The tenants have been good people that try to add to the neighborhood and Mr. Rich hoped the Board approved the petition. Chairperson Radford closed the Public Hearing. 6:26:32 PM The meeting was taken to executive session. Chairperson Radford asked for discussion or a motion regarding the issue. The Board and Staff discussed the options of asking the Applicant to gather more information to prove the use of the structure as a three or four unit building. The Applicant was asked to provide Staff with 6
information however; the Applicant never submitted the information. The Board debated if it was worth extending the time on the petition until a future meeting or not. Mr. Paul Neilson, City Attorney, stated he has been thinking about all the different numbers of units here and one thing that occurred to him was if these units were being used legally when the building was constructed, the Board would be having a different conversation. It would be a conversation regarding determination of a legal non-conforming use. The purpose of this application is to state the units have existed in this location for a long time and there is no indication the units ever existed legally, but the units have sort of been there a long time so the Owners are asking for a Special Exception rather than a confirmation of legality. The difficulty with this is one of the requirements was that the Applicant meet the purposes and requirements of the ordinances and he didn t know if the units could meet the criteria if the building code is not met. Ms. Coffey stated the Building code can be met; it would just be costly to do so. Mr. Neilson stated, if one of the units cannot be legally habited it would be different for the for the Board to approve, but if it can be legally habited then it is a different issue. Mr. Traughber stated Staff did not want to get into that issue, because the issue before the Board is to make the determination as to whether there is evidence of continuous use of X number of units in the structure and whether the units can meet building code or not, is a question that does not pertain to this Board. Mr. Neilson stated it did pertain to the Board. The Board has to find all of the different elements for the Special Exception and one of those elements was if it meets the requirements of the ordinance. In order to meet the requirements of the ordinance a structure has to meet the building code. Mr. Traughber stated the code does not actually say that. The code states evidence of continual use as a unit for X number of years. So whether the Building Code is followed or not is a question that will have to be answered depending on the number of approved dwelling units. Mr. Neilson stated one of the Special Exception criteria was if the Building Code can be met. There are several conditions listed on page six of the staff report- General standards and considerations for Special Exceptions which is 21A.52.-060 compliance with ordinance and district purposes. The proposed use and development will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title was enacted and for which the regulations for the district were established. If the Applicant cannot meet compliance with the ordinance then there is a problem. Ms. Coffey stated typically if it was not an enforcement case that would be correct. Usually standard G states the Applicant would still have to comply with Health Safety Standard of the Housing Code. However, with this being an enforcement case the language is different. Every Unit Legalization that has been approved has been with the understanding that the Applicant still has to comply with our Housing Code. The only reason we know this one might be a little tricky to comply with is because it was an enforcement case and an inspection has been done. 7
Mr. Neilson stated his point is the Applicant has to meet all of the criteria and if they fail one of them it is fatal to the application. Ms. Dunn asked for clarification as to whether this application has to meet all of the standards. She thought the only time an application had to meet all the standards was for a Variance. Mr. Neilson stated he was mistaken. The language states it generally meets the standards. Ms. Coffey read the code language for the Board and individuals present. Mr. Neilson stated the language is unclear so he will retract his statement. Mr. Jones stated essentially it looks as if the Applicant does comply with all of the standards A through G as far as the Staff review goes. Mr. Traughber stated except for the continual use standard, the structure does meet all the requirements of the ordinance. Chairperson Radford asked for a motion or further discussion. Mr. Jones stated he feels like the evidence is there to support three apartment units on this property as far as continued use, the parking and the ordinance. The fourth unit is subject to further review and he is comfortable with recommending the finding of three units may be approved but denying the fourth unit unless further information can be provided by the applicant in the form of rent receipts or tax information. He stated there need to be some evidence that documents the fourth unit has been occupied for a longer period of time. Ms. Dunn asked which three units are recommended to be legalized. Mr. Jones stated he is uncertain which ones have been used more often than others and one unit has been found to not comply with the ordinance for health and safety. Mr. Jones was not sure which units are in compliance with the code and which are not. Mr. Jones was prepared to approve the three but the one that does not meet the code the Board would exclude unless the code can be met and proved at some future time. Chairperson Radford stated a motion, was on the table, that the Board approves Special Exception number PLNBOA2010-00386 to legalize three dwelling units located at 972 East Garfield Avenue because three accessory dwelling units have been continually used, and subject to parking being satisfied and any other ordinances of the City. Ms. Dunn stated she understood that if documentation could be presented to support the fourth unit at a future point in time the fourth unit would possibly be approved. Mr. Neilson stated that would be something that would need to be addressed at a future meeting and would require a separate application. 8
Ms. Dunn asked if the responsibility fell under the Board s purview to double check habitability, safety, and those things. She felt it should be monitored and enforced by HAAB. Mr. Neilson stated the Board of Adjustment members are not the habitability inspectors here. However, as Ms. Coffey pointed out under item G, the structure must comply with additional standards; health, safety and welfare. Ms. Dunn stated it is not listed that way on this application. Mr. Traughber stated Staff did not base their recommendation on that factor. Staff s recommendation is based on the lack of evidence of continuous use. Any sort of compliance with building code is an issue for the HAAB Board to decide because this is an enforcement case. Mr. Neilson stated he agrees with Mr. Traughber and feels the Board is going to have difficulty identifying which three of the units are legal, since the Board has to look at continuous use of the specific units. Chairperson Radford stated a motion to approve three units is on the floor and called for a second? Hearing none the motion failed due to lack of a second. Ms. Dunn moved that the Board of Adjustment table its decision on PLNBOA2009-00386 to another time when the Applicant of this petition has had time to delineate the units so the Board of Adjustment could determine continuous use on each unit. Chairperson Radford stated his understanding from the Staff was they tried to get Mr. Rich to provide records, but Mr. Rich did not comply with the request for information. By Mr. Rich s own admission he stated he could not present the information. Ms. Dunn stated she heard Mr. Rich say he could not present information regarding utilities because the tenants paid their own. But Ms. Dunn did not understand that Mr. Rich was unwilling or could not provide other documentation. Mr. Jones stated Mr. Rich was asked to provide tax records and has not provided the records so why should Mr. Rich be given an extension. Chairperson Radford stated the burden is on the Applicant to justify his application. Ms. Dunn asked for the motion on the floor to be considered. Chairperson Radford asked if the Board of Adjustment would like to give the Applicant thirty days to compile the documentation and what specific actions would be required of the Applicant. Ms. Dunn stated the conditions of the motion would be historical records, whether that would be tax records or whatever the Applicant would be able to produce and anything he could give to the Board to indicate the compliance with the health and safety of the basement unit. 9
Mr. Neilson stated the health and safety may be problematic to require as the Board discussed prior. Ms. Dunn said she would like the issue to remain open so the applicant has the opportunity to present the information to the Board and it is not left unchecked. Mr. Neilson stated the Board cannot leave application open without purpose. Chairperson Radford stated if the Board gives the Applicant until the next meeting date, what the Applicant has to do is come in with tax records or whatever documentation he can produce to show continuous use. Ms. Dunn stated could the Board say the documentation requested in the letter the applicant received from staff dated August 3 rd and continue this hearing at the November hearing? At that time Mr. Rich would be requested to the best of his ability to present the documentation requested in the letter dated August 3 rd from Lex Traughber. Chairperson Radford stated the November meeting is on the 15 th and the letter stated for the Board to further process the application proof of consistence use as a four unit dwelling would need to be documented with either copies of the county tax assessment records or public utility records from 1970 to present. Mr. Neilson stated yes that was okay and given what Mr. Traughber indicated as the history of the Applicant not providing the information, it may not be a bad idea to make it binding. If the Applicant presents nothing, then take a vote. 6:47:25 PM Chairperson Radford asked for a vote on the motion to continue the petition to November 15. Mr. Jones seconded the motion; Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote. Mr. Traughber asked for clarification on what needed to be provided to staff, and when it needed to be brought back to the Board. Chairperson Radford stated the applicant needs to comply with what Mr. Traughber asked for in his letter. The applicant needs to show some documentation that there were three or four units whichever the Applicant are asking for. The Applicant will provide Staff with the information and Staff will provide it to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Neilson asked for the motion to be restated if there was to be an amendment. 6:49:12 PM Ms. Dunn moved that the Board of Adjustment postpone the hearing of this item to December 20 th, giving the applicant time to delineate the units so the Board of Adjustment can determine continuous use on each unit. It is requested that Mr. Rich, to the best of his ability, present the 10
documentation requested in the letter dated August 3 rd from Lex Traughber. Mr. Jones seconded the motion; Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote. 6:49:52 PM PLNBOA2010-00568 Special Exception Tice In Line Addition: A request by Geoffrey Tice for a Special Exception to allow an in-line addition within the required side yard setback at approximately 360 East Herbert Avenue (1035 South). The property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential Zoning District and in Council District 5. Elizabeth Reining presented the case to the Board. Ms. Reining presented the findings as stated in the Staff Report. Based on the findings in the Staff Report, Staff believes the proposed addition meets the standards for the Special Exception and recommends the Board of Adjustment approve the request. Chairperson Radford asked for questions. Mr. Jones asked for clarification, as to whether the zone allows for the addition. Ms. Reining stated the Zone does allow for the square footage. The request is to continue the side yard setback of 2 feet. In that Zoning District 10 feet on one side and 4 feet on the other side is required. The applicant has more than 10 feet on one side where the driveway is currently; on the other side the structure is only 2 feet from the property line. The property was developed and the house was built prior to the setback regulations being in place. There are several other properties on the block face that have a 2 foot side yard setback. Mr. Jones asked whether there was enough of a setback. Ms. Reining stated currently on one side it is legal non-complying. Mr. Tice s structure is only 2 feet from the property line when it should be 4 feet and the addition would continue that 2 foot setback. Chairperson asked Geoffrey Tice, Applicant, to step forward, Mr. Geoffrey Tice, 1227 Cyprus Way, Cottonwood Heights, stated he purchased this property as a foreclosure from the bank back in February with the intent of renovating and adding to it. He noted that the Board could see on the pictures that he wants to do an in-line addition. All the steps to make sure the square footage and the design are ok for the neighborhood have been followed. The only thing needed is the Special Exception for the 2 foot side yard setback. Mr. Tice was not able to obtain signatures from all of his neighbors one was there to speak against this project. There are plenty of other homes including two homes directly to the west of Mr. Tice s that have in line additions as well as have approximately the same proposed square footage. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Tice if he knew when the home was originally constructed. Mr. Tice explained the homes on the block were built in 1922.. 11
Mr. Jones asked if the applicant was keeping some of the brick or if he was changing the look of the entire structure. Mr. Tice explained the existing structure will remain as is and the addition will be added to the back of the home. Chairperson Radford opened the Public Hearing and asked Mr. David Hassell to come forward. Mr. David Hassell, 1059 Blair Street, a neighbor to the south (rear) of the subject asked whether the balcony and roof overhangs are included in the square footage. Ms. Reining stated the roof overhang and balcony are not included in the building square footage as shown on the plan. Mr. Hassell stated the structure will be closer to his property. Mr. Hassell said he is opposed to the project because the addition was not an in-line addition. The structure was a one story bungalow. The addition is two stories. The square footage will be almost three times what was currently there and he was concerned about the devaluation of his property with having this overwhelmingly lager structure destroying the privacy of his abutting back yard. Mr. Hassell asked how much space will be between the roof line and the garage, or the balcony and the garage. Mr. Tice stated the balcony would extend another 5 feet from the structure and there would be 7 feet between the structures. Mr. Hassell stated that the balcony would be two feet away from the garage. The original home was a brick structure and the addition will have corrugated metal on the walls. That was why he doesn t feel it was an in-line addition. When it does not match the existing home or houses in the neighborhood. Mr. Hassell asked the Board to deny the in-line addition based on the devaluation of his property and that of the neighborhood. Chairperson Radford asked Mr. Tice to step forward to address the concerns. Mr. Tice stated Mr. Hassell was a little confused as to the definition of the term in-line addition. Mr. Hassell was referring to the meaning of in-line as in character with the neighborhood, versus in physical line with the existing structure. The square footage will not be more than that of his neighbor. Mr. Tice described the two properties next to his that currently have in-line additions. Mr. Tice said he feels Mr. Hassell does not like the project due to the structure being a two story addition. Other neighbors abutting the property are in favor of the addition and the upgrade to the property. Mr. Tice wanted to take this foreclosed home and turn it into a nice home that will improve the neighborhood and not take away from it. Mr. Jones asked about the use of corrugated metal as a finish on the addition. Mr. Tice explained there will be a corrugated metal roof that will wrap down the sides of the structure. He explained his reason behind adding the addition onto the home in order to enhance the structure and make it user friendly. 12
Mr. Jones explained the enhancement of the property will affect the neighboring property values more than just leaving the home vacant and deteriorating. Mr. Tice discussed the updates to the sewer line and other additions that have already improved the property. Mr. Hassell stated he feels there is some misunderstanding here. One, that the home was inhabited; it was a foreclosure Mr. Tice purchased. While the people lived there it was maintained. For Mr. Hassell the investment he has in his home is very important to him. It is the largest investment he has. Mr. Hassell was very concerned about its value. Mr. Hassell stated Mr. Tice referred to other in-line additions in the neighborhood; these are very nice single story structures that add to the neighborhood. Mr. Tice is proposing a two story structure which is not at all in-line with the neighborhood. Mr. Hassell referred Mr. Tice to look at 352 Herbert as an example of a very beautiful in-line addition that adds to the neighborhood. Mr. Tice stated 352 Herbert and the proposed footprint of his project are the same. The home at 352 had the basement dug out to put a full height basement under the home. They lost money on the sale of the home due to the cost of the excavation of the basement. Mr. Tice thought instead of going under the home we would build onto the home. Chairperson Radford closed the public hearing. 7:10:43 PM The meeting was taken into executive session. 7:11:10 PM Ms. Dunn moved that based on the findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and plans presented that the Board of Adjustment approve the Special Exception to allow the in-line addition located at 360 East Herbert Avenue. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote. 7:11:32 PM PLNBOA2010-00634 Hansen Height Special Exception for Detached Garage: A request by Andy Stubbs representing Duane Hansen for a Special Exception to allow an accessory structure that exceeds the permitted building height. The property is located at approximately 1972 South Berkeley (2200 East) in the R-1/7000 Zoning District in Council District 6. Ms. Anna Anglin stated this particular garage was constructed with permits and was legal until the time of completion, at which time it was noticed it measured 7 inches taller than height allowed in the Zoning District. The original plans stated the height was going to be 16 feet. The Applicant has explained there was a miss calculation in the trusses during manufacturing. Ms. Anglin presented pictures depicting the property and the proposed garage as constructed. She explained the garage would be the tallest garage on the block face and it would set a new precedence for garage height on the block face. To comply with the zoning regulations the garage height would have to be lowered. 13
Mr. Jones asked if the garage had already been constructed. Ms. Anglin answered yes it has already been constructed. Chairperson Radford asked for Mr. Stubbs to come forward. Mr. Stubbs, A-Shed Project Manager, 2870 South 400 West, Salt Lake City, explained A-shed does not have this type of issue occur often with their numerous projects. He explained the error in height on the trusses and how the error was brought to light. Mr. Duane Hansen the home owner loves the garage and would hate to have to tear the roof off the garage for 7 inches of height. In the neighborhood there are other garages over the 17 foot limit although not on this block face. Also on the block face there is a garage built without a permit and one that never received a final inspection. Their hope was since this was just 7 inches over height and the neighbors have no complaint a Special Exception could be granted for this project. Mr. Jones asked if the City approved the original design. Mr. Stubbs stated the City approved the structure however the height is over by 7 inches. Mr. Jones asked if the appropriate permits were received prior to the construction. Mr. Stubbs stated yes all of the permits were received and all of the inspections passed until the final, when the height was noticed when measuring. Mr. Jones stated he feels bad a mistake was made but the ordinance is what it is and the Board has taken the position to have the extra height removed. There was no one from the Public who wanted to speak for or against the issue. Chairperson Radford closed the Public Hearing. 7:20:05 PM The meeting was taken into executive session. Ms. Dunn reported on a past case similar to this case where the applicant was able to comply without having to tear down the entire garage. The Board discussed the application and what could be done to address the height issue in the least costly manner. Board members noted that unfortunately this Board does not have the ability to dictate the next step as to what can be done. Enforcement will be the one to address what needs to happen next. Ms. Dunn stated the Board tries not to validate structures that have been built without permits nor establish precedence for over height structures. 7:24:25 PM Mr. Jones stated it is one of those unfortunate things but he thinks the ordinances is what it is and to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and the block face that exists He moved that the Board deny the Special Exception that has been requested by Mr. Hansen, because it does not 14
meet the standards of a Special Exception under the ordinance. Ms. Dunn Seconded the motion Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote. 7:25:22 PM PLNBOA2010-00576 DeMuri Garage Special Exception: A request by Chris DeMuri at approximately 1099 Windsor Street (860 East) for a Special Exception to build a detached garage that exceeds the permitted height and footprint size within the rear yard of the subject property. The property is located in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District in Council District 5. Mr. Josh Beach, Planning Intern presented the case to the Board. Mr. Beach stated the City was made aware the garage was too tall and informed the applicant, at which time the construction was halted. The garage as it currently stands is 19 feet tall, City Code allows 17 feet. It is also 768 square feet in size. The code allows the square footage to be 40 % of the principal structure and it exceeds the maximum by about 48 square feet. Mr. Beach presented pictures of the proposed structure and site plan. He noted that it complies with all other setbacks and regulations. The design matches the pitch of the roof of the home and the architecture of the area. Only one other garage on the block face was larger then allowed. There are also other garages in the neighborhood taller then allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Jones asked the height difference in question. Mr. Beach stated the code allows for 17 feet and as the garage currently stands it would be 19 feet tall. Chairperson Radford stated it was also quite a bit larger than the code allows. Mr. Mike Maloy, Senior Planner stated it is currently 48 square feet larger than the allowed square footage under the code. Chairperson Radford asked Mr. DeMuri to step forward. Mr. Chris DeMuri, 1099 Windsor Street, thanked everyone for their time. He reviewed the updates to the property he has made over the years. The garage would be used to store items currently parked on the street and motorcycles he collects. The demolished structures were slightly larger than the garage currently under construction, so he is actually decreasing the overall square footage of the structures that were on the property before. The reason for the height was to keep with the architecture of the home which is one of the oldest homes on the block built in 1908. He stated that this structure fits in with the character of the home and other carriage houses in the area. In the block face a building Realms of Inquiry is about 50 feet tall and has been there for a long period of time. There are also other buildings in the area taller then what he was constructing. The main reason for building it was to improve the neighborhood and his property. Chairperson Radford opened the Public Hearing and called Cory Smith to step forward. Mr. Cory Smith, 1098 Windsor Street stated he was in favor of the garage. He said that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and on this street, due to the lack of garages in the area there are quite a 15
few cars parked on the street. The garages would help eliminate the cars on the street and therefore make the neighborhood safer for the children to cross the street. Mr. Smith stated Mr. DeMuri has done a lot to spruce up the neighborhood and is a great neighbor. He was in favor of the garage to help make their street a little safer. Mr. Darryl High, 980 Lincoln Street, stated he was in favor of the DeMuri garage both in height and in footprint. He said he has visited the home and it vast exceeds any past structures. It would be an asset to their neighborhood. There are many above height structures in their neighborhood and the proposed garage was very much an addition to their neighborhood. Mr. Michael Cohn, 1070 Windsor Street stated he was in favor of the garage. Mr. Cohn stated he is the Co-Chair of the East Liberty Park Community Council. The Council was in favor of the garage and the improvement it makes to the neighborhood. Mr. Cohn stated he has heard nothing but positive comments from people in the area regarding the garage and the look it brings to the area. Mr. Cohn said Mr. DeMuri has raised the bar to what the neighborhood can look like and should look like. The fact the garage sits on the alley makes it virtually invisible from the street. There are other structures not as high on that alley but no way resemble the care and well built nature of what Mr. DeMuri s. He urged the Board to grant the Special Exception. Dr. Judy Rogers, 1099 Windsor stated she lives four doors down on the same side of the street as Mr. DeMuri. She echoed everything everyone has said. Dr. Rogers said the building is of high standard and tastefully constructed. She stated you cannot see this structure from the street and it would clean up the alley. Dr. Rogers said she would welcome it as a good addition to the neighborhood. She said the neighbors are very prideful of the neighborhood if there were objections, the Board would hear them. Dr. Rogers stated Mr. DeMuri has done an exceptional job in cleaning up his property. Chairperson Radford closed the Public Hearing and asked Mr. DeMuri to address the concerns. Mr. Chris DeMuri thanked his neighbors for their support and stated he feels it says a lot for what he is doing on his property. Mr. Jones asked what was demolished to construct the garage. Mr. DeMuri stated the house was ramshackled. There was an original garage and two additional sheds and he thinks someone was living in one of the sheds. The square footage of those three buildings combined was larger than what he has built with the new garage. Mr. Jones asked if the sheds were located where the garage is presently. Mr. DeMuri stated yes pretty much in the same position. He noted that one of the sheds extended closer to the house then what now exists and there was a section in between the structures where he believed a car or a dog run was. Garages currently surround the structure on all sides as well as mature trees. He said the structure cannot be seen from the street at all. Mr. Jones asked if the footprint of the new garage is 48 feet larger than code allows. 16
Mr. DeMuri stated it is smaller than what existed but yes it is larger than the code allows. 7:41:27 PM The Board discussed the 17 foot height limit and the relevance of the other garages in the neighborhood that are larger than the subject garage. The Board noted it has to enforce the ordinance and keep with what the ordinance requires. The footprint of the garage and height were discussed for validity and why a garage would be approved to be larger than the primary structure. 7:46:11 PM Ms. Dunn moved that with the evidence and testimony presented and pursuant to the plans submitted, I move that the Board of Adjustment deny Special Exception number PLNBOA2010-00576 for additional area and height for an accessory structure located at 1099 South Windsor Street in the R 1/5,000 Single Family Residential District. The denial is based on the finding that the special exception exceeds the existing development pattern of the block face as defined by City Code 21A.62.040 and is therefore not compatible with surrounding development. Mr. Jones seconded Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye; the motion passed with 3-0 vote. 7:47:13 PM Chairperson Radford stated the last item of the agenda was the Policies and Procedures. He wondered if the Board should wait until there are other members of the Board present to vote. Ms. Cheri Coffey asked which meeting the items should be postponed to, November or December. Chairperson Radford stated November would be fine. Mr. Jones made the motion to adjourn at 7:47:50 PM, all were in favor. Michelle Poland, Secretary Ed Radford, Chairperson 17