Staff Report DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: From: Salt Lake City Appeals Hearing Officer Greg Mikolash, Development Review Supervisor (801-535-6181; gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com) Date: October 16, 20107 Re: PLNAPP2017-00533 Appeal of an administrative decision to issue a building permit for an accessory structure (mechanical equipment shed) located at 2140 E. Parley s Terrace. Appeal of Administrative Decision PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2140 E. Parley s Terrace PROPERTY OWNER: Ben and Whitney Henderson PARCEL ID: 16-22-301-008 ZONING DISTRICT/ORDINANCE SECTION: 21A.40; Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures APPELLANT: Craig R. and Jan A. Crockett INTERPRETATION ISSUE: The issue of this appeal relates to the construction of an accessory structure, specifically a pool equipment shed, in a side yard area of a residential property. The appellants own property that abuts the subject property. On November 16, 2016, the City reviewed and issued a building permit for a new residential swimming pool and spa. As part of this permit, the approved plans also showed a 10 x 10 pool equipment room, proposed to be located in the rear yard, 11 to the south of the new swimming pool. Later on May 3, 2017, a complaint was generated by the appellants, Craig and Jan Crockett, about a large accessory building being constructed in the side yard area of the subject property. An inspection of the property confirmed that an accessory structure (pool equipment shed) was being constructed in the side yard area rather than the originally planned and approved location in the rear yard. Based on this complaint and with a discussion with the inspector on the need to come into compliance through a re-review and approval of an amended (or new) permit, on May 30, 2017, the original building permit was amended and ultimately re-issued showing the relocation of the pool equipment shed to the west side yard of the property. As part of this amended permit, the shed was increased to 12 x 12 in size and located a minimum of 4 from the side yard property line. The property is located in an R-1-12.000 zoning district. In this district, as with all residential zoning districts, accessory buildings are not permitted in side yard areas. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR S DETERMINATION: The City has determined that there was insufficient information supplied on the drawings of the re-issuance of the building permit on May 30, 2017 to permit a pool equipment shed, or building in this case, to be located in a side yard area. Had this been recognized as a building rather than an allowed obstruction in a side yard (i.e., a structure specifically pool mechanical equipment) at the time of issuance, substantially more information would need to have been provided such as drawings showing building elevations, footing and materials information, door/window placement and schedules, and truss/roofing information. There was likely a misunderstanding on the part of the contractor that construction drawings/elevations needed to be submitted for the building already under construction. Although the property owner did have discussions with a Plans Examiner and a Zoning Reviewer specific to updating the building permit, submitted revised plans simply noted that the proposed structure was a pool equipment shed. Based on this information, it was thought by Building Services staff that because the structure was not a storage shed but simply a place to house pool/filtering SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
equipment, that it would not be deemed a building, thus the structure would be permitted per 21A.36.020 of the zoning ordinance: Central air conditioning systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment, the outside elements shall be located not less than 4 feet from a lot line. Structures less than 4 feet from the property line shall be reviewed as a special exception according to the provisions of section 21A.52.030 of this title. It was noted by the Plans Examiner that a Special Exception would apply only if the pool equipment (shed) was to remain less than 4 from the [side] property line. In addition, due to the structure being less than 200 sq. ft. in area, where a building permit is not required for structures less than 200 feet in area, an assumption was made that no additional information would be needed to issue a permit as per the International Residential Code (IRC) For residential projects (IRC): R105.2 Work exempt from permit. Exemption from permit requirements of this code shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this code or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction. Permits shall not be required for the following: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures, provided that the floor area does not exceed 200 square feet (18.58 m2). As mentioned previously in this report, the approved structure measures 12 x 12 ; therefore equaling 144 sq. ft. APPEAL: The appellant s reasons for the appeal are found in Attachment C herein. The claims have been consolidated for ease of understanding how the ordinance was applied. 1. The appellant claims that the City has interpreted the ordinance in error because the finished structure is not a simple pool filtering equipment structure but a large 12 x 12 shed (or building in this case). Because the accessory structure is a building rather than a mechanical equipment (structure), Section 21A.40.050.A.(3) needs to be applied rather than allowing the structure to be constructed by applying Section 21A.36.020.B, where mechanical pool equipment is allowed as an obstruction in a side yard area. 2. The appellant claims that the City has interpreted the ordinance in error by permitting the pool filtering equipment structure over a recorded 8 side yard easement in the Country Club Acres Subdivision, where it is claimed that construction over this easement is not only a safety issue but also causes an adverse impact to neighboring property(s). RESPONSE TO APPEAL: To assist the Hearing Officer in reviewing the appeal, the following is in response to the appellant s claims: Claim 1: The appellant claims that the City interpreted the ordinance incorrectly because the structure being contested is a large 12 x 12 shed, where per the definition of building, the resulting construction is a structure with a roof, intended for shelter or enclosure ; specifically a building intended to house, cover and enclose pool mechanical equipment. The appellant notes that per 21A.40.050.A(3) of the zoning ordinance - Side Yards: Accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard. Quoting the zoning ordinance, the appellant also adds that that accessory buildings shall be at least 10 Page 2
from a principal structure on an adjacent lot with emphasis that (per the Code) accessory structures shall be located wholly behind the primary structure on the property. When determining how to apply the code and subsequently conclude where buildings and/or structures can be located on a lot, it is important to note how the City defines a structure versus a building. Determining the difference between the terms will direct a zoning code reviewer to one part of the zoning ordinance over another. Though building is defined within the zoning ordinance, there is no clear definition for structure. Where a lack of a definition exists, the Code references that Webster s Collegiate Dictionary is to be used in the context of defining a word. Relative definitions: The definition of building in the zoning ordinance per 21.A.62.010 is: BUILDING: A structure with a roof, intended for shelter or enclosure. Relative to this is the definition of accessory building or structure in the same section: ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: A subordinate building or structure, located on the same lot with the main building, occupied by or devoted to an accessory use. When an accessory building or structure is attached to the main building in a substantial manner, as by a wall or roof, such accessory building shall be considered part of the main building. By referencing Webster s Collegiate Dictionary, the word Structure is defined as: something (such as a building) that is constructed. From these definitions we can conceivably take away that the term structure (as defined) is fairly vague; however, the term building is much better defined. What we can also ascertain from these definitions is that though a building is always a structure, a structure is not always a building. An example of this is a fence or parking lot which can be deemed as structures but are not buildings. In this case, a structure could be deemed to be permitted as an obstruction in a side yard area per 21A.36.020.B. of the zoning ordinance. This as opposed to the outright construction of a building, where such construction leads us to Section 21A.40.050.A.(3), where as noted by the appellant, accessory buildings are prohibited in any required interior side yard. It is believed that the applicant s site plan was submitted in good faith and that no further information needed to be provided to amend the location of the pool equipment shed. It was confirmed through both building code and zoning code reviewer discussions with the contractor that no further information was necessary to move forward with the amended approval of the building permit to place the building at its current location within 4 of the property line, at least 10 away from a principal structure on an adjacent lot, and at least 4 from the principal structure on the same lot. In turn, the amended building permit was issued in good faith by Building Services on the premises that the subject pool equipment structure would be permitted and applied under 21A.36.020.B, where mechanical pool equipment would be allowed as an obstruction in a side yard area. Any references to the need for a special exception by the applicant would be mute in this case; wherein this process would only apply if the subject structure were to be located less than 4 from a property line. Page 3
Claim 2: The appellant claims that the City has interpreted the ordinance in error by permitting the pool filtering equipment structure over a recorded 8 side yard easement in the Country Club Acres Subdivision. The applicant argues that such easements are in effect to allow for emergency personnel to have access to the rear yard for firefighting and other emergency purposes; also noting that these easements are established to ensure there is not an encroachment on a neighboring property that would adversely impact views, sightlines, natural light, etc., and not adversely impact the quiet enjoyment and use of existing property. Easements/Setbacks: In researching the recorded Country Club Acres subdivision plat, there is an 8 easement centered between Lot 11 (2140 E. Parley s Terrace) and Lot 12 (2130 E. Parley s Terrace). This easement is located in the side yards and runs parallel between the two lots with 4 being dedicated to each property. There is no specific reference on the subdivision plat as to what the easement is intended for; however, the recorded restrictive covenants indicate that the easement(s) are reserved for public and/or quasi-public utilities. The wording within the covenants is as follows: Easement Reserved in Lots: The Company reserves the right to locate, construct, erect and maintain, or cause to be located, constructed, erected and maintained in and on the areas indicated on the plat as Easements, sewer or other pipe lines, conduits, poles and wires and any other method of conducting or performing any public or quasi-public utility or function above or beneath the surface of the ground, with the right of access at any time to the same for the purpose of repair and maintenance. And the Company shall have the right at any time to extinguish or vacate such easements and rights of way as to all or any portion of said property. Because no portion of the pool equipment shed is located over the recorded easement, there is no reason to believe any portion of the structure violates the preservation or integrity of this easement. The Public Utilities Department has also confirmed that no existing public utility lines are currently located within this corridor and there is a small likelihood that any future public utilities would be proposed and/or effect adjacent structures or buildings. With respect to emergency personnel access to the rear yard, the City s Fire Protection Engineer has confirmed that there is no separation requirement between a residential structure and a property line and that any separation and/or access requirements will be Building Code related and not fire protection related. As setbacks relate to the Building Code, there is also no residential setback requirements so long as exterior walls are adequately fire rated. In general, setbacks in residential zones establish minimum setbacks which are typically 4 to 8 for side yards. In residential districts, setbacks are intended to preserve adequate separation between housing units, to provide safe, convenient and harmonious development throughout the specific district. The appellant is correct in mentioning that side yards (setbacks rather than easements) are also intended to minimize neighboring propert[ies] to adversely impact views, sightlines, natural light, etc., and not adversely impact the quiet enjoyment and of [existing property]. The subject property is located in an R-1-12,000 zoning district. The minimum setbacks for a principal structure in this zone is as follows: Page 4
Front Yard/Corner Side Yards: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Interior Side Yards: 8' on one side; 10' on the other. Rear Yard: 25'. The City agrees that the location of any accessory building in a side yard would adversely impact a neighboring property due to both location, size, blocking of natural light, noise, and ostensibly the enjoyment of the impacted property. This is the reasoning for the zoning ordinance requirement to not allow buildings in side yard areas; restricting them specifically to rear yards where minimal impact can occur. Summary: In summary, the City has determined that there was insufficient information supplied on the drawings of the building permit to permit a pool equipment shed, or building in this case, to be located in a side yard area. Had this been recognized as a building rather than an allowed obstruction in a side yard (i.e., a structure specifically pool mechanical equipment) at the time of issuance, substantially more information would need to have been provided such as drawings showing building elevations, footing and materials information, door/window placement and schedules, and truss/roofing information. This is an appeal of an Administrative Interpretation. Therefore, the standard of review for the appeal shall be de novo. The Appeals Hearing Officer shall review the matter appealed anew, based upon applicable procedures and standards for approval, and shall give no deference to the original decision below. A public hearing must be held prior to the Appeal Hearing Officer making a decision. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Photographs C. Appeal application and documentation of evidence D. Building Permit information E. Public Process and Input Page 5
ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Maps/Subdivision Plat Zoning Map: Aerial Map: Page 6
ATTACHMENT B: Photographs Mechanical pool shed looking north: Mechanical pool shed looking south: Page 7
Mechanical pool shed looking north toward abutting principal structure: Page 8
ATTACHMENT C: Appeal Application and Documentation of Evidence Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
ATTACHMENT D: Building Permit Information November 16, 2016 approved site plan: Page 15
May 30, 2017amended and approved site plan: Page 16
Page 17