Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 19 Jan 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Planning Division Appeals Hearing for January 19, 2023

Description

Salt Lake City Planning Division Appeals Hearing for January 19, 2023

slc.gov

A

Do you want to grab chair.

B

A

B

Actively recording and ready to go, it looks like we have.

C

Three three.

B

C

Not quite five, so yeah wait till five: okay, cool hello. Everyone.

D

And it worked okay and the uh the person joining us here to my. My right uh is the actual homeowner. uh She just allows me to live here um after what 50 years, 40.

A

D

Okay, who's County, um so she'll be back momentarily, but that's my wife, Carol and then with Steve I. Think we've got everyone at least that we were going to have on our end of things.

B

And this is a public hearing item, so I will monitor for um attendees with their hands raised, but it doesn't look like we have any other attendees right now.

A

And Steve's ninja talking.

A

Unless he says something you don't.

B

A

All right saying anything: bambutus.

B

Okay, we are at five o'clock.

C

Okay, should we get started? Welcome to the Salt Lake City Planning division appeals hearing meeting my name is Mary. Woodhead I am the hearing officer. Tonight we have one matter on the agenda: a variance request at approximately 2373 East 1300 South. This is a public meeting, so we will have time during the course of the hearing to allow anyone from the public to make comments on this matter.

C

um I would ask that everyone mute their phones during the hearing, um so we won't have any of those funny phone interruptions. I have a little bit of a cold, so I'm going to try very hard not to cough during the hearing.

C

How I would like to proceed on this is hear from the city Staff first, with an overview of the petition and the city's position, and then we will hear from the applicant with any additional information or arguments they'd like to make at that point. I will open the hearing for public comment if there is any and um finally, we will bring it back to the applicant to make any further and final comments.

C

um Unless anyone has the objection, we'll go ahead and start in here from Salt Lake City.

E

Hello, thank you Mary for your time, hello, Mr, Lear and Mr Cornell.

E

um This is a determination issue whether the applicant meets the standards for a variance in ordinance, 21A, 24.050, Point e 0.1, to build an addition in the front setback. The front setback for this property is based on the average block face of the the other properties on the Block face um the subject: property of the subject: property. They are asking for a reduced setback of 40 to 44 feet, 6 inches from the required 98 feet and Mary. I know that you'd like to be very near brief.

E

So just summarize, um the key considerations and discussion that the the planning staff had in looking at this. This application, um there's four things that came to to the that were very critical for the consideration of it, um as we all know that the variance is based on something that gives uh the is something related to the property or does not give the property owner the same privileges as other people in the the area.

E

So the first consideration that we looked at was the impact to the properties around and directly across the street. To the South is a cemetery: we felt that that was not an impact at all um and to the two dwellings on the side.

E

This would be on the the addition would be put on the west side of the property, and the neighbor to the west would still be way over 23 feet from their property and Beyond, because the the house to the West sits very far back from 13th East, um so the Imp, the negative impact was, is not there. um That was our first consideration.

E

The second one is that the front yard setback for this property does limit the applicant on where the um the front yard setback is and, and it's very unique and and very a special situation to this property.

E

um Like I've noted in the staff report, other neighborhoods low density neighborhoods in the city do not have this kind of setback. The black face average um kind of limits a lot, because you've got varying um setbacks. Already. You've got two properties that are less than 30 feet from 13th East. At this point, and then you've got two Beyond 200., so the black face average is is very, is very hard um and in particular, on this property owner to meet that.

E

The third thing is the Topography of the of the property. The property does slope substantially to the north, just directly after the rear of the of the house.

E

um They do have other buildings in the backyard, and so it the placement of an addition. Just isn't there um and, as I said, the topography bringing it down to the to the north um makes it impossible not to be able to um want to build within the front yard or to the side.

E

The last consideration that we looked at was the orientation of the of the existing building where it was built on the property. It is a little bit skewed slanted if you will um the excuse.

A

E

Front East part definitely sticks um many feet. Excuse me and then I cough many feet in front of the West side, and that causes a conflict in where the front yard line is and then again with that black face average it. It makes it hard for an addition to be put on without being in the front yard setback.

E

So those four considerations brought us to the recommendation that, based on the analysis and finding in my staff report in our staff report, that the planning staff is of the opinion that the application meets the standards for approval of the variance request and therefore recommends that the appeals hearing officer approved the proposed variance request based on the findings in the staff report.

C

Thank you, I appreciate it. No that's fine um I, usually at the beginning of these hearings, mentioned that I've read all the materials and I have but I always appreciate it. I did have one question um and it's about the substantial property right of the covered entrance.

C

um I did wonder: does the city take the position that that's sort of the case for all homeowners?

C

um That's that's the one place where I wondered about the analysis. We.

E

We talked about that um definitely and that's a hard question to go with all of the city, because this is very. This is a unique situation. This is a larger lot. Property I did look at all of the houses on the Block front face and they do all have coverage of their their main dwelling door and I think that was a big consideration for that substantial property right of those people within that block face.

E

Okay, again, you know other other neighborhoods within the subdivision or excuse me within the city, aren't going to be like that, but we were looking at immediate houses. Okay,.

C

Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you, okay, thank you, um we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant I'm, not sure who's speaking, but um go ahead and the other thing I haven't done. One of these for a while is that there really isn't a time limit like I said: I've read all the materials but I want you to use the time to say what you think you need to say: I'm, not gonna, cut you off after two minutes or three minutes so go ahead. Okay,.

D

Let me just say two things in advance: this is John Lear, one uh Steve and I did not coordinate hats. I had no idea. He was going to be worried. They're.

F

Different colors, so it's that's fine. So.

D

Anyway, it's not a uniform. um The second part of it is I wanted to thank the staff, because in reading the analysis I thought it covered most of the issues that we feel are Salient. Steve is going to point out a couple of uh of more so I'm going to at this point turn it over to Steve um to make some additional comments relative to the staff report, but we felt the staff report was quite comprehensive. Steve.

F

Yeah thanks John um can I share my screen, I'm, not sure I. It's the button is disabled, not.

B

Sure, let me give you permissions. Thank.

F

B

F

Can you all see that okay, so we just, we just have a quick presentation. We want to walk through and again you know the report was really comprehensive, so I struggled to to figure out what are we going? What are we going to add to this presentation?

F

um That's going to provide additional information, but what we really wanted to do was just give you a sense of you know what the house is today um and it's you know this is it um as of last year we took this picture last year and what we're proposing to do with the house, which is sometimes um somewhat difficult to imagine, if you're not looking, if you're just looking at a set of floor plans or standard elevation drawings, but this is really what we're what we're trying to achieve with this Edition.

F

So you can see the addition to the South, the the Gazebo structure and then the covered porch, which extends out from the from the face of the house about eight feet um and just you know, we're sort of reiterating some of the points that Diana's made. But you know that these are unique considerations of this application. You know it's it's um you know when it was built, it was under a different zoning requirement.

F

um The roadway was realigned in the 30s after the house was constructed, and therefore the house is now closer to this setback than it otherwise would have been, and the house really is is placed on the side and the only place it can sit on that site due to the sloping topography as you as you move to the north. So you know we. We appreciate this chance to um come before you and and to State our case and to and to have a chat with you. But that's that's really.

F

All we have to add to this application. I want to thank Diana for um the work that she's put into this we've uh we're very appreciative of of her dedication. So thank you.

C

Thank you. uh Can you uh the presentation that you just did? Can you make a copy of that and forward it to City staff? So it's part of the formal record in the case I.

F

C

Okay, thank you, I guess. My question to you is the same question I had for Diana and it's about about the part of the the requirements, the elements for a variant that says it's, the it affects the substantial property right and whether that right to that covered, porch fits the criteria or the definition of that and I'm interested. In your perspective on that.

F

Well, yeah I'm gonna maybe come at it from a different perspective and not not so much as a from a legal and Zoning perspective, but as a a building type perspective, because you know a porch is really something that belongs on a house.

F

um You know this house is sort of lacking this, this front piece that it really desires to have and So architecturally speaking.

F

Yes, that's a right that that the property owners have is, to you, know, inhabit and occupy the front of their house and in such a way that um you know gives them view onto the street, gives them access to the street from their from their front property so that that's maybe coming at it a bit differently, but I don't want to just you know parrot what Diana's saying because I agree with her as well, but.

C

So would you say that that's a right that every house in Salt Lake City, has.

F

I, don't know if I would go to that extent. You know that that's hard to always say like it applies to everything. I think it's a it's a right that that people have to enjoy their property and to you know to occupy it the way that they the way that they see fit. That's within the law. Of course, um you know we're asking for a variance to that to that uh uh ordinance, but you know we we feel that this is still.

F

Something that is um you know is is something that can be enjoyed by the by the residents of of the house. So.

C

Okay, I appreciate that, thank you, um I think we've heard from the city and the applicant, so I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. um Is there anyone who would like to speak to this? We.

B

Have no other attendees.

C

Okay, we have no other attendees, then I will bring it back first of all to Salt Lake City and then to the applicant to see. If you have any final um thoughts to add.

E

From the city no I think we've stated it in our in our staff report that we do feel comfortable, that this meets the standards for the variants um and we are recommending approval. Okay,.

C

Thank you and from the applicant, do you have anything else to add.

D

Thank you, I'm. Sorry, I I'd comment on your last question about right um as lawyers we know and there's two here, um but they're often situational, like crying fire in a crowded theater. This is a unique circumstance. We've lived here for uh close to 40 years.

D

um This has never been an issue until we really were trying to make a statement about the house. It's a unique property. uh When these houses were built, they were the only other than one other. The only houses up on this bench level.

D

So this is all before the development of the East bench and they were built in a context where there was much more property out front and, as they noted, the alignment of the road in this instance I'd only reiterate that we think it's a right, that's appropriate in this circumstance, due to the size of the lot due to the fact that it does not impede uh on the on the neighbors.

D

The topography forces us to kind of have to go forward rather than to go back in terms of uh we think expanding the livability of the house. Right now we enter almost exclusive exclusively and exit almost exclusively out of our East door, because going out the front is not really a pleasant experience and it doesn't have that sense, and so as much of this or our desire in developing this plan was aesthetic, as it was um anything else, though, it will increase the livability of the house.

D

It will allow us to move forward and enjoy at different times of the year, the front of the house, as opposed to being almost exclusively restricted to being in the back of the house and then so in that sense, whether that rises to the level of right, I'm, not sure, but in this context we believe it's appropriate and ought to be a quote a right as it relates to this particular circumstances of this property.

D

Carol. Do you have anything else? You would like to add.

A

Thank you for your time. I appreciate the staff who was super willing to listen and that's very much appreciated.

C

Thank you so much it's a beautiful house. It reminds me of New England, where I grew up, so thank you. Well,.

D

And it is intended to and we're embellishing it now.

C

Okay, well, thank you. I am going to go ahead then, and close this hearing. Unless someone has any last thoughts, um I will take this under advisement and issue a written decision in the next week. Thank you.

D

So much uh Diana and the others that I have not met and Steve as you as well. Thanks.

F

C

B