Admin Hearing Officer Meeting
Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge?
Troubleshooting steps
In your browser: open Menu (three dots) → Settings → System → turn off “Use graphics acceleration when available.” Then restart the browser.
Transcript
| All set. | 00:00:01 | |
| OK. | 00:00:04 | |
| I will call this hearing to order. | 00:00:06 | |
| It is. | 00:00:09 | |
| May S 2024 and we are meeting in the. | 00:00:11 | |
| City Council Chambers at Holiday City Hall. | 00:00:15 | |
| This is very experienced. I'm holiday Cities land use officer. My name's Richard Catman. | 00:00:18 | |
| Just a little bit of preliminary about me. I don't work for holiday. I'm an independent person. They bring in my background is I | 00:00:25 | |
| used to be the city attorney in West Valley City for a long time. So I have a land use background. | 00:00:31 | |
| And a lawyer. | 00:00:38 | |
| So the item we have, we only have one item on the agenda today and it is a variance for an address or property located 2512 E. | 00:00:41 | |
| Haven Lane in Holiday. | 00:00:49 | |
| The applicants and property owners of Brett and Tracy Hopkins and I believe they have representative as their applicant. | 00:00:53 | |
| And before we get started, let me just kind of explain how variances work. | 00:00:59 | |
| Probably know this already, may or may not. | 00:01:04 | |
| But excuse me, variances are how you get A variance is set by state law. Every city has its own. | 00:01:07 | |
| Ordinances that mirror state law, so this is consistent around the state. | 00:01:15 | |
| And there are essentially 5 criteria that it's my job to look at. The first one, is there an unreasonable hardship that the | 00:01:20 | |
| ordinances are causing? | 00:01:24 | |
| That and the second part of this is that same hardship generally not applied to the other properties in the neighborhood. | 00:01:30 | |
| And the third one is depriving you. I'm paraphrasing these, essentially. | 00:01:39 | |
| But the third one is is depriving the property owners of the substantial right that other owners have to. | 00:01:44 | |
| Build or do something similar to what they want to do. | 00:01:50 | |
| The last one is to detect the city's general plan in a bad way. | 00:01:54 | |
| Affect the. | 00:01:58 | |
| And the last one is just kind of a goal actually more than a requirement. We try to do substantial justice and. | 00:02:00 | |
| Zoning laws as much as we can. So we try to find, if we can, that middle ground where you can do what you want, but we still don't | 00:02:07 | |
| disrupt the city's zoning too much. | 00:02:11 | |
| So with that in mind, those are the things I'm looking for. | 00:02:17 | |
| It's not just up to me to decide, yeah, this is a good thing. I actually have to write an analysis. At the end of the day, when I | 00:02:20 | |
| make a decision, say why I think you meet or don't meet those criteria. | 00:02:26 | |
| So with that in mind, who wants to come up and tell me what you're going to build? | 00:02:32 | |
| Hang on just a second. | 00:02:36 | |
| Subsidies like to do the first presentation. | 00:02:39 | |
| Some cities don't, and it's been a while since I did one for holiday. Do you want to go first? I don't. I don't think we have a | 00:02:42 | |
| preference. I did want to note that in the staff report there were some references to Mr. Jones and some science. So we're from an | 00:02:50 | |
| old report. So those are just things that didn't get changed. They're irrelevant to this. | 00:02:58 | |
| But that's not the recommendation here. What was the I think the recommendation here is that from the city's recommendation is | 00:03:08 | |
| that the rear yard set back be approved. | 00:03:13 | |
| Variance but the side yard not. | 00:03:19 | |
| Yeah. Either denial or the approval with modification. Yeah. So I was there. I brought that up. So I wanted to make sure I do. | 00:03:21 | |
| Yes, yeah. | 00:03:30 | |
| I think the references were on page like 11. | 00:03:32 | |
| I didn't get a chance to look at it yesterday. | 00:03:40 | |
| But the. | 00:03:45 | |
| This part number 8 that's from a previous one that's same with this one. | 00:03:48 | |
| We pull things in and change things get left. | 00:03:59 | |
| Understand that. | 00:04:07 | |
| Yeah, that's so. That's the reference I think. | 00:04:09 | |
| Like maybe I pulled in. | 00:04:16 | |
| One that was not fully modified anyway. | 00:04:18 | |
| That's that's what those references are. The staff report is still pretty complete with that. | 00:04:22 | |
| Information that applies to this particular. | 00:04:31 | |
| Yes. | 00:04:34 | |
| Great. Yeah. So there's the recommendation at the end. | 00:04:35 | |
| Well, there is another. Oh yeah, because that one is the. | 00:04:42 | |
| That's in reference with that. | 00:04:47 | |
| Sides, right, Yeah. Is there one farther up in the front of the dock? Yes. | 00:04:48 | |
| Which is this one? | 00:04:55 | |
| Yeah. There, yeah, there we go. That's the one that plays here. | 00:04:59 | |
| With that, thank you. Come on up. And for the record, this is recorded typically, so tell us who you are. | 00:05:05 | |
| That's good. I like to be recorded. It's good. | 00:05:14 | |
| I think, yeah, I think so. | 00:05:20 | |
| So nice to meet you, Richard. I don't know if we've talked before or not. Maybe we have in some other meeting and I'm Jeremy | 00:05:22 | |
| Jackson, so one of the owners of Jackson Leroy and. | 00:05:27 | |
| I do this for several cities. So yeah, we don't run into each other somewhere. | 00:05:34 | |
| Maybe we work in a lot of cities we we think holiday is our favorite city and not I know you don't work for holiday directly but. | 00:05:39 | |
| We have our offices here and we do a lot of projects here in holiday and we feel like our general. | 00:05:47 | |
| Guidelines and the way we do business aligns really well with the City of Holiday and what they want to accomplish with their | 00:05:54 | |
| general plan. And so we'd like to be a great partner with them and I feel like we've done a lot of great projects together. | 00:06:00 | |
| Including a lot of variance and other things that we've changed including our office which is down on Highland Dr. which needed a | 00:06:08 | |
| big. We had a hearing on that to to change some setbacks and things and John Terlink was a great help for that. That was probably, | 00:06:14 | |
| I don't know, 12 years, that was a long time ago that we did that. But anyways and I'd also just say in addition to that, thanks | 00:06:21 | |
| to Carrie for all of her help on this particular one. She's done a great job and. | 00:06:28 | |
| I think we feel generally in agreement with everything that she's. | 00:06:36 | |
| Put in her report and the things that we've talked about. And so thank you to you Carrie for all that, all your work on that. I've | 00:06:42 | |
| got a few of my other team here, project managers, Dave and Josh, and then Ashley is in our office who's also helped put this | 00:06:48 | |
| together. So not to take too much of your time. | 00:06:54 | |
| That's appreciate them being here. Yeah, too often we have nobody here. It's nice to have an audience. I love an audience. | 00:07:01 | |
| So this general property, those five points that you brought up of. | 00:07:10 | |
| That are required to make a variance request. | 00:07:17 | |
| Be approved. I feel like we have a strong case on all of those five points and I feel like Carrie put that together nicely in her | 00:07:23 | |
| reports. I don't know that we need to rehash through that of the report other than this is a unique property. | 00:07:29 | |
| That's what I'd most like to hear. I mean her. The report tells me a lot. Yeah, and I've read the report. | 00:07:37 | |
| But I always like to hear from the owner of the Rep OK, what are we? Why are we doing? | 00:07:44 | |
| And why do we have a problem? What's our hardship? So a unique situation here is this lot is. | 00:07:50 | |
| Intersected by Big Cottonwood Creek, right, And it it got formed just recently by the purchase of the parcel behind Brett and | 00:07:57 | |
| Tracy's property. | 00:08:02 | |
| About a year ago, I think, which is the original parcel. | 00:08:10 | |
| I don't see a parcel number on that on the drawing, but. | 00:08:15 | |
| Oh, so they have a bridge that connects them to another part of their, correct? Correct. So the parcel that's on the other side of | 00:08:20 | |
| Big Cottonwood Creek was purchased. | 00:08:25 | |
| And it was purchased in conjunction with the neighbor here to the. | 00:08:31 | |
| North, I would say, which is Brad Reynolds. | 00:08:36 | |
| They purchased the property behind them, which was interestingly connection to that is one of my best friends growing up grew up | 00:08:40 | |
| in this house here and so I spent a lot of time over here on this property. Yeah, I love yeah, this property is, yeah, I have a | 00:08:46 | |
| lot of history over there. | 00:08:52 | |
| But what Brad and Brett, the two owners here on Haven, decided is let's let's purchase that. They went through the process of | 00:08:59 | |
| splitting the lot and combining it each with each of their properties across Big Cottonwood Creek. | 00:09:05 | |
| And so now parcel 452031. | 00:09:12 | |
| Is combined, you know crosses the Creek and they've both put in bridges over there that cross the Creek and pretty special kind of | 00:09:19 | |
| a unique. | 00:09:23 | |
| Place. | 00:09:29 | |
| And the Creek. | 00:09:31 | |
| Obviously was known about when they purchased the property. I feel like Brett and Tracy and Brad probably didn't understand the | 00:09:34 | |
| setback requirements or the hardship that that place is on the buildable area within their new parcel. | 00:09:41 | |
| Or within the new property and so I understand. | 00:09:48 | |
| Report there are. | 00:09:53 | |
| Setbacks from the Creek, correct. So and that has to, yeah. And that and that comes from I believe not just the city of holiday, | 00:09:54 | |
| but I think it comes from what does it carry the. | 00:10:00 | |
| Salt Lake County, yeah. So it's a, it's a 50 foot set back from the high watermark on each side of the Creek, which is extreme, | 00:10:06 | |
| right. So taking into account this area here on each side of that that that equals because they have property on both sides, it's | 00:10:13 | |
| 100 feet of unbuildable area that they have in the middle basically of their property. | 00:10:20 | |
| And so that's the main reason for the hardship is, is this feature of the Creek that runs through the property. | 00:10:28 | |
| And another interesting fact here is by combining the lots, it actually changes. And I don't think this is in the report, but I | 00:10:35 | |
| think the way the property used to be set up is what is now our rear property line used to be considered a side yard property on | 00:10:41 | |
| the old parcel. | 00:10:48 | |
| Before it was combined. And if you look on this map, you can see where the old pool was and the old pool house, which are a lot | 00:10:55 | |
| closer to the side property than would be allowed currently with the division, right. Yeah. So that that brown building is the | 00:11:01 | |
| pool, that's the pool cover. And then there's a pool house, the white, which is right up near the property line. And then there's | 00:11:07 | |
| a larger pool house, which is, I don't know how close that that was. It's been removed. Those structures are gone. The pool isn't | 00:11:13 | |
| there anymore. | 00:11:19 | |
| And the main house has been removed, but anyways the neighbor to the other side. | 00:11:26 | |
| I just want to make sure I understand this. | 00:11:33 | |
| Photo So. | 00:11:35 | |
| Their houses, You're looking at this. Yeah. So their current home is on Haven Lane, and their address is a Haven Lane address. | 00:11:38 | |
| 2512. | 00:11:47 | |
| Correct. | 00:11:52 | |
| Basically their old property ended at the Creek. The part that they purchased would be that. | 00:11:53 | |
| And another unique part of this by creating this property is is the access from the Walker Lane side which used to be the front | 00:12:00 | |
| yard entrance to the original piece of property comes in. You can kind of see where it comes in. | 00:12:07 | |
| Umm, right there. Yeah, where the cursor is. So that's a unique feature too, right? There's an entrance back there off of Walker | 00:12:16 | |
| Lane. A private the private lane off of Walker. | 00:12:21 | |
| Pointing out the fact that this used to be a side yard set back. I guess I'm making that argument because it furthers our position | 00:12:28 | |
| as even to the neighbors the set back is less than it would have been had the parcels not been combined right? They could have | 00:12:34 | |
| pushed that building up closer to the property line, really affecting the neighbor and I don't know the neighbors at 453014 | 00:12:40 | |
| parcel. | 00:12:46 | |
| Anyways, our building is much. | 00:12:53 | |
| Proposed that we'd like to do is set back even further off the property line now than it would have been. | 00:12:56 | |
| Before OK, so. | 00:13:02 | |
| What's your proposed building is on the new piece? | 00:13:06 | |
| Yeah, we'd like to, yeah, on the other side of the Creek and if you go back to that site plan, it shows kind of the building | 00:13:09 | |
| layout that the Hopkins are proposing. | 00:13:13 | |
| You can see where the driveway comes in. It will act as a secondary building. | 00:13:18 | |
| Basically a garage over there, but. | 00:13:24 | |
| It will be. | 00:13:27 | |
| Umm, yeah. It'll be beautiful structure. It's going to be really nice. | 00:13:30 | |
| Combine the. | 00:13:35 | |
| Step back the city. Set back. | 00:13:38 | |
| You have a little narrow strip in the middle you can build on. | 00:13:41 | |
| Correct. Yeah, you can see that set back where the cursor is. That's the 50 foot set back mark right there where the cursor is. | 00:13:43 | |
| And then the building side, the building you can see, you can see the it's at the proposed set back right now which is the the 20 | 00:13:51 | |
| feet. | 00:13:56 | |
| The current set back being a rear yard is the 30 feet. | 00:14:02 | |
| The way the parcel used to be, I believe it would have had a 10 foot set back. | 00:14:06 | |
| Off of that side yard, right. Is that right, 10 or maybe? | 00:14:12 | |
| That point isn't really that big of a I'm not trying to make that argument our main argument, but I'm just saying that's another | 00:14:20 | |
| point. | 00:14:23 | |
| And then the side yard set back is interesting because and that's where that blew the triangle there is and that really set back. | 00:14:27 | |
| I mean the Hopkins would would prefer to push the building towards that set back or have a 10 foot proposed set back on that side. | 00:14:33 | |
| This has all been discussed with the Reynolds and obviously they can't just decide between neighbors what they want to do, but the | 00:14:40 | |
| Reynolds are totally agreeable to that. They actually like that they want to build something close to. So they kind of have a an | 00:14:46 | |
| agreement there like hey. | 00:14:52 | |
| If you do it, we'll do it. And they have a good relationship as neighbors and and. | 00:14:59 | |
| It wouldn't put like hardship on the Reynolds US pushing the building closer. | 00:15:04 | |
| Have their opportunity to show up today? Yeah, they would. Yeah. And they're not here, so just kidding. | 00:15:09 | |
| No, they have a great relationship as neighbors. I think really what Brad's plan is and I can't speak officially obviously for | 00:15:15 | |
| that, but I think mostly it will be mostly just landscaping back there. | 00:15:20 | |
| And so whether we push the building a few feet to that side, set back or not, doesn't affect him much. | 00:15:26 | |
| Obviously his home main home is nowhere even close to that and there aren't really any other homes in the area there. | 00:15:33 | |
| Given the width of the property top to bottom on this. | 00:15:41 | |
| How? What's the problem with moving the carriage house? | 00:15:48 | |
| A few feet. | 00:15:52 | |
| Towards the bottom of the diagram so it doesn't have a set back issue. | 00:15:53 | |
| Yeah, and I think that's all. | 00:15:57 | |
| Is it topography? Is it? | 00:16:01 | |
| I guess the answer to that is it probably could be done. It just creates a really tight space there between the Creek and where | 00:16:05 | |
| you know what they would want to do with the landscaping, pushing that building close up to the bridge and just making it not seem | 00:16:10 | |
| as. | 00:16:14 | |
| Well, I wouldn't move any closer to the bridge, right? It just moves parallel to the bridge. | 00:16:20 | |
| What? | 00:16:26 | |
| Yeah, good point. Good point. | 00:16:29 | |
| Yeah, moving it that way. | 00:16:33 | |
| From the side set back. | 00:16:36 | |
| On the picture down, yeah, you're right, that is not and that's not a really the main setback that we would. | 00:16:39 | |
| Yeah. So really what we, our preference is like Carrie put in her report the approval of the 20 foot set back variance. | 00:16:48 | |
| That's the big one that we want. If we can't get this side set back, we would want it over as far as you would allow us to after | 00:16:59 | |
| reading the report. But if it can't go that way, it's not like a deal killer. It's not going to, it's not a huge deal to the | 00:17:05 | |
| Hopkins other than we may encounter a few trees that we need to take down that are large beautiful trees that the neighbors may be | 00:17:12 | |
| more upset about that than just moving the building over a little bit. So we're always trying to be consider that and thanks for | 00:17:19 | |
| bringing that up, Josh. | 00:17:25 | |
| Mr. Cat and I can comment on that as well with tree removal as Holiday has a tree canopy sustainability ordinance. | 00:17:33 | |
| It is triggered when there's new development on a property, typically. | 00:17:45 | |
| For we do like allow decreased setbacks in a planned unit development type situation, So those kinds of allowances are | 00:17:53 | |
| occasionally made to preserve trees, yes. | 00:18:02 | |
| Yes. | 00:18:12 | |
| Specifically tied to planned unit developments, but the. | 00:18:14 | |
| If we're looking at the spirit of the of the zoning ordinance, that is a factor is a tree preservation. | 00:18:19 | |
| And you can't. You can kind of see the tree canopy from this aerial shot, but the idea would be to maintain those trees almost | 00:18:29 | |
| where that arrow is. | 00:18:33 | |
| There's a few really tall Evergreen trees in that zone. That would probably be. | 00:18:39 | |
| Encroached upon. The more we have to move that way, the more risk we have losing those trees for sure. | 00:18:44 | |
| I don't know there's anything I'd add to that or if there are any other questions or. | 00:18:52 | |
| I mean, I think it's between what you've told me and what's in the staff report, if you kind of. | 00:18:57 | |
| Good idea what your problem is. | 00:19:03 | |
| I can't. I mean I typically I have some questions, but. | 00:19:08 | |
| Not sure I do today. Kerry did such a good job laying it all out there. | 00:19:11 | |
| And whether we move it or decide to split the difference or go to the existing not granted on the side, I mean obviously the | 00:19:17 | |
| Hopkins. | 00:19:21 | |
| Would prefer it move over like I said. | 00:19:25 | |
| Looking at this, what is the existing set back requirement and how much are you asking it? That's on the side. | 00:19:29 | |
| And how much of A variance are you asking for? | 00:19:35 | |
| Currently at 17 feet without a variance we're asking for 10 which is so 7 feet difference. You know carries report talks about | 00:19:38 | |
| possibly splitting that and really if you look at that map, not much. We're not planning on building a lot into that set back. | 00:19:46 | |
| It's just that little triangle of the building that encroaches into the set back and so. | 00:19:53 | |
| It's that little corner and. | 00:20:01 | |
| I think the overall massing of the building will feel not part of the set back, it's just that little corner and so that's. | 00:20:05 | |
| It gives a. | 00:20:13 | |
| These reasons probably aren't. | 00:20:15 | |
| Necessarily hardship. It just gives a better feel to the lot and to the positioning of the building if it's over, as well as | 00:20:17 | |
| preserving those trees. That's probably the best argument. | 00:20:22 | |
| I understand that correctly what you're saying. I might often do this in various instances. This is a various structural link. | 00:20:31 | |
| It's not a variance for your whole site, right? Yes. And that kind of explains the how we have average setbacks. So the 17 feet is | 00:20:38 | |
| an average set back, which the proposed building as I looked at it largely meets at 17 feet because we have A and I didn't do the | 00:20:46 | |
| full like 10 points, but this point is further away. This point is further away. So then that kind of creates an average of what | 00:20:55 | |
| would be likely larger than 17 feet. So you'd meet the average requirement. | 00:21:03 | |
| It's just that no point closer than, so the no point closer than is 14, about 14 1/2 feet. So really it's an encroachment of you | 00:21:12 | |
| know a single point or area that is encroaching into that 14.45 feet that would be the required. | 00:21:22 | |
| So. | 00:21:32 | |
| And that's this area. So I drew a line kind of in here of what that 14 feet is. | 00:21:34 | |
| And what is that structure? I mean it looks like stairs or something. | 00:21:41 | |
| Is that part of the house? Yeah, there's a yeah, there's a basement inside that. | 00:21:46 | |
| And so there's stairs going. Yeah, yeah, it's part of. | 00:21:52 | |
| It's part of the building, yeah. | 00:21:58 | |
| And the Hopkins would, that's all they're planning on. They're not planning on building another structure. We're not going to come | 00:22:00 | |
| back in here and ask for another building within that set back. So they would be totally fine and we would be if it's restricted | 00:22:04 | |
| just to that building. | 00:22:09 | |
| In the future, on the map you do see that gravel terrace, that's a that's a carport that actually is still there, but that's that. | 00:22:15 | |
| The plan is to remove that, so there won't be that. | 00:22:20 | |
| If the city was proposing before 14.25, I think. | 00:22:27 | |
| Kind of compromises, yeah. | 00:22:32 | |
| If that was if I settled on that as being a reasonable thing. | 00:22:35 | |
| Then does that move the house? If it only moves the house like 3 feet, is that going to hurt those trees? | 00:22:41 | |
| I don't think so, right? | 00:22:48 | |
| We don't have it necessarily surveyed out yet, so we're not for sure. | 00:22:50 | |
| The full drip line of those, right? | 00:23:03 | |
| Roots. | 00:23:07 | |
| There's a couple of huge trees like here. | 00:23:16 | |
| Do you mind? | 00:23:20 | |
| I can't see this point right? | 00:23:23 | |
| Really large trees in this area. | 00:23:27 | |
| And right at the end of the building, we don't have them surveyed out. I mean, there are a few other others here, yeah. | 00:23:29 | |
| OK. | 00:23:40 | |
| There's a huge one there too. | 00:23:42 | |
| Right here, yeah. | 00:23:49 | |
| It's pushing that the more we can keep it that way, the better for this building. | 00:23:53 | |
| Yeah, and those trees would have to adjust the driveway to. | 00:23:58 | |
| Yeah, like this kind of ****. Yeah, a little bit of everything around. | 00:24:08 | |
| OK. | 00:24:12 | |
| And yeah, it's a landscape. | 00:24:15 | |
| And it would be nice, since you've made quite a few comments. Do you mind telling us your name? | 00:24:24 | |
| OK. Thank you. | 00:24:32 | |
| Yeah. Let's get Josh on there. I appreciate the comments. | 00:24:34 | |
| He likes to talk to. | 00:24:38 | |
| OK, umm. | 00:24:44 | |
| I think I have enough information to make a decision. | 00:24:47 | |
| Yeah, thanks for considering. Like I said, we love City of Holiday. We're happy with whatever you decide obviously, but hope that | 00:24:51 | |
| it's. | 00:24:55 | |
| So I'm actually headed out of town in the morning, but. | 00:25:01 | |
| I should have this decision within a week. | 00:25:05 | |
| And I said I have to put it in writing. | 00:25:07 | |
| I think you guys record them if I recall. | 00:25:11 | |
| So that they feature, property owners can see them. | 00:25:15 | |
| So I will get it to carry and she will get it to you. | 00:25:18 | |
| Great. Thank you, Carrie. Thanks. Hope you're going somewhere warm. | 00:25:23 | |
| A little bit warmer. | 00:25:28 | |
| Thank you. | 00:25:31 | |
| And that will adjourn. | 00:25:32 |
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Transcript
| All set. | 00:00:01 | |
| OK. | 00:00:04 | |
| I will call this hearing to order. | 00:00:06 | |
| It is. | 00:00:09 | |
| May S 2024 and we are meeting in the. | 00:00:11 | |
| City Council Chambers at Holiday City Hall. | 00:00:15 | |
| This is very experienced. I'm holiday Cities land use officer. My name's Richard Catman. | 00:00:18 | |
| Just a little bit of preliminary about me. I don't work for holiday. I'm an independent person. They bring in my background is I | 00:00:25 | |
| used to be the city attorney in West Valley City for a long time. So I have a land use background. | 00:00:31 | |
| And a lawyer. | 00:00:38 | |
| So the item we have, we only have one item on the agenda today and it is a variance for an address or property located 2512 E. | 00:00:41 | |
| Haven Lane in Holiday. | 00:00:49 | |
| The applicants and property owners of Brett and Tracy Hopkins and I believe they have representative as their applicant. | 00:00:53 | |
| And before we get started, let me just kind of explain how variances work. | 00:00:59 | |
| Probably know this already, may or may not. | 00:01:04 | |
| But excuse me, variances are how you get A variance is set by state law. Every city has its own. | 00:01:07 | |
| Ordinances that mirror state law, so this is consistent around the state. | 00:01:15 | |
| And there are essentially 5 criteria that it's my job to look at. The first one, is there an unreasonable hardship that the | 00:01:20 | |
| ordinances are causing? | 00:01:24 | |
| That and the second part of this is that same hardship generally not applied to the other properties in the neighborhood. | 00:01:30 | |
| And the third one is depriving you. I'm paraphrasing these, essentially. | 00:01:39 | |
| But the third one is is depriving the property owners of the substantial right that other owners have to. | 00:01:44 | |
| Build or do something similar to what they want to do. | 00:01:50 | |
| The last one is to detect the city's general plan in a bad way. | 00:01:54 | |
| Affect the. | 00:01:58 | |
| And the last one is just kind of a goal actually more than a requirement. We try to do substantial justice and. | 00:02:00 | |
| Zoning laws as much as we can. So we try to find, if we can, that middle ground where you can do what you want, but we still don't | 00:02:07 | |
| disrupt the city's zoning too much. | 00:02:11 | |
| So with that in mind, those are the things I'm looking for. | 00:02:17 | |
| It's not just up to me to decide, yeah, this is a good thing. I actually have to write an analysis. At the end of the day, when I | 00:02:20 | |
| make a decision, say why I think you meet or don't meet those criteria. | 00:02:26 | |
| So with that in mind, who wants to come up and tell me what you're going to build? | 00:02:32 | |
| Hang on just a second. | 00:02:36 | |
| Subsidies like to do the first presentation. | 00:02:39 | |
| Some cities don't, and it's been a while since I did one for holiday. Do you want to go first? I don't. I don't think we have a | 00:02:42 | |
| preference. I did want to note that in the staff report there were some references to Mr. Jones and some science. So we're from an | 00:02:50 | |
| old report. So those are just things that didn't get changed. They're irrelevant to this. | 00:02:58 | |
| But that's not the recommendation here. What was the I think the recommendation here is that from the city's recommendation is | 00:03:08 | |
| that the rear yard set back be approved. | 00:03:13 | |
| Variance but the side yard not. | 00:03:19 | |
| Yeah. Either denial or the approval with modification. Yeah. So I was there. I brought that up. So I wanted to make sure I do. | 00:03:21 | |
| Yes, yeah. | 00:03:30 | |
| I think the references were on page like 11. | 00:03:32 | |
| I didn't get a chance to look at it yesterday. | 00:03:40 | |
| But the. | 00:03:45 | |
| This part number 8 that's from a previous one that's same with this one. | 00:03:48 | |
| We pull things in and change things get left. | 00:03:59 | |
| Understand that. | 00:04:07 | |
| Yeah, that's so. That's the reference I think. | 00:04:09 | |
| Like maybe I pulled in. | 00:04:16 | |
| One that was not fully modified anyway. | 00:04:18 | |
| That's that's what those references are. The staff report is still pretty complete with that. | 00:04:22 | |
| Information that applies to this particular. | 00:04:31 | |
| Yes. | 00:04:34 | |
| Great. Yeah. So there's the recommendation at the end. | 00:04:35 | |
| Well, there is another. Oh yeah, because that one is the. | 00:04:42 | |
| That's in reference with that. | 00:04:47 | |
| Sides, right, Yeah. Is there one farther up in the front of the dock? Yes. | 00:04:48 | |
| Which is this one? | 00:04:55 | |
| Yeah. There, yeah, there we go. That's the one that plays here. | 00:04:59 | |
| With that, thank you. Come on up. And for the record, this is recorded typically, so tell us who you are. | 00:05:05 | |
| That's good. I like to be recorded. It's good. | 00:05:14 | |
| I think, yeah, I think so. | 00:05:20 | |
| So nice to meet you, Richard. I don't know if we've talked before or not. Maybe we have in some other meeting and I'm Jeremy | 00:05:22 | |
| Jackson, so one of the owners of Jackson Leroy and. | 00:05:27 | |
| I do this for several cities. So yeah, we don't run into each other somewhere. | 00:05:34 | |
| Maybe we work in a lot of cities we we think holiday is our favorite city and not I know you don't work for holiday directly but. | 00:05:39 | |
| We have our offices here and we do a lot of projects here in holiday and we feel like our general. | 00:05:47 | |
| Guidelines and the way we do business aligns really well with the City of Holiday and what they want to accomplish with their | 00:05:54 | |
| general plan. And so we'd like to be a great partner with them and I feel like we've done a lot of great projects together. | 00:06:00 | |
| Including a lot of variance and other things that we've changed including our office which is down on Highland Dr. which needed a | 00:06:08 | |
| big. We had a hearing on that to to change some setbacks and things and John Terlink was a great help for that. That was probably, | 00:06:14 | |
| I don't know, 12 years, that was a long time ago that we did that. But anyways and I'd also just say in addition to that, thanks | 00:06:21 | |
| to Carrie for all of her help on this particular one. She's done a great job and. | 00:06:28 | |
| I think we feel generally in agreement with everything that she's. | 00:06:36 | |
| Put in her report and the things that we've talked about. And so thank you to you Carrie for all that, all your work on that. I've | 00:06:42 | |
| got a few of my other team here, project managers, Dave and Josh, and then Ashley is in our office who's also helped put this | 00:06:48 | |
| together. So not to take too much of your time. | 00:06:54 | |
| That's appreciate them being here. Yeah, too often we have nobody here. It's nice to have an audience. I love an audience. | 00:07:01 | |
| So this general property, those five points that you brought up of. | 00:07:10 | |
| That are required to make a variance request. | 00:07:17 | |
| Be approved. I feel like we have a strong case on all of those five points and I feel like Carrie put that together nicely in her | 00:07:23 | |
| reports. I don't know that we need to rehash through that of the report other than this is a unique property. | 00:07:29 | |
| That's what I'd most like to hear. I mean her. The report tells me a lot. Yeah, and I've read the report. | 00:07:37 | |
| But I always like to hear from the owner of the Rep OK, what are we? Why are we doing? | 00:07:44 | |
| And why do we have a problem? What's our hardship? So a unique situation here is this lot is. | 00:07:50 | |
| Intersected by Big Cottonwood Creek, right, And it it got formed just recently by the purchase of the parcel behind Brett and | 00:07:57 | |
| Tracy's property. | 00:08:02 | |
| About a year ago, I think, which is the original parcel. | 00:08:10 | |
| I don't see a parcel number on that on the drawing, but. | 00:08:15 | |
| Oh, so they have a bridge that connects them to another part of their, correct? Correct. So the parcel that's on the other side of | 00:08:20 | |
| Big Cottonwood Creek was purchased. | 00:08:25 | |
| And it was purchased in conjunction with the neighbor here to the. | 00:08:31 | |
| North, I would say, which is Brad Reynolds. | 00:08:36 | |
| They purchased the property behind them, which was interestingly connection to that is one of my best friends growing up grew up | 00:08:40 | |
| in this house here and so I spent a lot of time over here on this property. Yeah, I love yeah, this property is, yeah, I have a | 00:08:46 | |
| lot of history over there. | 00:08:52 | |
| But what Brad and Brett, the two owners here on Haven, decided is let's let's purchase that. They went through the process of | 00:08:59 | |
| splitting the lot and combining it each with each of their properties across Big Cottonwood Creek. | 00:09:05 | |
| And so now parcel 452031. | 00:09:12 | |
| Is combined, you know crosses the Creek and they've both put in bridges over there that cross the Creek and pretty special kind of | 00:09:19 | |
| a unique. | 00:09:23 | |
| Place. | 00:09:29 | |
| And the Creek. | 00:09:31 | |
| Obviously was known about when they purchased the property. I feel like Brett and Tracy and Brad probably didn't understand the | 00:09:34 | |
| setback requirements or the hardship that that place is on the buildable area within their new parcel. | 00:09:41 | |
| Or within the new property and so I understand. | 00:09:48 | |
| Report there are. | 00:09:53 | |
| Setbacks from the Creek, correct. So and that has to, yeah. And that and that comes from I believe not just the city of holiday, | 00:09:54 | |
| but I think it comes from what does it carry the. | 00:10:00 | |
| Salt Lake County, yeah. So it's a, it's a 50 foot set back from the high watermark on each side of the Creek, which is extreme, | 00:10:06 | |
| right. So taking into account this area here on each side of that that that equals because they have property on both sides, it's | 00:10:13 | |
| 100 feet of unbuildable area that they have in the middle basically of their property. | 00:10:20 | |
| And so that's the main reason for the hardship is, is this feature of the Creek that runs through the property. | 00:10:28 | |
| And another interesting fact here is by combining the lots, it actually changes. And I don't think this is in the report, but I | 00:10:35 | |
| think the way the property used to be set up is what is now our rear property line used to be considered a side yard property on | 00:10:41 | |
| the old parcel. | 00:10:48 | |
| Before it was combined. And if you look on this map, you can see where the old pool was and the old pool house, which are a lot | 00:10:55 | |
| closer to the side property than would be allowed currently with the division, right. Yeah. So that that brown building is the | 00:11:01 | |
| pool, that's the pool cover. And then there's a pool house, the white, which is right up near the property line. And then there's | 00:11:07 | |
| a larger pool house, which is, I don't know how close that that was. It's been removed. Those structures are gone. The pool isn't | 00:11:13 | |
| there anymore. | 00:11:19 | |
| And the main house has been removed, but anyways the neighbor to the other side. | 00:11:26 | |
| I just want to make sure I understand this. | 00:11:33 | |
| Photo So. | 00:11:35 | |
| Their houses, You're looking at this. Yeah. So their current home is on Haven Lane, and their address is a Haven Lane address. | 00:11:38 | |
| 2512. | 00:11:47 | |
| Correct. | 00:11:52 | |
| Basically their old property ended at the Creek. The part that they purchased would be that. | 00:11:53 | |
| And another unique part of this by creating this property is is the access from the Walker Lane side which used to be the front | 00:12:00 | |
| yard entrance to the original piece of property comes in. You can kind of see where it comes in. | 00:12:07 | |
| Umm, right there. Yeah, where the cursor is. So that's a unique feature too, right? There's an entrance back there off of Walker | 00:12:16 | |
| Lane. A private the private lane off of Walker. | 00:12:21 | |
| Pointing out the fact that this used to be a side yard set back. I guess I'm making that argument because it furthers our position | 00:12:28 | |
| as even to the neighbors the set back is less than it would have been had the parcels not been combined right? They could have | 00:12:34 | |
| pushed that building up closer to the property line, really affecting the neighbor and I don't know the neighbors at 453014 | 00:12:40 | |
| parcel. | 00:12:46 | |
| Anyways, our building is much. | 00:12:53 | |
| Proposed that we'd like to do is set back even further off the property line now than it would have been. | 00:12:56 | |
| Before OK, so. | 00:13:02 | |
| What's your proposed building is on the new piece? | 00:13:06 | |
| Yeah, we'd like to, yeah, on the other side of the Creek and if you go back to that site plan, it shows kind of the building | 00:13:09 | |
| layout that the Hopkins are proposing. | 00:13:13 | |
| You can see where the driveway comes in. It will act as a secondary building. | 00:13:18 | |
| Basically a garage over there, but. | 00:13:24 | |
| It will be. | 00:13:27 | |
| Umm, yeah. It'll be beautiful structure. It's going to be really nice. | 00:13:30 | |
| Combine the. | 00:13:35 | |
| Step back the city. Set back. | 00:13:38 | |
| You have a little narrow strip in the middle you can build on. | 00:13:41 | |
| Correct. Yeah, you can see that set back where the cursor is. That's the 50 foot set back mark right there where the cursor is. | 00:13:43 | |
| And then the building side, the building you can see, you can see the it's at the proposed set back right now which is the the 20 | 00:13:51 | |
| feet. | 00:13:56 | |
| The current set back being a rear yard is the 30 feet. | 00:14:02 | |
| The way the parcel used to be, I believe it would have had a 10 foot set back. | 00:14:06 | |
| Off of that side yard, right. Is that right, 10 or maybe? | 00:14:12 | |
| That point isn't really that big of a I'm not trying to make that argument our main argument, but I'm just saying that's another | 00:14:20 | |
| point. | 00:14:23 | |
| And then the side yard set back is interesting because and that's where that blew the triangle there is and that really set back. | 00:14:27 | |
| I mean the Hopkins would would prefer to push the building towards that set back or have a 10 foot proposed set back on that side. | 00:14:33 | |
| This has all been discussed with the Reynolds and obviously they can't just decide between neighbors what they want to do, but the | 00:14:40 | |
| Reynolds are totally agreeable to that. They actually like that they want to build something close to. So they kind of have a an | 00:14:46 | |
| agreement there like hey. | 00:14:52 | |
| If you do it, we'll do it. And they have a good relationship as neighbors and and. | 00:14:59 | |
| It wouldn't put like hardship on the Reynolds US pushing the building closer. | 00:15:04 | |
| Have their opportunity to show up today? Yeah, they would. Yeah. And they're not here, so just kidding. | 00:15:09 | |
| No, they have a great relationship as neighbors. I think really what Brad's plan is and I can't speak officially obviously for | 00:15:15 | |
| that, but I think mostly it will be mostly just landscaping back there. | 00:15:20 | |
| And so whether we push the building a few feet to that side, set back or not, doesn't affect him much. | 00:15:26 | |
| Obviously his home main home is nowhere even close to that and there aren't really any other homes in the area there. | 00:15:33 | |
| Given the width of the property top to bottom on this. | 00:15:41 | |
| How? What's the problem with moving the carriage house? | 00:15:48 | |
| A few feet. | 00:15:52 | |
| Towards the bottom of the diagram so it doesn't have a set back issue. | 00:15:53 | |
| Yeah, and I think that's all. | 00:15:57 | |
| Is it topography? Is it? | 00:16:01 | |
| I guess the answer to that is it probably could be done. It just creates a really tight space there between the Creek and where | 00:16:05 | |
| you know what they would want to do with the landscaping, pushing that building close up to the bridge and just making it not seem | 00:16:10 | |
| as. | 00:16:14 | |
| Well, I wouldn't move any closer to the bridge, right? It just moves parallel to the bridge. | 00:16:20 | |
| What? | 00:16:26 | |
| Yeah, good point. Good point. | 00:16:29 | |
| Yeah, moving it that way. | 00:16:33 | |
| From the side set back. | 00:16:36 | |
| On the picture down, yeah, you're right, that is not and that's not a really the main setback that we would. | 00:16:39 | |
| Yeah. So really what we, our preference is like Carrie put in her report the approval of the 20 foot set back variance. | 00:16:48 | |
| That's the big one that we want. If we can't get this side set back, we would want it over as far as you would allow us to after | 00:16:59 | |
| reading the report. But if it can't go that way, it's not like a deal killer. It's not going to, it's not a huge deal to the | 00:17:05 | |
| Hopkins other than we may encounter a few trees that we need to take down that are large beautiful trees that the neighbors may be | 00:17:12 | |
| more upset about that than just moving the building over a little bit. So we're always trying to be consider that and thanks for | 00:17:19 | |
| bringing that up, Josh. | 00:17:25 | |
| Mr. Cat and I can comment on that as well with tree removal as Holiday has a tree canopy sustainability ordinance. | 00:17:33 | |
| It is triggered when there's new development on a property, typically. | 00:17:45 | |
| For we do like allow decreased setbacks in a planned unit development type situation, So those kinds of allowances are | 00:17:53 | |
| occasionally made to preserve trees, yes. | 00:18:02 | |
| Yes. | 00:18:12 | |
| Specifically tied to planned unit developments, but the. | 00:18:14 | |
| If we're looking at the spirit of the of the zoning ordinance, that is a factor is a tree preservation. | 00:18:19 | |
| And you can't. You can kind of see the tree canopy from this aerial shot, but the idea would be to maintain those trees almost | 00:18:29 | |
| where that arrow is. | 00:18:33 | |
| There's a few really tall Evergreen trees in that zone. That would probably be. | 00:18:39 | |
| Encroached upon. The more we have to move that way, the more risk we have losing those trees for sure. | 00:18:44 | |
| I don't know there's anything I'd add to that or if there are any other questions or. | 00:18:52 | |
| I mean, I think it's between what you've told me and what's in the staff report, if you kind of. | 00:18:57 | |
| Good idea what your problem is. | 00:19:03 | |
| I can't. I mean I typically I have some questions, but. | 00:19:08 | |
| Not sure I do today. Kerry did such a good job laying it all out there. | 00:19:11 | |
| And whether we move it or decide to split the difference or go to the existing not granted on the side, I mean obviously the | 00:19:17 | |
| Hopkins. | 00:19:21 | |
| Would prefer it move over like I said. | 00:19:25 | |
| Looking at this, what is the existing set back requirement and how much are you asking it? That's on the side. | 00:19:29 | |
| And how much of A variance are you asking for? | 00:19:35 | |
| Currently at 17 feet without a variance we're asking for 10 which is so 7 feet difference. You know carries report talks about | 00:19:38 | |
| possibly splitting that and really if you look at that map, not much. We're not planning on building a lot into that set back. | 00:19:46 | |
| It's just that little triangle of the building that encroaches into the set back and so. | 00:19:53 | |
| It's that little corner and. | 00:20:01 | |
| I think the overall massing of the building will feel not part of the set back, it's just that little corner and so that's. | 00:20:05 | |
| It gives a. | 00:20:13 | |
| These reasons probably aren't. | 00:20:15 | |
| Necessarily hardship. It just gives a better feel to the lot and to the positioning of the building if it's over, as well as | 00:20:17 | |
| preserving those trees. That's probably the best argument. | 00:20:22 | |
| I understand that correctly what you're saying. I might often do this in various instances. This is a various structural link. | 00:20:31 | |
| It's not a variance for your whole site, right? Yes. And that kind of explains the how we have average setbacks. So the 17 feet is | 00:20:38 | |
| an average set back, which the proposed building as I looked at it largely meets at 17 feet because we have A and I didn't do the | 00:20:46 | |
| full like 10 points, but this point is further away. This point is further away. So then that kind of creates an average of what | 00:20:55 | |
| would be likely larger than 17 feet. So you'd meet the average requirement. | 00:21:03 | |
| It's just that no point closer than, so the no point closer than is 14, about 14 1/2 feet. So really it's an encroachment of you | 00:21:12 | |
| know a single point or area that is encroaching into that 14.45 feet that would be the required. | 00:21:22 | |
| So. | 00:21:32 | |
| And that's this area. So I drew a line kind of in here of what that 14 feet is. | 00:21:34 | |
| And what is that structure? I mean it looks like stairs or something. | 00:21:41 | |
| Is that part of the house? Yeah, there's a yeah, there's a basement inside that. | 00:21:46 | |
| And so there's stairs going. Yeah, yeah, it's part of. | 00:21:52 | |
| It's part of the building, yeah. | 00:21:58 | |
| And the Hopkins would, that's all they're planning on. They're not planning on building another structure. We're not going to come | 00:22:00 | |
| back in here and ask for another building within that set back. So they would be totally fine and we would be if it's restricted | 00:22:04 | |
| just to that building. | 00:22:09 | |
| In the future, on the map you do see that gravel terrace, that's a that's a carport that actually is still there, but that's that. | 00:22:15 | |
| The plan is to remove that, so there won't be that. | 00:22:20 | |
| If the city was proposing before 14.25, I think. | 00:22:27 | |
| Kind of compromises, yeah. | 00:22:32 | |
| If that was if I settled on that as being a reasonable thing. | 00:22:35 | |
| Then does that move the house? If it only moves the house like 3 feet, is that going to hurt those trees? | 00:22:41 | |
| I don't think so, right? | 00:22:48 | |
| We don't have it necessarily surveyed out yet, so we're not for sure. | 00:22:50 | |
| The full drip line of those, right? | 00:23:03 | |
| Roots. | 00:23:07 | |
| There's a couple of huge trees like here. | 00:23:16 | |
| Do you mind? | 00:23:20 | |
| I can't see this point right? | 00:23:23 | |
| Really large trees in this area. | 00:23:27 | |
| And right at the end of the building, we don't have them surveyed out. I mean, there are a few other others here, yeah. | 00:23:29 | |
| OK. | 00:23:40 | |
| There's a huge one there too. | 00:23:42 | |
| Right here, yeah. | 00:23:49 | |
| It's pushing that the more we can keep it that way, the better for this building. | 00:23:53 | |
| Yeah, and those trees would have to adjust the driveway to. | 00:23:58 | |
| Yeah, like this kind of ****. Yeah, a little bit of everything around. | 00:24:08 | |
| OK. | 00:24:12 | |
| And yeah, it's a landscape. | 00:24:15 | |
| And it would be nice, since you've made quite a few comments. Do you mind telling us your name? | 00:24:24 | |
| OK. Thank you. | 00:24:32 | |
| Yeah. Let's get Josh on there. I appreciate the comments. | 00:24:34 | |
| He likes to talk to. | 00:24:38 | |
| OK, umm. | 00:24:44 | |
| I think I have enough information to make a decision. | 00:24:47 | |
| Yeah, thanks for considering. Like I said, we love City of Holiday. We're happy with whatever you decide obviously, but hope that | 00:24:51 | |
| it's. | 00:24:55 | |
| So I'm actually headed out of town in the morning, but. | 00:25:01 | |
| I should have this decision within a week. | 00:25:05 | |
| And I said I have to put it in writing. | 00:25:07 | |
| I think you guys record them if I recall. | 00:25:11 | |
| So that they feature, property owners can see them. | 00:25:15 | |
| So I will get it to carry and she will get it to you. | 00:25:18 | |
| Great. Thank you, Carrie. Thanks. Hope you're going somewhere warm. | 00:25:23 | |
| A little bit warmer. | 00:25:28 | |
| Thank you. | 00:25:31 | |
| And that will adjourn. | 00:25:32 |