Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Excuse me, I've had a cold and I actually. | 00:01:11 | |
My name is Mr. Captain. | 00:01:20 | |
I am not completely. | 00:01:28 | |
Couldn't quit working. | 00:01:42 | |
It is December 16th. | 00:01:50 | |
The case with you today is file #24-5 dash. | 00:01:58 | |
The property address is 1981 E Marie Holiday Rd. | 00:02:06 | |
Would you like to introduce it or? | 00:02:17 | |
Some cities like. | 00:02:25 | |
Yeah, I can start with you, OK. | 00:02:28 | |
So good morning once again. | 00:02:36 | |
And this is recorded, so when you guys come up and speak. | 00:02:50 | |
Yeah. So good morning once again so. | 00:02:56 | |
As the hearings officer introduced the case number, the applicant. | 00:03:00 | |
And what the request is, I will go forward to give a background on this case. | 00:03:06 | |
So the applicant is seeking an exception to the regulations outlining City Code Chapter 13, verse 32.090. Now this pertains to | 00:03:11 | |
building height and it regulates the maximum height of accessory structures within the RM zones in the city. Basically, the | 00:03:19 | |
applicant is requesting for a relief from the prescribed 20 feet. | 00:03:28 | |
Maximum height for accessory buildings. In turn, he's proposing to maintain a 25 feet accessory building height. | 00:03:37 | |
Sorry to interrupt you, but just to. | 00:03:45 | |
Original application? Yep. | 00:03:47 | |
That's correct. So that was the original application, 31 feet. We got the modifications sometime last weekend. | 00:03:52 | |
We affected that change in the report, so right now they're asking for 25 feet instead of the 31 feet that was originally | 00:04:00 | |
proposed. | 00:04:04 | |
Now this would herein constitute A5 feet accessory build and height variant which would run. | 00:04:09 | |
What the landing perpetuity? | 00:04:15 | |
The applicant, Mr. Wheat, has filed an appeal to the administrative hearing officer seeking a variance to the above portions of | 00:04:18 | |
the city ordinance. | 00:04:23 | |
Now. | 00:04:29 | |
Typically in room zones, the City Court allows for properties located within the zone to accommodate a combination of residential | 00:04:30 | |
and. | 00:04:35 | |
Professional office spaces. | 00:04:40 | |
The subject property is currently utilized exclusively for professional office purposes. | 00:04:43 | |
Rendering its current use partially non conforming with the zoning requirement. | 00:04:49 | |
Now, the request arises from Mr. Wheat's proposal to demolish the existing garage and construct a new garage on the subject | 00:04:54 | |
property located at 1981 E Mary Holiday Rd. | 00:05:00 | |
Now, the appellant initially sought a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission to authorize the modification of the | 00:05:06 | |
property. | 00:05:10 | |
Which was designated as a historical site on June 25th with their Planning Commission. | 00:05:14 | |
Now the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit with conditions. | 00:05:21 | |
One of them being a required demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new garage. | 00:05:25 | |
Incorporating the architectural features consistent with the main residents and its 1979 edition. | 00:05:32 | |
Now, while the Planning Commission evaluated the architectural design of the garage, zoning compliance was deferred to the CED | 00:05:39 | |
Department. | 00:05:44 | |
Because the Planning Commission does not do zoning reviews. | 00:05:49 | |
Subsequent to the CU P approval, Mr. Wheat submitted a building permit application for the proposed garage design. | 00:05:53 | |
Now, Jarney's review. The Citi's Technical review committee determined that the originally proposed height of 31.7 feet. | 00:06:01 | |
Which is now revised to 25 feet exceeded the maximum height of 20 feet permitted for accessory structures under the City Ordinance | 00:06:10 | |
13.32 Point 000B3. Now, although the proposed garage complied with the setbacks and structural footprint requirement, the Planning | 00:06:16 | |
Department informed Mr. Wheat that the height exceeded the zoning limits and approval cannot be appended to the permit | 00:06:23 | |
application. | 00:06:30 | |
So Mr. Wheat is of the opinion that his proposed his proposal warrants consideration of unique circumstances and requests a relief | 00:06:37 | |
from the 20 feet maximum height requirement from the city ordinance. He's hereby requesting a relief from the coat or requirement | 00:06:44 | |
related to the 20 feet accessory building height and in turn seeking permission to maintain a 25 feet garage height on the | 00:06:51 | |
northwestern corner of the property. | 00:06:58 | |
Now they're supporting documentation have been shared both to the applicant and the hearing officer. | 00:07:05 | |
In terms of the city codes that regulate this hearing and the permitting process, we're looking at code 13.32, point 090, which | 00:07:12 | |
regulates building height. And specifically we're looking at the subsection B3, which regulates building height for accessory | 00:07:19 | |
structures in our RM zones. I'm going to read what the code requirement says for accessory building heights, so the maximum height | 00:07:26 | |
of any accessory building. | 00:07:34 | |
Structure shall be 20 feet according to this code ordinance. | 00:07:41 | |
Now it's normal procedure for a variant application to be run through the five part tests based on state requirements. | 00:07:45 | |
The city staff also provides its findings in consonance with the recommendation that we will provide at the end of this. | 00:07:55 | |
Analysis. Now generally, the city staff does not vote, but what we do is we provide recommendation according to the technicalities | 00:08:03 | |
of the case. | 00:08:08 | |
Now, generally these findings are determined promised on the city steps administrative interpretation of the city's code. | 00:08:13 | |
The context characteristics of the subject property and then the purpose of the city code, and then the overall character of the | 00:08:21 | |
neighborhood in relations to the variance request. | 00:08:26 | |
Now. | 00:08:33 | |
Based off of the findings that the city staff and the technical review committee made, we made two main findings. Now the first | 00:08:34 | |
one is. | 00:08:39 | |
Trying to examine the purpose of the city code and its intent. | 00:08:44 | |
Now personal to the City Code Ordnance governing building heights in RM zones. | 00:08:50 | |
Main buildings are permitted to range from 32 to 40 feet, while accessory buildings or structures are restricted to a maximum | 00:08:55 | |
height of 20 feet. | 00:09:00 | |
The primary purpose of this 20 feet height limitation is to regulate mass and proximity to property lines because accessory | 00:09:05 | |
buildings are aligned to allow to be built closer to the property line as against the main structures. So that's why we give those | 00:09:10 | |
limitations. | 00:09:16 | |
Again, this ensures that the graduated height minimizes the visual and mass and impact on adjacent properties. | 00:09:22 | |
Now, this regulation also seeks to provide a territorial view protection reduced structural dominance along property boundaries. | 00:09:31 | |
And encourage architectural variety within the neighborhood. | 00:09:39 | |
City staff identifies 2 critical factors in evaluating compliance with the ordinance. Intent 1 is what are the proposed height? | 00:09:42 | |
Would undermine the territorial view protection 2 is whether the visual impact on the neighboring properties. | 00:09:52 | |
Would be adverse or disproportionate. Now the context of the subject property includes a mix of residential and commercial land. | 00:09:59 | |
Around the subject property, now to the north and east of the property. | 00:10:09 | |
It is bordered by residential neighborhoods, which is separated by a canal. | 00:10:15 | |
The Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal to the West of the site is a commercial enclave. | 00:10:19 | |
That has business and entertainment venues around that location. | 00:10:27 | |
Now in assessing the property's visual impact of the proposed structure. | 00:10:34 | |
We assess that considerations should include its effect on both the residential properties to the north and east. | 00:10:39 | |
And their commercial enclave to the West, now the canal buffers now the canal, the Salt Lake City and Jordan Canal that buffers to | 00:10:47 | |
the northeast of the property. It serves as a mitigating feature for some of the residential impact, but careful evaluation of the | 00:10:53 | |
project alignment with the. | 00:11:00 | |
Ordinance purpose is necessary to determine whether the proposed height would negatively affect. | 00:11:08 | |
The character of the surrounding areas, now 2 would be the purview of the Technical Review Committee. | 00:11:14 | |
Now the Technical Review committee of the CED department is composed of experts from planning and building, engineering, Fire. | 00:11:20 | |
And code enforcement. Now the Technical Review Committee evaluates plans and permits to ensure compliance with all the applicable | 00:11:28 | |
codes, city, municipal, state and international codes. | 00:11:34 | |
In reviewing the proposed garage, the Fire Division has indicated that due to its location and proposed height now, this | 00:11:41 | |
assessment was made based off of the original 31. | 00:11:46 | |
.7 feet, although structural height should be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet, and exceeding this height would violate the | 00:11:51 | |
fire code. | 00:11:56 | |
Provisions related to aerial access and fire turn around requirements. | 00:12:00 | |
Again, the plants have been modified to 25 feet, so this. | 00:12:05 | |
Preview of the fire division would be something that would be revised. | 00:12:11 | |
Again, although the proposed design does not violate building code standards, it conflicts with the zoning regulations which | 00:12:17 | |
imposes the maximum 20 feet height to accessory structures. Now, this height restriction is intended to ensure uniform application | 00:12:23 | |
of zoning and then maintain consistency across the RM districts. | 00:12:30 | |
Decisions regarding approval or denial of this application should be moderated by weighing in the finance of the TRC with the | 00:12:37 | |
applicant's ability to meet the five part variance test. | 00:12:42 | |
Now, this assessment should ensure that any deviations aligned with both intent of the zoning ordinance and the broader picture. | 00:12:49 | |
Of public interest concerns. | 00:12:58 | |
So I will run a brief commentary of what staff assesses the applicants narrative to that five part variance test and then. | 00:13:00 | |
Submit the recommendation. | 00:13:10 | |
So the first Test is to describe what hardship is going to OK if the variance is not granted to the applicant. | 00:13:11 | |
It is our assessment that regarding the applicant's description of unique circumstances or an unreasonable hardship. | 00:13:20 | |
That makes compliance with the zoning regulations exceptionally difficult. | 00:13:27 | |
The applicant has provided arguments that do not really substantiate the required burden of proof on. The applicant submits that | 00:13:31 | |
the proposed accessory structure is necessary to store. | 00:13:37 | |
Items related to their construction services. | 00:13:44 | |
Now, they cited historic, historically long lead times for such materials, and city staff notes that this justification neither | 00:13:48 | |
constitutes a legitimate hardship condition nor reflect a unique circumstance that is specific to the property. | 00:13:57 | |
The request for additional storage is insufficient to demonstrate how the strict application of zoning regulations would deprive. | 00:14:06 | |
The applicant. | 00:14:14 | |
Of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same zoning district. | 00:14:16 | |
Furthermore, the applicants narrative does not address what specific hardship, or if any, would arise should the variance not be | 00:14:20 | |
granted. City staff recommends that the applicant should provide a clear and convincing justification during this administrative | 00:14:27 | |
hearing of what hardship is going to be. | 00:14:33 | |
What's going to OK if the variance is not granted? The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish the grounds for | 00:14:40 | |
accommodating such requests in compliance with the standards outlined in the applicable zoning. | 00:14:46 | |
Ordinance. | 00:14:53 | |
Now 2 the applicant needs to describe how the property is different from other properties within the vicinity. | 00:14:55 | |
It is staff's assessment that regarding the presence of special circumstances related to the subject property or its vicinity. | 00:15:03 | |
The applicant explained that the property is bordered by two distinct features, just a commercial retail center and then the | 00:15:11 | |
Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, both of which back or rear onto their subject property. Now, while this description highlights the | 00:15:18 | |
adjacent land uses, it does not demonstrate that the subject property in itself possesses unique natural features or | 00:15:25 | |
characteristics that distinguish it from other properties in that area. | 00:15:32 | |
The applicant further argues that the proposed additional height for the structure would not adversely. | 00:15:39 | |
Impact Neighboring properties City staff finds that the subject property's uniqueness is limited. | 00:15:46 | |
To its land use zoning designation, which is the Aram just adjoining by a residential zone our our 10 to the northeast, C2 to the | 00:15:53 | |
West and then there is also an iron to the north of that. | 00:16:00 | |
And while they increased height may have a minimal visual impact on the commercial enclave to the West, a careful consideration | 00:16:09 | |
should be given to the residential properties directly about in the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal to the north and east. Now these | 00:16:17 | |
residential properties may or may not be affected in terms of the territorial view obstruction. | 00:16:24 | |
And impact the city's zoning ordinance seeks to mitigate. | 00:16:33 | |
Accordingly, any decisions on the variance should weigh these considerations to ensure. | 00:16:38 | |
But the height increase does not really conflict with the broader objectives of preserving the visual harmony. | 00:16:44 | |
And lessening the height impact. | 00:16:51 | |
On the territorial views and adjacent properties. | 00:16:53 | |
Moving over to the third criteria the applicant needs to describe. | 00:16:58 | |
The benefits other properties within the vicinity will enjoy at the expense of the applicant without a variance. | 00:17:03 | |
Now in addressing whether granting the variance is necessary for the applicant. | 00:17:10 | |
To enjoy substantial property rights comparable to other properties in that same district. | 00:17:16 | |
City staff finds that the applicant circumstance does not support this assertion. | 00:17:22 | |
A review of the properties within the vicinity, including those with the same zoning designation of room. | 00:17:27 | |
Indicates that there are no permitted accessory structures, according to the city's records. | 00:17:34 | |
That currently exceed the maximum height limitation as prescribed by the ordinance. | 00:17:40 | |
Now, consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that the neighboring properties are being afforded additional height allowances | 00:17:46 | |
that would place the applicant's property at a disadvantage or justify their requested variance. City staff concludes that the | 00:17:53 | |
absence of comparable height benefits within that same zoning district. | 00:18:00 | |
Undermines the claim that the variance is essential to enjoying equitable enjoyment of property rights in that district. | 00:18:07 | |
Now 4th, the applicant is supposed to describe why the variants will not deviate from the general purpose. | 00:18:15 | |
Of the city's development code. | 00:18:22 | |
With respects to deviations from the City's development code that are not contrary to the public interest, the ordinance | 00:18:25 | |
provisions governed the maximum height of accessory structures in RM zones are explicit in their intent to regulate Mason of | 00:18:33 | |
structures located near property lines. The height limitation of 20 feet 4 accessory structures is designed to address the unique | 00:18:40 | |
flexibility these structures have in being situated closer to the. | 00:18:48 | |
Property boundaries, ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties and minimizing visual and massing impact. | 00:18:55 | |
In considering deviations from these standards, it is essential to weigh the purpose of the City Heights regulations against. | 00:19:03 | |
Potential adverse impacts on the public interest. | 00:19:13 | |
The applicant has asserted that the proposed structure would not visually impact the adjacent commercial zone and would not be | 00:19:16 | |
visible from Mary Holiday Rd. | 00:19:21 | |
While the city staff agrees that granting the variance is unlikely to negatively affect the broader public interest. | 00:19:26 | |
It is noted that such. | 00:19:35 | |
Such an approval would partially deviate from the ordinance intent to limit. | 00:19:38 | |
Structural mass and near property lines and reduce visual and visual impact. | 00:19:43 | |
This deviation should be carefully evaluated in the context of the regulations underlined zonings, intent and objectives. | 00:19:49 | |
Now lastly, describing how the variance is fair and conforms to the overall intent of the zoning laws in aligning with the overall | 00:19:58 | |
objectives of zoning regulations and principles of fairness. | 00:20:04 | |
The supplementary evidence and spatial analysis conducted by city staff demonstrates that the variant requests aligned with the | 00:20:11 | |
general intent of. | 00:20:16 | |
The zoning boss, particularly in relation to the long term development character in that zone. | 00:20:22 | |
The city's general plan designates where the property lies and its surrounding area as a mixed-use transitional zone. | 00:20:29 | |
Now, this classification envisions the future development of that area as a medium density transitional zone, which is | 00:20:37 | |
characterized by a blend of commercial and residential uses. | 00:20:42 | |
City staff is of the opinion that granting the requested variance in height for the accessory structure would overtime be | 00:20:48 | |
consistent with the intended margin and zoning framework for the area as outlined in the general plan. | 00:20:55 | |
This determination supports the notion that the variant aligned with the strategic vision of the property and its vicinity, | 00:21:02 | |
ensuring compatibility. | 00:21:07 | |
With the anticipated evolution of that zone. | 00:21:11 | |
Now in recommendation based on the city staff's technical review of the applicable city code. | 00:21:15 | |
And the property's general characteristics. | 00:21:21 | |
Granting the requested 5 foot height variance does not appear to represent the least intrusive solution for upholding the intent | 00:21:25 | |
and purpose of the zoning regulation. | 00:21:30 | |
The subject property does not present unique circumstances or does not pose. | 00:21:35 | |
An unreasonable hardship that would justify granting the variance. | 00:21:42 | |
City staff recommends that alternative mitigation measures be considered, including submitting an application for a zone change | 00:21:46 | |
from its current designation of RM to PO now under the Holiday City Ordinance 13 point 444.070. PO zones permit building heights | 00:21:55 | |
up to 40 feet, and that includes main structures and accessory structures. | 00:22:03 | |
Which would accommodate the applicants proposed structure while maintaining compliance with the applicable height limits in that | 00:22:13 | |
zone. | 00:22:16 | |
This approach would preserve the applicant's ability to continue to exist A. | 00:22:20 | |
To continue existing land use activities while aligning with the zonings regulation, decisions regarding approval or denial of the | 00:22:26 | |
variance should be carefully evaluated by the administrative appeals here in Officer, taking into account the language of the City | 00:22:33 | |
Code 13.32 point 090, the applicant's narrative, staff's recommendation, public hearing proceedings, and any other supporting | 00:22:40 | |
documentation that is provided. Hearing. | 00:22:46 | |
From the perspective of the city staff, denial of the variance is recommended with considerations of the proposed alternative | 00:22:54 | |
mitigation measures. | 00:22:58 | |
To address the applicants need within the framework capacity zoning ordinance. | 00:23:03 | |
So from their city's view, this is what the city staff recommends. | 00:23:07 | |
Thank you. | 00:23:13 | |
All right. | 00:23:19 | |
So my job here is. | 00:23:31 | |
I wish it was as. | 00:23:34 | |
Oh yeah, that's a good idea. That's. | 00:23:39 | |
My job is. | 00:23:44 | |
My job is to take different. | 00:24:01 | |
That is uniform throughout the state. | 00:24:17 | |
Consistency. | 00:24:27 | |
With that instead. | 00:24:29 | |
Let's have. | 00:24:32 | |
Will do. I'm Benjamin Wheat. I work for Roderick Enterprises. I'm joined with Mike Roderick here in the. | 00:24:43 | |
Room. | 00:24:53 | |
I don't know. | 00:24:58 | |
The scenario of the property. | 00:25:11 | |
I just want to make sure I know where this is on. I was going to ask if you. | 00:25:15 | |
I think I know where it sits on the land, but I just want to make. | 00:25:21 | |
I was going to ask too, just if if we want to keep that up, I apologize. How do you how do you pronounce your last name, Captain? | 00:25:24 | |
Okay, thanks, Mr. Cadden. I was also going to see if Kerry would pull up just a Google image from the Street View. | 00:25:32 | |
Yeah, that's that's, that's me on my chicken scratch. But that represents exactly what we're trying to do. | 00:25:46 | |
I conceived existing garage on there. Yeah, yeah. | 00:25:58 | |
Yeah. So the existing garage is yellow, new one would be red and then obviously the building is the existing option. | 00:26:04 | |
Office building. | 00:26:11 | |
Yeah. | 00:26:15 | |
So the conditional use, so the conditional use was the only reason we would tear down the garage is if we built the new one. If we | 00:26:22 | |
don't do anything, the garage will remain. | 00:26:27 | |
As Carrie is pulling that up really quick, we purchased the building to operate as our headquarters earlier this year. We are | 00:26:35 | |
we're in the process of renovating the first floor on a on another building permit that we were successfully pulled within the | 00:26:41 | |
city. | 00:26:47 | |
Can you go to the Street View? | 00:26:54 | |
So we're going to house it. We're going to, we're going to house it as our HQ. We're moving from Murray, which we've been for. | 00:26:57 | |
20 years, 20 years. So we've got some tenants in the front, There's an attorney that's been there for a long term, we've got an | 00:27:07 | |
accountant upstairs and then we've got an architectural firm as well. | 00:27:11 | |
That's there and then we have some additional space that will lease out, but I. | 00:27:18 | |
We were really attracted to the building because of the the historical nature of it and just the the. | 00:27:23 | |
The character uniqueness. So the structure up there up front is the actual historical building and you can see this portion of the | 00:27:29 | |
building. | 00:27:33 | |
The wider portion. | 00:27:38 | |
Yeah. So this is an add-on that was done in 1979, which you can see that doesn't and then this is the garage that we would we | 00:27:42 | |
would potentially tear. | 00:27:46 | |
The potential that the current garage, so we have done a lot of efforts in terms of the conditional use permit that we we went | 00:27:54 | |
through with Planning Commission was required because of some site changes we wanted to make new Windows, those types of things | 00:28:00 | |
when it falls in that historical site that's required by the city. | 00:28:05 | |
So as part of that, we incorporated the garage in there. The only thing that we think the addition in 1979. | 00:28:12 | |
Both character to the existing historical structure upfront. | 00:28:19 | |
The garage that was later was added later was. It doesn't have the same building materials. It doesn't add any historical. | 00:28:24 | |
Uniqueness to the property. | 00:28:33 | |
And it's hard to see from this picture because you got the big movie truck there, but this, the the garage is like the first thing | 00:28:36 | |
you see. | 00:28:39 | |
And it and it takes away from the historical nature that's yeah the the the winner picture is a better one I. | 00:28:44 | |
And you can see that it's it's it's sighting, it has stone work on it. There's no there's no color tying into it. I. | 00:28:53 | |
So there's two things for us. The hardship aspect of it is we're in the development business. | 00:29:03 | |
And we have. | 00:29:10 | |
Experienced. | 00:29:12 | |
Huge lead times in various aspects of the construction that have required us within the past few years to. | 00:29:15 | |
Order equipment, including electrical gear, rooftop units, those types of things, and actually house those before we even. | 00:29:23 | |
Start projects, move forward, pull permits and so the, the, the additional garage in the back would be used for all of those. The, | 00:29:32 | |
the current hardships that we have now are the, the garage height on those doors and the depth they built that garage. They | 00:29:38 | |
didn't, they didn't tear out the asphalt. | 00:29:44 | |
And so the asphalt slopes up at a probably a 15° slope inside the garage. Yeah. So I can't, I can't get a forklift in there and | 00:29:51 | |
move things into there. So I. | 00:29:56 | |
There's two aspects of this. We wanted to move it from there and then move it behind the building so it wasn't taking away from | 00:30:03 | |
the historical aspect of the building and the site. The height we again, like you mentioned, we started with, and this is a really | 00:30:09 | |
good representation. The one hardship that I wanted to talk about was parking, so. | 00:30:15 | |
If we don't get granted the variance today, we can still build this structure without the five foot. | 00:30:22 | |
Gable that hides all of the equipment and rooftop units. We can do a flat roof and we would be conforming to every use within | 00:30:29 | |
there. | 00:30:32 | |
The challenge is, is if the recommendation from staff wants us to move it from an RM zone to a PO zone, the RM zone to APO zone | 00:30:38 | |
doesn't. There's nothing in their code that allows for different setbacks for an accessory building. So if we built this building, | 00:30:44 | |
Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's 15 and 10. | 00:30:50 | |
Or is it more than that? | 00:30:58 | |
On the PIO zone. | 00:31:00 | |
So what if we staff recommendations, we want us to build this in the PO zone versus the arm. If I do that, I have to take this red | 00:31:03 | |
structure and I have to move it like this. And what that ends up doing is it ends up taking away 8 parking stalls. | 00:31:10 | |
With other parking spells it I have to meet a certain parking ratio within my tenants and if I have that building completely | 00:31:18 | |
filled with professional office uses, with medical, there's different office uses that are allowed in that zone. There's different | 00:31:24 | |
parking ratios that we would there would there would be a good chance that we wouldn't be meeting those parking ratios if we once | 00:31:31 | |
that building is fully leased. | 00:31:37 | |
Umm. | 00:31:46 | |
Correct. Yeah, because then I would have to move that structure away from the north and the West setbacks. And then the only | 00:31:47 | |
reason, the only way to do that is. | 00:31:52 | |
Getting rid of all our parking. | 00:31:57 | |
In terms of special circumstances attached to the property. | 00:32:05 | |
We have the historical nature of the property that I think there's only three historical sites in holiday. | 00:32:10 | |
More than that, that's I think it's definitely less than 5, but there's very few and there's very few in the in the in the city of | 00:32:19 | |
Holiday. | 00:32:24 | |
We have the commercial property that's that borders us to the West. | 00:32:30 | |
Which is a completely different use. It's the back parking lot of that facility and then we have the the 25 foot canal to the | 00:32:34 | |
north of us that buffers any residential circumstances. | 00:32:39 | |
Those are all huge circumstances that I don't know if you could find another property. If you can find another property within | 00:32:46 | |
Holiday City, it's going to be again, very few I. | 00:32:51 | |
In terms of moving down the building heights from 31 to 25, there's, there's some municipalities that have the, there's have the. | 00:32:58 | |
Differentiation of where that building height starts and stops finished floor to where your structure is, and then if you're as | 00:33:08 | |
long as. | 00:33:12 | |
The structure of the five foot structure that's on top of that is built to. | 00:33:16 | |
Hide all of our rooftop units and equipment that we would put on there. So and we would do that from there's twofold on that as | 00:33:22 | |
we're trying to match the historical nature of that building. We worked with Planning Commission on the on the architectural | 00:33:28 | |
aspect of it with the we're incorporating the same windows, the same brick, the same slate roof, which the current historical | 00:33:33 | |
which the current garage does not incorporate. | 00:33:39 | |
I. | 00:33:46 | |
And then in terms of general plan, I think Justice spoke on it. They we were in line with that in the spirit of zoning. | 00:33:51 | |
Yeah. | 00:34:00 | |
So. | 00:34:05 | |
It's yeah. So in our world, it's we do like, yeah, we do commercial industrial buildings and it's, it's referred to as a parapet. | 00:34:08 | |
And a parapet, all it is, is it's, it's basically your roof, anything above your, your flat roof. And the the idea behind a | 00:34:13 | |
parapet is to hide all of your. There's many cities that require it. Sandy City. We have a project in Sandy City that made us | 00:34:19 | |
build a. | 00:34:24 | |
Yeah. So that and that's in this case it's just a graduated wall that and we could build it straight up. The only reason we're | 00:34:32 | |
doing a graduated wall is to match the historical nature of the of the add-on that was done in 1979. | 00:34:37 | |
Yep. | 00:34:44 | |
So I guess from our standpoint, we went back to our racking manufacturers and what we need to be able to do from the storage | 00:34:50 | |
aspect of it, ranging it from that 2025 feet to. | 00:34:56 | |
31 feet from 25 feet it came from two things. We lowered the parapet a level by by two feet and the other the other was done by | 00:35:03 | |
decreasing the the height of the building down to the 20 feet I. | 00:35:08 | |
Again. | 00:35:17 | |
We can build the building without the Parabit, it's just we don't feel like it. | 00:35:19 | |
Ties in with the historical nature of the building. And then the other aspect of this is changing it from the room to the PO zone. | 00:35:23 | |
We could do this, we could do a 31 foot building, we could do a 40 foot building, but we lose all of that parking, which just | 00:35:32 | |
doesn't. | 00:35:35 | |
Help us in terms of meeting those requirements for the other tenants that we have to lease the building to because we only occupy | 00:35:39 | |
a small portion of it. | 00:35:42 | |
A lot of times hiring back. | 00:35:48 | |
Yeah. | 00:35:50 | |
Yeah, yeah. | 00:35:54 | |
I guess I that's kind of everything in terms of that's just a little bit of background. And then pertaining to those five items | 00:35:58 | |
that we we have to in a variance, I'll let Michael come up and say anything. | 00:36:04 | |
Thank you. My name is Michael Roderick with Roderick Enterprises. Ben did an excellent job in going through the nuts and bolts of | 00:36:16 | |
what we're trying to do. The main thing, in addition to everything Ben said, is that existing garage. | 00:36:23 | |
Frankly, is ugly and it's the first thing you see as you enter the building or enter the site. It has no historical value. | 00:36:31 | |
It's I don't even know why it was billed because like Ben said, they didn't even tear out the asphalt that's on a sloped floor. | 00:36:42 | |
The utility of that garage is very minimal and so we as long stewards I'm. | 00:36:49 | |
3rd generation in this business, We've been at it for 40 plus years. | 00:36:57 | |
We want to do what's right for the project and the building. | 00:37:01 | |
And it's just an ugly garage that we'd like to get rid of. | 00:37:05 | |
Hide it to the north part of the site. Reconstruct something that ties in much more economic or much more architecturally. | 00:37:11 | |
To the overall project, it'll be a bigger and better building and then that's the main thing it's just. | 00:37:20 | |
Upgrade the whole architectural or the whole project. So that's the main emphasis we're trying to accomplish. | 00:37:29 | |
Thank you. | 00:37:34 | |
I was wondering what's going on because I received this one day. | 00:37:40 | |
Why don't you come up to the mic, tell us who you are, and we'll answer your questions. No, I was just trying to. My name is Marat | 00:37:46 | |
Borussian. I live. My property is 4730 Sycamore Dr. | 00:37:53 | |
I am behind that and so I was wondering what is what's going on as to what we're building and stuff like that. And so I think if I | 00:38:00 | |
if I'm correct it's going to be a garage, okay and so. | 00:38:08 | |
They're proposing building a garage kind of in the back. | 00:38:20 | |
Of the lot taking down the garage that already. | 00:38:24 | |
OK. | 00:38:28 | |
Yeah. | 00:38:33 | |
25 feet. | 00:38:39 | |
They're allowed to have tournaments. They're asking for medication. | 00:38:41 | |
Yeah, it shouldn't be. I don't think there will be a problem. I mean, this is, this is my house right there. | 00:38:45 | |
I have a monitor up here. Huh. | 00:38:56 | |
I said I have a computer monitor here too, so I can see. Yeah, yeah, that's. | 00:38:59 | |
If I'm correct, I think that I'm correct 4730 Sycamore. | 00:39:05 | |
Yeah, that's the one. | 00:39:09 | |
And so. | 00:39:12 | |
Yeah, I don't. I don't. | 00:39:16 | |
At the end of the parking. | 00:39:27 | |
Oh, OK. | 00:39:30 | |
By the way, we're trying to get away. Oh, OK. | 00:39:40 | |
Yeah, should be OK. | 00:39:43 | |
Yeah, no problem. I just want to make sure it's not going to be like apartments or some. | 00:39:47 | |
Some residential or something like? | 00:39:52 | |
OK. Thank you. | 00:39:57 | |
All right. | 00:40:01 | |
I think I have. | 00:40:07 | |
So how this works is I have to write a written decision. | 00:40:19 | |
Explain why I find what I find. | 00:40:24 | |
Merry Christmas everybody. | 00:40:40 | |
Thanks. | 00:40:44 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Excuse me, I've had a cold and I actually. | 00:01:11 | |
My name is Mr. Captain. | 00:01:20 | |
I am not completely. | 00:01:28 | |
Couldn't quit working. | 00:01:42 | |
It is December 16th. | 00:01:50 | |
The case with you today is file #24-5 dash. | 00:01:58 | |
The property address is 1981 E Marie Holiday Rd. | 00:02:06 | |
Would you like to introduce it or? | 00:02:17 | |
Some cities like. | 00:02:25 | |
Yeah, I can start with you, OK. | 00:02:28 | |
So good morning once again. | 00:02:36 | |
And this is recorded, so when you guys come up and speak. | 00:02:50 | |
Yeah. So good morning once again so. | 00:02:56 | |
As the hearings officer introduced the case number, the applicant. | 00:03:00 | |
And what the request is, I will go forward to give a background on this case. | 00:03:06 | |
So the applicant is seeking an exception to the regulations outlining City Code Chapter 13, verse 32.090. Now this pertains to | 00:03:11 | |
building height and it regulates the maximum height of accessory structures within the RM zones in the city. Basically, the | 00:03:19 | |
applicant is requesting for a relief from the prescribed 20 feet. | 00:03:28 | |
Maximum height for accessory buildings. In turn, he's proposing to maintain a 25 feet accessory building height. | 00:03:37 | |
Sorry to interrupt you, but just to. | 00:03:45 | |
Original application? Yep. | 00:03:47 | |
That's correct. So that was the original application, 31 feet. We got the modifications sometime last weekend. | 00:03:52 | |
We affected that change in the report, so right now they're asking for 25 feet instead of the 31 feet that was originally | 00:04:00 | |
proposed. | 00:04:04 | |
Now this would herein constitute A5 feet accessory build and height variant which would run. | 00:04:09 | |
What the landing perpetuity? | 00:04:15 | |
The applicant, Mr. Wheat, has filed an appeal to the administrative hearing officer seeking a variance to the above portions of | 00:04:18 | |
the city ordinance. | 00:04:23 | |
Now. | 00:04:29 | |
Typically in room zones, the City Court allows for properties located within the zone to accommodate a combination of residential | 00:04:30 | |
and. | 00:04:35 | |
Professional office spaces. | 00:04:40 | |
The subject property is currently utilized exclusively for professional office purposes. | 00:04:43 | |
Rendering its current use partially non conforming with the zoning requirement. | 00:04:49 | |
Now, the request arises from Mr. Wheat's proposal to demolish the existing garage and construct a new garage on the subject | 00:04:54 | |
property located at 1981 E Mary Holiday Rd. | 00:05:00 | |
Now, the appellant initially sought a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission to authorize the modification of the | 00:05:06 | |
property. | 00:05:10 | |
Which was designated as a historical site on June 25th with their Planning Commission. | 00:05:14 | |
Now the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit with conditions. | 00:05:21 | |
One of them being a required demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a new garage. | 00:05:25 | |
Incorporating the architectural features consistent with the main residents and its 1979 edition. | 00:05:32 | |
Now, while the Planning Commission evaluated the architectural design of the garage, zoning compliance was deferred to the CED | 00:05:39 | |
Department. | 00:05:44 | |
Because the Planning Commission does not do zoning reviews. | 00:05:49 | |
Subsequent to the CU P approval, Mr. Wheat submitted a building permit application for the proposed garage design. | 00:05:53 | |
Now, Jarney's review. The Citi's Technical review committee determined that the originally proposed height of 31.7 feet. | 00:06:01 | |
Which is now revised to 25 feet exceeded the maximum height of 20 feet permitted for accessory structures under the City Ordinance | 00:06:10 | |
13.32 Point 000B3. Now, although the proposed garage complied with the setbacks and structural footprint requirement, the Planning | 00:06:16 | |
Department informed Mr. Wheat that the height exceeded the zoning limits and approval cannot be appended to the permit | 00:06:23 | |
application. | 00:06:30 | |
So Mr. Wheat is of the opinion that his proposed his proposal warrants consideration of unique circumstances and requests a relief | 00:06:37 | |
from the 20 feet maximum height requirement from the city ordinance. He's hereby requesting a relief from the coat or requirement | 00:06:44 | |
related to the 20 feet accessory building height and in turn seeking permission to maintain a 25 feet garage height on the | 00:06:51 | |
northwestern corner of the property. | 00:06:58 | |
Now they're supporting documentation have been shared both to the applicant and the hearing officer. | 00:07:05 | |
In terms of the city codes that regulate this hearing and the permitting process, we're looking at code 13.32, point 090, which | 00:07:12 | |
regulates building height. And specifically we're looking at the subsection B3, which regulates building height for accessory | 00:07:19 | |
structures in our RM zones. I'm going to read what the code requirement says for accessory building heights, so the maximum height | 00:07:26 | |
of any accessory building. | 00:07:34 | |
Structure shall be 20 feet according to this code ordinance. | 00:07:41 | |
Now it's normal procedure for a variant application to be run through the five part tests based on state requirements. | 00:07:45 | |
The city staff also provides its findings in consonance with the recommendation that we will provide at the end of this. | 00:07:55 | |
Analysis. Now generally, the city staff does not vote, but what we do is we provide recommendation according to the technicalities | 00:08:03 | |
of the case. | 00:08:08 | |
Now, generally these findings are determined promised on the city steps administrative interpretation of the city's code. | 00:08:13 | |
The context characteristics of the subject property and then the purpose of the city code, and then the overall character of the | 00:08:21 | |
neighborhood in relations to the variance request. | 00:08:26 | |
Now. | 00:08:33 | |
Based off of the findings that the city staff and the technical review committee made, we made two main findings. Now the first | 00:08:34 | |
one is. | 00:08:39 | |
Trying to examine the purpose of the city code and its intent. | 00:08:44 | |
Now personal to the City Code Ordnance governing building heights in RM zones. | 00:08:50 | |
Main buildings are permitted to range from 32 to 40 feet, while accessory buildings or structures are restricted to a maximum | 00:08:55 | |
height of 20 feet. | 00:09:00 | |
The primary purpose of this 20 feet height limitation is to regulate mass and proximity to property lines because accessory | 00:09:05 | |
buildings are aligned to allow to be built closer to the property line as against the main structures. So that's why we give those | 00:09:10 | |
limitations. | 00:09:16 | |
Again, this ensures that the graduated height minimizes the visual and mass and impact on adjacent properties. | 00:09:22 | |
Now, this regulation also seeks to provide a territorial view protection reduced structural dominance along property boundaries. | 00:09:31 | |
And encourage architectural variety within the neighborhood. | 00:09:39 | |
City staff identifies 2 critical factors in evaluating compliance with the ordinance. Intent 1 is what are the proposed height? | 00:09:42 | |
Would undermine the territorial view protection 2 is whether the visual impact on the neighboring properties. | 00:09:52 | |
Would be adverse or disproportionate. Now the context of the subject property includes a mix of residential and commercial land. | 00:09:59 | |
Around the subject property, now to the north and east of the property. | 00:10:09 | |
It is bordered by residential neighborhoods, which is separated by a canal. | 00:10:15 | |
The Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal to the West of the site is a commercial enclave. | 00:10:19 | |
That has business and entertainment venues around that location. | 00:10:27 | |
Now in assessing the property's visual impact of the proposed structure. | 00:10:34 | |
We assess that considerations should include its effect on both the residential properties to the north and east. | 00:10:39 | |
And their commercial enclave to the West, now the canal buffers now the canal, the Salt Lake City and Jordan Canal that buffers to | 00:10:47 | |
the northeast of the property. It serves as a mitigating feature for some of the residential impact, but careful evaluation of the | 00:10:53 | |
project alignment with the. | 00:11:00 | |
Ordinance purpose is necessary to determine whether the proposed height would negatively affect. | 00:11:08 | |
The character of the surrounding areas, now 2 would be the purview of the Technical Review Committee. | 00:11:14 | |
Now the Technical Review committee of the CED department is composed of experts from planning and building, engineering, Fire. | 00:11:20 | |
And code enforcement. Now the Technical Review Committee evaluates plans and permits to ensure compliance with all the applicable | 00:11:28 | |
codes, city, municipal, state and international codes. | 00:11:34 | |
In reviewing the proposed garage, the Fire Division has indicated that due to its location and proposed height now, this | 00:11:41 | |
assessment was made based off of the original 31. | 00:11:46 | |
.7 feet, although structural height should be limited to a maximum height of 30 feet, and exceeding this height would violate the | 00:11:51 | |
fire code. | 00:11:56 | |
Provisions related to aerial access and fire turn around requirements. | 00:12:00 | |
Again, the plants have been modified to 25 feet, so this. | 00:12:05 | |
Preview of the fire division would be something that would be revised. | 00:12:11 | |
Again, although the proposed design does not violate building code standards, it conflicts with the zoning regulations which | 00:12:17 | |
imposes the maximum 20 feet height to accessory structures. Now, this height restriction is intended to ensure uniform application | 00:12:23 | |
of zoning and then maintain consistency across the RM districts. | 00:12:30 | |
Decisions regarding approval or denial of this application should be moderated by weighing in the finance of the TRC with the | 00:12:37 | |
applicant's ability to meet the five part variance test. | 00:12:42 | |
Now, this assessment should ensure that any deviations aligned with both intent of the zoning ordinance and the broader picture. | 00:12:49 | |
Of public interest concerns. | 00:12:58 | |
So I will run a brief commentary of what staff assesses the applicants narrative to that five part variance test and then. | 00:13:00 | |
Submit the recommendation. | 00:13:10 | |
So the first Test is to describe what hardship is going to OK if the variance is not granted to the applicant. | 00:13:11 | |
It is our assessment that regarding the applicant's description of unique circumstances or an unreasonable hardship. | 00:13:20 | |
That makes compliance with the zoning regulations exceptionally difficult. | 00:13:27 | |
The applicant has provided arguments that do not really substantiate the required burden of proof on. The applicant submits that | 00:13:31 | |
the proposed accessory structure is necessary to store. | 00:13:37 | |
Items related to their construction services. | 00:13:44 | |
Now, they cited historic, historically long lead times for such materials, and city staff notes that this justification neither | 00:13:48 | |
constitutes a legitimate hardship condition nor reflect a unique circumstance that is specific to the property. | 00:13:57 | |
The request for additional storage is insufficient to demonstrate how the strict application of zoning regulations would deprive. | 00:14:06 | |
The applicant. | 00:14:14 | |
Of rights commonly enjoyed by others in the same zoning district. | 00:14:16 | |
Furthermore, the applicants narrative does not address what specific hardship, or if any, would arise should the variance not be | 00:14:20 | |
granted. City staff recommends that the applicant should provide a clear and convincing justification during this administrative | 00:14:27 | |
hearing of what hardship is going to be. | 00:14:33 | |
What's going to OK if the variance is not granted? The burden of proof lies with the applicant to establish the grounds for | 00:14:40 | |
accommodating such requests in compliance with the standards outlined in the applicable zoning. | 00:14:46 | |
Ordinance. | 00:14:53 | |
Now 2 the applicant needs to describe how the property is different from other properties within the vicinity. | 00:14:55 | |
It is staff's assessment that regarding the presence of special circumstances related to the subject property or its vicinity. | 00:15:03 | |
The applicant explained that the property is bordered by two distinct features, just a commercial retail center and then the | 00:15:11 | |
Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, both of which back or rear onto their subject property. Now, while this description highlights the | 00:15:18 | |
adjacent land uses, it does not demonstrate that the subject property in itself possesses unique natural features or | 00:15:25 | |
characteristics that distinguish it from other properties in that area. | 00:15:32 | |
The applicant further argues that the proposed additional height for the structure would not adversely. | 00:15:39 | |
Impact Neighboring properties City staff finds that the subject property's uniqueness is limited. | 00:15:46 | |
To its land use zoning designation, which is the Aram just adjoining by a residential zone our our 10 to the northeast, C2 to the | 00:15:53 | |
West and then there is also an iron to the north of that. | 00:16:00 | |
And while they increased height may have a minimal visual impact on the commercial enclave to the West, a careful consideration | 00:16:09 | |
should be given to the residential properties directly about in the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal to the north and east. Now these | 00:16:17 | |
residential properties may or may not be affected in terms of the territorial view obstruction. | 00:16:24 | |
And impact the city's zoning ordinance seeks to mitigate. | 00:16:33 | |
Accordingly, any decisions on the variance should weigh these considerations to ensure. | 00:16:38 | |
But the height increase does not really conflict with the broader objectives of preserving the visual harmony. | 00:16:44 | |
And lessening the height impact. | 00:16:51 | |
On the territorial views and adjacent properties. | 00:16:53 | |
Moving over to the third criteria the applicant needs to describe. | 00:16:58 | |
The benefits other properties within the vicinity will enjoy at the expense of the applicant without a variance. | 00:17:03 | |
Now in addressing whether granting the variance is necessary for the applicant. | 00:17:10 | |
To enjoy substantial property rights comparable to other properties in that same district. | 00:17:16 | |
City staff finds that the applicant circumstance does not support this assertion. | 00:17:22 | |
A review of the properties within the vicinity, including those with the same zoning designation of room. | 00:17:27 | |
Indicates that there are no permitted accessory structures, according to the city's records. | 00:17:34 | |
That currently exceed the maximum height limitation as prescribed by the ordinance. | 00:17:40 | |
Now, consequently, there is no evidence to suggest that the neighboring properties are being afforded additional height allowances | 00:17:46 | |
that would place the applicant's property at a disadvantage or justify their requested variance. City staff concludes that the | 00:17:53 | |
absence of comparable height benefits within that same zoning district. | 00:18:00 | |
Undermines the claim that the variance is essential to enjoying equitable enjoyment of property rights in that district. | 00:18:07 | |
Now 4th, the applicant is supposed to describe why the variants will not deviate from the general purpose. | 00:18:15 | |
Of the city's development code. | 00:18:22 | |
With respects to deviations from the City's development code that are not contrary to the public interest, the ordinance | 00:18:25 | |
provisions governed the maximum height of accessory structures in RM zones are explicit in their intent to regulate Mason of | 00:18:33 | |
structures located near property lines. The height limitation of 20 feet 4 accessory structures is designed to address the unique | 00:18:40 | |
flexibility these structures have in being situated closer to the. | 00:18:48 | |
Property boundaries, ensuring compatibility with adjacent properties and minimizing visual and massing impact. | 00:18:55 | |
In considering deviations from these standards, it is essential to weigh the purpose of the City Heights regulations against. | 00:19:03 | |
Potential adverse impacts on the public interest. | 00:19:13 | |
The applicant has asserted that the proposed structure would not visually impact the adjacent commercial zone and would not be | 00:19:16 | |
visible from Mary Holiday Rd. | 00:19:21 | |
While the city staff agrees that granting the variance is unlikely to negatively affect the broader public interest. | 00:19:26 | |
It is noted that such. | 00:19:35 | |
Such an approval would partially deviate from the ordinance intent to limit. | 00:19:38 | |
Structural mass and near property lines and reduce visual and visual impact. | 00:19:43 | |
This deviation should be carefully evaluated in the context of the regulations underlined zonings, intent and objectives. | 00:19:49 | |
Now lastly, describing how the variance is fair and conforms to the overall intent of the zoning laws in aligning with the overall | 00:19:58 | |
objectives of zoning regulations and principles of fairness. | 00:20:04 | |
The supplementary evidence and spatial analysis conducted by city staff demonstrates that the variant requests aligned with the | 00:20:11 | |
general intent of. | 00:20:16 | |
The zoning boss, particularly in relation to the long term development character in that zone. | 00:20:22 | |
The city's general plan designates where the property lies and its surrounding area as a mixed-use transitional zone. | 00:20:29 | |
Now, this classification envisions the future development of that area as a medium density transitional zone, which is | 00:20:37 | |
characterized by a blend of commercial and residential uses. | 00:20:42 | |
City staff is of the opinion that granting the requested variance in height for the accessory structure would overtime be | 00:20:48 | |
consistent with the intended margin and zoning framework for the area as outlined in the general plan. | 00:20:55 | |
This determination supports the notion that the variant aligned with the strategic vision of the property and its vicinity, | 00:21:02 | |
ensuring compatibility. | 00:21:07 | |
With the anticipated evolution of that zone. | 00:21:11 | |
Now in recommendation based on the city staff's technical review of the applicable city code. | 00:21:15 | |
And the property's general characteristics. | 00:21:21 | |
Granting the requested 5 foot height variance does not appear to represent the least intrusive solution for upholding the intent | 00:21:25 | |
and purpose of the zoning regulation. | 00:21:30 | |
The subject property does not present unique circumstances or does not pose. | 00:21:35 | |
An unreasonable hardship that would justify granting the variance. | 00:21:42 | |
City staff recommends that alternative mitigation measures be considered, including submitting an application for a zone change | 00:21:46 | |
from its current designation of RM to PO now under the Holiday City Ordinance 13 point 444.070. PO zones permit building heights | 00:21:55 | |
up to 40 feet, and that includes main structures and accessory structures. | 00:22:03 | |
Which would accommodate the applicants proposed structure while maintaining compliance with the applicable height limits in that | 00:22:13 | |
zone. | 00:22:16 | |
This approach would preserve the applicant's ability to continue to exist A. | 00:22:20 | |
To continue existing land use activities while aligning with the zonings regulation, decisions regarding approval or denial of the | 00:22:26 | |
variance should be carefully evaluated by the administrative appeals here in Officer, taking into account the language of the City | 00:22:33 | |
Code 13.32 point 090, the applicant's narrative, staff's recommendation, public hearing proceedings, and any other supporting | 00:22:40 | |
documentation that is provided. Hearing. | 00:22:46 | |
From the perspective of the city staff, denial of the variance is recommended with considerations of the proposed alternative | 00:22:54 | |
mitigation measures. | 00:22:58 | |
To address the applicants need within the framework capacity zoning ordinance. | 00:23:03 | |
So from their city's view, this is what the city staff recommends. | 00:23:07 | |
Thank you. | 00:23:13 | |
All right. | 00:23:19 | |
So my job here is. | 00:23:31 | |
I wish it was as. | 00:23:34 | |
Oh yeah, that's a good idea. That's. | 00:23:39 | |
My job is. | 00:23:44 | |
My job is to take different. | 00:24:01 | |
That is uniform throughout the state. | 00:24:17 | |
Consistency. | 00:24:27 | |
With that instead. | 00:24:29 | |
Let's have. | 00:24:32 | |
Will do. I'm Benjamin Wheat. I work for Roderick Enterprises. I'm joined with Mike Roderick here in the. | 00:24:43 | |
Room. | 00:24:53 | |
I don't know. | 00:24:58 | |
The scenario of the property. | 00:25:11 | |
I just want to make sure I know where this is on. I was going to ask if you. | 00:25:15 | |
I think I know where it sits on the land, but I just want to make. | 00:25:21 | |
I was going to ask too, just if if we want to keep that up, I apologize. How do you how do you pronounce your last name, Captain? | 00:25:24 | |
Okay, thanks, Mr. Cadden. I was also going to see if Kerry would pull up just a Google image from the Street View. | 00:25:32 | |
Yeah, that's that's, that's me on my chicken scratch. But that represents exactly what we're trying to do. | 00:25:46 | |
I conceived existing garage on there. Yeah, yeah. | 00:25:58 | |
Yeah. So the existing garage is yellow, new one would be red and then obviously the building is the existing option. | 00:26:04 | |
Office building. | 00:26:11 | |
Yeah. | 00:26:15 | |
So the conditional use, so the conditional use was the only reason we would tear down the garage is if we built the new one. If we | 00:26:22 | |
don't do anything, the garage will remain. | 00:26:27 | |
As Carrie is pulling that up really quick, we purchased the building to operate as our headquarters earlier this year. We are | 00:26:35 | |
we're in the process of renovating the first floor on a on another building permit that we were successfully pulled within the | 00:26:41 | |
city. | 00:26:47 | |
Can you go to the Street View? | 00:26:54 | |
So we're going to house it. We're going to, we're going to house it as our HQ. We're moving from Murray, which we've been for. | 00:26:57 | |
20 years, 20 years. So we've got some tenants in the front, There's an attorney that's been there for a long term, we've got an | 00:27:07 | |
accountant upstairs and then we've got an architectural firm as well. | 00:27:11 | |
That's there and then we have some additional space that will lease out, but I. | 00:27:18 | |
We were really attracted to the building because of the the historical nature of it and just the the. | 00:27:23 | |
The character uniqueness. So the structure up there up front is the actual historical building and you can see this portion of the | 00:27:29 | |
building. | 00:27:33 | |
The wider portion. | 00:27:38 | |
Yeah. So this is an add-on that was done in 1979, which you can see that doesn't and then this is the garage that we would we | 00:27:42 | |
would potentially tear. | 00:27:46 | |
The potential that the current garage, so we have done a lot of efforts in terms of the conditional use permit that we we went | 00:27:54 | |
through with Planning Commission was required because of some site changes we wanted to make new Windows, those types of things | 00:28:00 | |
when it falls in that historical site that's required by the city. | 00:28:05 | |
So as part of that, we incorporated the garage in there. The only thing that we think the addition in 1979. | 00:28:12 | |
Both character to the existing historical structure upfront. | 00:28:19 | |
The garage that was later was added later was. It doesn't have the same building materials. It doesn't add any historical. | 00:28:24 | |
Uniqueness to the property. | 00:28:33 | |
And it's hard to see from this picture because you got the big movie truck there, but this, the the garage is like the first thing | 00:28:36 | |
you see. | 00:28:39 | |
And it and it takes away from the historical nature that's yeah the the the winner picture is a better one I. | 00:28:44 | |
And you can see that it's it's it's sighting, it has stone work on it. There's no there's no color tying into it. I. | 00:28:53 | |
So there's two things for us. The hardship aspect of it is we're in the development business. | 00:29:03 | |
And we have. | 00:29:10 | |
Experienced. | 00:29:12 | |
Huge lead times in various aspects of the construction that have required us within the past few years to. | 00:29:15 | |
Order equipment, including electrical gear, rooftop units, those types of things, and actually house those before we even. | 00:29:23 | |
Start projects, move forward, pull permits and so the, the, the additional garage in the back would be used for all of those. The, | 00:29:32 | |
the current hardships that we have now are the, the garage height on those doors and the depth they built that garage. They | 00:29:38 | |
didn't, they didn't tear out the asphalt. | 00:29:44 | |
And so the asphalt slopes up at a probably a 15° slope inside the garage. Yeah. So I can't, I can't get a forklift in there and | 00:29:51 | |
move things into there. So I. | 00:29:56 | |
There's two aspects of this. We wanted to move it from there and then move it behind the building so it wasn't taking away from | 00:30:03 | |
the historical aspect of the building and the site. The height we again, like you mentioned, we started with, and this is a really | 00:30:09 | |
good representation. The one hardship that I wanted to talk about was parking, so. | 00:30:15 | |
If we don't get granted the variance today, we can still build this structure without the five foot. | 00:30:22 | |
Gable that hides all of the equipment and rooftop units. We can do a flat roof and we would be conforming to every use within | 00:30:29 | |
there. | 00:30:32 | |
The challenge is, is if the recommendation from staff wants us to move it from an RM zone to a PO zone, the RM zone to APO zone | 00:30:38 | |
doesn't. There's nothing in their code that allows for different setbacks for an accessory building. So if we built this building, | 00:30:44 | |
Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's 15 and 10. | 00:30:50 | |
Or is it more than that? | 00:30:58 | |
On the PIO zone. | 00:31:00 | |
So what if we staff recommendations, we want us to build this in the PO zone versus the arm. If I do that, I have to take this red | 00:31:03 | |
structure and I have to move it like this. And what that ends up doing is it ends up taking away 8 parking stalls. | 00:31:10 | |
With other parking spells it I have to meet a certain parking ratio within my tenants and if I have that building completely | 00:31:18 | |
filled with professional office uses, with medical, there's different office uses that are allowed in that zone. There's different | 00:31:24 | |
parking ratios that we would there would there would be a good chance that we wouldn't be meeting those parking ratios if we once | 00:31:31 | |
that building is fully leased. | 00:31:37 | |
Umm. | 00:31:46 | |
Correct. Yeah, because then I would have to move that structure away from the north and the West setbacks. And then the only | 00:31:47 | |
reason, the only way to do that is. | 00:31:52 | |
Getting rid of all our parking. | 00:31:57 | |
In terms of special circumstances attached to the property. | 00:32:05 | |
We have the historical nature of the property that I think there's only three historical sites in holiday. | 00:32:10 | |
More than that, that's I think it's definitely less than 5, but there's very few and there's very few in the in the in the city of | 00:32:19 | |
Holiday. | 00:32:24 | |
We have the commercial property that's that borders us to the West. | 00:32:30 | |
Which is a completely different use. It's the back parking lot of that facility and then we have the the 25 foot canal to the | 00:32:34 | |
north of us that buffers any residential circumstances. | 00:32:39 | |
Those are all huge circumstances that I don't know if you could find another property. If you can find another property within | 00:32:46 | |
Holiday City, it's going to be again, very few I. | 00:32:51 | |
In terms of moving down the building heights from 31 to 25, there's, there's some municipalities that have the, there's have the. | 00:32:58 | |
Differentiation of where that building height starts and stops finished floor to where your structure is, and then if you're as | 00:33:08 | |
long as. | 00:33:12 | |
The structure of the five foot structure that's on top of that is built to. | 00:33:16 | |
Hide all of our rooftop units and equipment that we would put on there. So and we would do that from there's twofold on that as | 00:33:22 | |
we're trying to match the historical nature of that building. We worked with Planning Commission on the on the architectural | 00:33:28 | |
aspect of it with the we're incorporating the same windows, the same brick, the same slate roof, which the current historical | 00:33:33 | |
which the current garage does not incorporate. | 00:33:39 | |
I. | 00:33:46 | |
And then in terms of general plan, I think Justice spoke on it. They we were in line with that in the spirit of zoning. | 00:33:51 | |
Yeah. | 00:34:00 | |
So. | 00:34:05 | |
It's yeah. So in our world, it's we do like, yeah, we do commercial industrial buildings and it's, it's referred to as a parapet. | 00:34:08 | |
And a parapet, all it is, is it's, it's basically your roof, anything above your, your flat roof. And the the idea behind a | 00:34:13 | |
parapet is to hide all of your. There's many cities that require it. Sandy City. We have a project in Sandy City that made us | 00:34:19 | |
build a. | 00:34:24 | |
Yeah. So that and that's in this case it's just a graduated wall that and we could build it straight up. The only reason we're | 00:34:32 | |
doing a graduated wall is to match the historical nature of the of the add-on that was done in 1979. | 00:34:37 | |
Yep. | 00:34:44 | |
So I guess from our standpoint, we went back to our racking manufacturers and what we need to be able to do from the storage | 00:34:50 | |
aspect of it, ranging it from that 2025 feet to. | 00:34:56 | |
31 feet from 25 feet it came from two things. We lowered the parapet a level by by two feet and the other the other was done by | 00:35:03 | |
decreasing the the height of the building down to the 20 feet I. | 00:35:08 | |
Again. | 00:35:17 | |
We can build the building without the Parabit, it's just we don't feel like it. | 00:35:19 | |
Ties in with the historical nature of the building. And then the other aspect of this is changing it from the room to the PO zone. | 00:35:23 | |
We could do this, we could do a 31 foot building, we could do a 40 foot building, but we lose all of that parking, which just | 00:35:32 | |
doesn't. | 00:35:35 | |
Help us in terms of meeting those requirements for the other tenants that we have to lease the building to because we only occupy | 00:35:39 | |
a small portion of it. | 00:35:42 | |
A lot of times hiring back. | 00:35:48 | |
Yeah. | 00:35:50 | |
Yeah, yeah. | 00:35:54 | |
I guess I that's kind of everything in terms of that's just a little bit of background. And then pertaining to those five items | 00:35:58 | |
that we we have to in a variance, I'll let Michael come up and say anything. | 00:36:04 | |
Thank you. My name is Michael Roderick with Roderick Enterprises. Ben did an excellent job in going through the nuts and bolts of | 00:36:16 | |
what we're trying to do. The main thing, in addition to everything Ben said, is that existing garage. | 00:36:23 | |
Frankly, is ugly and it's the first thing you see as you enter the building or enter the site. It has no historical value. | 00:36:31 | |
It's I don't even know why it was billed because like Ben said, they didn't even tear out the asphalt that's on a sloped floor. | 00:36:42 | |
The utility of that garage is very minimal and so we as long stewards I'm. | 00:36:49 | |
3rd generation in this business, We've been at it for 40 plus years. | 00:36:57 | |
We want to do what's right for the project and the building. | 00:37:01 | |
And it's just an ugly garage that we'd like to get rid of. | 00:37:05 | |
Hide it to the north part of the site. Reconstruct something that ties in much more economic or much more architecturally. | 00:37:11 | |
To the overall project, it'll be a bigger and better building and then that's the main thing it's just. | 00:37:20 | |
Upgrade the whole architectural or the whole project. So that's the main emphasis we're trying to accomplish. | 00:37:29 | |
Thank you. | 00:37:34 | |
I was wondering what's going on because I received this one day. | 00:37:40 | |
Why don't you come up to the mic, tell us who you are, and we'll answer your questions. No, I was just trying to. My name is Marat | 00:37:46 | |
Borussian. I live. My property is 4730 Sycamore Dr. | 00:37:53 | |
I am behind that and so I was wondering what is what's going on as to what we're building and stuff like that. And so I think if I | 00:38:00 | |
if I'm correct it's going to be a garage, okay and so. | 00:38:08 | |
They're proposing building a garage kind of in the back. | 00:38:20 | |
Of the lot taking down the garage that already. | 00:38:24 | |
OK. | 00:38:28 | |
Yeah. | 00:38:33 | |
25 feet. | 00:38:39 | |
They're allowed to have tournaments. They're asking for medication. | 00:38:41 | |
Yeah, it shouldn't be. I don't think there will be a problem. I mean, this is, this is my house right there. | 00:38:45 | |
I have a monitor up here. Huh. | 00:38:56 | |
I said I have a computer monitor here too, so I can see. Yeah, yeah, that's. | 00:38:59 | |
If I'm correct, I think that I'm correct 4730 Sycamore. | 00:39:05 | |
Yeah, that's the one. | 00:39:09 | |
And so. | 00:39:12 | |
Yeah, I don't. I don't. | 00:39:16 | |
At the end of the parking. | 00:39:27 | |
Oh, OK. | 00:39:30 | |
By the way, we're trying to get away. Oh, OK. | 00:39:40 | |
Yeah, should be OK. | 00:39:43 | |
Yeah, no problem. I just want to make sure it's not going to be like apartments or some. | 00:39:47 | |
Some residential or something like? | 00:39:52 | |
OK. Thank you. | 00:39:57 | |
All right. | 00:40:01 | |
I think I have. | 00:40:07 | |
So how this works is I have to write a written decision. | 00:40:19 | |
Explain why I find what I find. | 00:40:24 | |
Merry Christmas everybody. | 00:40:40 | |
Thanks. | 00:40:44 |