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
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed

* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Unable to preview the file.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Unable to preview the file.
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
scroll up