Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge?

Transcript

Event transcript
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
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed

Transcript

Event transcript
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