Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Transcript
And that was. 00:00:06
Yeah. 00:00:19
Oh oh. 00:00:25
All right. 00:00:35
Good morning. 00:00:37
This is the. 00:00:40
Administrative appeals hearing, if you're here for the justice court, that's next door. 00:00:42
Today is Monday, March 17th. 00:00:49
2025. 00:00:53
My name is Frank Nakamura, I'm the duly appointed. 00:00:55
Hearing officer for Holiday City. 00:00:58
Want to state that I have no conflicts of interest with any of the parties. 00:01:02
And I've had no ex parte communications with any of the parties except. 00:01:08
With the city at a procedural matters and one clarification. 00:01:14
But there have been no substantive ex parte communications with either party. 00:01:20
So let's begin item. 00:01:25
Number one on the agenda is holiday peak slot 2 lot coverage variance. 00:01:27
Let's see. 00:01:35
Is the applicant here? 00:01:36
Want to introduce yourselves? 00:01:38
And this this is being recorded. So we would like your course to for you to speak into the. 00:01:49
Microphone. 00:01:54
And we? 00:02:02
Holidays. 00:02:06
Sorry about that. 00:02:14
Restart. Or did you hear what I was? 00:02:17
Maybe again, we have a record that we're creating, so if you would. 00:02:20
Restart, name is Jake Aruni and I'm. 00:02:24
The owner of Lot 2. 00:02:28
And holiday peaks. 00:02:30
And we've been working on design of a. 00:02:32
Final retirement home for us. 00:02:36
And holiday peaks. 00:02:38
And I'm Peter Gambrellis with ivory hums. 00:02:41
I'm technically the applicant as. 00:02:45
At the time of application we are the owner. 00:02:48
And Jake is our contracted buyer right now. 00:02:52
OK. Thank you. 00:02:55
All right, let's begin with the presentation. 00:02:57
City. 00:03:00
Justice. 00:03:05
Good morning. 00:03:13
I'm Justice 24. I'm a city planner. 00:03:15
And the GIS manager in the Community and Economic Development division. 00:03:17
So for. 00:03:22
The case number one, it's about Holiday Peaks Law 2. 00:03:23
This case is about a lot coverage. 00:03:27
Variant. The address of this property is 1691 E Delaware. 00:03:30
Lane Holiday, Utah zip code 84117. 00:03:38
The lot in question has a size of 0.24 acres, which translates into. 00:03:43
10,000. 00:03:49
451 square feet. 00:03:51
In one of our R110 zones, so single family. 00:03:53
Residential zone. 00:03:57
Now the request for this. 00:03:58
Pertains to city code. 00:04:01
Section 13.14. 00:04:03
.080. 00:04:05
Which relates to lot coverage. 00:04:07
Now, what this city ordinance does is it moderates. 00:04:09
How much impervious surfaces? 00:04:14
That a property owner can install. 00:04:16
On their property, which includes structures, driveways, walkways. 00:04:18
Or non permeable surfaces. 00:04:23
Now the applicant here today is requesting. 00:04:25
An exception. 00:04:28
From the prescribed 31% maximum. 00:04:30
Structural coverage. 00:04:33
In turn proposing to maintain at 35%. 00:04:35
Maximum structural coverage. 00:04:39
Now this request, if granted, would constitute. 00:04:41
A 4% structural coverage variant. 00:04:45
Which would run with the landing perpetuity. 00:04:48
Now the background to this case is that. 00:04:51
Ivory Homes and. 00:04:53
Mr. Peter. 00:04:55
Come through us here. 00:04:56
Filed an appeal with the administrative hearing officer to seek a variance. 00:04:58
To the above portions of city code that I just read. 00:05:04
Now. 00:05:07
Ivory Homes and. 00:05:09
Mr. Gum rulers have intentions of. 00:05:10
Building a home. 00:05:13
On the address 19. 00:05:14
1691 E Delaware. 00:05:16
Now this is a. 00:05:19
This property is part of a recent subdivision. 00:05:20
What we call the holiday. 00:05:23
Subdivision. 00:05:26
In the R110 zone. 00:05:27
Now according to the applicant. 00:05:29
They're proposing to construct new residential homes. 00:05:30
Which would require larger structural footprint. 00:05:34
Than what the ordinance currently. 00:05:37
Allows them to. 00:05:39
Therefore, they have submitted this variant. 00:05:41
Requesting the. 00:05:45
To be allowed a 35% maximum structural coverage. 00:05:46
Now the applicant is also of the opinion that. 00:05:50
The city ordinance. 00:05:53
That governs lot coverage. 00:05:54
It limits. 00:05:57
Individual lots in holiday and may not be fair. 00:05:59
Or equitable in that matter. 00:06:03
So this is something that they refer to. 00:06:06
In their narrative as a coverage inversion, which the applicant would. 00:06:09
Give more clarification on this. 00:06:13
We have outlined what the city. 00:06:16
Section 13.14. Point. 00:06:19
080. 00:06:21
States and that is found in the report. 00:06:23
Now, per the provisions of this ordinance. 00:06:27
City of Holidays regulation of lot coverage. 00:06:30
It does this in a tiered category system. 00:06:34
So based on the size of your property. 00:06:38
You would you would have a certain percentage. 00:06:40
Of structural maximum. 00:06:44
And then total load coverage maximum that. 00:06:46
You're allowed to. 00:06:48
Allowed to comply to. 00:06:49
Now per the size of the applicants. 00:06:51
Property. They're allowed. 00:06:54
At 31% structural coverage maximum. 00:06:56
And had 36% total. 00:06:59
Impervious coverage maximum. 00:07:02
Now, again, what city ordinance does is it also gives room for flexibility. 00:07:06
Because in holiday we normally find instances where. 00:07:12
Property owners run over there. 00:07:16
Maximum allowed. 00:07:18
Surfaces so the city ordinance makes. 00:07:20
Different provision that allows. 00:07:22
Up to a 10% bonus. 00:07:24
When property owners go over that total. 00:07:27
Impervious surfaces. 00:07:30
Now we must. 00:07:31
Reiterate that this provision does not pertain to their maximum structural coverage. 00:07:33
Just the total impervious. So what this translates to is. 00:07:39
In simple terms. 00:07:43
If you're allowed to build at 35% or 31% structural coverage. 00:07:44
That is the Max. 00:07:49
But then if you exceed the total which is at 36%. 00:07:50
You can be allowed to add additional. 00:07:54
10%. 00:07:57
Related to driveways or walkaways or those. 00:07:58
Escapes on on a property. 00:08:01
So. 00:08:04
Based on the narrative that the applicant submits, city staff also. 00:08:06
Its own analysis. 00:08:10
To verify some of the claims that the applicant makes. 00:08:12
India Narrative. 00:08:16
And the analysis are presented at that for. 00:08:17
As follows. First is the application of the lot coverage code. 00:08:20
Now as I explained earlier. 00:08:24
The Lord Coverage Ordinance pertains to lot size. 00:08:27
So it's strictly based on the size of your property. 00:08:30
Now. 00:08:33
The city code determines that these restrictions. 00:08:34
Are granted in percentage terms. 00:08:37
Relative to lot size categories. 00:08:40
Now, umm. 00:08:43
If properties within a zone. 00:08:44
I found to have the same size. 00:08:48
All of them are subject to that same restrictions regardless. 00:08:51
So. 00:08:57
The structural coverage requirement, as I explained. 00:09:01
It's not a nuanced. 00:09:05
Thing and it's enforced strictly. 00:09:07
And in fact subsection 13.14. 00:09:09
.080 C. 00:09:13
States that this provision may not. 00:09:15
Be used to increase the maximum percentage coverage. 00:09:18
For all structures set. 00:09:21
For the hearing in the city code. 00:09:23
Now what this means is that. 00:09:26
As I explained earlier, the structural coverage cannot be maxed out. 00:09:31
When maxed out, cannot be offered any. 00:09:35
Flexibilities. 00:09:38
If you Max out on the total impervious, you are allowed. 00:09:39
Additional. 00:09:43
The city. 00:09:45
Is very keen on enforcing load coverage. 00:09:46
Regulations. 00:09:49
To the effect that any type of development that exceeds. 00:09:50
The the total impervious. 00:09:54
Surfaces by 10%. 00:09:56
It triggers an additional engineering requirement. 00:09:58
That requires the property owner to manage the. 00:10:01
On site water retention. 00:10:04
So you'd have to design and implement onsite water retention plants. 00:10:07
To that effect. 00:10:12
And again, as the applicant stated in their narrative that they perceive. 00:10:13
An anomaly or a coverage inversion? 00:10:19
In the city ordinance. 00:10:22
The applicants in their narrative, they state that there are inconsistencies. 00:10:24
In the coverage regulations. 00:10:29
Which is a different way of. 00:10:33
Stating that. 00:10:35
Different lot sizes. 00:10:37
Should be treated the same in terms of their percentage requirements. 00:10:38
But then, per city staff's analysis, this implication of inequity. 00:10:43
Is quite the opposite of what Citi ordinance actually intends to achieve. 00:10:47
And we say that to me, that. 00:10:52
The intent of the city ordinance is to mitigate excessive poor surfaces. 00:10:54
While ensuring low impact development. 00:11:00
In areas of urban build out. 00:11:03
Now furthermore, the ratio for structural coverage maximum. 00:11:06
Ensures that there is actually equity. 00:11:10
In mass enough structures and not necessarily equality. 00:11:12
So if you just talk about the principle of. 00:11:16
Equity. 00:11:19
It means that treating. 00:11:20
Individuals or. 00:11:22
Properties or structures. 00:11:24
Differently to achieve equal outcomes. 00:11:25
And not necessarily treating them the same. 00:11:28
Now a closer evaluation of the log coverage table shows that these T8 categories. 00:11:31
Actually aligned. 00:11:37
Are actually aligned with the zoning designation of properties. 00:11:39
Which ensures that there is consistency in. 00:11:43
So what you'd see is that based on these categories. 00:11:46
John, could you please Scroll down to? 00:11:51
The table that also has the zones. 00:11:53
With that structural. 00:11:57
Yep, right there. 00:11:58
So what you would actually identify is that. 00:11:59
If. 00:12:03
For instance, if we take a category of. 00:12:04
The first one. 00:12:06
Lots less than 10,000 square feet. 00:12:08
You'd find that. 00:12:11
All of these lots. 00:12:13
Normally located within the R18 and R-14. 00:12:14
Zones. So that means that. 00:12:18
Other properties within that zone are being treated with that 35%. 00:12:20
Structural maximum. 00:12:24
And the applicant finds their property within. 00:12:26
Over 10,000 square feet by then maxing out at. 00:12:30
15,000 square feet back category. 00:12:33
Which means that all properties within that same category. 00:12:36
Are treated equally. 00:12:40
Within that 31% structure of footprint maximum. 00:12:41
And the 36%? 00:12:45
A structural footprint maximum. So what you would actually see? 00:12:46
Is that? 00:12:50
In spite of regulating the amount of impervious surfaces. 00:12:52
The city ordinance also has an intent of. 00:12:55
Moderating massing and scale. 00:12:58
On similar sized properties within. 00:13:00
The city. 00:13:03
Again. 00:13:06
The applicant provides an example comparing the massing requirements. 00:13:07
To smaller size lots. 00:13:11
Less than 10,000 square feet, which puts them in. 00:13:13
A different category. 00:13:16
However, what they've failed to recognize? 00:13:19
Is the fact that. 00:13:21
That's going to be a mismatch because you're essentially comparing. 00:13:23
Lots in R18 or R-14 to. 00:13:26
R 110 So that's a mismatch that. 00:13:30
Was done in. 00:13:34
Narrative or the analysis from the applicant. 00:13:36
Essentially, they're drawing parallels between mass and requirement for. 00:13:39
Properties situated within different zones with different neighborhood. 00:13:44
Characteristics. 00:13:48
Moreover, an estimate of the lot size. 00:13:49
Lot sizes in the applicant. 00:13:53
Neighborhood. 00:13:56
Shows that the average. 00:13:57
Size of a lot within the. 00:14:01
That neighborhood, which is the. 00:14:05
Holiday Peak subdivision with the Delaware. 00:14:07
Neighborhood shows that the average. 00:14:12
Lot size is about 10,000. 00:14:14
01/9 square feet. 00:14:17
Which means that. 00:14:19
Most of their properties within that. 00:14:21
Vicinity umm. 00:14:23
For within that category of that. 00:14:24
Over 10,000 square feet, but then maxing out at the 15,000 square feet. 00:14:27
And thus they are treated with the 31%. 00:14:32
Structural footprint. 00:14:35
Coverage. 00:14:37
Again. 00:14:39
Similar sized lots in Holiday are subject, smaller size lots in Holiday. 00:14:41
Are subject to less restrictive. 00:14:46
Structural footprint requirements in order to. 00:14:48
Reduce the. 00:14:52
Disproportionate impact of mass in. 00:14:53
For properties with more constrained spaces. 00:14:56
So as you can see, the smaller the lot size. 00:14:58
The larger the structural footprint. 00:15:02
So this this again, as I said to moderate impact of. 00:15:04
Of. 00:15:08
Limitations in lot size for. 00:15:09
Smaller lot size, but what you'd also find. 00:15:11
Is that? 00:15:14
When you compare in absolute size. 00:15:15
These percentage terms for. 00:15:18
Smaller size seen. 00:15:20
Larger, but then when you compare that to for instance. 00:15:22
Someone who has a lot size of 70,000 square feet. 00:15:26
Of being allowed to build a 20%. 00:15:29
Structural footprint. 00:15:32
You would find that in actuality, that structural footprint is actually bigger than. 00:15:34
What someone who's allowed at 35%? 00:15:38
Structural footprint would enjoy. 00:15:42
In a 10,000 square feet. 00:15:44
Property. So while larger lots generally have more restrictive. 00:15:46
Coverage requirements. 00:15:51
The absolute structural sizes are bigger than that of smaller size lots. 00:15:52
And you'd also identify that the applicant. 00:15:57
In their narrative, try to make a comparison of. 00:16:00
The allot size versus someone in the. 00:16:03
My 10,000. 00:16:07
Square feet property. But what that does essentially is that. 00:16:09
They're comparing a lower class boundary. 00:16:14
In the allot size category to someone in the upper class boundary. 00:16:17
Which is also a mismatch. 00:16:20
So if they want to do similar size comparison. 00:16:22
They would have to compare lower class boundary in. 00:16:25
The alert size category to a lower class boundary. 00:16:28
Not the other way around. 00:16:31
Now, the last part of the analysis that city staff did was to check to see if there is any potential precedence of. 00:16:35
A self-imposed hardship. 00:16:43
And what city staff found was that. 00:16:44
Holidays peak subdivision as indicated earlier. 00:16:48
It's a fairly new subdivision that was created sometime last year. 00:16:51
And city staff believes that the intent of this new subdivision. 00:16:57
And the ensuing rezoning. 00:17:01
That was done. 00:17:03
Because that subdivision, that property used to be owned by the LDS Church. 00:17:04
And then was rezoned into the. 00:17:08
Holiday Peaks subdivision. 00:17:10
Their sensuine subdivision and rezoning. 00:17:13
Of that property. 00:17:16
Was not to create a very unique neighborhood. 00:17:18
That was. 00:17:21
Distinctively different. 00:17:22
From the surrounding Westmore and. 00:17:24
Delaware neighborhoods. 00:17:26
Now, in fact, the applicant acknowledges this. 00:17:28
By stating in their contextual narrative. 00:17:31
That the ordinances. 00:17:33
Is to ensure. 00:17:35
That new development is harmonious with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 00:17:37
Again when the subdivision was rezoned. 00:17:42
To R110. 00:17:45
With the appetite and lot sizes. 00:17:46
It was understood. 00:17:49
That the developments that would ensue on the subdivision. 00:17:50
Would adhere to the applicable standards. 00:17:54
That governs buildings within the R1 time zone. 00:17:56
Now, city staff does not believe. 00:17:59
That the intent of the subdivision. 00:18:01
Was to create conditions where. 00:18:04
Multiple of these properties would run into non conforming situations. 00:18:06
This observation is supported by the fact that. 00:18:10
The city planner reviewing the permits for. 00:18:13
Other lots within the new holiday peaks. 00:18:16
Subdivision. 00:18:19
Lot 5 specifically. 00:18:20
Had also run into similar lots structural coverage. 00:18:22
Footprint issues. 00:18:26
When doing their zoning analysis on that. 00:18:28
City staff recognizes that this situation may potentially mirror. 00:18:31
A self-imposed hardship. 00:18:36
Given the fact that the applicants narrative states. 00:18:38
That they purchased the property. 00:18:41
As I finished a lot. 00:18:43
From the developer and have it contracted buyer. 00:18:45
Who profess a larger? 00:18:47
Home size than what is actually permitted by. 00:18:49
What city ordinance requires. 00:18:53
Now similar sized lots within the Holiday Peak subdivision. 00:18:55
That have tended in a permit. 00:18:59
To the planning department. 00:19:01
Specifically Lot 108 and Lot 109. 00:19:03
Are currently being permitted by the Planning Department. 00:19:07
And mind you, these lots also have the same lot sizes as. 00:19:11
The one in question right now. 00:19:15
Now these slots have been able to meet the structural. 00:19:17
Of footprint requirements, that is. 00:19:20
Moderated by the city. 00:19:23
So. 00:19:25
This comes down to whether the law in question. 00:19:27
Poses very unique characteristics. 00:19:30
From the others that were able to meet. 00:19:32
Structural coverage requirements. 00:19:35
By the city. 00:19:38
Or. 00:19:39
If this request is just subject to. 00:19:40
A matter of the bias preference for a larger home size. 00:19:43
City staff defers that to the applicant to provide sufficient. 00:19:47
Evidence that. 00:19:52
Substantiate the existence of a legitimate hardship. 00:19:53
That would OK if the variance is not granted. 00:19:57
Now as we know for a variance application run through state law. 00:20:00
As you initially mentioned. 00:20:06
And the applicant. 00:20:08
Is supposed to provide. 00:20:10
A systematic response to how they meet. 00:20:13
All those state criteria, those five criteria. 00:20:15
Now the first one is for the applicant to. 00:20:19
Describe what hardship is going to occur. 00:20:22
If the variant is not granted. 00:20:24
Now in demonstrating that. 00:20:26
That there is a unique. 00:20:32
Circumstance that is related to the property or there is going to be an unreasonable hardship. 00:20:34
No explicit response was provided. 00:20:40
To clarify the exceptionally difficult. 00:20:43
A situation that would be created. 00:20:46
When they comply with the zoning regulations, but in the applicants narrative. 00:20:48
Again. 00:20:54
The applicant did not really state. 00:20:55
What hardship is going to occur? 00:20:58
If a variant is not granted. 00:21:00
The applicant notes that in Law 2. 00:21:04
Which is part of the new. 00:21:07
Subdivision as I. 00:21:09
Earlier mentioned. 00:21:11
With immediate neighbors being either new or vacant lots. 00:21:12
Suggests that there is going to be minimal impact because there are no. 00:21:17
New there are no pre-existing structures. 00:21:21
On the neighboring lot. 00:21:24
The applicant presents that. 00:21:26
When they're grown at this variant, it's not going to have substantial impact on. 00:21:28
Neighboring property. 00:21:33
However, our city staff would like to highlight that. 00:21:34
The designation of the property as a new lot. 00:21:38
That's not really exempt. 00:21:40
The property from complying with the ordinance. 00:21:42
Revelations applicable to that zone. 00:21:45
Moreover, the applicant reference to the perceived inequity. 00:21:48
Has been addressed in the staff analysis by comparing the. 00:21:52
Lot sizes and their structural coverage requirements. 00:21:55
So, in summary, City staff submits that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated, at least in their narrative. 00:22:00
The presence of unique circumstances. 00:22:09
Or hardships that would occur if the variant is not granted. 00:22:11
So city stopped therefore recommends that. 00:22:15
The applicant uses this here and this morning. 00:22:17
To provide a more clear. 00:22:21
Justification on what makes compliance with the. 00:22:23
City ordinance unreasonable. 00:22:26
Again, the applicant is supposed to describe how the property is very different from other properties within the vicinity. 00:22:28
Which is the existence of special circumstances. 00:22:37
Now the applicants provided no. 00:22:40
Justification for that in the narrative, it was a blank. 00:22:42
Side of that report, however, city staff assesses that. 00:22:47
The property in question. Law 2. 00:22:51
Does not exhibit. 00:22:53
Distinguishing characteristics. 00:22:55
In terms of its size, shape or lot configuration. 00:22:57
When compared to other lots. 00:23:01
Within the subdivision. 00:23:03
Now, consequently, there is no basis that warrant exceptional treatment if the lot is not unique. 00:23:05
In terms of its. 00:23:12
Size, shape or configuration? 00:23:13
From others. 00:23:15
The third criteria by state law is to describe. 00:23:17
The benefits that other property owners within that vicinity enjoy at the expense of the applicant. 00:23:21
If they are not granted this variant. 00:23:27
Now what the applicant does is that in the narrative. 00:23:31
In. 00:23:35
In trying to justify the applicant's enjoyment of substantial property rights. 00:23:36
That are consistent with that of other properties. 00:23:42
Within that same district. 00:23:45
They cite the bias preference. 00:23:47
As a justification. 00:23:49
Now, specifically if I'm to read. 00:23:51
A quote from the applicants narrative. They state that. 00:23:53
To achieve desired. 00:23:57
Home size A2 story design would be required. 00:23:59
Which would not be in line with the buyer's preference. 00:24:03
Or a single level home. 00:24:08
Now as shown in the extracts that. 00:24:10
I just read the benefits outlined by the applicant. 00:24:12
Is clearly rooted in the buyers preference. 00:24:16
Rather than a legitimate comparison with property rights that are enjoyed by others within that same vicinity. 00:24:19
Again, a GIS analysis. 00:24:27
Of that subdivision and the ensuing. 00:24:29
Neighborhood characteristics. 00:24:33
Showed that. 00:24:35
At the average structure of footprints for homes within the. 00:24:37
Delaware Lane. 00:24:41
Westmore area. 00:24:43
Shows that. 00:24:45
The average neighborhood home. 00:24:46
It's about 1730 square feet. 00:24:49
Now if you. 00:24:53
Estimate what the city ordinance allows for the maximum. 00:24:55
Even with the 31%? 00:24:59
Which is where the. 00:25:01
Applicant property currently fits. 00:25:02
Now what? That 31%? 00:25:05
Gives them in terms of absolute. 00:25:07
Structural size would be. 00:25:09
1500 square feet. 00:25:11
Bigger than what? The average? 00:25:13
Home sizes within that neighborhood. 00:25:16
So city staff does not really believe that granting the variance would be. 00:25:19
Essential to. 00:25:24
Substantial enjoyment of property rights and common privileges. 00:25:25
That are enjoyed by neighbors within that. 00:25:30
Vicinity. 00:25:32
Now again describing why the variance would not deviate. 00:25:34
From the general purpose of. 00:25:38
Holiday city code. 00:25:40
I'm a. 00:25:42
Lot Coverage Ordinance section 13 point 14.080 is very explicit. 00:25:45
In its intent to restrict. 00:25:51
The coverage of impervious surfaces. 00:25:53
And constructions that can initiate. 00:25:56
Events that modify water resources. 00:25:58
Urban elements and the overall environment. 00:26:01
Now, subsection C of the ordinance. 00:26:04
Reads that this provision may not be used to increase. 00:26:07
The maximum percentage for. 00:26:11
Structures in this ordinance. 00:26:13
Now, in light of the clear intent of the city ordinance. 00:26:16
City staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion that granting the variant. 00:26:19
Would not contradict with their holiday city development code. 00:26:24
Now lastly. 00:26:28
The applicant is supposed to describe how the variant is fair. 00:26:29
And conforms to the overall intent of the zoning laws. 00:26:33
In conforming to the general intent of the zoning laws. 00:26:36
And fairness the applicant semizes their narrative by highlighting. 00:26:39
The position of the lot within a new subdivision. 00:26:44
And what they call the coverage inversion. 00:26:47
As the justification for. 00:26:50
Describing how the variance would be fair. 00:26:53
City staff submits that the property is not unique in its characteristics. 00:26:56
Nor is there any coverage inversion as the applicant. 00:27:01
Points out in the narrative. 00:27:05
In fact, all similar sized lots within our 110 zones. 00:27:08
Are treated the same. 00:27:11
And have the same coverage requirements that is the 31%. 00:27:13
Structural footprint. 00:27:17
Now granting everyone in the circumstance whether it's an absence of. 00:27:19
Circumstance from the neighbors. 00:27:24
Or by virtue of being a new lot, does not really align. 00:27:26
With the principle of fairness. 00:27:30
To produce equal outcomes. City staff therefore believes that the situation does not. 00:27:32
Weren't fairness in applying? 00:27:37
City ordinance. 00:27:40
Nor does it uphold the spirit of zoning. 00:27:41
In conclusion, city staff's technical review of the Citi code. 00:27:45
And the analysis of the geospatial characteristics of the property. 00:27:49
Shows that granting this variance does not really appear to be. 00:27:53
The least intrusive solution. 00:27:57
To upholding the spirit of zoning as outlining. 00:27:59
Our code chapter 13.14 point. 00:28:03
080. 00:28:06
Now the city. 00:28:08
Has also not received any building designs. 00:28:09
That can be referenced. 00:28:12
So that the city's technical review committee can also. 00:28:14
Make recommendations based off of what the applicant is. 00:28:17
Is requesting and if there is going to be any alternatives, that can be. 00:28:21
Alternative design solutions that. 00:28:25
Could be provided from the city's technical review committee. 00:28:28
Moreover, the applicant requests to be an exception to the rule. 00:28:31
Based on the buyer's preference, appears to be a self-imposed hardship. 00:28:35
Thus, discussions regarding denials or approval of this application. 00:28:40
Should be moderated by. 00:28:46
Examining the language of city code. 00:28:47
The applicants narrative. 00:28:49
And. 00:28:51
Proceedings that. 00:28:53
We get from this hearing from. 00:28:54
The general public. 00:28:57
Now, from city staff's perspective, this variance does not. 00:28:59
Comprehensively pass. 00:29:02
The five part test variance approval standards. 00:29:04
And deny is recommended from city staff. 00:29:07
Thank you. 00:29:10
Thank you, Mr. for a couple of questions. Yeah, sure. Lot 108 and 109 on the 10 lot subdivision. 00:29:11
Are they of equivalent size to lot 2? 00:29:19
Yeah. So are there any? 00:29:23
Peculiar differences between Lot 108 and 109 and Lot 2. 00:29:26
In absolute size it's literally the same because that the subdivision was created with similar sized lots. So it's a 10 Watt 00:29:31
subdivision. 00:29:35
With very similar sized loads so. 00:29:40
The only difference that you could say would be. 00:29:42
In terms of. 00:29:45
Once being on a corner. 00:29:47
If there is any difference it. 00:29:50
Probably going to be ones that are on the corner. 00:29:52
Versus ones that are just interior lot? 00:29:55
But even with that, which ones are on the corner? 00:29:58
So I believe. 00:30:00
Let's see, I think. 00:30:02
I think lot 105 is on a corner. 00:30:06
Mr. No, what I was asking was those, those that are in the process of getting a permit. 00:30:10
Made an application. 00:30:17
That would be 108109108109. Are we a lot like? 00:30:18
OK. And are there any other lots that have received or? 00:30:23
In the process of receiving building permits in that 10 lot subdivision. 00:30:27
Yeah. So we have a lot 102. 00:30:32
Not for 105 they're wanting. 00:30:35
With the variance application we have for 1/02, 1:08 and 1:09. 00:30:37
Yeah. 00:30:42
You mentioned section 131480 CI, don't recall them ever seeking any relief under that provision anyway. Is that? 00:30:44
Correct. 00:30:54
Yeah, yeah, that's correct. Clearly we're dealing with. 00:30:55
131480 BB right, Correct. 00:30:59
Umm, let's see. 00:31:05
All right. 00:31:11
Oh yeah, one other question in the surrounding neighborhoods. 00:31:13
You mentioned the average structure size. Are those. 00:31:17
Lots of similar size to Lot 2. Yeah, OK. 00:31:22
And to your knowledge, are there any differences between? 00:31:27
Those properties in Lot 2. 00:31:31
So, John, if we could pull up the. 00:31:34
Vicinity map. It should be at the very end of the report. 00:31:38
Yeah, so. 00:31:42
So that is the. 00:31:44
Vicinity map. 00:31:47
So what we found from our GIS analysis was that. 00:31:49
Even the lots that are outside of the Holiday Peak subdivision. 00:31:53
Have similar sized. 00:31:57
Lots to what? The subdivision and that's our 110. They're all, they're all R110 zoning map. 00:31:59
It's right there all right. 00:32:06
Mr. Ford, thank you very much. Sure. 00:32:09
Mr. 00:32:12
Yeah. Thank you. 00:32:13
Thank you, Justice for that. 00:32:16
For that presentation. 00:32:18
I think. 00:32:20
Is being a little bit muddled here. 00:32:24
Is what our argument is in terms of what we're referencing it as the. 00:32:26
The inversion. 00:32:31
Happens inside of code. 00:32:33
So we don't disagree with the city's. 00:32:34
Understanding that. 00:32:36
That yes, we are in a particular. 00:32:39
We're in a particular sizing which requires. 00:32:43
By the code a certain percentage we understand that. 00:32:46
What we're referencing is the anomaly that we have. 00:32:51
That we run into with the particular size of that happens. 00:32:55
So, as Justice had mentioned. 00:32:58
The intent of that particular scaling. 00:32:59
Is that on smaller lots? 00:33:02
A reasonable home may take a larger percentage of that, and we can understand that. 00:33:06
And so as you move through the scale. 00:33:10
What will generally happen? 00:33:13
Is a smaller. 00:33:15
Will be permitted a larger percentage. 00:33:18
But what will typically resolve? 00:33:21
Is a larger home on a larger lot. 00:33:23
Just because of the sizing and the percentage. 00:33:27
What we find here with this particular lot. 00:33:31
Is that we're in. 00:33:33
A minute area where? 00:33:36
What happens is. 00:33:40
We are actually. 00:33:42
Though a larger lot. 00:33:44
On the required to have a smaller home. 00:33:47
So that's what we're referencing is the coverage inversion. 00:33:51
Show. And I think that that's where this this anomaly is where the code kind of breaks down. 00:33:54
Where it doesn't actually meet its own purpose. 00:34:00
At least its stated purpose. 00:34:03
The purpose, of course. 00:34:06
And I don't have the exact reference at hand, but just as had mentioned it. 00:34:08
When it comes to coverage, is to. 00:34:12
Protected its environmental concerns. 00:34:15
It's water runoff. 00:34:18
All that. 00:34:20
As Justice had mentioned, there's certain ways that you can even mitigate. 00:34:22
Environmental concerns to up your impermeable surfaces, however. 00:34:26
It does have a specific. 00:34:30
Exclusion for your. 00:34:32
Own primary structure. 00:34:34
So the code itself is a little interesting in saying that. 00:34:36
You know you can have more impermeable surfaces. 00:34:39
If you make mitigating efforts such as. 00:34:42
Our tanks underground water. 00:34:47
Mitigation, which we haven't, which we are employing on this site. 00:34:50
But there's this limit to yeah, you can have larger driveways you can have. 00:34:55
All these things which the code recognizes as environmental concerns. 00:35:01
But you can't apply that to the home. 00:35:05
So the code itself seems to contradict some of its stated purposes when it comes to that. 00:35:07
But again, our our largest argument is that as you look through the scale. 00:35:13
Which for the most part makes sense. 00:35:18
Smaller smaller lots have smaller homes. 00:35:20
But those smaller homes will likely. 00:35:24
Require a larger percentage of the lot to be taken. 00:35:26
And as you move through the scale, it mostly works out, but when you're in the. 00:35:30
When you're in the lowest part. 00:35:35
The scale that we're in. 00:35:38
What happens is. 00:35:40
You're required to have a smaller home. 00:35:41
So the anomaly is. 00:35:43
We made this lot. 00:35:45
450 square feet smaller. 00:35:47
We could have a larger. 00:35:50
Which is the anomaly that we're trying to reference in our application. 00:35:53
And so I guess as. 00:35:57
As the city had mentioned that we did not bring up a special circumstance. 00:35:59
For this lot. But we don't disagree that this lot is. 00:36:04
Is different in any way in shape or functionality from the surrounding neighborhood. 00:36:09
A reference is the special circumstance. 00:36:14
Is that we find ourselves inside of this. 00:36:17
Inversion in the actual code. 00:36:21
And so because of our lot sizing. 00:36:25
Where you would expect a larger home, we're actually limited to a smaller home. 00:36:29
On a bigger lot. 00:36:34
And then I'll turn this to Jake, if you don't mind. 00:36:36
No. 00:36:39
I've lived in Holiday. 00:36:45
From. 00:36:49
1976. 00:36:50
To 2020. 00:36:52
Various parts of holidays starting from Hermosa to down to. 00:36:54
Kalyn Way, Holly. 00:37:00
Walker Lane and then Cottonwood Lane. 00:37:03
I presently live in Alpine, UT in a smaller home. 00:37:07
We just me and my wife now. 00:37:12
And we would like to. 00:37:15
Come back to holiday. 00:37:17
All our friends. 00:37:18
Our church has been here. 00:37:20
For. 00:37:22
For that many years. 00:37:24
When we come back to it. 00:37:26
All the way from Alpine. 00:37:27
So. 00:37:29
We decided to. 00:37:31
Build a house and holiday. Our kids are in Salt Lake. 00:37:33
And. 00:37:37
We want to make sure that we have based on our health. 00:37:38
Needs umm. 00:37:42
A larger footprint on the main floor because we're going to end up on one floor. 00:37:44
With potential for. 00:37:50
Two or three bedrooms on the main floor for. 00:37:53
Care purposes. 00:37:57
So. 00:37:58
That is the reason. 00:38:01
As far as the rest of this is concerned. 00:38:03
I've served on numerous boards and Commission much like you sitting on the bench. 00:38:06
And adjudicating on state code. 00:38:11
And many, many times. 00:38:14
Have asked for new rulemaking. 00:38:16
Because. 00:38:19
The codes, the state code. 00:38:20
And I presume the city code is the same. 00:38:22
Is all in certain cases, black and white. 00:38:25
A small difference between 10,000 square feet. 00:38:29
And 10,000. 00:38:32
9 square feet. 00:38:34
Can throw you into. 00:38:37
A category that is not. 00:38:40
There is not. 00:38:43
Conducive to development. 00:38:45
And this is the case. 00:38:48
In this scenario. 00:38:50
We are put into a category of 15,000 square foot or molar. 00:38:54
And based on based on a very, very small increase in square footage. 00:38:59
And the. 00:39:04
The way the city is looking at it, of course. 00:39:07
Based on the code, black and white. 00:39:10
No transition zone. 00:39:12
And not allowing us to. 00:39:14
To achieve what we want to do. 00:39:18
There are larger lots and. 00:39:20
Sandy Draper, etc. That we could choose to be in. 00:39:22
Than holidays at home. 00:39:27
So yeah. 00:39:29
That's that's the reason. 00:39:31
You want to come back? 00:39:33
OK. Thank you, Mr. Gambulos. 00:39:36
Lots 108 and 109 were referenced. 00:39:40
They are in the process of getting a building permit. 00:39:43
How are they? Are they distinguishable from lot 2? 00:39:47
Very nominally. 00:39:51
Lot sizing? Are there any other lots in this? 00:39:52
10 Watt subdivision your new subdivision that. 00:39:56
In the process of getting a building permit or have built. 00:40:01
None have been built as of yet. I think that there's in total 4 and I think those are the listed lots that are in process with 00:40:07
building permit. 00:40:10
Yeah, 4 So I want to make sure 108109. 00:40:15
Yours 1:02 and 1:05. 00:40:18
I'm sorry it's in process on our end, but. 00:40:27
Maybe not submitted to the city. Well, 105 is at. 00:40:29
Are they going to be complying with the? 00:40:34
31% coverage. 00:40:37
I do believe so. 00:40:40
And they are this. Are they distinguishable from lot 2? 00:40:42
Yeah, again, most of these are. 00:40:46
They have very minor. 00:40:48
Square footage differences. 00:40:50
Let's see. 00:40:55
I believe those are the only questions I have. 00:40:59
I just want to clarify. 00:41:02
Of course the the. 00:41:05
Purview of. 00:41:07
People's hearing Officer. 00:41:08
Is not to. 00:41:11
Change ordinance or its. 00:41:13
Interpretation it is to determine whether the strict enforcement of an ordinance. 00:41:18
Would cause an unreasonable hardship. 00:41:23
Based on some peculiar circumstance to this property. 00:41:26
And of course, it cannot be economic or self-imposed. I wanted to clarify in terms of the structure of the ordinance. 00:41:31
That is not within this purview. 00:41:39
That's for another forum. 00:41:42
And that's for the Legislature. 00:41:44
Legislative body of the city to handle. 00:41:47
Our my job is to. 00:41:51
Determine whether the strict. 00:41:54
Enforcement. 00:41:56
Causes unreasonable hardship. I wanted to clarify that. 00:41:58
To use does you know whether I think that the categories or whatever? 00:42:01
Should be changed or modified. That is not within our purview. 00:42:07
I wanted you to understand that. 00:42:13
All right. 00:42:15
Any other information from? 00:42:17
The city. 00:42:20
And from. 00:42:22
Yes, Sir. 00:42:24
The hardship to us would be. 00:42:26
3 or 4. 00:42:29
Months of. 00:42:31
Design work. 00:42:33
The amount of money that we put in based on contract that it's going to be lost. 00:42:35
So the hardship is going to be, yes, economic hardship to us quite a bit. 00:42:39
And if we don't get what we need, then we have to build. 00:42:44
Pull out of this slot, which means. 00:42:48
The economic hardship to us is going to be much severe. 00:42:51
OK. Yes, thank you. I understand that. 00:42:55
All right, any other? 00:42:59
Comments We'll take this matter under advisement and. 00:43:01
Will have a written opinion. 00:43:06
In at least five business days. 00:43:10
Will submit it to. 00:43:12
The city and will be distributed to all interested parties. 00:43:14
I do appreciate your civility. 00:43:18
And your professionalism as always, Mr. Gambulus. 00:43:20
Your professionalism and the city. 00:43:23
Have for being so thorough about this. 00:43:26
I thank you and we'll have a written opinion. 00:43:28
Within 5 business days. 00:43:32
Thank you very much. 00:43:35
Next item on the agenda. 00:43:49
Is. 00:43:53
Could you pull up the agenda? 00:43:56
Want to make sure I read it properly. 00:43:58
Item number two Wheatley addition side set back variance. 00:44:05
Is anyone here on behalf of the applicant? 00:44:13
OK. 00:44:22
We are recording this so. 00:44:24
Make sure you speak in the. 00:44:27
The microphone. 00:44:29
Please state your name. 00:44:31
For the record, please. 00:44:32
My name is Camille Wheatley. 00:44:34
OK, umm. 00:44:36
I have received your application. 00:44:39
With the narrative and. 00:44:43
Drawings and plans. 00:44:45
And have reviewed them. I also. 00:44:47
Received. 00:44:50
The staff report prepared by the city and have reviewed that. 00:44:51
If there are no objections, I would like to have those included in the record. 00:44:55
Any objections? 00:45:00
No. 00:45:01
So. 00:45:05
Well, I need to preliminarily at least state that. 00:45:08
And I said in the previous matter that. 00:45:13
The appeals hearing officer is not here to interpret. 00:45:17
Statutes or to determine whether. 00:45:23
I interpret. 00:45:25
A code provision differently. 00:45:27
Than the city I'm particularly referencing. 00:45:30
The section regarding. 00:45:34
Ornamental functions that. 00:45:39
Our architectural protections or. 00:45:43
Ordinary projections of windows that might. 00:45:45
Be in the the set back area. 00:45:48
The city has made that interpretation. It is not for me to. 00:45:52
Reinterpret those provisions. That's for, again, another forum. 00:45:57
So. 00:46:02
That is not. 00:46:04
Going to be addressed other than to say that. 00:46:05
We accept the. 00:46:09
Definitions. Interpretation as determined by the city. 00:46:11
And if so, if there's a disagreement as to that interpretation, that's again for another forum. 00:46:16
My responsibility is to determine whether or not stricken enforcement. 00:46:22
Of a provision. 00:46:29
In this case the set back. 00:46:33
Site set back requirements. 00:46:35
Create an unreasonable hardship. 00:46:37
And so these alleged. 00:46:41
Hardships must come from circumstances. 00:46:42
That are peculiar to the property. 00:46:46
Not from general conditions that are applicable to. 00:46:49
The general neighborhood. 00:46:53
And I also want. 00:46:55
Give you a caveat that may not find heart unreasonable hardship. 00:46:58
That is economic or self-imposed. 00:47:03
OK. 00:47:07
So with that. 00:47:09
I'll have the city make a presentation. 00:47:12
Right. Good morning. Once again, I'm Justice 24, city planner. 00:47:21
City of Holiday, Community and economic development. 00:47:27
Division. 00:47:29
The case number 2 is. 00:47:32
A set back variant. 00:47:35
For the property address, 1876 E Osage Orange Ave. 00:47:38
Holiday, Utah zip code 84124. 00:47:44
Now the lot size is 0.25 acres. 00:47:48
Which translates into. 00:47:51
Little over 10,000 square feet. 00:47:53
In the R110 zone. 00:47:55
Now the governing ordinances, the set back ordinance section 13.14. 00:47:58
.056. 00:48:03
Exceptions. 00:48:05
Set back areas to be obstructed. 00:48:07
13 points, 09.020. 00:48:09
The applicant. 00:48:13
Seeking an exception to. 00:48:16
The regulations that pertain to these two. 00:48:18
Sections of Citi code. 00:48:21
The first one. 00:48:24
Section 13. Point 14.056. 00:48:25
Pertains to site setbacks and 13.76 point. 00:48:29
153 pertains to exceptions. 00:48:33
To obstruct and set back areas. 00:48:36
Now to explain in detail what the first city ordinance does is. 00:48:39
It regulates their minimum site set back between. 00:48:45
The property line and the main structure. 00:48:48
On any. 00:48:51
Lot in holiday. 00:48:53
While the second ordinance. 00:48:54
Section 13.76. Point 153. 00:48:56
Provides interpretation on what features are allowed exceptions. 00:49:01
To obstruct into the set back areas. 00:49:05
Now the applicant is. 00:49:08
Making an appeal based on these two alternative requests. 00:49:10
One is to be granted. 00:49:13
A relief from their required 8.4 feet. 00:49:15
Site set back. 00:49:19
Or two which? 00:49:20
Of the hearing officer. 00:49:23
Gave a clarification on about the. 00:49:25
Interpretation of Citi code of what qualifies to be. 00:49:28
And architectural projection or not? 00:49:32
Now in turn, if this variant is approved. 00:49:34
That would result in a one foot side set back. 00:49:39
And a 146 inches no point closer than said bad variant. 00:49:43
I must state for the record that this. 00:49:48
Variance application is a little bit technical, so. 00:49:51
I apologize if it comes across that way. 00:49:55
As a background to this variant application. 00:49:58
The Wheatleys submitted a building permit to the planning department. 00:50:02
Proposing an expansion to the West side of the main residence. 00:50:06
Upon review of the original submission, which was in January. 00:50:10
8/20/24. 00:50:15
It was determined that the county liberated portion of the upper floor. 00:50:17
On the West side of the proposed addition. 00:50:21
Encouraged into the minimum average. 00:50:24
Set back requirement. 00:50:27
Now consequently. 00:50:29
On January 11th, 2024. 00:50:31
The zoning department notified the applicant that this candidly verdicts. 00:50:34
Extension of the Apple floor. 00:50:39
Was not compliant and requested a revised site plan. 00:50:41
But that adhered to the set back regulations. 00:50:46
Following this correspondence with the applicant. 00:50:48
Camille Whitley. 00:50:52
Who is also the architect on record? 00:50:53
Acknowledged that this. 00:50:56
She acknowledged this non compliance issue in writing on March 6th. 00:50:58
2024 and submitted a revised sight line. 00:51:04
That eliminated that bump. 00:51:08
Portion of the house. 00:51:11
That encouraged into their set back. 00:51:12
Now City received that. 00:51:15
Revised site plan March 7. 00:51:18
And subsequently. 00:51:21
The zoning review approved. 00:51:24
This revised cyclone without the bump out. 00:51:26
Now, what department process is, is that once zoning is done. 00:51:29
For just like any building permit, we move it from the build. 00:51:34
From the planning division or zoning division. 00:51:38
As you would say to the building division, engineering division. 00:51:41
And so on and so forth. 00:51:44
So following subsequent reviews from these other departments, the permit was approved. 00:51:46
And issued for construction. 00:51:51
However, the approved and stamped city plans. 00:51:54
Had inadvertently included the previously submitted. 00:51:57
Generally. 00:52:00
January 4th, I believe. 00:52:03
Leave January 8. 00:52:05
Instead of the. 00:52:07
Zoning approved. 00:52:09
March 7th. 00:52:10
Plants. 00:52:12
Which included the cunnilevered projection. 00:52:15
Of the building rather than the revised compliant version that. 00:52:20
Eliminated that section of the house. 00:52:23
Now the applicant and their contractors proceeded with the construction. 00:52:26
According to these stemmed plants. 00:52:30
And were later caught out during a routine inspection. 00:52:33
By the city's building official. 00:52:36
In January of 25. 00:52:39
Early this year now, the building official brought to the attention of the. 00:52:41
Community and economic development departments that. 00:52:45
The Cannelli bed portion of the upper. 00:52:48
Of floor might potentially be too close to what? 00:52:51
City ordinance request for. 00:52:55
The site. 00:52:57
Upon further investigation, it was determined that. 00:52:59
The construction had actually followed. 00:53:02
The originally submitted non compliant plans in January. 00:53:04
And not according to the revised site plan in March of. 00:53:08
2024. 00:53:12
In response the applicant. 00:53:14
I've submitted a variance application. 00:53:16
To retain the county bed portion. 00:53:18
That extent on the upper floor as constructed. 00:53:21
Right now. 00:53:25
The wheat leaves are of the opinion that enforcing the city ordinance. 00:53:27
That governs the minimum side. Set back to remove that bump out. 00:53:31
Section of the House would impose extreme hardship. 00:53:36
That necessitates a redesign or a reconstruction. 00:53:39
Of the nearly completed upper level. 00:53:43
Space of their structure. 00:53:46
Now additional information regarding the applicant's narrative. 00:53:48
Were submitted to the hearing officer. 00:53:52
So again as I. 00:53:57
Mentioned in the previous case, city staff also does analysis to for verification purposes. 00:54:00
To verify what the applicant submits in their narrative. 00:54:08
Versus SWAT, city staff also thinks. 00:54:11
Now. 00:54:14
In pursuant to City Code 13 point 14.056. 00:54:16
The minimum side yard set back for. 00:54:20
Any property. 00:54:23
In any. 00:54:25
In any. 00:54:26
Single family residential zone. 00:54:27
Is a combined 25%. 00:54:29
Of the lot with with no one side of the building going. 00:54:32
Closer than 10%. 00:54:35
Of the width width. 00:54:37
For lots that are. 00:54:40
Twice the minimum lot size they have different. 00:54:41
Provisions, but that's not what pertains to this case. 00:54:44
In this case, we apply the 25% combined. 00:54:47
Side set back and then the 10%. 00:54:51
Being one point being no closer to. 00:54:54
Of the property line. 00:54:57
Now. 00:54:59
Johnny, if you may. 00:55:01
Great, now we we have that. 00:55:02
Right there. 00:55:04
Now from. 00:55:05
From this city staff analysis. 00:55:06
The blue dotted line. 00:55:09
Is what the city average? 00:55:11
Is for the 10%. 00:55:14
Now again to just clarify. 00:55:16
The 25% combined site set back. 00:55:19
Is something that. 00:55:22
It's left to the property owner to determine. 00:55:24
Whether 10% would be and whether 15%? 00:55:27
Would be shared between those sites setbacks. 00:55:30
Now in this case, the 10% is on the West side. 00:55:33
Of the of the. 00:55:37
Property, so the blue dotted line shows where the average. 00:55:39
Required 10% should be. 00:55:44
Which should be 8.4. 00:55:46
Or feet. 00:55:48
Now, what city ordinance also does is that. 00:55:50
In spite of the 10% site set back. 00:55:54
Average city ordinance allows a 15% variation. 00:55:57
For parts of the building to. 00:56:01
Extend into the required 10%. 00:56:04
What was that citation? 00:56:07
Let's see, it should be in that 1314 O 5 O. 00:56:13
( 1 It should be in the introductory section for the. 00:56:17
Setbacks in the city ordinance. 00:56:23
So it should be in 05 or 13.14. 00:56:26
.050. 00:56:30
Right, so. 00:56:31
Be. So that's where the. 00:56:33
Right. That's right. 00:56:36
All right. I'm sorry. Sorry, Justice. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. So that's for clarification purposes, so. 00:56:38
That provision of city code allows. 00:56:44
Property owners or designers to. 00:56:47
Extend parts of the building into the average. 00:56:50
Which is the blue dotted line. 00:56:53
Is it 056 or 050? 00:56:59
056. 00:57:02
5-6 B. 00:57:11
Oh yeah. 00:57:19
051 has the implementation averaging of setbacks. 00:57:21
056. 00:57:28
Right, 1B. 00:57:30
Yeah, so there it is. 00:57:33
Yeah. 00:57:37
Yeah. So that's the specific ordinance that allows for the variations. 00:57:40
And again, it's also stated in the report I just caught this. 00:57:45
So on page 4. 00:57:49
Where we have this site plan. 00:57:51
The report states. 00:57:54
Per city code. 00:57:55
13 point 14.0561 B. 00:57:57
The implementation of setbacks allows variations. 00:58:01
For parts of a structure to extend. 00:58:05
Into the. 00:58:07
Average, which is the blue dotted line. 00:58:08
So. 00:58:10
No point of the building can exceed this 15%. 00:58:11
And what this 15% means is? 00:58:15
The red dotted line. 00:58:18
That extends outside of the blue dotted line. 00:58:20
It's where no part of the building should. 00:58:23
Extend outside regardless. 00:58:26
So you would see we know that NPC. 00:58:29
Under that red line to signify. 00:58:32
No point closer than so. 00:58:35
For their staff analysis. 00:58:37
Although the average. 00:58:39
Site set back should be. 00:58:41
8.4 feet. 00:58:43
No point of the building can go closer than. 00:58:44
7 feet 2 inches. 00:58:47
But you would see that the original site plan. 00:58:50
That was non compliant. 00:58:54
Had a part of that the cantilevered portion? 00:58:55
Extending all the way outwards to five feet. 00:58:59
8 inches. 00:59:02
Which translates into. 00:59:04
146 inches. 00:59:05
Farther than the no point, closer than distance. 00:59:08
So. 00:59:11
In actuality, as I said, it's a little bit technical. 00:59:12
In terms of the average set back when we averaged. 00:59:15
What this site plan? 00:59:19
Is for the West side set back. 00:59:21
The average? 00:59:23
Set back using the 10 point. 00:59:25
A diagram as we we show. 00:59:28
Shows the average site set back to be. 00:59:30
7 feet. 00:59:33
4 inches, which means. 00:59:35
It is exactly. 00:59:37
Afford extending encroaching into the required 8. 00:59:38
Feet 4 inches average. 00:59:44
Side set back, but when we talk about the no point closer than. 00:59:46
It is extending 146 inches. 00:59:52
From the. 00:59:55
What city ordinance actually requires them to do. 00:59:57
So again, apologies for that little bit of technicalities, but just to explain. 01:00:00
For everyone to understand. 01:00:06
Now. 01:00:07
It must be noted for the record that this was the site plan that was originally submitted in January. 01:00:09
Of 24. 01:00:14
That zoning rejected and asked for a revised. 01:00:15
So on the next page of the report. 01:00:19
You would see that the applicant submitted. 01:00:23
A revised site plan. 01:00:25
March of. 01:00:27
March 3rd. 01:00:29
Of 2024. 01:00:30
That entirely eliminated that bump out. 01:00:32
From the site plan. 01:00:35
Which then complied with their average and no point closer than setbacks. 01:00:36
So e-mail correspondence were shared with the applicant, who in this case is also the architect. 01:00:42
Acknowledging that the site plan had been revised, they've taken out. 01:00:49
Is bump out and everything complies right now. 01:00:53
So. 01:00:56
City staff also attached additional correspondence showing the e-mail correspondence between City staff and. 01:00:59
Applicant. 01:01:05
Which consistently identified the setback issue. 01:01:07
And the intent of the applicant, who is also the architect to address that. 01:01:10
Now. 01:01:15
These renditions of plan reviews and records of correspondence with the applicant. 01:01:18
Clearly demonstrated that the Planning Department maintained its intent to enforce. 01:01:23
Their set back requirement. 01:01:28
By requiring their removal of their non compliant bump out. 01:01:30
Extension, however. 01:01:34
City staff founded a little bit on Nirvan to know that. 01:01:36
Despite there was an administrative error again as I said. 01:01:42
Once that the plan is approved, it goes through multiple divisions. 01:01:46
And at the end of the. 01:01:50
The day was inadvertently stamped. 01:01:51
With the non revised site plan. 01:01:53
So it was a little bit unnerving for city staff to. 01:01:56
Know that in spite of that oversight in stamping the. 01:02:00
A non compliance plan. 01:02:04
Especially with the applicant being the architect who was also aware of this requirement. 01:02:07
And redesign the site plan to comply. 01:02:11
Did not notify the city about that. 01:02:14
The city provides an extract. 01:02:17
Of their. 01:02:19
Planning direct as determination on. 01:02:20
On this case in the report. 01:02:22
Which gave the applicant 3 alternative courses of action to pursue. 01:02:24
One being a variant application. 01:02:29
Is being heard today. 01:02:31
Two ways for applying for. 01:02:32
Administrative interpretation. 01:02:35
Of what that? 01:02:37
Bump out and. 01:02:38
If it's an architectural projection. 01:02:40
Or not. 01:02:42
And three is amending the site plan back to the city. 01:02:43
Zoning approved. 01:02:48
Much set site plan that eliminated the bump out. 01:02:49
So from. 01:02:52
Today's proceeds it's. 01:02:54
Obvious that the applicant chose to go with the first two options. A variant application. 01:02:56
Now regarding the applicant's request to classify all. 01:03:01
Interpret. 01:03:05
That they can't leave at extension as you. 01:03:06
Rightly made that comment. 01:03:10
That is outside the purview of this hearing. 01:03:13
This hearing is not to make an administrative interpretation. 01:03:16
Of what city code is. 01:03:19
So we will just. 01:03:21
Move over. Thank you. 01:03:23
That part of the application. 01:03:26
And specifically focus on the variant application for. 01:03:28
Side set back. 01:03:32
Again, as I mentioned in the first case, every variant application is run through the. 01:03:33
State law 5 criteria for. 01:03:39
Approving a variant. 01:03:41
So the first one being for the applicants to establish a hardship. 01:03:44
That's going to occur. 01:03:49
If the city is strictly. 01:03:51
Enforces the city code. 01:03:54
Now, in doing this, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of. 01:03:56
Unique circumstances or an unreasonable hardship? 01:04:01
That makes it. 01:04:04
Exceptionally difficult to comply. 01:04:05
With the zoning regulations. 01:04:08
In doing that, the applicant outlined. 01:04:10
Hardship conditions that were mainly related to redesigning the entire upper floor. 01:04:13
Of the proposed house and financial constraints. 01:04:18
As the a burden of proof. 01:04:23
Now we must emphasize that. 01:04:25
Per state law. 01:04:27
Economic hardship is not considered as. 01:04:29
A hardship for a variance test. 01:04:31
It doesn't satisfy the burden of proof under the state law. 01:04:35
However, it would be reasonable to accommodate. 01:04:39
This under. 01:04:43
This extension of the bump out under the assessment of impact. 01:04:45
On the neighboring properties. 01:04:50
And compliant with the height restrictions that. 01:04:53
Is put in place by the city zoning ordinance. 01:04:57
Now an independent assessment of the applicable zoning loss. 01:05:00
By the city's technical review committee. 01:05:04
Indicates that although there are no point closer than. 01:05:06
Set back requirement has been violated. 01:05:10
By a Fort and six inches. 01:05:12
The non compliance. 01:05:15
Site plan with the architectural. 01:05:17
Design for that still complies. 01:05:20
With the mass and regulations pertaining to the graduated height requirement. 01:05:23
Now what the the graduated height requirement does is. 01:05:27
It moderates height and scaling. 01:05:30
Impacts on neighboring property and what that does. 01:05:32
Is it introduces an 8 foot. 01:05:36
Vertical line on the property line. 01:05:38
And then bent that at a 45° angle. 01:05:41
Making sure that a significant portion of the building envelope. 01:05:44
Fits underneath this graduated height to moderate impact. 01:05:47
On neighboring properties. 01:05:51
Now, what the assessment found was that. 01:05:53
Although that. 01:05:55
This architectural. 01:05:57
Floor plan and site plan is non compliant. 01:05:59
To the zoning requirements, it still complies with the graduated height. 01:06:02
Requirement. 01:06:05
Which minimizes impact on neighboring properties. 01:06:06
Again. 01:06:10
The floor plan on on these designs. 01:06:11
Identifies the use of the three feet bump out space. 01:06:15
As a washroom extension. 01:06:19
Suggesting a non regular active use of that space. 01:06:21
Now decisions regarding. 01:06:25
Accommodating this hardship condition presented by the applicant. 01:06:27
Should be moderated by weighing the costs and benefits of. 01:06:30
Allowing the 11 foot 6 inch. 01:06:34
Encouragement versus requiring a redesign of the entire upper flow level. 01:06:37
Including removing of walls, windows, roof, plumbing, electrical. 01:06:43
And insulation elements. 01:06:46
Now given that an administrative error led to the stamping of the non compliant plant. 01:06:48
City staff is of the opinion that the hardship condition is. 01:06:54
Not self-imposed. 01:06:58
Again, city staff suggests that accommodating these hardships. 01:07:00
Would be reasonable comparative to requiring compliance. 01:07:04
With their city code. 01:07:08
On set back standards. 01:07:09
US pertaining to section 13.14 point. 01:07:12
056. 01:07:16
So moving on, we also assess how. 01:07:19
The property distinguishes itself from others within that. 01:07:23
Vicinity in. 01:07:27
On All Sage Orange Ave. 01:07:28
Now. 01:07:31
In doing this, the applicant should. 01:07:33
Be able to. 01:07:35
Demonstrate special circumstances that are attached to the property that makes it different. 01:07:36
However, the city. 01:07:41
Disagrees with the applicant. 01:07:43
That the property distinguishes itself from others. 01:07:46
Within the vicinity. 01:07:49
Now like any other regular shaped lots. 01:07:51
On Osage Orange Ave. 01:07:54
The Wheatley's property does not really exhibit unique. 01:07:56
Characteristics in terms of the size and shape. 01:07:59
Or does it have special circumstances that distinguish it from? 01:08:03
Others in that vicinity. 01:08:07
Now, while the applicant maintains that. 01:08:09
No other single family residence on. 01:08:12
The street in the R110 zone on. 01:08:15
Osage Orange Ave. 01:08:17
Has a business backyard. 01:08:19
That land use comparison is not really relevant to this case. 01:08:21
Because what that comparison was, is that it was comparing. 01:08:25
The neighboring property. 01:08:29
To the South. 01:08:32
Which does not really pertain to a side set back. 01:08:33
Variant application. 01:08:37
Again the applicant. 01:08:39
Sites the backyard neighbor, which is holiday water. 01:08:41
As potentially setting a precedent for. 01:08:46
Set back encouragement. 01:08:50
To support their case, however. 01:08:51
City staff analysis finds that. 01:08:54
That structure. 01:08:56
Owned by Holiday Water was built in 1976. 01:08:57
Which means the city had not even incorporated. So that means it was permitted under different. 01:09:01
Zoning regulations. 01:09:07
And would be inappropriate to set as a precedent for this variance. 01:09:08
Moving further, the applicant is supposed to. 01:09:13
Justify or produce? 01:09:16
Evidence of benefits. 01:09:19
That other properties. 01:09:21
Within that vicinity and joy at their expense. 01:09:23
In justifying this. 01:09:26
The applicant references 8 different properties on Osage. 01:09:29
Orange Ave. 01:09:33
Inferring that these properties currently enjoy closer setbacks. 01:09:34
Than what the Wheatley's are requesting for. 01:09:38
Now the applicant indicates that granting them the variance would ensure that. 01:09:42
They enjoy similar side set back. 01:09:46
Benefits. 01:09:48
That these other properties are. 01:09:49
So city staff also did it. 01:09:52
GIS verification to see if this is true. 01:09:55
As presented by the applicant. 01:09:58
Now. 01:10:01
It must be stated that although these homes were. 01:10:03
Are not recently. 01:10:07
Built homes. 01:10:08
The average site setbacks to the property line. 01:10:11
Ranged substantially. Some of them were as close as. 01:10:13
2 feet to the property line. 01:10:17
Which was 1929 E Osage. 01:10:19
Orange Ave. 01:10:23
Somehow 3 feet 1925. 01:10:24
Osage Orange. 01:10:27
3.5 feet, 1928 E Osage Orange Ave. 01:10:29
And. 01:10:33
That the widest was about 7 feet. 01:10:34
Which is 1911 E Osage Orange Ave. 01:10:37
Now, given that the side setbacks for these neighboring properties. 01:10:41
Are currently closer than. 01:10:44
The applicant request. 01:10:46
7 feet 4 inches. 01:10:48
Average site set back. 01:10:50
City Stop believes that granting the variance to the applicant. 01:10:52
Will be essential to. 01:10:56
The substantial enjoyment of common privileges that I've been enjoyed. 01:10:58
By neighboring properties on. 01:11:02
Or Sage Orange Ave. 01:11:04
Now moving further. 01:11:06
The applicant is. 01:11:08
Also supposed to describe. 01:11:09
Why the variance would not deviate from the general purpose of the Holiday city code? 01:11:12
Now. 01:11:17
In doing this. 01:11:18
Any deviations from the? 01:11:20
City code should not be contrary to the public interest. 01:11:23
As pertaining the. 01:11:27
Provisions in the set back ordinance, 13 point 14.050. 01:11:29
Now. 01:11:34
This set back ordinance. 01:11:35
States and it's very. 01:11:37
Explicit in its intent to ensure uniform setbacks. 01:11:39
To achieve specific outcomes. 01:11:43
Now in certain instances too, it allows flexibility. 01:11:45
In setbacks also to achieve equally desirable outcomes. 01:11:49
In light of the circumstance presented in this case. 01:11:54
City staff agrees with the applicant that ensuring uniformed neighborhood setbacks. 01:11:57
Just like the currently existing setbacks. 01:12:02
On Osage Orange Ave. 01:12:05
Does not deviate from the. 01:12:08
General intent of the development code. 01:12:10
And thus. 01:12:12
The applicant also believes that improving their property by doing this addition. 01:12:13
On the House would also increase. 01:12:18
Their neighbors property value. 01:12:21
And does not go contrary to the public interest. 01:12:23
Now lastly. 01:12:26
The applicant is supposed to demonstrate. 01:12:27
Why the request for this variant is fair? 01:12:29
And conforms the overall intent of the zoning loss. 01:12:32
Now, in doing this, city staff's analysis indicates that. 01:12:35
Granting the. 01:12:39
Would be reasonable. Now this is supported by the fact that. 01:12:41
The neighboring properties in the vicinity already maintain. 01:12:44
Significantly closer setbacks than what the applicant is. 01:12:47
Requesting for. 01:12:51
And although city staff must express that the applicant refusal to. 01:12:53
Notify the city when they got. 01:12:57
Hold of their erroneously stamped plant. 01:12:59
That's not really uphold the spirit of zoning. 01:13:02
Nevertheless. 01:13:06
The broader intent of the set back regulation to. 01:13:07
Produce equal outcomes in terms of the size setbacks with the neighboring properties. 01:13:11
Aligns with the. 01:13:16
Intent of this applicant's request. 01:13:18
Now, as a final recommendation. 01:13:21
Concluding from the city staff's technical review of city code. 01:13:25
An analysis of the case contest. 01:13:28
Granting the 146 inches variant request. 01:13:31
Appears to be the least intrusive solution. 01:13:34
To upholding the spirit of zoning as outlined in Section 13 point. 01:13:37
14.050. 01:13:41
Now, generally discussions regarding denials or approval. 01:13:44
For this case, should be moderated by examining the. 01:13:48
Language of the city code. The applicant's narrative. 01:13:51
City staff's findings and. 01:13:55
Any submissions that are received hearing? 01:13:57
So from the city staff's perspective, this variant passes the test for. 01:14:00
Variant approval standards and approval is recommended from the city. 01:14:05
Thank you Mr. for that was quite a bit. 01:14:09
First of all, you so as far as the 8 properties. 01:14:14
Are in the area. 01:14:19
You agree that? 01:14:21
For the most part, that's those are true. 01:14:23
OK. 01:14:25
So they are. 01:14:27
Less than. 01:14:29
What the? 01:14:31
Applicants are asking in terms of. 01:14:33
Their variance of 5.5 feet, 8 inches, yeah, substantially and and it was not included in the report, but there were cases where. 01:14:35
Certain properties were sitting right on the property line. 01:14:45
And they're also on Osage, right? 01:14:48
Is it that holiday water? Is it? 01:14:51
Holiday Water Company, that's not associated with the city. Holiday Water Company, right? Uh-huh. That's not. 01:14:53
I understand it's done. 01:15:01
Relevant in terms of. 01:15:03
Business being the backyard, but. 01:15:05
They are, as I understand, 2 feet from the property line their buildings. 01:15:07
That's. 01:15:12
Consistent with. 01:15:14
A lot of these eight properties that were identified by the applicants, that's correct. 01:15:16
Umm, economic waste. 01:15:23
That's that's a. 01:15:26
Principle of the Law. 01:15:27
We don't want to see economic waste. 01:15:30
As part of a remedy despite. 01:15:34
Whether there's a mistake or not. 01:15:37
Would you address that? I mean if, if. 01:15:40
There is no variance, they would be required to. 01:15:46
Tear out their. 01:15:50
Cantilevered portion redesign. 01:15:52
Plumbing. Electric. 01:15:55
Would that be not economic waste at this point? They would have to do that. 01:15:58
Yeah, at this point it would be. 01:16:04
Because an assessment of the floor plan. 01:16:06
Show that that portion of the house that the westward. 01:16:09
Of the house was where all the washrooms on the upper floor where. 01:16:13
So, uh. 01:16:17
Turn that out would. 01:16:18
Essentially mean that they would have to redesign that and find places for Washington. I think economic waste at least is not. 01:16:20
When the statute refers to economic, that's not what's referring to. It's referring to. 01:16:28
You know, for financial reasons you you need a different kind of. 01:16:33
Design this This is involving economic waste because of the construction based on the initial plans. 01:16:37
Right, OK. 01:16:44
Help me out in terms of. 01:16:46
The variance, I want to make sure I get this right nurse understanding this right. So we're dealing with section 1314056. 01:16:48
No other sections. 01:16:57
That's correct. 01:16:59
And what we're asking for is a 5 foot. 01:17:01
8 inch. 01:17:06
Variance. 01:17:08
So I mean this this the minimum. 01:17:10
West side set back. 01:17:12
Would be 5.5 feet 8 inches to accommodate the cantilevered already constructed. 01:17:14
Cantilevered portion of the addition, is that right? That's correct. OK. 01:17:20
OK. Also the only question I may have other questions. Yeah. 01:17:27
OK. So thank you. 01:17:30
Camille Wheatley. 01:17:33
Want to come up and? 01:17:36
Oh, sure. 01:17:37
Please introduce yourself for the record. 01:17:42
This is being recorded, so please speak into the microphone. 01:17:46
My name is Camille Wheatley, I am the architect owner for the property located at 1876 E Osage, Orange Ave. 01:17:49
OK. 01:18:00
As I said, you know what? 01:18:03
Need to discuss the unreasonable hardship and. 01:18:05
On your property as peculiar circumstances different from everyone else. 01:18:09
So I'm going to let you proceed. 01:18:15
Just to describe. 01:18:17
Hardships or yes. 01:18:19
OK, yeah. So the project. 01:18:21
UMM was being built according to the stamped plans and thank you justice for that. 01:18:24
Excellent presentation. 01:18:30
Very thorough. 01:18:32
And you did a good job of presenting all the information. 01:18:33
Yes. 01:18:38
The project and the cantilever was. 01:18:39
Under construction and then. 01:18:42
At a regularly scheduled inspection, I believe it was the four way inspection, one of the holiday cities. 01:18:44
Building inspectors. 01:18:50
Noticed the cantilever as potentially being too close to the West side set back as Justin Justice mentioned. 01:18:52
And anyway, so not. 01:19:00
The contractor wasn't sure what to do. 01:19:03
As the owner slash architect I wasn't sure what to do, so we just kind of put things. 01:19:05
On pause, but there wasn't really a work stop order in place so. 01:19:10
So at that point. 01:19:14
I had communication with the city and. 01:19:16
Like Justice mentioned, they provided the options to pursue the variance or the administrative appeals. 01:19:19
Or the changing the set back and because the project. 01:19:25
Was so far along in its construction state. 01:19:29
My husband and I decided, well, let's pursue the variance and see. 01:19:33
See if we can make a case for that. 01:19:38
OK. 01:19:41
So how much of the construction is? 01:19:43
Complete at this current today, yes. 01:19:47
It is. There's it. 01:19:51
Roof on, all the windows are in, all the doors are in. There's door trim so drywall. 01:19:53
Is mudded and primed and. 01:19:58
That's where it is substantially complete, yes. 01:20:02
Yes. 01:20:05
And you know, I'm not. I'm not. 01:20:16
This forum is not to do administrative interpretations of the code regarding. 01:20:18
The projections into the side to set back yes. 01:20:24
Umm, what did you so when the initial? 01:20:29
The the stamp plans came back approved. 01:20:34
What did you? Were you aware that? 01:20:39
That was probably an error. 01:20:42
No, I wasn't. I guess because I because it is our own property and we hadn't done this for ourselves before. I've helped other 01:20:45
people get permits. 01:20:50
I I guess I assumed that the building department had. 01:20:57
Or the Yeah, the building department had noticed. 01:21:00
Everything I know I had the there was the back and forth with the zoning to get the the set back. 01:21:04
Approved and then. 01:21:08
And then I guess I assumed that everything else had been. 01:21:11
Duly inspected the rest of the plans. So when we got the permit I was like, OK. 01:21:15
Great, let's proceed. So that was. 01:21:20
My understanding was that the city had approved everything and had. 01:21:23
Made sure everything looked OK. 01:21:27
So you never communicated with the city? 01:21:29
To clarify what had occurred. 01:21:32
And although you did submit revised plans, is that right? Correct, revised, revised set back plans. But then yeah, there, there 01:21:36
was no more communication regarding the architectural design or structural design. 01:21:42
Following the the set back discussion. 01:21:48
OK. 01:21:53
Umm. 01:21:57
So I wanted to clarify, as I did with Mr. Tafour. We're asking for a minimum side yard set back of five feet 8 inches. 01:22:02
And that's what you're asking for. 01:22:15
Correct variance. 01:22:18
Let's see. 01:22:21
OK. I don't I don't have any other questions. You have anything more to add? 01:22:44
Again, I I wanted to know what made your property peculiar from all the other. 01:22:48
What circumstance was peculiar to your property? 01:22:54
As opposed to all the other properties in the area and I. 01:22:57
Didn't quite get what you were saying. It makes it peculiar and different. 01:23:04
I guess the only as Justice stated. 01:23:08
The sizes of the properties are all fairly similar, but I guess the. 01:23:11
The backyard neighbor is different than anyone elses but. 01:23:15
But I don't know if that necessarily. 01:23:19
Alters anything. 01:23:21
But in the surrounding area. 01:23:24
I suppose because a lot of them. 01:23:27
Were built prior to the incorporation of Holiday, yes. 01:23:31
That they have side setbacks that are. 01:23:36
A lot of them less than what you're asking for here today, correct? 01:23:40
All right. 01:23:47
I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. 01:23:49
City, do you have anything more? 01:23:52
Dad. 01:23:55
All right, well. 01:24:01
Thank you. 01:24:02
Appreciate it. 01:24:03
We'll take this matter under advisement. 01:24:05
We'll have a written decision. 01:24:08
Within 5 business days. 01:24:11
I do appreciate your professionalism and your civility here today. 01:24:14
Thank you very much. 01:24:18
And. 01:24:20
There being no further business or comments. 01:24:21
Were adjourned. 01:24:24
Thank you. 01:24:26
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
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
Transcript
And that was. 00:00:06
Yeah. 00:00:19
Oh oh. 00:00:25
All right. 00:00:35
Good morning. 00:00:37
This is the. 00:00:40
Administrative appeals hearing, if you're here for the justice court, that's next door. 00:00:42
Today is Monday, March 17th. 00:00:49
2025. 00:00:53
My name is Frank Nakamura, I'm the duly appointed. 00:00:55
Hearing officer for Holiday City. 00:00:58
Want to state that I have no conflicts of interest with any of the parties. 00:01:02
And I've had no ex parte communications with any of the parties except. 00:01:08
With the city at a procedural matters and one clarification. 00:01:14
But there have been no substantive ex parte communications with either party. 00:01:20
So let's begin item. 00:01:25
Number one on the agenda is holiday peak slot 2 lot coverage variance. 00:01:27
Let's see. 00:01:35
Is the applicant here? 00:01:36
Want to introduce yourselves? 00:01:38
And this this is being recorded. So we would like your course to for you to speak into the. 00:01:49
Microphone. 00:01:54
And we? 00:02:02
Holidays. 00:02:06
Sorry about that. 00:02:14
Restart. Or did you hear what I was? 00:02:17
Maybe again, we have a record that we're creating, so if you would. 00:02:20
Restart, name is Jake Aruni and I'm. 00:02:24
The owner of Lot 2. 00:02:28
And holiday peaks. 00:02:30
And we've been working on design of a. 00:02:32
Final retirement home for us. 00:02:36
And holiday peaks. 00:02:38
And I'm Peter Gambrellis with ivory hums. 00:02:41
I'm technically the applicant as. 00:02:45
At the time of application we are the owner. 00:02:48
And Jake is our contracted buyer right now. 00:02:52
OK. Thank you. 00:02:55
All right, let's begin with the presentation. 00:02:57
City. 00:03:00
Justice. 00:03:05
Good morning. 00:03:13
I'm Justice 24. I'm a city planner. 00:03:15
And the GIS manager in the Community and Economic Development division. 00:03:17
So for. 00:03:22
The case number one, it's about Holiday Peaks Law 2. 00:03:23
This case is about a lot coverage. 00:03:27
Variant. The address of this property is 1691 E Delaware. 00:03:30
Lane Holiday, Utah zip code 84117. 00:03:38
The lot in question has a size of 0.24 acres, which translates into. 00:03:43
10,000. 00:03:49
451 square feet. 00:03:51
In one of our R110 zones, so single family. 00:03:53
Residential zone. 00:03:57
Now the request for this. 00:03:58
Pertains to city code. 00:04:01
Section 13.14. 00:04:03
.080. 00:04:05
Which relates to lot coverage. 00:04:07
Now, what this city ordinance does is it moderates. 00:04:09
How much impervious surfaces? 00:04:14
That a property owner can install. 00:04:16
On their property, which includes structures, driveways, walkways. 00:04:18
Or non permeable surfaces. 00:04:23
Now the applicant here today is requesting. 00:04:25
An exception. 00:04:28
From the prescribed 31% maximum. 00:04:30
Structural coverage. 00:04:33
In turn proposing to maintain at 35%. 00:04:35
Maximum structural coverage. 00:04:39
Now this request, if granted, would constitute. 00:04:41
A 4% structural coverage variant. 00:04:45
Which would run with the landing perpetuity. 00:04:48
Now the background to this case is that. 00:04:51
Ivory Homes and. 00:04:53
Mr. Peter. 00:04:55
Come through us here. 00:04:56
Filed an appeal with the administrative hearing officer to seek a variance. 00:04:58
To the above portions of city code that I just read. 00:05:04
Now. 00:05:07
Ivory Homes and. 00:05:09
Mr. Gum rulers have intentions of. 00:05:10
Building a home. 00:05:13
On the address 19. 00:05:14
1691 E Delaware. 00:05:16
Now this is a. 00:05:19
This property is part of a recent subdivision. 00:05:20
What we call the holiday. 00:05:23
Subdivision. 00:05:26
In the R110 zone. 00:05:27
Now according to the applicant. 00:05:29
They're proposing to construct new residential homes. 00:05:30
Which would require larger structural footprint. 00:05:34
Than what the ordinance currently. 00:05:37
Allows them to. 00:05:39
Therefore, they have submitted this variant. 00:05:41
Requesting the. 00:05:45
To be allowed a 35% maximum structural coverage. 00:05:46
Now the applicant is also of the opinion that. 00:05:50
The city ordinance. 00:05:53
That governs lot coverage. 00:05:54
It limits. 00:05:57
Individual lots in holiday and may not be fair. 00:05:59
Or equitable in that matter. 00:06:03
So this is something that they refer to. 00:06:06
In their narrative as a coverage inversion, which the applicant would. 00:06:09
Give more clarification on this. 00:06:13
We have outlined what the city. 00:06:16
Section 13.14. Point. 00:06:19
080. 00:06:21
States and that is found in the report. 00:06:23
Now, per the provisions of this ordinance. 00:06:27
City of Holidays regulation of lot coverage. 00:06:30
It does this in a tiered category system. 00:06:34
So based on the size of your property. 00:06:38
You would you would have a certain percentage. 00:06:40
Of structural maximum. 00:06:44
And then total load coverage maximum that. 00:06:46
You're allowed to. 00:06:48
Allowed to comply to. 00:06:49
Now per the size of the applicants. 00:06:51
Property. They're allowed. 00:06:54
At 31% structural coverage maximum. 00:06:56
And had 36% total. 00:06:59
Impervious coverage maximum. 00:07:02
Now, again, what city ordinance does is it also gives room for flexibility. 00:07:06
Because in holiday we normally find instances where. 00:07:12
Property owners run over there. 00:07:16
Maximum allowed. 00:07:18
Surfaces so the city ordinance makes. 00:07:20
Different provision that allows. 00:07:22
Up to a 10% bonus. 00:07:24
When property owners go over that total. 00:07:27
Impervious surfaces. 00:07:30
Now we must. 00:07:31
Reiterate that this provision does not pertain to their maximum structural coverage. 00:07:33
Just the total impervious. So what this translates to is. 00:07:39
In simple terms. 00:07:43
If you're allowed to build at 35% or 31% structural coverage. 00:07:44
That is the Max. 00:07:49
But then if you exceed the total which is at 36%. 00:07:50
You can be allowed to add additional. 00:07:54
10%. 00:07:57
Related to driveways or walkaways or those. 00:07:58
Escapes on on a property. 00:08:01
So. 00:08:04
Based on the narrative that the applicant submits, city staff also. 00:08:06
Its own analysis. 00:08:10
To verify some of the claims that the applicant makes. 00:08:12
India Narrative. 00:08:16
And the analysis are presented at that for. 00:08:17
As follows. First is the application of the lot coverage code. 00:08:20
Now as I explained earlier. 00:08:24
The Lord Coverage Ordinance pertains to lot size. 00:08:27
So it's strictly based on the size of your property. 00:08:30
Now. 00:08:33
The city code determines that these restrictions. 00:08:34
Are granted in percentage terms. 00:08:37
Relative to lot size categories. 00:08:40
Now, umm. 00:08:43
If properties within a zone. 00:08:44
I found to have the same size. 00:08:48
All of them are subject to that same restrictions regardless. 00:08:51
So. 00:08:57
The structural coverage requirement, as I explained. 00:09:01
It's not a nuanced. 00:09:05
Thing and it's enforced strictly. 00:09:07
And in fact subsection 13.14. 00:09:09
.080 C. 00:09:13
States that this provision may not. 00:09:15
Be used to increase the maximum percentage coverage. 00:09:18
For all structures set. 00:09:21
For the hearing in the city code. 00:09:23
Now what this means is that. 00:09:26
As I explained earlier, the structural coverage cannot be maxed out. 00:09:31
When maxed out, cannot be offered any. 00:09:35
Flexibilities. 00:09:38
If you Max out on the total impervious, you are allowed. 00:09:39
Additional. 00:09:43
The city. 00:09:45
Is very keen on enforcing load coverage. 00:09:46
Regulations. 00:09:49
To the effect that any type of development that exceeds. 00:09:50
The the total impervious. 00:09:54
Surfaces by 10%. 00:09:56
It triggers an additional engineering requirement. 00:09:58
That requires the property owner to manage the. 00:10:01
On site water retention. 00:10:04
So you'd have to design and implement onsite water retention plants. 00:10:07
To that effect. 00:10:12
And again, as the applicant stated in their narrative that they perceive. 00:10:13
An anomaly or a coverage inversion? 00:10:19
In the city ordinance. 00:10:22
The applicants in their narrative, they state that there are inconsistencies. 00:10:24
In the coverage regulations. 00:10:29
Which is a different way of. 00:10:33
Stating that. 00:10:35
Different lot sizes. 00:10:37
Should be treated the same in terms of their percentage requirements. 00:10:38
But then, per city staff's analysis, this implication of inequity. 00:10:43
Is quite the opposite of what Citi ordinance actually intends to achieve. 00:10:47
And we say that to me, that. 00:10:52
The intent of the city ordinance is to mitigate excessive poor surfaces. 00:10:54
While ensuring low impact development. 00:11:00
In areas of urban build out. 00:11:03
Now furthermore, the ratio for structural coverage maximum. 00:11:06
Ensures that there is actually equity. 00:11:10
In mass enough structures and not necessarily equality. 00:11:12
So if you just talk about the principle of. 00:11:16
Equity. 00:11:19
It means that treating. 00:11:20
Individuals or. 00:11:22
Properties or structures. 00:11:24
Differently to achieve equal outcomes. 00:11:25
And not necessarily treating them the same. 00:11:28
Now a closer evaluation of the log coverage table shows that these T8 categories. 00:11:31
Actually aligned. 00:11:37
Are actually aligned with the zoning designation of properties. 00:11:39
Which ensures that there is consistency in. 00:11:43
So what you'd see is that based on these categories. 00:11:46
John, could you please Scroll down to? 00:11:51
The table that also has the zones. 00:11:53
With that structural. 00:11:57
Yep, right there. 00:11:58
So what you would actually identify is that. 00:11:59
If. 00:12:03
For instance, if we take a category of. 00:12:04
The first one. 00:12:06
Lots less than 10,000 square feet. 00:12:08
You'd find that. 00:12:11
All of these lots. 00:12:13
Normally located within the R18 and R-14. 00:12:14
Zones. So that means that. 00:12:18
Other properties within that zone are being treated with that 35%. 00:12:20
Structural maximum. 00:12:24
And the applicant finds their property within. 00:12:26
Over 10,000 square feet by then maxing out at. 00:12:30
15,000 square feet back category. 00:12:33
Which means that all properties within that same category. 00:12:36
Are treated equally. 00:12:40
Within that 31% structure of footprint maximum. 00:12:41
And the 36%? 00:12:45
A structural footprint maximum. So what you would actually see? 00:12:46
Is that? 00:12:50
In spite of regulating the amount of impervious surfaces. 00:12:52
The city ordinance also has an intent of. 00:12:55
Moderating massing and scale. 00:12:58
On similar sized properties within. 00:13:00
The city. 00:13:03
Again. 00:13:06
The applicant provides an example comparing the massing requirements. 00:13:07
To smaller size lots. 00:13:11
Less than 10,000 square feet, which puts them in. 00:13:13
A different category. 00:13:16
However, what they've failed to recognize? 00:13:19
Is the fact that. 00:13:21
That's going to be a mismatch because you're essentially comparing. 00:13:23
Lots in R18 or R-14 to. 00:13:26
R 110 So that's a mismatch that. 00:13:30
Was done in. 00:13:34
Narrative or the analysis from the applicant. 00:13:36
Essentially, they're drawing parallels between mass and requirement for. 00:13:39
Properties situated within different zones with different neighborhood. 00:13:44
Characteristics. 00:13:48
Moreover, an estimate of the lot size. 00:13:49
Lot sizes in the applicant. 00:13:53
Neighborhood. 00:13:56
Shows that the average. 00:13:57
Size of a lot within the. 00:14:01
That neighborhood, which is the. 00:14:05
Holiday Peak subdivision with the Delaware. 00:14:07
Neighborhood shows that the average. 00:14:12
Lot size is about 10,000. 00:14:14
01/9 square feet. 00:14:17
Which means that. 00:14:19
Most of their properties within that. 00:14:21
Vicinity umm. 00:14:23
For within that category of that. 00:14:24
Over 10,000 square feet, but then maxing out at the 15,000 square feet. 00:14:27
And thus they are treated with the 31%. 00:14:32
Structural footprint. 00:14:35
Coverage. 00:14:37
Again. 00:14:39
Similar sized lots in Holiday are subject, smaller size lots in Holiday. 00:14:41
Are subject to less restrictive. 00:14:46
Structural footprint requirements in order to. 00:14:48
Reduce the. 00:14:52
Disproportionate impact of mass in. 00:14:53
For properties with more constrained spaces. 00:14:56
So as you can see, the smaller the lot size. 00:14:58
The larger the structural footprint. 00:15:02
So this this again, as I said to moderate impact of. 00:15:04
Of. 00:15:08
Limitations in lot size for. 00:15:09
Smaller lot size, but what you'd also find. 00:15:11
Is that? 00:15:14
When you compare in absolute size. 00:15:15
These percentage terms for. 00:15:18
Smaller size seen. 00:15:20
Larger, but then when you compare that to for instance. 00:15:22
Someone who has a lot size of 70,000 square feet. 00:15:26
Of being allowed to build a 20%. 00:15:29
Structural footprint. 00:15:32
You would find that in actuality, that structural footprint is actually bigger than. 00:15:34
What someone who's allowed at 35%? 00:15:38
Structural footprint would enjoy. 00:15:42
In a 10,000 square feet. 00:15:44
Property. So while larger lots generally have more restrictive. 00:15:46
Coverage requirements. 00:15:51
The absolute structural sizes are bigger than that of smaller size lots. 00:15:52
And you'd also identify that the applicant. 00:15:57
In their narrative, try to make a comparison of. 00:16:00
The allot size versus someone in the. 00:16:03
My 10,000. 00:16:07
Square feet property. But what that does essentially is that. 00:16:09
They're comparing a lower class boundary. 00:16:14
In the allot size category to someone in the upper class boundary. 00:16:17
Which is also a mismatch. 00:16:20
So if they want to do similar size comparison. 00:16:22
They would have to compare lower class boundary in. 00:16:25
The alert size category to a lower class boundary. 00:16:28
Not the other way around. 00:16:31
Now, the last part of the analysis that city staff did was to check to see if there is any potential precedence of. 00:16:35
A self-imposed hardship. 00:16:43
And what city staff found was that. 00:16:44
Holidays peak subdivision as indicated earlier. 00:16:48
It's a fairly new subdivision that was created sometime last year. 00:16:51
And city staff believes that the intent of this new subdivision. 00:16:57
And the ensuing rezoning. 00:17:01
That was done. 00:17:03
Because that subdivision, that property used to be owned by the LDS Church. 00:17:04
And then was rezoned into the. 00:17:08
Holiday Peaks subdivision. 00:17:10
Their sensuine subdivision and rezoning. 00:17:13
Of that property. 00:17:16
Was not to create a very unique neighborhood. 00:17:18
That was. 00:17:21
Distinctively different. 00:17:22
From the surrounding Westmore and. 00:17:24
Delaware neighborhoods. 00:17:26
Now, in fact, the applicant acknowledges this. 00:17:28
By stating in their contextual narrative. 00:17:31
That the ordinances. 00:17:33
Is to ensure. 00:17:35
That new development is harmonious with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. 00:17:37
Again when the subdivision was rezoned. 00:17:42
To R110. 00:17:45
With the appetite and lot sizes. 00:17:46
It was understood. 00:17:49
That the developments that would ensue on the subdivision. 00:17:50
Would adhere to the applicable standards. 00:17:54
That governs buildings within the R1 time zone. 00:17:56
Now, city staff does not believe. 00:17:59
That the intent of the subdivision. 00:18:01
Was to create conditions where. 00:18:04
Multiple of these properties would run into non conforming situations. 00:18:06
This observation is supported by the fact that. 00:18:10
The city planner reviewing the permits for. 00:18:13
Other lots within the new holiday peaks. 00:18:16
Subdivision. 00:18:19
Lot 5 specifically. 00:18:20
Had also run into similar lots structural coverage. 00:18:22
Footprint issues. 00:18:26
When doing their zoning analysis on that. 00:18:28
City staff recognizes that this situation may potentially mirror. 00:18:31
A self-imposed hardship. 00:18:36
Given the fact that the applicants narrative states. 00:18:38
That they purchased the property. 00:18:41
As I finished a lot. 00:18:43
From the developer and have it contracted buyer. 00:18:45
Who profess a larger? 00:18:47
Home size than what is actually permitted by. 00:18:49
What city ordinance requires. 00:18:53
Now similar sized lots within the Holiday Peak subdivision. 00:18:55
That have tended in a permit. 00:18:59
To the planning department. 00:19:01
Specifically Lot 108 and Lot 109. 00:19:03
Are currently being permitted by the Planning Department. 00:19:07
And mind you, these lots also have the same lot sizes as. 00:19:11
The one in question right now. 00:19:15
Now these slots have been able to meet the structural. 00:19:17
Of footprint requirements, that is. 00:19:20
Moderated by the city. 00:19:23
So. 00:19:25
This comes down to whether the law in question. 00:19:27
Poses very unique characteristics. 00:19:30
From the others that were able to meet. 00:19:32
Structural coverage requirements. 00:19:35
By the city. 00:19:38
Or. 00:19:39
If this request is just subject to. 00:19:40
A matter of the bias preference for a larger home size. 00:19:43
City staff defers that to the applicant to provide sufficient. 00:19:47
Evidence that. 00:19:52
Substantiate the existence of a legitimate hardship. 00:19:53
That would OK if the variance is not granted. 00:19:57
Now as we know for a variance application run through state law. 00:20:00
As you initially mentioned. 00:20:06
And the applicant. 00:20:08
Is supposed to provide. 00:20:10
A systematic response to how they meet. 00:20:13
All those state criteria, those five criteria. 00:20:15
Now the first one is for the applicant to. 00:20:19
Describe what hardship is going to occur. 00:20:22
If the variant is not granted. 00:20:24
Now in demonstrating that. 00:20:26
That there is a unique. 00:20:32
Circumstance that is related to the property or there is going to be an unreasonable hardship. 00:20:34
No explicit response was provided. 00:20:40
To clarify the exceptionally difficult. 00:20:43
A situation that would be created. 00:20:46
When they comply with the zoning regulations, but in the applicants narrative. 00:20:48
Again. 00:20:54
The applicant did not really state. 00:20:55
What hardship is going to occur? 00:20:58
If a variant is not granted. 00:21:00
The applicant notes that in Law 2. 00:21:04
Which is part of the new. 00:21:07
Subdivision as I. 00:21:09
Earlier mentioned. 00:21:11
With immediate neighbors being either new or vacant lots. 00:21:12
Suggests that there is going to be minimal impact because there are no. 00:21:17
New there are no pre-existing structures. 00:21:21
On the neighboring lot. 00:21:24
The applicant presents that. 00:21:26
When they're grown at this variant, it's not going to have substantial impact on. 00:21:28
Neighboring property. 00:21:33
However, our city staff would like to highlight that. 00:21:34
The designation of the property as a new lot. 00:21:38
That's not really exempt. 00:21:40
The property from complying with the ordinance. 00:21:42
Revelations applicable to that zone. 00:21:45
Moreover, the applicant reference to the perceived inequity. 00:21:48
Has been addressed in the staff analysis by comparing the. 00:21:52
Lot sizes and their structural coverage requirements. 00:21:55
So, in summary, City staff submits that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated, at least in their narrative. 00:22:00
The presence of unique circumstances. 00:22:09
Or hardships that would occur if the variant is not granted. 00:22:11
So city stopped therefore recommends that. 00:22:15
The applicant uses this here and this morning. 00:22:17
To provide a more clear. 00:22:21
Justification on what makes compliance with the. 00:22:23
City ordinance unreasonable. 00:22:26
Again, the applicant is supposed to describe how the property is very different from other properties within the vicinity. 00:22:28
Which is the existence of special circumstances. 00:22:37
Now the applicants provided no. 00:22:40
Justification for that in the narrative, it was a blank. 00:22:42
Side of that report, however, city staff assesses that. 00:22:47
The property in question. Law 2. 00:22:51
Does not exhibit. 00:22:53
Distinguishing characteristics. 00:22:55
In terms of its size, shape or lot configuration. 00:22:57
When compared to other lots. 00:23:01
Within the subdivision. 00:23:03
Now, consequently, there is no basis that warrant exceptional treatment if the lot is not unique. 00:23:05
In terms of its. 00:23:12
Size, shape or configuration? 00:23:13
From others. 00:23:15
The third criteria by state law is to describe. 00:23:17
The benefits that other property owners within that vicinity enjoy at the expense of the applicant. 00:23:21
If they are not granted this variant. 00:23:27
Now what the applicant does is that in the narrative. 00:23:31
In. 00:23:35
In trying to justify the applicant's enjoyment of substantial property rights. 00:23:36
That are consistent with that of other properties. 00:23:42
Within that same district. 00:23:45
They cite the bias preference. 00:23:47
As a justification. 00:23:49
Now, specifically if I'm to read. 00:23:51
A quote from the applicants narrative. They state that. 00:23:53
To achieve desired. 00:23:57
Home size A2 story design would be required. 00:23:59
Which would not be in line with the buyer's preference. 00:24:03
Or a single level home. 00:24:08
Now as shown in the extracts that. 00:24:10
I just read the benefits outlined by the applicant. 00:24:12
Is clearly rooted in the buyers preference. 00:24:16
Rather than a legitimate comparison with property rights that are enjoyed by others within that same vicinity. 00:24:19
Again, a GIS analysis. 00:24:27
Of that subdivision and the ensuing. 00:24:29
Neighborhood characteristics. 00:24:33
Showed that. 00:24:35
At the average structure of footprints for homes within the. 00:24:37
Delaware Lane. 00:24:41
Westmore area. 00:24:43
Shows that. 00:24:45
The average neighborhood home. 00:24:46
It's about 1730 square feet. 00:24:49
Now if you. 00:24:53
Estimate what the city ordinance allows for the maximum. 00:24:55
Even with the 31%? 00:24:59
Which is where the. 00:25:01
Applicant property currently fits. 00:25:02
Now what? That 31%? 00:25:05
Gives them in terms of absolute. 00:25:07
Structural size would be. 00:25:09
1500 square feet. 00:25:11
Bigger than what? The average? 00:25:13
Home sizes within that neighborhood. 00:25:16
So city staff does not really believe that granting the variance would be. 00:25:19
Essential to. 00:25:24
Substantial enjoyment of property rights and common privileges. 00:25:25
That are enjoyed by neighbors within that. 00:25:30
Vicinity. 00:25:32
Now again describing why the variance would not deviate. 00:25:34
From the general purpose of. 00:25:38
Holiday city code. 00:25:40
I'm a. 00:25:42
Lot Coverage Ordinance section 13 point 14.080 is very explicit. 00:25:45
In its intent to restrict. 00:25:51
The coverage of impervious surfaces. 00:25:53
And constructions that can initiate. 00:25:56
Events that modify water resources. 00:25:58
Urban elements and the overall environment. 00:26:01
Now, subsection C of the ordinance. 00:26:04
Reads that this provision may not be used to increase. 00:26:07
The maximum percentage for. 00:26:11
Structures in this ordinance. 00:26:13
Now, in light of the clear intent of the city ordinance. 00:26:16
City staff disagrees with the applicant's assertion that granting the variant. 00:26:19
Would not contradict with their holiday city development code. 00:26:24
Now lastly. 00:26:28
The applicant is supposed to describe how the variant is fair. 00:26:29
And conforms to the overall intent of the zoning laws. 00:26:33
In conforming to the general intent of the zoning laws. 00:26:36
And fairness the applicant semizes their narrative by highlighting. 00:26:39
The position of the lot within a new subdivision. 00:26:44
And what they call the coverage inversion. 00:26:47
As the justification for. 00:26:50
Describing how the variance would be fair. 00:26:53
City staff submits that the property is not unique in its characteristics. 00:26:56
Nor is there any coverage inversion as the applicant. 00:27:01
Points out in the narrative. 00:27:05
In fact, all similar sized lots within our 110 zones. 00:27:08
Are treated the same. 00:27:11
And have the same coverage requirements that is the 31%. 00:27:13
Structural footprint. 00:27:17
Now granting everyone in the circumstance whether it's an absence of. 00:27:19
Circumstance from the neighbors. 00:27:24
Or by virtue of being a new lot, does not really align. 00:27:26
With the principle of fairness. 00:27:30
To produce equal outcomes. City staff therefore believes that the situation does not. 00:27:32
Weren't fairness in applying? 00:27:37
City ordinance. 00:27:40
Nor does it uphold the spirit of zoning. 00:27:41
In conclusion, city staff's technical review of the Citi code. 00:27:45
And the analysis of the geospatial characteristics of the property. 00:27:49
Shows that granting this variance does not really appear to be. 00:27:53
The least intrusive solution. 00:27:57
To upholding the spirit of zoning as outlining. 00:27:59
Our code chapter 13.14 point. 00:28:03
080. 00:28:06
Now the city. 00:28:08
Has also not received any building designs. 00:28:09
That can be referenced. 00:28:12
So that the city's technical review committee can also. 00:28:14
Make recommendations based off of what the applicant is. 00:28:17
Is requesting and if there is going to be any alternatives, that can be. 00:28:21
Alternative design solutions that. 00:28:25
Could be provided from the city's technical review committee. 00:28:28
Moreover, the applicant requests to be an exception to the rule. 00:28:31
Based on the buyer's preference, appears to be a self-imposed hardship. 00:28:35
Thus, discussions regarding denials or approval of this application. 00:28:40
Should be moderated by. 00:28:46
Examining the language of city code. 00:28:47
The applicants narrative. 00:28:49
And. 00:28:51
Proceedings that. 00:28:53
We get from this hearing from. 00:28:54
The general public. 00:28:57
Now, from city staff's perspective, this variance does not. 00:28:59
Comprehensively pass. 00:29:02
The five part test variance approval standards. 00:29:04
And deny is recommended from city staff. 00:29:07
Thank you. 00:29:10
Thank you, Mr. for a couple of questions. Yeah, sure. Lot 108 and 109 on the 10 lot subdivision. 00:29:11
Are they of equivalent size to lot 2? 00:29:19
Yeah. So are there any? 00:29:23
Peculiar differences between Lot 108 and 109 and Lot 2. 00:29:26
In absolute size it's literally the same because that the subdivision was created with similar sized lots. So it's a 10 Watt 00:29:31
subdivision. 00:29:35
With very similar sized loads so. 00:29:40
The only difference that you could say would be. 00:29:42
In terms of. 00:29:45
Once being on a corner. 00:29:47
If there is any difference it. 00:29:50
Probably going to be ones that are on the corner. 00:29:52
Versus ones that are just interior lot? 00:29:55
But even with that, which ones are on the corner? 00:29:58
So I believe. 00:30:00
Let's see, I think. 00:30:02
I think lot 105 is on a corner. 00:30:06
Mr. No, what I was asking was those, those that are in the process of getting a permit. 00:30:10
Made an application. 00:30:17
That would be 108109108109. Are we a lot like? 00:30:18
OK. And are there any other lots that have received or? 00:30:23
In the process of receiving building permits in that 10 lot subdivision. 00:30:27
Yeah. So we have a lot 102. 00:30:32
Not for 105 they're wanting. 00:30:35
With the variance application we have for 1/02, 1:08 and 1:09. 00:30:37
Yeah. 00:30:42
You mentioned section 131480 CI, don't recall them ever seeking any relief under that provision anyway. Is that? 00:30:44
Correct. 00:30:54
Yeah, yeah, that's correct. Clearly we're dealing with. 00:30:55
131480 BB right, Correct. 00:30:59
Umm, let's see. 00:31:05
All right. 00:31:11
Oh yeah, one other question in the surrounding neighborhoods. 00:31:13
You mentioned the average structure size. Are those. 00:31:17
Lots of similar size to Lot 2. Yeah, OK. 00:31:22
And to your knowledge, are there any differences between? 00:31:27
Those properties in Lot 2. 00:31:31
So, John, if we could pull up the. 00:31:34
Vicinity map. It should be at the very end of the report. 00:31:38
Yeah, so. 00:31:42
So that is the. 00:31:44
Vicinity map. 00:31:47
So what we found from our GIS analysis was that. 00:31:49
Even the lots that are outside of the Holiday Peak subdivision. 00:31:53
Have similar sized. 00:31:57
Lots to what? The subdivision and that's our 110. They're all, they're all R110 zoning map. 00:31:59
It's right there all right. 00:32:06
Mr. Ford, thank you very much. Sure. 00:32:09
Mr. 00:32:12
Yeah. Thank you. 00:32:13
Thank you, Justice for that. 00:32:16
For that presentation. 00:32:18
I think. 00:32:20
Is being a little bit muddled here. 00:32:24
Is what our argument is in terms of what we're referencing it as the. 00:32:26
The inversion. 00:32:31
Happens inside of code. 00:32:33
So we don't disagree with the city's. 00:32:34
Understanding that. 00:32:36
That yes, we are in a particular. 00:32:39
We're in a particular sizing which requires. 00:32:43
By the code a certain percentage we understand that. 00:32:46
What we're referencing is the anomaly that we have. 00:32:51
That we run into with the particular size of that happens. 00:32:55
So, as Justice had mentioned. 00:32:58
The intent of that particular scaling. 00:32:59
Is that on smaller lots? 00:33:02
A reasonable home may take a larger percentage of that, and we can understand that. 00:33:06
And so as you move through the scale. 00:33:10
What will generally happen? 00:33:13
Is a smaller. 00:33:15
Will be permitted a larger percentage. 00:33:18
But what will typically resolve? 00:33:21
Is a larger home on a larger lot. 00:33:23
Just because of the sizing and the percentage. 00:33:27
What we find here with this particular lot. 00:33:31
Is that we're in. 00:33:33
A minute area where? 00:33:36
What happens is. 00:33:40
We are actually. 00:33:42
Though a larger lot. 00:33:44
On the required to have a smaller home. 00:33:47
So that's what we're referencing is the coverage inversion. 00:33:51
Show. And I think that that's where this this anomaly is where the code kind of breaks down. 00:33:54
Where it doesn't actually meet its own purpose. 00:34:00
At least its stated purpose. 00:34:03
The purpose, of course. 00:34:06
And I don't have the exact reference at hand, but just as had mentioned it. 00:34:08
When it comes to coverage, is to. 00:34:12
Protected its environmental concerns. 00:34:15
It's water runoff. 00:34:18
All that. 00:34:20
As Justice had mentioned, there's certain ways that you can even mitigate. 00:34:22
Environmental concerns to up your impermeable surfaces, however. 00:34:26
It does have a specific. 00:34:30
Exclusion for your. 00:34:32
Own primary structure. 00:34:34
So the code itself is a little interesting in saying that. 00:34:36
You know you can have more impermeable surfaces. 00:34:39
If you make mitigating efforts such as. 00:34:42
Our tanks underground water. 00:34:47
Mitigation, which we haven't, which we are employing on this site. 00:34:50
But there's this limit to yeah, you can have larger driveways you can have. 00:34:55
All these things which the code recognizes as environmental concerns. 00:35:01
But you can't apply that to the home. 00:35:05
So the code itself seems to contradict some of its stated purposes when it comes to that. 00:35:07
But again, our our largest argument is that as you look through the scale. 00:35:13
Which for the most part makes sense. 00:35:18
Smaller smaller lots have smaller homes. 00:35:20
But those smaller homes will likely. 00:35:24
Require a larger percentage of the lot to be taken. 00:35:26
And as you move through the scale, it mostly works out, but when you're in the. 00:35:30
When you're in the lowest part. 00:35:35
The scale that we're in. 00:35:38
What happens is. 00:35:40
You're required to have a smaller home. 00:35:41
So the anomaly is. 00:35:43
We made this lot. 00:35:45
450 square feet smaller. 00:35:47
We could have a larger. 00:35:50
Which is the anomaly that we're trying to reference in our application. 00:35:53
And so I guess as. 00:35:57
As the city had mentioned that we did not bring up a special circumstance. 00:35:59
For this lot. But we don't disagree that this lot is. 00:36:04
Is different in any way in shape or functionality from the surrounding neighborhood. 00:36:09
A reference is the special circumstance. 00:36:14
Is that we find ourselves inside of this. 00:36:17
Inversion in the actual code. 00:36:21
And so because of our lot sizing. 00:36:25
Where you would expect a larger home, we're actually limited to a smaller home. 00:36:29
On a bigger lot. 00:36:34
And then I'll turn this to Jake, if you don't mind. 00:36:36
No. 00:36:39
I've lived in Holiday. 00:36:45
From. 00:36:49
1976. 00:36:50
To 2020. 00:36:52
Various parts of holidays starting from Hermosa to down to. 00:36:54
Kalyn Way, Holly. 00:37:00
Walker Lane and then Cottonwood Lane. 00:37:03
I presently live in Alpine, UT in a smaller home. 00:37:07
We just me and my wife now. 00:37:12
And we would like to. 00:37:15
Come back to holiday. 00:37:17
All our friends. 00:37:18
Our church has been here. 00:37:20
For. 00:37:22
For that many years. 00:37:24
When we come back to it. 00:37:26
All the way from Alpine. 00:37:27
So. 00:37:29
We decided to. 00:37:31
Build a house and holiday. Our kids are in Salt Lake. 00:37:33
And. 00:37:37
We want to make sure that we have based on our health. 00:37:38
Needs umm. 00:37:42
A larger footprint on the main floor because we're going to end up on one floor. 00:37:44
With potential for. 00:37:50
Two or three bedrooms on the main floor for. 00:37:53
Care purposes. 00:37:57
So. 00:37:58
That is the reason. 00:38:01
As far as the rest of this is concerned. 00:38:03
I've served on numerous boards and Commission much like you sitting on the bench. 00:38:06
And adjudicating on state code. 00:38:11
And many, many times. 00:38:14
Have asked for new rulemaking. 00:38:16
Because. 00:38:19
The codes, the state code. 00:38:20
And I presume the city code is the same. 00:38:22
Is all in certain cases, black and white. 00:38:25
A small difference between 10,000 square feet. 00:38:29
And 10,000. 00:38:32
9 square feet. 00:38:34
Can throw you into. 00:38:37
A category that is not. 00:38:40
There is not. 00:38:43
Conducive to development. 00:38:45
And this is the case. 00:38:48
In this scenario. 00:38:50
We are put into a category of 15,000 square foot or molar. 00:38:54
And based on based on a very, very small increase in square footage. 00:38:59
And the. 00:39:04
The way the city is looking at it, of course. 00:39:07
Based on the code, black and white. 00:39:10
No transition zone. 00:39:12
And not allowing us to. 00:39:14
To achieve what we want to do. 00:39:18
There are larger lots and. 00:39:20
Sandy Draper, etc. That we could choose to be in. 00:39:22
Than holidays at home. 00:39:27
So yeah. 00:39:29
That's that's the reason. 00:39:31
You want to come back? 00:39:33
OK. Thank you, Mr. Gambulos. 00:39:36
Lots 108 and 109 were referenced. 00:39:40
They are in the process of getting a building permit. 00:39:43
How are they? Are they distinguishable from lot 2? 00:39:47
Very nominally. 00:39:51
Lot sizing? Are there any other lots in this? 00:39:52
10 Watt subdivision your new subdivision that. 00:39:56
In the process of getting a building permit or have built. 00:40:01
None have been built as of yet. I think that there's in total 4 and I think those are the listed lots that are in process with 00:40:07
building permit. 00:40:10
Yeah, 4 So I want to make sure 108109. 00:40:15
Yours 1:02 and 1:05. 00:40:18
I'm sorry it's in process on our end, but. 00:40:27
Maybe not submitted to the city. Well, 105 is at. 00:40:29
Are they going to be complying with the? 00:40:34
31% coverage. 00:40:37
I do believe so. 00:40:40
And they are this. Are they distinguishable from lot 2? 00:40:42
Yeah, again, most of these are. 00:40:46
They have very minor. 00:40:48
Square footage differences. 00:40:50
Let's see. 00:40:55
I believe those are the only questions I have. 00:40:59
I just want to clarify. 00:41:02
Of course the the. 00:41:05
Purview of. 00:41:07
People's hearing Officer. 00:41:08
Is not to. 00:41:11
Change ordinance or its. 00:41:13
Interpretation it is to determine whether the strict enforcement of an ordinance. 00:41:18
Would cause an unreasonable hardship. 00:41:23
Based on some peculiar circumstance to this property. 00:41:26
And of course, it cannot be economic or self-imposed. I wanted to clarify in terms of the structure of the ordinance. 00:41:31
That is not within this purview. 00:41:39
That's for another forum. 00:41:42
And that's for the Legislature. 00:41:44
Legislative body of the city to handle. 00:41:47
Our my job is to. 00:41:51
Determine whether the strict. 00:41:54
Enforcement. 00:41:56
Causes unreasonable hardship. I wanted to clarify that. 00:41:58
To use does you know whether I think that the categories or whatever? 00:42:01
Should be changed or modified. That is not within our purview. 00:42:07
I wanted you to understand that. 00:42:13
All right. 00:42:15
Any other information from? 00:42:17
The city. 00:42:20
And from. 00:42:22
Yes, Sir. 00:42:24
The hardship to us would be. 00:42:26
3 or 4. 00:42:29
Months of. 00:42:31
Design work. 00:42:33
The amount of money that we put in based on contract that it's going to be lost. 00:42:35
So the hardship is going to be, yes, economic hardship to us quite a bit. 00:42:39
And if we don't get what we need, then we have to build. 00:42:44
Pull out of this slot, which means. 00:42:48
The economic hardship to us is going to be much severe. 00:42:51
OK. Yes, thank you. I understand that. 00:42:55
All right, any other? 00:42:59
Comments We'll take this matter under advisement and. 00:43:01
Will have a written opinion. 00:43:06
In at least five business days. 00:43:10
Will submit it to. 00:43:12
The city and will be distributed to all interested parties. 00:43:14
I do appreciate your civility. 00:43:18
And your professionalism as always, Mr. Gambulus. 00:43:20
Your professionalism and the city. 00:43:23
Have for being so thorough about this. 00:43:26
I thank you and we'll have a written opinion. 00:43:28
Within 5 business days. 00:43:32
Thank you very much. 00:43:35
Next item on the agenda. 00:43:49
Is. 00:43:53
Could you pull up the agenda? 00:43:56
Want to make sure I read it properly. 00:43:58
Item number two Wheatley addition side set back variance. 00:44:05
Is anyone here on behalf of the applicant? 00:44:13
OK. 00:44:22
We are recording this so. 00:44:24
Make sure you speak in the. 00:44:27
The microphone. 00:44:29
Please state your name. 00:44:31
For the record, please. 00:44:32
My name is Camille Wheatley. 00:44:34
OK, umm. 00:44:36
I have received your application. 00:44:39
With the narrative and. 00:44:43
Drawings and plans. 00:44:45
And have reviewed them. I also. 00:44:47
Received. 00:44:50
The staff report prepared by the city and have reviewed that. 00:44:51
If there are no objections, I would like to have those included in the record. 00:44:55
Any objections? 00:45:00
No. 00:45:01
So. 00:45:05
Well, I need to preliminarily at least state that. 00:45:08
And I said in the previous matter that. 00:45:13
The appeals hearing officer is not here to interpret. 00:45:17
Statutes or to determine whether. 00:45:23
I interpret. 00:45:25
A code provision differently. 00:45:27
Than the city I'm particularly referencing. 00:45:30
The section regarding. 00:45:34
Ornamental functions that. 00:45:39
Our architectural protections or. 00:45:43
Ordinary projections of windows that might. 00:45:45
Be in the the set back area. 00:45:48
The city has made that interpretation. It is not for me to. 00:45:52
Reinterpret those provisions. That's for, again, another forum. 00:45:57
So. 00:46:02
That is not. 00:46:04
Going to be addressed other than to say that. 00:46:05
We accept the. 00:46:09
Definitions. Interpretation as determined by the city. 00:46:11
And if so, if there's a disagreement as to that interpretation, that's again for another forum. 00:46:16
My responsibility is to determine whether or not stricken enforcement. 00:46:22
Of a provision. 00:46:29
In this case the set back. 00:46:33
Site set back requirements. 00:46:35
Create an unreasonable hardship. 00:46:37
And so these alleged. 00:46:41
Hardships must come from circumstances. 00:46:42
That are peculiar to the property. 00:46:46
Not from general conditions that are applicable to. 00:46:49
The general neighborhood. 00:46:53
And I also want. 00:46:55
Give you a caveat that may not find heart unreasonable hardship. 00:46:58
That is economic or self-imposed. 00:47:03
OK. 00:47:07
So with that. 00:47:09
I'll have the city make a presentation. 00:47:12
Right. Good morning. Once again, I'm Justice 24, city planner. 00:47:21
City of Holiday, Community and economic development. 00:47:27
Division. 00:47:29
The case number 2 is. 00:47:32
A set back variant. 00:47:35
For the property address, 1876 E Osage Orange Ave. 00:47:38
Holiday, Utah zip code 84124. 00:47:44
Now the lot size is 0.25 acres. 00:47:48
Which translates into. 00:47:51
Little over 10,000 square feet. 00:47:53
In the R110 zone. 00:47:55
Now the governing ordinances, the set back ordinance section 13.14. 00:47:58
.056. 00:48:03
Exceptions. 00:48:05
Set back areas to be obstructed. 00:48:07
13 points, 09.020. 00:48:09
The applicant. 00:48:13
Seeking an exception to. 00:48:16
The regulations that pertain to these two. 00:48:18
Sections of Citi code. 00:48:21
The first one. 00:48:24
Section 13. Point 14.056. 00:48:25
Pertains to site setbacks and 13.76 point. 00:48:29
153 pertains to exceptions. 00:48:33
To obstruct and set back areas. 00:48:36
Now to explain in detail what the first city ordinance does is. 00:48:39
It regulates their minimum site set back between. 00:48:45
The property line and the main structure. 00:48:48
On any. 00:48:51
Lot in holiday. 00:48:53
While the second ordinance. 00:48:54
Section 13.76. Point 153. 00:48:56
Provides interpretation on what features are allowed exceptions. 00:49:01
To obstruct into the set back areas. 00:49:05
Now the applicant is. 00:49:08
Making an appeal based on these two alternative requests. 00:49:10
One is to be granted. 00:49:13
A relief from their required 8.4 feet. 00:49:15
Site set back. 00:49:19
Or two which? 00:49:20
Of the hearing officer. 00:49:23
Gave a clarification on about the. 00:49:25
Interpretation of Citi code of what qualifies to be. 00:49:28
And architectural projection or not? 00:49:32
Now in turn, if this variant is approved. 00:49:34
That would result in a one foot side set back. 00:49:39
And a 146 inches no point closer than said bad variant. 00:49:43
I must state for the record that this. 00:49:48
Variance application is a little bit technical, so. 00:49:51
I apologize if it comes across that way. 00:49:55
As a background to this variant application. 00:49:58
The Wheatleys submitted a building permit to the planning department. 00:50:02
Proposing an expansion to the West side of the main residence. 00:50:06
Upon review of the original submission, which was in January. 00:50:10
8/20/24. 00:50:15
It was determined that the county liberated portion of the upper floor. 00:50:17
On the West side of the proposed addition. 00:50:21
Encouraged into the minimum average. 00:50:24
Set back requirement. 00:50:27
Now consequently. 00:50:29
On January 11th, 2024. 00:50:31
The zoning department notified the applicant that this candidly verdicts. 00:50:34
Extension of the Apple floor. 00:50:39
Was not compliant and requested a revised site plan. 00:50:41
But that adhered to the set back regulations. 00:50:46
Following this correspondence with the applicant. 00:50:48
Camille Whitley. 00:50:52
Who is also the architect on record? 00:50:53
Acknowledged that this. 00:50:56
She acknowledged this non compliance issue in writing on March 6th. 00:50:58
2024 and submitted a revised sight line. 00:51:04
That eliminated that bump. 00:51:08
Portion of the house. 00:51:11
That encouraged into their set back. 00:51:12
Now City received that. 00:51:15
Revised site plan March 7. 00:51:18
And subsequently. 00:51:21
The zoning review approved. 00:51:24
This revised cyclone without the bump out. 00:51:26
Now, what department process is, is that once zoning is done. 00:51:29
For just like any building permit, we move it from the build. 00:51:34
From the planning division or zoning division. 00:51:38
As you would say to the building division, engineering division. 00:51:41
And so on and so forth. 00:51:44
So following subsequent reviews from these other departments, the permit was approved. 00:51:46
And issued for construction. 00:51:51
However, the approved and stamped city plans. 00:51:54
Had inadvertently included the previously submitted. 00:51:57
Generally. 00:52:00
January 4th, I believe. 00:52:03
Leave January 8. 00:52:05
Instead of the. 00:52:07
Zoning approved. 00:52:09
March 7th. 00:52:10
Plants. 00:52:12
Which included the cunnilevered projection. 00:52:15
Of the building rather than the revised compliant version that. 00:52:20
Eliminated that section of the house. 00:52:23
Now the applicant and their contractors proceeded with the construction. 00:52:26
According to these stemmed plants. 00:52:30
And were later caught out during a routine inspection. 00:52:33
By the city's building official. 00:52:36
In January of 25. 00:52:39
Early this year now, the building official brought to the attention of the. 00:52:41
Community and economic development departments that. 00:52:45
The Cannelli bed portion of the upper. 00:52:48
Of floor might potentially be too close to what? 00:52:51
City ordinance request for. 00:52:55
The site. 00:52:57
Upon further investigation, it was determined that. 00:52:59
The construction had actually followed. 00:53:02
The originally submitted non compliant plans in January. 00:53:04
And not according to the revised site plan in March of. 00:53:08
2024. 00:53:12
In response the applicant. 00:53:14
I've submitted a variance application. 00:53:16
To retain the county bed portion. 00:53:18
That extent on the upper floor as constructed. 00:53:21
Right now. 00:53:25
The wheat leaves are of the opinion that enforcing the city ordinance. 00:53:27
That governs the minimum side. Set back to remove that bump out. 00:53:31
Section of the House would impose extreme hardship. 00:53:36
That necessitates a redesign or a reconstruction. 00:53:39
Of the nearly completed upper level. 00:53:43
Space of their structure. 00:53:46
Now additional information regarding the applicant's narrative. 00:53:48
Were submitted to the hearing officer. 00:53:52
So again as I. 00:53:57
Mentioned in the previous case, city staff also does analysis to for verification purposes. 00:54:00
To verify what the applicant submits in their narrative. 00:54:08
Versus SWAT, city staff also thinks. 00:54:11
Now. 00:54:14
In pursuant to City Code 13 point 14.056. 00:54:16
The minimum side yard set back for. 00:54:20
Any property. 00:54:23
In any. 00:54:25
In any. 00:54:26
Single family residential zone. 00:54:27
Is a combined 25%. 00:54:29
Of the lot with with no one side of the building going. 00:54:32
Closer than 10%. 00:54:35
Of the width width. 00:54:37
For lots that are. 00:54:40
Twice the minimum lot size they have different. 00:54:41
Provisions, but that's not what pertains to this case. 00:54:44
In this case, we apply the 25% combined. 00:54:47
Side set back and then the 10%. 00:54:51
Being one point being no closer to. 00:54:54
Of the property line. 00:54:57
Now. 00:54:59
Johnny, if you may. 00:55:01
Great, now we we have that. 00:55:02
Right there. 00:55:04
Now from. 00:55:05
From this city staff analysis. 00:55:06
The blue dotted line. 00:55:09
Is what the city average? 00:55:11
Is for the 10%. 00:55:14
Now again to just clarify. 00:55:16
The 25% combined site set back. 00:55:19
Is something that. 00:55:22
It's left to the property owner to determine. 00:55:24
Whether 10% would be and whether 15%? 00:55:27
Would be shared between those sites setbacks. 00:55:30
Now in this case, the 10% is on the West side. 00:55:33
Of the of the. 00:55:37
Property, so the blue dotted line shows where the average. 00:55:39
Required 10% should be. 00:55:44
Which should be 8.4. 00:55:46
Or feet. 00:55:48
Now, what city ordinance also does is that. 00:55:50
In spite of the 10% site set back. 00:55:54
Average city ordinance allows a 15% variation. 00:55:57
For parts of the building to. 00:56:01
Extend into the required 10%. 00:56:04
What was that citation? 00:56:07
Let's see, it should be in that 1314 O 5 O. 00:56:13
( 1 It should be in the introductory section for the. 00:56:17
Setbacks in the city ordinance. 00:56:23
So it should be in 05 or 13.14. 00:56:26
.050. 00:56:30
Right, so. 00:56:31
Be. So that's where the. 00:56:33
Right. That's right. 00:56:36
All right. I'm sorry. Sorry, Justice. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. So that's for clarification purposes, so. 00:56:38
That provision of city code allows. 00:56:44
Property owners or designers to. 00:56:47
Extend parts of the building into the average. 00:56:50
Which is the blue dotted line. 00:56:53
Is it 056 or 050? 00:56:59
056. 00:57:02
5-6 B. 00:57:11
Oh yeah. 00:57:19
051 has the implementation averaging of setbacks. 00:57:21
056. 00:57:28
Right, 1B. 00:57:30
Yeah, so there it is. 00:57:33
Yeah. 00:57:37
Yeah. So that's the specific ordinance that allows for the variations. 00:57:40
And again, it's also stated in the report I just caught this. 00:57:45
So on page 4. 00:57:49
Where we have this site plan. 00:57:51
The report states. 00:57:54
Per city code. 00:57:55
13 point 14.0561 B. 00:57:57
The implementation of setbacks allows variations. 00:58:01
For parts of a structure to extend. 00:58:05
Into the. 00:58:07
Average, which is the blue dotted line. 00:58:08
So. 00:58:10
No point of the building can exceed this 15%. 00:58:11
And what this 15% means is? 00:58:15
The red dotted line. 00:58:18
That extends outside of the blue dotted line. 00:58:20
It's where no part of the building should. 00:58:23
Extend outside regardless. 00:58:26
So you would see we know that NPC. 00:58:29
Under that red line to signify. 00:58:32
No point closer than so. 00:58:35
For their staff analysis. 00:58:37
Although the average. 00:58:39
Site set back should be. 00:58:41
8.4 feet. 00:58:43
No point of the building can go closer than. 00:58:44
7 feet 2 inches. 00:58:47
But you would see that the original site plan. 00:58:50
That was non compliant. 00:58:54
Had a part of that the cantilevered portion? 00:58:55
Extending all the way outwards to five feet. 00:58:59
8 inches. 00:59:02
Which translates into. 00:59:04
146 inches. 00:59:05
Farther than the no point, closer than distance. 00:59:08
So. 00:59:11
In actuality, as I said, it's a little bit technical. 00:59:12
In terms of the average set back when we averaged. 00:59:15
What this site plan? 00:59:19
Is for the West side set back. 00:59:21
The average? 00:59:23
Set back using the 10 point. 00:59:25
A diagram as we we show. 00:59:28
Shows the average site set back to be. 00:59:30
7 feet. 00:59:33
4 inches, which means. 00:59:35
It is exactly. 00:59:37
Afford extending encroaching into the required 8. 00:59:38
Feet 4 inches average. 00:59:44
Side set back, but when we talk about the no point closer than. 00:59:46
It is extending 146 inches. 00:59:52
From the. 00:59:55
What city ordinance actually requires them to do. 00:59:57
So again, apologies for that little bit of technicalities, but just to explain. 01:00:00
For everyone to understand. 01:00:06
Now. 01:00:07
It must be noted for the record that this was the site plan that was originally submitted in January. 01:00:09
Of 24. 01:00:14
That zoning rejected and asked for a revised. 01:00:15
So on the next page of the report. 01:00:19
You would see that the applicant submitted. 01:00:23
A revised site plan. 01:00:25
March of. 01:00:27
March 3rd. 01:00:29
Of 2024. 01:00:30
That entirely eliminated that bump out. 01:00:32
From the site plan. 01:00:35
Which then complied with their average and no point closer than setbacks. 01:00:36
So e-mail correspondence were shared with the applicant, who in this case is also the architect. 01:00:42
Acknowledging that the site plan had been revised, they've taken out. 01:00:49
Is bump out and everything complies right now. 01:00:53
So. 01:00:56
City staff also attached additional correspondence showing the e-mail correspondence between City staff and. 01:00:59
Applicant. 01:01:05
Which consistently identified the setback issue. 01:01:07
And the intent of the applicant, who is also the architect to address that. 01:01:10
Now. 01:01:15
These renditions of plan reviews and records of correspondence with the applicant. 01:01:18
Clearly demonstrated that the Planning Department maintained its intent to enforce. 01:01:23
Their set back requirement. 01:01:28
By requiring their removal of their non compliant bump out. 01:01:30
Extension, however. 01:01:34
City staff founded a little bit on Nirvan to know that. 01:01:36
Despite there was an administrative error again as I said. 01:01:42
Once that the plan is approved, it goes through multiple divisions. 01:01:46
And at the end of the. 01:01:50
The day was inadvertently stamped. 01:01:51
With the non revised site plan. 01:01:53
So it was a little bit unnerving for city staff to. 01:01:56
Know that in spite of that oversight in stamping the. 01:02:00
A non compliance plan. 01:02:04
Especially with the applicant being the architect who was also aware of this requirement. 01:02:07
And redesign the site plan to comply. 01:02:11
Did not notify the city about that. 01:02:14
The city provides an extract. 01:02:17
Of their. 01:02:19
Planning direct as determination on. 01:02:20
On this case in the report. 01:02:22
Which gave the applicant 3 alternative courses of action to pursue. 01:02:24
One being a variant application. 01:02:29
Is being heard today. 01:02:31
Two ways for applying for. 01:02:32
Administrative interpretation. 01:02:35
Of what that? 01:02:37
Bump out and. 01:02:38
If it's an architectural projection. 01:02:40
Or not. 01:02:42
And three is amending the site plan back to the city. 01:02:43
Zoning approved. 01:02:48
Much set site plan that eliminated the bump out. 01:02:49
So from. 01:02:52
Today's proceeds it's. 01:02:54
Obvious that the applicant chose to go with the first two options. A variant application. 01:02:56
Now regarding the applicant's request to classify all. 01:03:01
Interpret. 01:03:05
That they can't leave at extension as you. 01:03:06
Rightly made that comment. 01:03:10
That is outside the purview of this hearing. 01:03:13
This hearing is not to make an administrative interpretation. 01:03:16
Of what city code is. 01:03:19
So we will just. 01:03:21
Move over. Thank you. 01:03:23
That part of the application. 01:03:26
And specifically focus on the variant application for. 01:03:28
Side set back. 01:03:32
Again, as I mentioned in the first case, every variant application is run through the. 01:03:33
State law 5 criteria for. 01:03:39
Approving a variant. 01:03:41
So the first one being for the applicants to establish a hardship. 01:03:44
That's going to occur. 01:03:49
If the city is strictly. 01:03:51
Enforces the city code. 01:03:54
Now, in doing this, the applicant must demonstrate the existence of. 01:03:56
Unique circumstances or an unreasonable hardship? 01:04:01
That makes it. 01:04:04
Exceptionally difficult to comply. 01:04:05
With the zoning regulations. 01:04:08
In doing that, the applicant outlined. 01:04:10
Hardship conditions that were mainly related to redesigning the entire upper floor. 01:04:13
Of the proposed house and financial constraints. 01:04:18
As the a burden of proof. 01:04:23
Now we must emphasize that. 01:04:25
Per state law. 01:04:27
Economic hardship is not considered as. 01:04:29
A hardship for a variance test. 01:04:31
It doesn't satisfy the burden of proof under the state law. 01:04:35
However, it would be reasonable to accommodate. 01:04:39
This under. 01:04:43
This extension of the bump out under the assessment of impact. 01:04:45
On the neighboring properties. 01:04:50
And compliant with the height restrictions that. 01:04:53
Is put in place by the city zoning ordinance. 01:04:57
Now an independent assessment of the applicable zoning loss. 01:05:00
By the city's technical review committee. 01:05:04
Indicates that although there are no point closer than. 01:05:06
Set back requirement has been violated. 01:05:10
By a Fort and six inches. 01:05:12
The non compliance. 01:05:15
Site plan with the architectural. 01:05:17
Design for that still complies. 01:05:20
With the mass and regulations pertaining to the graduated height requirement. 01:05:23
Now what the the graduated height requirement does is. 01:05:27
It moderates height and scaling. 01:05:30
Impacts on neighboring property and what that does. 01:05:32
Is it introduces an 8 foot. 01:05:36
Vertical line on the property line. 01:05:38
And then bent that at a 45° angle. 01:05:41
Making sure that a significant portion of the building envelope. 01:05:44
Fits underneath this graduated height to moderate impact. 01:05:47
On neighboring properties. 01:05:51
Now, what the assessment found was that. 01:05:53
Although that. 01:05:55
This architectural. 01:05:57
Floor plan and site plan is non compliant. 01:05:59
To the zoning requirements, it still complies with the graduated height. 01:06:02
Requirement. 01:06:05
Which minimizes impact on neighboring properties. 01:06:06
Again. 01:06:10
The floor plan on on these designs. 01:06:11
Identifies the use of the three feet bump out space. 01:06:15
As a washroom extension. 01:06:19
Suggesting a non regular active use of that space. 01:06:21
Now decisions regarding. 01:06:25
Accommodating this hardship condition presented by the applicant. 01:06:27
Should be moderated by weighing the costs and benefits of. 01:06:30
Allowing the 11 foot 6 inch. 01:06:34
Encouragement versus requiring a redesign of the entire upper flow level. 01:06:37
Including removing of walls, windows, roof, plumbing, electrical. 01:06:43
And insulation elements. 01:06:46
Now given that an administrative error led to the stamping of the non compliant plant. 01:06:48
City staff is of the opinion that the hardship condition is. 01:06:54
Not self-imposed. 01:06:58
Again, city staff suggests that accommodating these hardships. 01:07:00
Would be reasonable comparative to requiring compliance. 01:07:04
With their city code. 01:07:08
On set back standards. 01:07:09
US pertaining to section 13.14 point. 01:07:12
056. 01:07:16
So moving on, we also assess how. 01:07:19
The property distinguishes itself from others within that. 01:07:23
Vicinity in. 01:07:27
On All Sage Orange Ave. 01:07:28
Now. 01:07:31
In doing this, the applicant should. 01:07:33
Be able to. 01:07:35
Demonstrate special circumstances that are attached to the property that makes it different. 01:07:36
However, the city. 01:07:41
Disagrees with the applicant. 01:07:43
That the property distinguishes itself from others. 01:07:46
Within the vicinity. 01:07:49
Now like any other regular shaped lots. 01:07:51
On Osage Orange Ave. 01:07:54
The Wheatley's property does not really exhibit unique. 01:07:56
Characteristics in terms of the size and shape. 01:07:59
Or does it have special circumstances that distinguish it from? 01:08:03
Others in that vicinity. 01:08:07
Now, while the applicant maintains that. 01:08:09
No other single family residence on. 01:08:12
The street in the R110 zone on. 01:08:15
Osage Orange Ave. 01:08:17
Has a business backyard. 01:08:19
That land use comparison is not really relevant to this case. 01:08:21
Because what that comparison was, is that it was comparing. 01:08:25
The neighboring property. 01:08:29
To the South. 01:08:32
Which does not really pertain to a side set back. 01:08:33
Variant application. 01:08:37
Again the applicant. 01:08:39
Sites the backyard neighbor, which is holiday water. 01:08:41
As potentially setting a precedent for. 01:08:46
Set back encouragement. 01:08:50
To support their case, however. 01:08:51
City staff analysis finds that. 01:08:54
That structure. 01:08:56
Owned by Holiday Water was built in 1976. 01:08:57
Which means the city had not even incorporated. So that means it was permitted under different. 01:09:01
Zoning regulations. 01:09:07
And would be inappropriate to set as a precedent for this variance. 01:09:08
Moving further, the applicant is supposed to. 01:09:13
Justify or produce? 01:09:16
Evidence of benefits. 01:09:19
That other properties. 01:09:21
Within that vicinity and joy at their expense. 01:09:23
In justifying this. 01:09:26
The applicant references 8 different properties on Osage. 01:09:29
Orange Ave. 01:09:33
Inferring that these properties currently enjoy closer setbacks. 01:09:34
Than what the Wheatley's are requesting for. 01:09:38
Now the applicant indicates that granting them the variance would ensure that. 01:09:42
They enjoy similar side set back. 01:09:46
Benefits. 01:09:48
That these other properties are. 01:09:49
So city staff also did it. 01:09:52
GIS verification to see if this is true. 01:09:55
As presented by the applicant. 01:09:58
Now. 01:10:01
It must be stated that although these homes were. 01:10:03
Are not recently. 01:10:07
Built homes. 01:10:08
The average site setbacks to the property line. 01:10:11
Ranged substantially. Some of them were as close as. 01:10:13
2 feet to the property line. 01:10:17
Which was 1929 E Osage. 01:10:19
Orange Ave. 01:10:23
Somehow 3 feet 1925. 01:10:24
Osage Orange. 01:10:27
3.5 feet, 1928 E Osage Orange Ave. 01:10:29
And. 01:10:33
That the widest was about 7 feet. 01:10:34
Which is 1911 E Osage Orange Ave. 01:10:37
Now, given that the side setbacks for these neighboring properties. 01:10:41
Are currently closer than. 01:10:44
The applicant request. 01:10:46
7 feet 4 inches. 01:10:48
Average site set back. 01:10:50
City Stop believes that granting the variance to the applicant. 01:10:52
Will be essential to. 01:10:56
The substantial enjoyment of common privileges that I've been enjoyed. 01:10:58
By neighboring properties on. 01:11:02
Or Sage Orange Ave. 01:11:04
Now moving further. 01:11:06
The applicant is. 01:11:08
Also supposed to describe. 01:11:09
Why the variance would not deviate from the general purpose of the Holiday city code? 01:11:12
Now. 01:11:17
In doing this. 01:11:18
Any deviations from the? 01:11:20
City code should not be contrary to the public interest. 01:11:23
As pertaining the. 01:11:27
Provisions in the set back ordinance, 13 point 14.050. 01:11:29
Now. 01:11:34
This set back ordinance. 01:11:35
States and it's very. 01:11:37
Explicit in its intent to ensure uniform setbacks. 01:11:39
To achieve specific outcomes. 01:11:43
Now in certain instances too, it allows flexibility. 01:11:45
In setbacks also to achieve equally desirable outcomes. 01:11:49
In light of the circumstance presented in this case. 01:11:54
City staff agrees with the applicant that ensuring uniformed neighborhood setbacks. 01:11:57
Just like the currently existing setbacks. 01:12:02
On Osage Orange Ave. 01:12:05
Does not deviate from the. 01:12:08
General intent of the development code. 01:12:10
And thus. 01:12:12
The applicant also believes that improving their property by doing this addition. 01:12:13
On the House would also increase. 01:12:18
Their neighbors property value. 01:12:21
And does not go contrary to the public interest. 01:12:23
Now lastly. 01:12:26
The applicant is supposed to demonstrate. 01:12:27
Why the request for this variant is fair? 01:12:29
And conforms the overall intent of the zoning loss. 01:12:32
Now, in doing this, city staff's analysis indicates that. 01:12:35
Granting the. 01:12:39
Would be reasonable. Now this is supported by the fact that. 01:12:41
The neighboring properties in the vicinity already maintain. 01:12:44
Significantly closer setbacks than what the applicant is. 01:12:47
Requesting for. 01:12:51
And although city staff must express that the applicant refusal to. 01:12:53
Notify the city when they got. 01:12:57
Hold of their erroneously stamped plant. 01:12:59
That's not really uphold the spirit of zoning. 01:13:02
Nevertheless. 01:13:06
The broader intent of the set back regulation to. 01:13:07
Produce equal outcomes in terms of the size setbacks with the neighboring properties. 01:13:11
Aligns with the. 01:13:16
Intent of this applicant's request. 01:13:18
Now, as a final recommendation. 01:13:21
Concluding from the city staff's technical review of city code. 01:13:25
An analysis of the case contest. 01:13:28
Granting the 146 inches variant request. 01:13:31
Appears to be the least intrusive solution. 01:13:34
To upholding the spirit of zoning as outlined in Section 13 point. 01:13:37
14.050. 01:13:41
Now, generally discussions regarding denials or approval. 01:13:44
For this case, should be moderated by examining the. 01:13:48
Language of the city code. The applicant's narrative. 01:13:51
City staff's findings and. 01:13:55
Any submissions that are received hearing? 01:13:57
So from the city staff's perspective, this variant passes the test for. 01:14:00
Variant approval standards and approval is recommended from the city. 01:14:05
Thank you Mr. for that was quite a bit. 01:14:09
First of all, you so as far as the 8 properties. 01:14:14
Are in the area. 01:14:19
You agree that? 01:14:21
For the most part, that's those are true. 01:14:23
OK. 01:14:25
So they are. 01:14:27
Less than. 01:14:29
What the? 01:14:31
Applicants are asking in terms of. 01:14:33
Their variance of 5.5 feet, 8 inches, yeah, substantially and and it was not included in the report, but there were cases where. 01:14:35
Certain properties were sitting right on the property line. 01:14:45
And they're also on Osage, right? 01:14:48
Is it that holiday water? Is it? 01:14:51
Holiday Water Company, that's not associated with the city. Holiday Water Company, right? Uh-huh. That's not. 01:14:53
I understand it's done. 01:15:01
Relevant in terms of. 01:15:03
Business being the backyard, but. 01:15:05
They are, as I understand, 2 feet from the property line their buildings. 01:15:07
That's. 01:15:12
Consistent with. 01:15:14
A lot of these eight properties that were identified by the applicants, that's correct. 01:15:16
Umm, economic waste. 01:15:23
That's that's a. 01:15:26
Principle of the Law. 01:15:27
We don't want to see economic waste. 01:15:30
As part of a remedy despite. 01:15:34
Whether there's a mistake or not. 01:15:37
Would you address that? I mean if, if. 01:15:40
There is no variance, they would be required to. 01:15:46
Tear out their. 01:15:50
Cantilevered portion redesign. 01:15:52
Plumbing. Electric. 01:15:55
Would that be not economic waste at this point? They would have to do that. 01:15:58
Yeah, at this point it would be. 01:16:04
Because an assessment of the floor plan. 01:16:06
Show that that portion of the house that the westward. 01:16:09
Of the house was where all the washrooms on the upper floor where. 01:16:13
So, uh. 01:16:17
Turn that out would. 01:16:18
Essentially mean that they would have to redesign that and find places for Washington. I think economic waste at least is not. 01:16:20
When the statute refers to economic, that's not what's referring to. It's referring to. 01:16:28
You know, for financial reasons you you need a different kind of. 01:16:33
Design this This is involving economic waste because of the construction based on the initial plans. 01:16:37
Right, OK. 01:16:44
Help me out in terms of. 01:16:46
The variance, I want to make sure I get this right nurse understanding this right. So we're dealing with section 1314056. 01:16:48
No other sections. 01:16:57
That's correct. 01:16:59
And what we're asking for is a 5 foot. 01:17:01
8 inch. 01:17:06
Variance. 01:17:08
So I mean this this the minimum. 01:17:10
West side set back. 01:17:12
Would be 5.5 feet 8 inches to accommodate the cantilevered already constructed. 01:17:14
Cantilevered portion of the addition, is that right? That's correct. OK. 01:17:20
OK. Also the only question I may have other questions. Yeah. 01:17:27
OK. So thank you. 01:17:30
Camille Wheatley. 01:17:33
Want to come up and? 01:17:36
Oh, sure. 01:17:37
Please introduce yourself for the record. 01:17:42
This is being recorded, so please speak into the microphone. 01:17:46
My name is Camille Wheatley, I am the architect owner for the property located at 1876 E Osage, Orange Ave. 01:17:49
OK. 01:18:00
As I said, you know what? 01:18:03
Need to discuss the unreasonable hardship and. 01:18:05
On your property as peculiar circumstances different from everyone else. 01:18:09
So I'm going to let you proceed. 01:18:15
Just to describe. 01:18:17
Hardships or yes. 01:18:19
OK, yeah. So the project. 01:18:21
UMM was being built according to the stamped plans and thank you justice for that. 01:18:24
Excellent presentation. 01:18:30
Very thorough. 01:18:32
And you did a good job of presenting all the information. 01:18:33
Yes. 01:18:38
The project and the cantilever was. 01:18:39
Under construction and then. 01:18:42
At a regularly scheduled inspection, I believe it was the four way inspection, one of the holiday cities. 01:18:44
Building inspectors. 01:18:50
Noticed the cantilever as potentially being too close to the West side set back as Justin Justice mentioned. 01:18:52
And anyway, so not. 01:19:00
The contractor wasn't sure what to do. 01:19:03
As the owner slash architect I wasn't sure what to do, so we just kind of put things. 01:19:05
On pause, but there wasn't really a work stop order in place so. 01:19:10
So at that point. 01:19:14
I had communication with the city and. 01:19:16
Like Justice mentioned, they provided the options to pursue the variance or the administrative appeals. 01:19:19
Or the changing the set back and because the project. 01:19:25
Was so far along in its construction state. 01:19:29
My husband and I decided, well, let's pursue the variance and see. 01:19:33
See if we can make a case for that. 01:19:38
OK. 01:19:41
So how much of the construction is? 01:19:43
Complete at this current today, yes. 01:19:47
It is. There's it. 01:19:51
Roof on, all the windows are in, all the doors are in. There's door trim so drywall. 01:19:53
Is mudded and primed and. 01:19:58
That's where it is substantially complete, yes. 01:20:02
Yes. 01:20:05
And you know, I'm not. I'm not. 01:20:16
This forum is not to do administrative interpretations of the code regarding. 01:20:18
The projections into the side to set back yes. 01:20:24
Umm, what did you so when the initial? 01:20:29
The the stamp plans came back approved. 01:20:34
What did you? Were you aware that? 01:20:39
That was probably an error. 01:20:42
No, I wasn't. I guess because I because it is our own property and we hadn't done this for ourselves before. I've helped other 01:20:45
people get permits. 01:20:50
I I guess I assumed that the building department had. 01:20:57
Or the Yeah, the building department had noticed. 01:21:00
Everything I know I had the there was the back and forth with the zoning to get the the set back. 01:21:04
Approved and then. 01:21:08
And then I guess I assumed that everything else had been. 01:21:11
Duly inspected the rest of the plans. So when we got the permit I was like, OK. 01:21:15
Great, let's proceed. So that was. 01:21:20
My understanding was that the city had approved everything and had. 01:21:23
Made sure everything looked OK. 01:21:27
So you never communicated with the city? 01:21:29
To clarify what had occurred. 01:21:32
And although you did submit revised plans, is that right? Correct, revised, revised set back plans. But then yeah, there, there 01:21:36
was no more communication regarding the architectural design or structural design. 01:21:42
Following the the set back discussion. 01:21:48
OK. 01:21:53
Umm. 01:21:57
So I wanted to clarify, as I did with Mr. Tafour. We're asking for a minimum side yard set back of five feet 8 inches. 01:22:02
And that's what you're asking for. 01:22:15
Correct variance. 01:22:18
Let's see. 01:22:21
OK. I don't I don't have any other questions. You have anything more to add? 01:22:44
Again, I I wanted to know what made your property peculiar from all the other. 01:22:48
What circumstance was peculiar to your property? 01:22:54
As opposed to all the other properties in the area and I. 01:22:57
Didn't quite get what you were saying. It makes it peculiar and different. 01:23:04
I guess the only as Justice stated. 01:23:08
The sizes of the properties are all fairly similar, but I guess the. 01:23:11
The backyard neighbor is different than anyone elses but. 01:23:15
But I don't know if that necessarily. 01:23:19
Alters anything. 01:23:21
But in the surrounding area. 01:23:24
I suppose because a lot of them. 01:23:27
Were built prior to the incorporation of Holiday, yes. 01:23:31
That they have side setbacks that are. 01:23:36
A lot of them less than what you're asking for here today, correct? 01:23:40
All right. 01:23:47
I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. 01:23:49
City, do you have anything more? 01:23:52
Dad. 01:23:55
All right, well. 01:24:01
Thank you. 01:24:02
Appreciate it. 01:24:03
We'll take this matter under advisement. 01:24:05
We'll have a written decision. 01:24:08
Within 5 business days. 01:24:11
I do appreciate your professionalism and your civility here today. 01:24:14
Thank you very much. 01:24:18
And. 01:24:20
There being no further business or comments. 01:24:21
Were adjourned. 01:24:24
Thank you. 01:24:26
scroll up