Roof Contractor Salt Lake City Utah - DOC by wde12324

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 14

More Info
									                               BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                        October 19, 2009

The regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment on Zoning for Salt Lake City, Utah, was held on
Monday, October 19, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. at the City and County Building, 451 South State Street, in
Room 326. Members present were Tom Berggren (Chairperson), Catherine Dunn, Gary Jones, Rod
Julander and Edward Radford (Vice Chairperson). Wilf Sommerkorn (Planning Director), Cheri Coffey
(Planning Manager), Paul Nielson (Senior Attorney for Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office), Everett Joyce
(Senior Planner), Michael Maloy (Principal Planner), Nick Norris (Senior Planner) and Ana Valdemoros
(Associate Planner) were also present. Board Member Ken Bullock was unable to attend.

Chairperson Berggren called the meeting to order and explained the procedures of the meeting. He
informed those present that the Members of the Board have visited the properties and the testimony
given during the meeting is recorded. Mr. Berggren further explained that a simple majority vote (or
three concurring votes in some cases) is necessary to pass or defeat a motion. All decisions of the Board
of Adjustment are made effective immediately and may be appealed to the Third Judicial District Court.
The appeal must be filed within 30 days from the day the Notice of Decision is posted on the City’s
website the following day of the meeting.

Administrative Session

5:47:01 PM
Approval of the Minutes for the Meeting held September 21, 2009

Mr. Radford moved to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Mr. Radford,
Ms. Dunn and Mr. Julander voted aye; Mr. Jones abstained from voting because he was not present at
the September meeting; Chairperson Berggren did not vote; the motion passed with a 3-0 vote.

Report by the Planning Director

5:47:28 PM
Mr. Sommerkorn had nothing to report at this time.

Public Session

5:47:31 PM
PLNAPP2009-00160 by Bruce Baird at 508 East South Temple appealing an administrative
decision that the Central Community Master Plan is an advisory document and that it does not
grant authority to demolish the structures on the subject property in the RO zoning district in
City Council District Four. (Sections 21A.02.040) (Staff – Nick Norris at 801-535-6173 or
nick.norris@slcgov.com)

Bruce Baird, Counsel for David Allen (Applicant), was present.


                                                     1
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009

5:47:54 PM
Mr. Norris explained that the Planning Division made a determination in January 2009 that the Central
Community Master Plan does not grant approval to demolish a structure located in a historic district.
The decision was based on the following findings:

   1. Records do not exist indicating that the City approved a demolition permit for the subject
      property.
   2. The Central Community Master Plan is an advisory document as indicated in State statute and
      City code.
   3. Errors within the historic preservation section of the Master Plan.

Mr. Norris continued to explain that Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Ordinance establishes
historic preservation overlay districts, and all demolitions within a historic overlay district require a
Certificate of Appropriateness. The subject property is located in the South Temple Historic Overlay
District, and research of the address file indicates that no Certificate of Appropriateness or demolition
permit was issued.

State statutes 10.9A.405 and 10.9A.406 establish the role of master plans, and the City code is similar in
that all master plans are general plans adopted by the Planning Commission and the City Council to
serve as an advisory guide to the City for land use decisions.

The errors within the Central Community Master Plan occur on the map titled “Demolition in Historic
Districts” and the text itself. The map indicates that eight properties have been demolished or approved
for demolition within the South Temple Historic District while the text indicates six properties.
However, neither the map nor the text show other demolitions that have occurred in the South Temple
Historic District within close proximity to the subject property: The property at 479 East South Temple
had contributing structures and were demolished in 1989; the property at 454 East South Temple was
also a contributing structure which caught on fire and was subsequently demolished; and the properties
at 466 – 476 East South Temple, which consisted of a strip mall, was also destroyed by fire and
demolished. Demolition permits were issued for each of the demolished structures.

Mr. Norris explained that the Applicant is required to go through the appropriate process as outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance for demolition in a historic district.

5:51:29 PM
Mr. Baird explained that the subject property is listed in the Master Plan as “approved for demolition”,
and the word “approved” is unequivocal. Mr. Baird presented certified copies of the Ordinance and the
adoption minutes reflecting the historic overlay regulations as pat of the zoning ordinance rewrite in
1995. The Central Community Master Plan was adopted by Ordinance 70 of 2005 at a City Council
meeting held on November 1, 2005. He further explained that their contention is based on three
principles of statutory construction:

   1. Toone vs. Weber County states that as a standard, the more recent of the enactment controls over
      the earlier enactment. The adoption of the Master Plan occurred in 2005 stating that “the
      structure is approved for demolition” which occurred after the Ordinance that requires a
      supposed historical process.


                                                     2
Board of Adjustment                                                               October 19, 2009

   2. Taghipour vs. Jerez states that when in doubt, the more specific statute controls over the more
      general statute. The more general statute in this case is the historical statute that states in general
      a Certificate of Appropriateness is needed for demolition. The Master Plan specifically states
      that 508 East South Temple is approved for demolition.
   3. Patterson vs. Utah County Board of Adjustment states that in the event of any ambiguity, the tie
      goes to the landowner because private property rights are the highest of constitutional rights.

Mr. Baird added that the City’s argument includes errors which may not, as an afterthought, attribute to
an error on the part of the City Council. The City Council presumably knew what it is doing and it
chose to adopt the Master Plan stating that the subject building was approved for demolition. The City
Council also did not make reference to requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness or any other further
processes. Research of records adopting the Master Plan also made no reference to the map or the text.

5:58:50 PM
Mr. Baird, Mr. Nielson and Board Members debated the matter.

Mr. Baird added that as part of Mr. Allen’s due diligence, he purchased the subject property on July 19,
2007 after the Master Plan had been adopted and relied on the fact that the Master Plan stated the
property was “approved for demolition".

6:09:11 PM
Cindy Cromer explained that she spent a great deal of time working on the Central Community Master
Plan, and the City’s position on master plans is that they are advisory documents and that has been their
position for as long as she has been an activist (since 1985). Ms. Cromer also explained that a new
structure usually retains the address of the structure that was demolished. She said that it could be
reasonably construed that the current building at 508 replaced previous structures in which 508 was
demolished or approved for demolition making way for the current building.

6:12:12 PM
The meeting was taken into executive session. Mr. Jones reasoned that the map in the Master Plan may
say approval for demolition, but it would be far reaching to interpret the context as a substitution to
administrative procedures that are required before any action is undertaken.

6:12:34 PM
THEREFORE, Mr. Jones moved for the Board to uphold the administrative decision stating that the
Central Community Master Plan does not grant approval to demolish a structure located at 508 East
South Temple for the following reasons:

   1. The Central Community Master Plan is an advisory document to assist the City in making land
      use decisions.
   2. Section 21A.34.020(E) of the Zoning Ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
      demolition of a structure located in a historic district or designated as a landmark site.
   3. The Planning Division has no record of a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
      demolition of structures at the subject property.
   4. The Planning Division has no record of a Certificate of Appropriateness being issued for the
      demolition of structures on the property located at the subject address.


                                                     3
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009

Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Mr. Jones, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Radford and Mr. Julander voted aye;
Chairperson Berggren did not vote; the motion passed with a 4-0 vote.

6:14:16 PM
PLNBOA2009-01055 by Brandon and Darcy Wolsey at 525 East Fourth Avenue (200 North)
requesting a special exception for an in-line addition in the SR-1A zoning district in Council
District Three. (Section 21A.52) (Staff - Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com)

Brandon and Darcy Wolsey were present.

6:14:41 PM
Mr. Maloy, substituting for Planning’s “very lovely and talented Katia Pace”, explained that in-line
additions are typically approved administratively provided the applicant obtains all required signatures
of consent from abutting property owners. The Applicants decided to forward their request to the Board
because of the complexity in obtaining signatures from the condominium complex abutting to the north
(rear).

The proposed addition will consists of 450 square feet which will replace an existing addition consisting
of 84 square feet.

The SR-1A zoning district requires side yard setbacks of 4 feet and 8 feet. The proposed addition will
maintain the existing building line of .5 feet on the east side.

The Transportation Division noted that the subject property has no on-site parking, and Staff
recommended that on-site parking be provided as a condition of approval. The Applicants shall provide
a site plan showing the location and type of on-site parking. Mr. Maloy noted that the request requires
additional review and approval by the Historic Landmark Commission.

6:16:58 PM
Referring to the slide presentation, Mr. Wolsey explained that they plan to add 18 feet to the rear of the
existing home. The hipped roof on the existing dwelling would continue on the addition with the same
overhang and elevation.

6:18:26 PM
The Board and Applicants discussed on-site parking. Mr. Wolsey explained that they intended to
eventually provide parking. Currently, a dirt path leads to the back of the home to an overgrown area
that could have been used for parking at one time.

The addition will provide an additional bedroom and bathroom, and a rear entry to access parking at the
back of the home. The addition will not provide additional dwelling units; the structure will remain a
single-family dwelling.

6:21:13 PM
No one from the public was present to speak to the matter.

6:23:52 PM
The meeting was taken into executive session and there was no further discussion.

                                                     4
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009



6:23:59 PM
THEREFORE, from the evidence, testimony and plans presented; Mr. Radford moved for the Board to
grant the special exception for the proposed in-line addition at 525 East Fourth Avenue in Case
PLNBOA2009-01055 based on the following findings:

   1.   The proposal will be in compliance with ordinance and district purposes.
   2.   The proposal will not diminish neighboring property values.
   3.   The proposal will not have a material adverse effect upon the character of the area.
   4.   The proposal will be compatible with surrounding development.
   5.   There are no significant features that will be destroyed or any pollution to the environment.
   6.   The proposal is in compliance with the general and specific standards of review for a special
        exception.

Condition of Approval:

   1. Before issuing a building permit, the Division of Transportation will require a site plan that
      shows two parking stalls and all stages of maneuvering areas to be paved which must be
      completed before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

Mr. Julander seconded the motion; Mr. Radford, Mr. Julander, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Jones voted aye;
Chairperson Berggren did not vote; the motion passed with a 4-0 vote.

6:25:21 PM
PLNBOA2009-01061 by John G. McGee at 833 East 600 South requesting a special exception for
an in-line addition to a single-family dwelling in the RMF-30 zoning district in Council District
Four. (Section 21A.52) (Staff - Ray Milliner at 801-535-7645 or ray.milliner@slcgov.com).

John McGee was present.

6:25:41 PM
Ms. Coffey, substituting for Mr. Milliner, explained that the proposal is to build an addition with the
same footprint of an existing addition that will go from 17 feet high to 24 feet high. The proposed
height of 24 feet meets the height limit of the RMF-30 zoning district which is 30 feet. The addition
will not be visible from the street in that the main dwelling is 27 feet high.

The proposed addition will maintain the side yard setbacks of 2 feet 8 inches on the west side and 1 foot
on the east. The proposed addition is within the lot coverage requirement of 45 percent.

Ms. Coffey added that Staff recommended approval for the special exception request.

6:26:55 PM
Mr. McGee explained that he obtained the building permit for the addition and then the City informed
him that he had changed the footprint. Mr. McGee said that he actually maintained the same footprint,
but changed the previous shed roof of the addition to a pitched roof which increased the elevation six
feet which the City determined changed the footprint. The structure is still lower than abutting
structures.
                                                     5
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009



Mr. McGee then explained that the abutting neighbors to the east and west signed off on the request, but
he was unable to obtain the signature from the property owner abutting to the north. Otherwise, the
request could have been administratively approved.

6:30:39 PM
Chairperson Berggren noted that no one from the public was present to speak to the matter.

6:30:54 PM
The meeting was taken into executive session and there was no further discussion.

6:31:01 PM
THERFORE, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report, Mr. Julander moved for the Board to
grant the special exception request for the in-line addition at 833 East 600 South in the RMF-30 zoning
district. Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Mr. Julander, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Radford and Mr. Jones voted aye;
the motion passed with a 4-0 vote.

The findings of fact listed in the staff report are as follows:

    A) The requested addition will be in harmony with the general and specific purposes of the Zoning
       Ordinance. No elements of this addition will disrupt the architectural harmony or the residential
       environment for which the RMF-30 zone was created.
    B) The requested addition will not substantially diminish or impair the value of the property within
       the neighborhood.
    C) Staff finds that there will be no material adverse impacts on the character of the area or on public
       health, safety and general welfare.
    D) The proposed special exception would be constructed, arranged and operated so as to be
       compatible with surrounding development.
    E) Staff finds that there will be no loss or damage of natural, scenic or historic features of
       significance due to this proposal.
    F) The proposed addition will lead to no material pollution.
    G) The proposal meets all additional standards imposed on it pursuant to Section 21A.52.100 of the
       Zoning Ordinance.

6:32:31 PM
PLNBOA2009-00663 by Sara and John R. Peeps at 842 South 700 East requesting a special
exception to legalize a triplex in the RMF-30 zoning district in Council District Four. (Sections
21A.52.060     and    21A.52.100(E)     (Staff –    Everett     Joyce   at    801-535-7930     or
everett.joyce@slcgov.com)

John Peeps was present.

6:32:56 PM
Mr. Joyce explained that the request was forwarded to the Board because Polk Directory research
indicated a gap in continuous use as a triplex. However, permit records revealed that an implied permit
(electrical permit) was issued for a triplex in 1987. A Zoning Certificate was issued in 2004 identifying


                                                       6
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009

the property as a duplex which Staff determined was issued in error because of the electrical permit
identifying the structure as a triplex.

Polk records identify the structure as a triplex beginning in 1975. During the time the electrical permit
was issued, Polk and Cole directories indicate two units at times and no information at other times.

The property currently has three separate gas meters and three separate electrical meters.

The Applicant obtained all required signatures of consent from abutting property owners and the
Community Council showing support for the legalization of a triplex.

The property is currently zoned RMF-30 which would not allow three units because of the lot size, but it
is zoned for multi-family use. The property was zoned for multi-family use in 1987, and the lot size at
that time would permit three dwelling units.

Mr. Joyce explained that upon review of the applicable standards, Staff recommended approval for unit
legalization with the condition that the Applicant meets the Building Services and Licensing
requirements for life and safety codes, and off-street parking. Mr. Joyce noted that the Applicants have
shown on the site plan that the parking requirement can be met.

6:36:38 PM
Mr. Peeps explained that he purchased the property about 4 ½ years ago as a triplex. Not granting the
special exception would create a financial hardship for him and impact the current tenants.

6:37:50 PM
Chairperson Berggren noted that no one from the public was present to speak to the matter.

6:38:01 PM
Mr. Joyce added that as author of the unit legalization ordinance in 1990 – 1992 while implementing the
housing policy plan, the intent of the legalization ordinance was to support retaining housing stock.
Processes were further put in place to accommodate life and safety improvements.

6:39:16 PM
Mr. Peeps added that Polk research is “spotty” at best and in fact, Polk shows that he has lived at the
subject property for the last four years when indeed he has not.

6:40:55 PM
Board Members and Mr. Peeps discussed the matter. Mr. Peeps explained that currently five people live
in the structure; two couples and a single woman. The subject structure consists of one one-bedroom
unit and two two-bedroom units; and the units have been continuously occupied as long as he has owned
the property. The structure was constructed in 1898.

Mr. Joyce noted that Polk records continuously indicate three units from 1999 through present.

6:41:55 PM



                                                     7
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009

The meeting was taken into executive session. The Board reasoned that Polk research is not reliable in
the totality of the evidence, and the City has presented evidence (implied permit) that the structure had
three units during the time the Polk shows only one person.

6:44:23 PM
THEREFORE, from the evidence and testimony presented and pursuant to the plans submitted, Mr.
Julander moved for the Board to grant the special exception to allow the legalization of the triplex at 842
South 700 East. The special exception is granted because:

   1. The legalization of the additional unit is in compliance with the special exception standards
      found in Section 21A.52.060 of the Zoning Ordinance.

   2. The legalization of the additional unit meets the additional standards for unit legalizations found
      in Section 21A.52.100E.2.D of the Zoning Ordinance.

Approval is subject to the Building Services and Licensing Division certifying that:

   1. Substantial compliance has been obtained for life and safety codes.
   2. All non-dimensional zoning violations have been corrected.
   3. The off-street parking has been hard-surfaced to the extent that space is available on the
      property, and the parking standards applicable on the date of the implied permit are complied
      with.

Mr. Radford seconded the motion; Mr. Julander, Mr. Radford, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye;
Chairperson Berggren did not vote; the motion passed with a 4-0 vote.

It is noted that the motion was amended to include the conditions of approval.

6:46:06 PM
PLNBOA2009-00890 by Robert G. Jones at 1175 East Laird Avenue (1205 South) requesting a
special exception to allow placement of an air conditioning condenser within four feet of a side
yard property line in the R-1/5000 zoning district in Council District Five. (Section 21A.52.030.U)
(Staff – Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com)

Robert Jones was present.

6:46:29 PM
Mr. Maloy explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows air conditioning condensers as a permitted use
provided they are located at least four feet from side yard property lines. The subject condenser would
maintain about two feet from the east side property line.

The request could have been administratively approved as a Routine and Uncontested Matter provided
the Applicant obtained all required signatures of consent from abutting property owners. The Applicant
was unable to obtain the signature from the abutting property owner to the east.




                                                    8
Board of Adjustment                                                                October 19, 2009

Mr. Maloy noted that the condenser is currently placed in the southeast corner of the subject property
which is technically located in the front yard. The City contacted the Owner informing him that the
front yard location is not an approved location.

Mr. Maloy also noted that Carol Gent, Housing and Zoning Enforcement Officer, recommended locating
the condenser at the back of the home under an attached above-grade deck.

6:48:43 PM
Board Members and Mr. Maloy discussed the level of noise emitted from the condenser and sound
mitigation. It was noted that a permit for a six-foot cedar fence has been issued.

6:52:10 PM
Mr. Robert Jones explained that the proposed location of the condenser would be 25 feet from the
abutting home to the east. Manwill Heating & Air Conditioning advised against locating the condenser
to the rear of the home because of the length of piping that would be needed. Furthermore, the area
beneath the deck is finished and has no space to accommodate a condenser.

Mr. Robert Jones explained that another option would be to install the condenser on the roof of the
home, but that would raise it closer to the level of the windows on the abutting dwelling.

Mr. Robert Jones said that he has built the six-foot fence and he intends to install a gate in front of the
condenser once it is moved screening it from all the neighbors. Noise pollution should not be an issue
because the condenser is a newer model.

Mr. Robert Jones added that the property owner to the east complained about the condenser. She does
not occupy the property which is an illegal triplex, and the complaint was received by the City shortly
after he refused to sign the consent form to legalize the triplex. He noted that the air conditioning unit
had been at its current location for two years prior to the complaint.

Ms. Coffey explained that the abutting property owner is Patricia Grutter-Jones at 1187 East Laird
Avenue and she has a special exception request to legalize a duplex scheduled before the Board in
November.

6:55:09 PM
Board Members and Mr. Robert Jones reviewed the site plan and discussed the matter. It was noted that
the west side yard is approximately 12 feet wide, and Mr. Radford recommended moving the unit to that
side yard. Mr. Robert Jones explained that locating the condenser on that side is not an option because
of the existing driveway.

7:02:09 PM
It was noted that no one from the public was present to speak to the matter.

7:02:09 PM
THEREFORE, from the evidence and testimony presented and pursuant to the plans submitted, Mr.
Julander moved for the Board to grant the special exception in Case PLNBOA2009-00890 for a ground-
mounted central air conditioning compressor located within four feet of the property line at 1175 East
Laird Avenue in the R-1/5000 zoning district based on the following findings:
                                                      9
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009



   1.   The special exception is in compliance with district purposes.
   2.   The special exception will not diminish neighboring property values.
   3.   The special exception will not have a material adverse effect upon the character of the area.
   4.   The special exception is compatible with surrounding development.
   5.   There will be no damage to natural or scenic features of the property.
   6.   No pollution of air, water, soil or noise is evident by the request.

Condition of Approval:

   1. The special exception is subject to the compliance with conditions outlined in Section
      21A.52.100(1) entitled Specific Conditions for Certain Special Exceptions.

Ms. Dunn seconded the motion; Mr. Julander, Ms. Dunn and Mr. Gary Jones voted aye; Mr. Radford
voted no; Chairperson Berggren did not vote; the motion passed with 3-1 vote.

PLNBOA2009-00982 by Sam Alexander (Project Architect) in behalf of Mike Van Thiel (Property
Owner) at 1941 East Yalecrest Avenue (1080 South) requesting a special exception to allow
construction of a garage that would exceed the height limit in the R-1/7000 zoning district in
Council District Six. (Section 21A.40.050.C) (Staff – Michael Maloy at 801-535-7118 or
michael.maloy@slcgov.com)

The case was withdrawn.

7:05:01 PM
PLNBOA2009-01053 by Raquel and Jedd Austin at 1732 South 1800 East requesting a special
exception to locate an accessory building more than five feet from the rear property line in the
R-1/7000 zoning district in Council District Six. (Section 21A.40.050.A) (Staff – Michael Maloy at
801-535-7118 or michael.maloy@slcgov.com)

Requel Austin (Property Owner) and Grant Luttmer (Contractor) were present.

7:05:26 PM
Mr. Maloy explained that the Applicants are constructing an addition on the rear of their home which
violated the required four-foot building separation between the main dwelling and the existing garage.
The Applicants are proposing to relocate the garage, and the current Zoning Ordinance requires
detached garages to be located within five feet of the rear property line. The proposal is to move the
garage far enough back to obtain the required four-foot separation. The size of the existing garage will
also be increased.

Mr. Maloy said that Staff reviewed the request and has recommended approval. He noted that he
received one phone call from the neighbor abutting to the rear of the property who did not voice an
opinion once the proposal was explained to her.

7:07:29 PM



                                                    10
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009

Mrs. Austin explained that their lot is almost a quarter acre and it is extremely deep (220 feet) which
would result in a driveway 75 feet long. Mrs. Austin presented pictures of the property and said that
four mature trees would also have to be removed.

The neighbor to the north has the same yard footprint in which the two properties are unique to the
neighborhood.

7:09:05 PM
Mr. Luttmer explained that the location of the garage would not actually change; only moved a few feet
back to obtain the required separation. The existing garage is deteriorating and needs to be
reconstructed. The proposed location is similar to other properties in the neighborhood.

7:10:36 PM
Board Members and Mr. Maloy reviewed the site plan and discussed the request.

7:12:27 PM
Chairperson Berggren noted that no one from the public was present to speak to the matter.

7:12:40 PM
The meeting was taken into executive session and there was no further discussion.

7:12:50 PM
THEREFORE, from the evidence and testimony presented and pursuant to the plans submitted, Mr.
Radford moved for the Board to approve the special exception relating to case PLNBOA2009-01053 for
a garage to be located more than five feet from the rear property line at 1732 South 1800 East in the
R-1/7000 zoning district based on the following findings:

   2.   The special exception is in compliance with district purposes.
   3.   The special exception will not diminish neighboring property values.
   4.   The special exception will not have a material adverse effect upon the character of the area.
   5.   The special exception is compatible with surrounding development.
   6.   There will be no damage to nature or scenic features of the property.
   7.   No pollution of air, water, soil or noise is evident by the request.

Mr. Julander seconded the motion; Mr. Radford, Mr. Julander, Mr. Jones and Ms. Dunn voted aye;
Chairperson Berggren did not vote; the motion passed with a 4-0 vote.

Prior to the vote on the motion, it was noted that the extraordinary depth of the lot presents a unique
situation compared to the majority of other lots to which the ordinance applies.

7:14:09 PM
PLNBOA2008-00906 (Continued) by John Scott Horne at 238 South 1100 East requesting a
special exception to legalize a duplex in an existing structure in the R-2 zoning district in Council
District Four. (Staff – Ana Valdemoros at 801-535-7236 or ana.valdemoros@slcgov.com)

Mr. Horne was present.


                                                    11
Board of Adjustment                                                              October 19, 2009

7:14:29 PM
Ms. Valdemoros explained that the case was continued from the July 20, 2009 Board of Adjustment
meeting. Staff was instructed to research information that was presented by a neighbor during the July
meeting contesting continuous use and to corroborate whether or not the subject property would be able
to accommodate required on-site parking:

      Staff was unable to corroborate the information presented by the neighbor at the July meeting
       and has since received additional affidavits from the neighbor stating that the subject property
       was not continuously used as a duplex.

      Barry Walsh, Transportation Division, surveyed the subject property and determined that two
       parking stalls could be provided with removal of the tree and shed located in the rear yard.

Ms. Valdemoros added that she received several emails from tenants stating that parking is not an issue.

7:20:37 PM
Mr. Horne explained that the subject property as a duplex would be appropriate in that the property is
zoned R-2, it is surrounded by several other duplexes and triplexes, and it is located in the University
Neighborhood.

Mr. Horne then explained that he believed his request was in order for approval with the exception of
required signatures from abutting property owners; he obtained two of the three required signatures.
The Transportation Division further acknowledged that the on-site parking requirement could be met.

Mr. Horne then discussed the tone of the July meeting in that he believed some information was
misrepresented and he was personally attacked. He especially believed that Ester Hunter, who is a
Member of the East Central Community Council and the University Neighborhood and also owns
property on Norris Place, has a conflict of interest in this case.

Mr. Horne said that he believed he presented information that disproved the information Ms. Hunter
presented to the Board. He further argued that obtaining approval from the Community Council is not a
requirement for legalization.

7:26:30 PM
Mr. Horne explained that Polk research indicates that the structure has been used as a duplex since 1951.
He explained that his wife did the Polk research and she was instructed by the City that it was only
necessary to check every three years. He noted that the worksheet for Polk research gives the same
instructions. He also noted that he lived at the property for five years and the Polk shows him living
there for only two years, and also his ex-wife who has never lived in Utah.

The history of the property supports the duplex use in that the basement was finished in 1949. The
basement has three bedrooms with a full kitchen and bathroom, and a laundry room with washer and
dryer. The upper unit also has three bedrooms with a full kitchen, bathroom and a separate laundry
room. Mr. Horne said that he pays taxes on the income from the duplex, and the findings in the staff
report further support granting the legalization.



                                                    12
Board of Adjustment                                                             October 19, 2009

7:39:06 PM
Mr. Horne contended that he addressed the two concerns during the July meeting: Continuous use as a
duplex and on-site parking.

7:53:25 PM
Cindy Cromer explained that she submitted a complaint to the City regarding aggressive remodeling at
the subject property and subsequently, a Housing/Zoning Enforcement Officer made an inspection. The
findings of the Enforcement Officer have not been presented in this case, and she said that having that
information would help the Board make a sound decision.

7:56:52 PM
Esther Hunter explained that she grew up at 1049 and 1051 East Norris Place, and is also the
Chairperson for the University Neighborhood Association and Land Use Chair for East Central
Community Council. Ms. Hunter presented an extensive packet of information and explained that she
believed the City did not provide information that had been provided by her in the past.

Ms. Hunter then reviewed the information in the packet explaining that guidelines are set forth in the
1995 new subdivision section that mitigate concentration of use. She also noted in the packet the
inconsistency of the number of renters per her Polk research. Ms. Hunter further explained that the
purpose statement for R-2 and single-family residential districts (Section 21A.24.110) is to preserve and
protect single-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units. The
packet further identifies legal and illegal duplexes in the neighborhood.

Ms. Hunter then explained that her personal concern about unit legalizations in the neighborhood is the
parking problems that have occurred specifically on Norris Place which is a private street.

8:07:16 PM
Board Members and the Applicant further discussed the matter. Mr. Horne contended that housing is a
vital part of the University Neighborhood and the duplex use perfectly fits. He added that a
single-family use at the subject property would not sustain itself and cause a financial hardship to him.

Ms. Valdemoros added that Staff found adequate evidence that the structure has been used continuously
as a duplex since 1951 to present.

8:11:07 PM
The meeting was taken into executive session. Mr. Jones acknowledged the conflicting information
showing use of the structure, but he found that the legalization of the duplex would be in compliance
with the purposes of the R-2 zoning district, and the Applicant has resolved the parking issue as
requested by the Board during the July meeting.

8:13:05 PM
THEREFORE, from the evidence and testimony presented, Mr. Jones moved for the Board to grant the
special exception to allow the legalization of a duplex at 238 South 1100 East. The special exception is
granted because:

   1. The legalization of the additional unit is in compliance with the district purposes of the R-2
      Zone.

                                                    13
Board of Adjustment                                                             October 19, 2009

   2. The legalization of the additional unit will not diminish the value of neighboring properties in
      that several multi-family apartments exist in the neighborhood.
   3. The legalization of the additional unit will not have any material adverse impact on the character
      of the area.
   4. The legalization of the additional unit is compatible with surrounding development.
   5. There are no significant natural, scenic or historic features on the lot noting that a tree and shed
      would need to be removed.
   6. There will be no air, water, soil or noise pollution associated with the legalization of the
      additional unit.
   7. The legalization of the additional unit meets the additional standards for legalization found in
      Section 21A.52.100(E)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance; particularly, the Owner must meet the life
      safety code requirements and parking spaces.

Mr. Julander seconded the motion; Mr. Jones and Mr. Julander voted aye; Ms. Dunn and Mr. Radford
voted no; Chairperson Berggren voted aye; the motion passed with a 3-2 vote.

It was noted that” the evidence and testimony presented” included evidence and testimony presented at
both the July 20 and October 19, 2009 meetings.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.




Deborah Martin, Secretary                                   Tom Berggren, Chairperson




                                                   14

								
To top