1

APPEALS HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT

Planning Division

Department of Community &

Economic Development

Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Petition No. PLNBOA2012-00472

369 North I Street Public Hearing: November 7, 2012

Applicant: Mark Taylor, property owner

Staff: Thomas Irvin (801) 535-7932

thomas.irvin@slcgov.com

Tax ID: 09-32-159-006-0000

Current Zone: SR-1A Special Development Pattern

Residential District

Master Plan Designation:

Low-Density 4-8 Units per Gross Acre

Avenues Master Plan

(Adopted July 1987)

Council District: Council District 3, Stan Penfold

Community Council:

Greater Avenues Community Council

John K. Johnson (Chair)

Lot Size:

4,620 square feet (0.11 acre)

Current Use: Single Family Dwelling

Applicable Land Use Regulations:

• 21A.18 Variances

• 21A.24.080 SR-1A Special Residential

Zoning District

• 21A.40 Accessory Uses, Buildings and

Structures

Notification:

• Agenda posted on the Planning Division

and Utah Public Meeting websites October

22, 2012

• Notices Mailed on October 23, 2012

• Property posted on October 24, 2012

Attachments: A. Site Plan & Elevation Drawings.

B. Photographs

C. Additional Applicant Information

Request The applicant, Mark Taylor, is requesting approval of a variance for a 567 square

foot detached accessory structure within the SR-1A Special Development Pattern

Residential District. Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance limits the surface

coverage of all principal and accessory buildings to 40% of the lot area. The

proposed accessory building would exceed this requirement by 222 square feet.

Additionally, the SR-1A zoning district limits a principal accessory building to

480 square feet. The owner’s proposal exceeds this by 87 square feet. The

Appeals Hearing Officer has final decision authority for a variance petition. In

order to approve the petition, the Appeals Hearing Officer must find that all of

the standards for a variance are met.

Recommendation Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff’s opinion

that the project does not satisfy the required standards of review and therefore

recommends the Appeals Hearing Officer deny the request.

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

2

Vicinity Map

Project Information

Project Description

This proposal is for a 567 square foot garage to replace an existing garage at 369 North I Street. The proposed

garage would be located in the rear yard and be accessed from a private right of way. Initially, the owners

submitted for a Special Exception to exceed the height limitations of the SR-1A Special Development Pattern

Residential Zoning District. Upon review, staff noted that the construction of the garage would also exceed the

40% lot coverage requirement for which there is no Special Exception process.

The owner’s contention is that since their property is undersized for the zoning district and many other garages

in the neighborhood are similarly sized, they have a property related hardship for which a variance should be

granted. Additionally, since the adjoining alley is not “public”, it cannot be used in determining coverage.

Under the coverage requirement, they could only construct a 345 square foot garage which would not be large

enough to allow for two vehicles.

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

3

Project Details

Regulations for Accessory Buildings in the SR-1A Special

Residential District

Proposed Compliance

Maximum Building Coverage in the Zone: 40% 44.8% NO

50 % Maximum Rear Yard Coverage 35% YES

50% or Less of the Footprint of the Principal Structure 37.7% YES

480 Square Feet Maximum Size for Primary Accessory Structure 567 NO

14 Foot Height Limit for Pitched Roof Structures 19 ½ Feet NO (Can Apply for a Special Exception)

Section 21A.40.050B.2 of the Zoning Ordinances states the following:

Notwithstanding the size of the footprint of the principal building, at least four hundred eighty (480) square feet

of accessory building coverage shall be allowed subject to the compliance with subsection B1 of this section.

This allowance does not address the maximum building coverage requirement of the zoning district.

Comments

Public Comments

No Public comments have been received at the time of this writing.

Transportation Division Comments

Barry Walsh, Engineering Technician VI of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division, reviewed the request

and submitted the following comments:

The existing site (2010 aerial photo) shows an auxiliary building – single stalls garage /shed 12x16’ = 192 SF.

For a standard two stall garage with 9’ stalls and a one foot buffer next to walls is 20’ deep and 21’ wide for

420 SF.

The applicant is proposing a 21 x27 building 567 SF for an additional storage area of 147 SF. I would

recommend some compromise from the 345 SF allowed to provide for the current two car on site stall

requirement.

Analysis

Options

If the Appeals Hearing Officer denies the variance, the owner would have the right to construct a new 345

Square foot garage after demolishing the existing one. He could also provide hard-surfacing in the rear yard for

vehicle parking where there is sufficient space.

If the Appeals Hearing Officer approves the variance, the Appeals Hearing Officer must find the proposal

complaint with all five of the approval standards. The approval of a variance does not authorize construction of

the garage, it simply authorizes the submittal of a building permit for the garage and modifies the zoning

regulations specifically authorized.

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

4

Findings

General Standards of Review

The standards of review for a variance are set forth in the Utah Code 10-9-707 and Salt Lake City Code

21A.18.060, which standards are provided below. If the Appeals Hearing Officer finds that the following

standards are met, then the variance to allow an additional monument sign may be granted.

Standards 1: Does literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance cause an unreasonable hardship for the

applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance?

Section 21A.18.060.B of Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance provides direction to the Appeals Hearing Officer

in determining if an “unreasonable hardship” exists. Specifically, it states that the Appeals Hearing Officer may

not find an unreasonable hardship unless:

1. The alleged hardship is related to the size, shape or topography of the property for which the

variance is sought; and

2. The alleged hardship comes from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions

that are general to the neighborhood.

3. The alleged hardship is not self-imposed or economic

Findings: The minimum lot area and width for a single-family home in the SR-1A Special Residential District

is 5,000 square feet with a 50 foot width. The subject property is 4,620 square feet with a 35 foot width. The

average of all lots on the same block face is just over 5,000 square feet with the majority having around 40 feet

of width. These facts do limit the potential size of a new garage after taking into account the size of the existing

home. Lot coverage limitations in the ordinance are determined by percentages. This means that similar

property rights are granted to each property based on the size of the lot. Smaller lots have less development

rights than larger ones.

Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance defines “lot area” as:

The total area within the property lines of the lot plus one-half (1/2) the right of way area of an adjacent

public alley.

Since the private right-of-way adjacent to the property is not “public”, it cannot be used in determining the lot

coverage. Salt Lake City has a policy of not maintaining public alleys and provides a process to vacate them.

Since the long rang goal is to have public alleys incorporated into adjacent properties, owners have been

allowed to include half of their square footage when determining lot coverage. In this circumstance, the city

does not have control of the private right-of-way and cannot direct its future use.

If the private right-of-way could be used, the owner would be able to construct a 480 square foot garage. The

SR-1A limitation of only allowing 480 square foot primary accessory buildings would still be applicable and the

proposed 567 square foot garage would not be allowed.

Staff finds the size and shape of the lot do create difficulties in the construction of a garage, and that these

circumstances are indeed peculiar to the property, however, after taking these facts into account, they still do

not justify the size of the structure the owner is requesting. Even if the lot was larger and the alley a public one,

the size of proposed garage would not be permitted.

Standard 2. Are there special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other

properties in the same district?

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

5

Section 21A.18.080.D provides direction to the Appeals Hearing Officer in determining whether or not there are

special circumstances attached to the property. Specifically, it states that the Appeals Hearing Officer may find

that special circumstances exist only if:

1. The special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship; and

2. The special circumstances deprive the property of privileges granted to other properties in the

same zoning district.

Findings: There are two special circumstances noted by the applicant; the slightly undersized lot dimensions

and the fact that the adjacent alley is private and not public. As mentioned earlier, the use of public alleys in

calculating coverage is a policy intended to support the eventual vacating of these properties and is not

applicable for private right-of-ways.

Building coverage limitations are uniformly applied to all properties in the zone which means smaller parcels

with less development potential. In this case, the size of the home that was built has created a situation where

there is limited building coverage remaining for accessory buildings. This circumstance is self-imposed and not

directly related to the size of the parcel.

Staff finds that the slightly smaller lot is a special circumstance, but since lot coverage requirements are applied

uniformly, it is not directly responsible for depriving the owners of having a reasonably sized garage. The size

of the home is the primary cause of this limitation.

Standard 3. Is granting the variance essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed

by other property in the same district?

Findings: All properties in the SR-1A Special Development Pattern Residential District are limited to only

having a 480 square foot principal accessory dwelling. While having a garage may be considered a “substantial

property right”, the size of the garage is not. Staff does not find that constructing the garage as proposed is

essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right.

Standard 4. Will the variance substantially affect the general plan of the City or be contrary to the public

interest?

Findings: The Avenues Community Future Land Use Map designates this parcel as low density residential (4 to

8 units per gross acre). The requested variance would not affect this designation as the primary land use will not

change from single family residential.

Standard 5. Is the spirit of the Zoning Ordinance observed and substantial justice done?

Findings: Section 21A.24.080 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states:

The purpose of the SR-1 special development pattern residential district is to maintain the unique

character of older predominantly single-family and two-family dwelling neighborhoods that display a

variety of yards, lot sizes and bulk characteristics. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing

scale and intensity of the neighborhood.

The intent of the proposal is to construct a garage that provides sufficient space for two vehicles to park. This

use is compatible with the SR-1A District; however, the applicant is seeking more than the minimum square

footage required to meet this need. All other properties in the neighborhood are also limited to the 480 square

foot maximum standard. Staff finds that since this request involves more than would be allowed for an

appropriately sized lot, approving it would not afford “substantial justice” or uphold the “spirit of the Zoning

Ordinance.”

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

6

ATTACHMENT A

Site Plan & Elevation Drawings

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

7

Proposed Size Plan

Proposed Elevations

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

8

ATTACHMENT B

Photographs

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

9

Subject Property Adjacent Private Right-Of-Way

Existing Accessory Building Rear Yard of Subject Property

Private Right-Of-Way

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

10

ATTACHMENT C

Applicants Written Request

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

11

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

12

PLNBOA2012-00472 Taylor Lot Coverage Variance Published Date: October 26, 2012

13