Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report - PLNZAD2025-00198 (2) PLNZAD2025-00198 1 June 19, 2025 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Alicia Seeley, Principal Planner alicia.seeley@slc.gov, 801-535-7922 Date: June 19, 2025 Re: PLNZAD2025-00198, 871 W 400 N Setback Variance Zoning Variance PROPERTY ADDRESS: 871 W 400 N PARCEL ID: 08352570460000 GENERAL PLAN: Northwest ZONING DISTRICT: R-1-7000 APPLICANT: Tim Fotu, property owner REQUEST: Tim Fotu, the property owner, is requesting a variance at 871 W 400 N from Ordinance 21A.24.060.E which establishes minimum corner side yard and rear yard setbacks to construct a single-family residential home on a narrow lot. The property owner also requests a variance from 21A.24.060.F which establishes that the surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff Contact: Alicia Seeley at 801-535- 7922 or alicia.seeley@slc.gov) Case Number: PLNZAD2025-00198 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and findings in this staff report, the Planning Staff has determined that this application does not meet the standards for approval for modified setbacks or building coverage. Therefore, it is recommended that the Appeals Hearing Officer deny the proposed variance request. ATTACHMENTS: A. ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Maps B. ATTACHMENT B: Property and Vicinity Photos C. ATTACHMENT C: Applicant Narrative and Site Plans D. ATTACHMENT D: Variance Standards E. ATTACHMENT E: Public Comments F. ATTACHMENT F: Department Review Comments PLNZAD2025-00198 2 June 19, 2025 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tim Fotu, the property owner, is requesting a variance from Ordinance 21A.24.060.E to build a single-family home with reduced corner side yard and rear yard setbacks in the R-1-7000 zoning district. The Ordinance that the applicant is requesting a variance from reads: E. Minimum Yard Requirements 2. Corner Side Yard: The minimum depth of the corner side yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the existing buildings on the block face. Where there are no other existing buildings on the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). 4. Rear Yard: Twenty-five feet (25’) The average west side setback for existing buildings on the block face (lots on the east side of 900 W between 400 N and 300 N) for the corner side yard is eight feet (8’). The property owner is also requesting a variance from Ordinance 21A.24.060.F to build the home over the maximum allowed lot coverage. The Ordinance reads: F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. The Applicant is requesting the following: A. Corner side yard setback reduction to 2 feet 8 ½ inches B. Rear yard setback reduction to 24 feet 5 inches C. Lot coverage of 49% BACKGROUND INFORMATION The property in question first applied for a variance in 2010. The request was for the following: a. Corner Side Yard Side Yard Setbacks of 4 feet and 3 feet, respectively b. Rear Yard Setback of 15 feet c. Lot coverage of 49% d. Attached garage width over 50% of the front façade of the house. Garage was requested on the north façade fronting 400 N and proposed to be 70% of that façade. The Board of Adjustment approved the request for modified setbacks with the following condition: PLNZAD2025-00198 3 June 19, 2025 “The approval is conditioned such that the first six feet of encroachment (between four feet and ten feet from the west lot line) shall be limited to a building height of one-story. At ten feet from the west lot line, the building can extend to the maximum allowed building height of 28 feet to the roof ridge.” The board of adjustment denied the request for the rear setback modification, increased lot coverage, and garage on the front façade. The Board determined that the approval provided was the minimum variance necessary for the property owner to enjoy a substantial property right. The 2010 Board of Adjustment Decision is Outlined as follows: Standard Permitted Requested Decision Side and Corner Side Yard Setbacks Corner Side Yard: 20 feet or block face average Interior Side Yard: 6 feet Corner Side Yard: 4 feet Side Yard: 3 feet APPROVED WITH SECOND STORY STEP BACK CONDITION Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 15 feet DENIED Lot Coverage 40% 49% (23’ x 88’ footprint) DENIED Garage Width 50% of the width of the front façade of the house 70% of the façade (16 of 23 feet) DENIED* (later overturned and approved) Originally site plan submitted in 2010 with Board of Adjustment setback determinations PLNZAD2025-00198 4 June 19, 2025 During a second zoning review in 2011, staff determined that the applicant could declare the western elevation as the front façade to achieve the larger garage door width. Please see the following for more detail: “it was determined that the 16’ wide garage door could go on the 23 foot wide side of the building. Locating the door there would not, for purposes of a zoning review for a building permit, be seen as being on the front façade of the building. It is the west side of the proposed structure, rather, that is the side being reviewed for standards required of the front face of the building (front door, etc.). The latest plans showing 17’6” from the inside of the garage door to the wall across, a width of 18’6” or greater inside the garage walls, and a 16’ wide garage door meets standards for the parking of two vehicles. And, with the sign off by Transportation on the site plan (including their corrections/notations), this item has been satisfied.” This determination effectively changed the orientation of the lot as of 2011. Per this decision and for the purpose of this application, the Planning Division recognizes the west façade fronting 900 W as the front façade, and the north façade fronting 400 N (formerly recognized as the front façade) as the corner side yard. However, the northern yard is considered the front, western yard is considered the corner side yard, the south yard is considered the rear, and the east is the interior side yard. Please refer to the following diagram. PLNZAD2025-00198 5 June 19, 2025 Subject lot and yard requirements The home developed on the lot does not match the submitted and approved building permit plans and violates the initial BOA decision in the following ways: a. Corner Side Yard Setback/Encroachment: The west lot line was approved for a reduction to 4 feet and was built to 2 feet 8 ½ inches. The provision that between four and ten feet of the property line be limited to one story was also violated, as the second story is stepped in three feet, placing the second story wall 5 feet 8 ½ inches from the west property line. PLNZAD2025-00198 6 June 19, 2025 b. Maximum Building Coverage: The building footprint developed constituted more than 50% of the lot. After enforcement required the removal of an unapproved rear covered porch, the footprint still constitutes approximately 48% of the lot area. c. Rear Setback: The BOA did not approve any modification to the rear setback The discrepancies between what was approved and what was constructed are illustrated below: APPROVED (from 2013 submitted drawings) CONSTRUCTED (from 2025 application) Six-foot step back from first to second floor on west side Three-foot step back provided PLNZAD2025-00198 7 June 19, 2025 APPROVED (from 2013 submitted drawings) CONSTRUCTED (from 2025 application) Setbacks shown as 4 feet for corner side yard and 40 feet 5 inches for rear yard Setbacks shown as 2 feet 8 ½ inches for corner side yard and 24 feet 5 inches for rear yard PLNZAD2025-00198 8 June 19, 2025 APPROVED (from 2013 submitted drawings) CONSTRUCTED (from 2025 application) Building footprint shown as 23 feet wide and 71 feet deep for an area of 1,633 square feet and a lot coverage of 39.7% Building footprint shown as 24 feet 3 ½ inches wide and 83 feet 4 inches deep for an area of 2,023 square feet and a lot coverage of 49.2% PLNZAD2025-00198 9 June 19, 2025 ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES AT ISSUE No additional ordinances were found to be at issue with regard to this variance request. HARDSHIP & ANALYSIS The key considerations listed below were identified through the analysis of the project: To assist the Hearing Officer in reviewing this request, the Planning Division has provided the following analysis and findings related to the regulations in 21A.18.060 for Standards for Variances. According to Ordinance 21A.18.010 the purpose statement states: The variance procedures are intended to provide a narrowly circumscribed means by which relief may be granted from unforeseen particular applications of this title that create unreasonable hardships. When such hardships may be more appropriately remedied, if at all, pursuant to other provisions of this title, the variance procedure is inappropriate. This statement informs us that granting a variance is inappropriate if other options exist to resolve the circumstance(s) causing hardship to the applicant. The applicant states his hardship as follows: Strict compliance with the setback requirements would result in the construction of an impractically narrow house. Such a design would not allow for a central hallway or functional interior layout, forcing the owner to pursue designs that are undesirable and nonfunctional compared to homes in the area. This would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property owner, as the lot's constraints prevent it from being developed in a way that is consistent with other properties in the district. Analysis: While the construction of an impractically narrow house is an unreasonable hardship, the applicant went beyond the ‘minimum necessary’ variation as outlined in the 2010 approval for modified setbacks. The applicant claims the right to develop in a way that is ‘consistent with other properties in the district’ but proposes a footprint larger than that of all but one of the existing homes on the existing block face. The average footprint on the block face (12 other homes) is 1,326 square feet. Adherence to the 40% maximum building coverage would allow a building footprint of 1,644 square feet, which is already larger than the average footprint in the area. A home with a footprint that is smaller than 2,023 square feet is not an unreasonable hardship. The applicant could build a reasonable home compatible with others in the district by complying with the maximum building coverage of 40% as outlined in the R-1-7000 zone and the setback provisions approved by the board of adjustment in their 2010 decision. Because the building coverage and additional modified setbacks do not constitute an unreasonable hardship, this variance request should be denied. Ordinance 21A.18.060, states under “Standards for Variances”: C. Self-Imposed Or Economic Hardship: In determining whether or not enforcement of this title would cause unreasonable hardship under subsection A of this section, the appeals hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self- imposed or economic. Analysis: PLNZAD2025-00198 10 June 19, 2025 It is established that the narrow lot posed an undue hardship. The Board of Adjustment approved the minimum necessary to accommodate the single-family structure. The property owner chose to dismiss the approval and build beyond what was approved. The coverage and setback noncompliance is a self-imposed hardship, and no variance can be granted under such conditions. Circumstances Peculiar to The Property: The subject property is different from other properties in the same zoning district in that the lot width is uniquely narrow (30 feet) The other properties on the same block face have an average width of 48.5 feet. Lot widths and building footprints on the 400 N block face between 900 W and 800 W Analysis: While the lot is substantially narrower than those on the same block face, the Board of Adjustment approved the minimum necessary modifications to accommodate a single-family structure. The peculiar circumstances related to the property have not evolved or changed since the 2010 approval. Substantial Property Right: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for single-family residential dwellings intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. While the ability to build a reasonable single-family home is a substantial property right, building a home with a substantially larger footprint than neighboring homes is not. As no substantial property right is at issue, this variance request must be denied. KEY CONSIDERATIONS AND DISCUSSION PLNZAD2025-00198 11 June 19, 2025 Utah Code Section 10-9a-707 and Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.18.060 outlines the standards required for granting a variance. The Hearing Officer may grant a variance if all the conditions described in Attachment D are found to exist. The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the standards have been met, and the variance is justified. SUMMARY Planning Staff finds that this request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. Although the subject property has limitations due to the narrowness of the lot, the allowance for reduced setbacks given in 2010 allow for a building footprint that would reasonably accommodate a single-family dwelling compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. Planning staff believes the Board of Adjustment established the minimum necessary variation to allow the development of a single-family home on the subject lot. Therefore, the planning staff believes the applicant has failed to show an unreasonable hardship. Even if the narrow building space constitutes unreasonable hardship, the applicant’s hardship is self-imposed because they violated the original approvals and built beyond the approved footprint. DECISION The Planning Staff recommends denying this application to the Appeals Hearing Officer based on the self-imposed hardship and the request not meeting the standards for a variance to be granted. NEXT STEPS Approval of the Request If the applicant is approved for variance relief from the two ordinance sections outlined above for corner side and side yard setbacks and maximum building coverage, the applicant could apply for a building permit to construct the single-family home as shown on project plans in Attachment B, as long as it complies with all other zoning and building regulations and any conditions added to the approval. Denial of the Variance Request If the variance request is denied, the applicant could not maintain the single-family home to the dimensions outlined on the project plans in Attachment B. Rather, the existing home would need to be reconstructed or modified to meet the standards outlined in the 2010 approval. Any person adversely affected by a final decision made by the appeals hearing officer can be appealed to the Third District Court within 30 days after the decision is made. PLNZAD2025-00198 12 June 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT A: Vicinity Maps Vicinity Map PLNZAD2025-00198 13 June 19, 2025 Vicinity Map and Surrounding Zoning PLNZAD2025-00198 14 June 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT B: Property and Vicinity Photos PLNZAD2025-00198 15 June 19, 2025 Subject property with abutting property to the south Rear porch removal in progress Subject property and abutting home to the east as viewed from 400 N Rear alley south of subject property Front door (west) and its position relative to sidewalk along 900 W PLNZAD2025-00198 16 June 19, 2025 Homes along the same block face as the subject property (south side of 400 N) Homes on south side of 400 N Homes on north side of 400 N Homes across from subject property on 900 W Additional view of homes along the same block face as the subject property PLNZAD2025-00198 17 June 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT C: Applicant Narrative and Site Plans PLNZAD2025-00198 18 June 19, 2025 PLNZAD2025-00198 19 June 19, 2025 PLNZAD2025-00198 20 June 19, 2025 PLNZAD2025-00198 21 June 19, 2025 PLNZAD2025-00198 22 June 19, 2025 ATTACHMENT D: Variance Standards The Finding for each standard is the recommendation of the Planning Division based on the facts associated with the proposal, the discussion that follows, and the input received during the engagement process. Input received after the staff report is published has not been considered in this report. 21A.18.050 Prohibited Variances: Subject to the prohibitions set forth in section 21A.18.050 of this chapter, and subject to the other provisions of this chapter, the appeals hearing officer may grant a variance from the terms of this title only if: A. Is not intended as a temporary measure only Discussion: The request is not intended as a temporary measure. An approved variance would be applied to the lot in perpetuity, and the proposed primary building would be constructed as a permanent building on the subject property. Finding: Complies B. Is not greater than the minimum variation necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship demonstrated by the applicant Discussion: In 2010, the Board of Adjustment established the minimum variation necessary to relieve the unnecessary hardship of the unusually narrow lot as demonstrated by the applicant. The current request proposes to deviate from the previously approved setbacks beyond the previously established minimum variation necessary. Finding: Does Not Comply C. Does not authorize uses not allowed by law (i.e., a “use variance”). Discussion: If approved, the variance would allow a single-family dwelling. It would not allow a use not allowed by law. Finding: Complies 21A.18.060: Standards for Variances: Subject to the prohibitions set forth in section 21A.18.050 of this chapter, and subject to the other provisions of this chapter, the appeals hearing officer may grant a variance from the terms of this title only if all of the following standards are met: A. General Standards 1. Literal enforcement of this title would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of this title; Finding: Does Not Comply PLNZAD2025-00198 23 June 19, 2025 Discussion: As discussed in the analysis section of this report, while strict adherence to the front and rear yard setbacks required in the R-1-7000 zoning district would not allow the construction of a single-family dwelling, the setbacks previously approved by the 2010 decision allow for a dwelling that is 23 feet deep. Enforcement of the 40% lot coverage on this property would also allow for a building footprint that is compatible with the surrounding dwellings and thus does not constitute an unreasonable hardship. Condition(s): n/a 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district; Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: Although the north property line of the subject property facing 400 N is 30 feet wide, which constitutes a special circumstance, modifications were approved to mitigate this circumstance. The physical characteristics of the lot have not changed since the 2010 approval and the circumstance is therefore not peculiar enough to justify the new request. Condition(s): n/a 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same district. Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a home that is substantially larger than the average home in the neighborhood. Having such a large home is not a substantial property right and adherence to the previously approved setbacks and 40% lot coverage are sufficient for the property owner to enjoy the same property right to construct a single-family dwelling as possessed by other properties in the same district. Condition(s): n/a 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan of the city and will not be contrary to the public interest; Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: A single-family dwelling on the subject property would not have a substantial impact on the Northwest General Plan. However, increased bulk in the form of reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage do impact neighboring properties and the character of the neighborhood. The property in question, as it was built out of line with what was approved through the variance process, is contrary to the public interest. The zoning establishes a process, and going beyond the approved process contradicts the purpose of the ordinance and permit. Condition(s): n/a PLNZAD2025-00198 24 June 19, 2025 5. The spirit of this title is observed, and substantial justice done. Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: The request does not meet the variance standards; therefore, the spirit of the title should be observed, and the variance request should be denied. Condition(s): n/a B. Circumstances Peculiar to Property: In determining whether or not enforcement of this title would cause unreasonable hardship under subsection A of this section, 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 Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: The applicant has stated that the alleged hardship (inability to build a reasonable single-family dwelling) is related to the property’s size and shape as it is only 30 feet wide. While the size and shape of the lot do indeed impair the ability to develop a dwelling on the lot with required front and rear setbacks as outlined in R-1-7000, previous approval was given for modified setbacks that allow for a home that is 23 feet deep. The applicant hasn’t provided any evidence as to why they couldn’t comply with the 2010 approval. Thus, no new circumstances have been established and no unreasonable hardship based on lot width remains. Condition(s): n/a 2. The alleged hardship comes from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions that are general to the neighborhood. Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: It is true that the 30-foot lot width is unique to the property and does not generally apply to other properties in the neighborhood. However, the previously approved setback modifications mitigate the hardship imposed by the lot width and the resulting buildable space is comparable to other properties in the same zoning district. Thus, no unreasonable hardship based on lot width remains. Condition(s): n/a C. Self- enforcement of this title would cause unreasonable hardship under subsection A of this section, the appeals hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self-imposed or economic. PLNZAD2025-00198 25 June 19, 2025 1. The hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship if the hardship is self-imposed or economic. Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: The alleged hardship is self-imposed. The applicant is requesting to expand the buildable area beyond that of most homes in the neighborhood and beyond that which was previously approved. Condition(s): n/a circumstances attached to the property under Subsection A of this section, the appeals hearing officer may find that special circumstances exist only if: 1. The special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship; Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: Although there are special circumstances related to the applicant’s alleged hardship relating to lot width, as was established in the 2010 request, the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence as to why the approved setback modifications do not do enough to mitigate the special circumstance. As no new circumstance has been established with this request, no alleged hardship remains. Condition(s): n/a 2. The special circumstances deprive the property of privileges granted to other properties in the same zoning district. Finding: Does Not Comply Discussion: Even with the special circumstances related to the subject property, previous setback modification allowed the property owner to enjoy comparable to other homes in the same zoning district. Condition(s): n/a ATTACHMENT E: Public Comments Public Input: Transcribed notes from a phone call received on 6/10/2025 at 11:56 am (the caller identified themself, but wishes to remain anonymous on the record): PLNZAD2025-00198 26 June 19, 2025 “There have been a million problems with this home. It was supposed to be a nice, single-family house, and now it's the size of a hotel. I am a hard no on approving any zoning modifications. The property owner seems to be doing whatever he wants and ignoring the city. He is also very aggressive to deal with. It seems like he is running an Airbnb. People park in my front yard and all over the street to go stay at that house. After all of these years, the house is still not done on the outside at all and looks terrible. They are cutting down trees and their yard is full of debris. It's devaluing my home and all of the homes in the neighborhood. Please do not approve this request.” ATTACHMENT F: Department Review Comments Public Utilities: Kristeen Beitel // kristeen.beitel@slc.gov // 801-483-6733 Public Utilities has no issues with the variance request for relief from side and garage setback requirements to allow new construction as proposed. In regard to reduced setbacks, applicant should be aware that reducing setbacks and landscape areas may limit space/options for green infrastructure, which is required by Public Utilities. Applicant should also consider providing enough space for all required utilities with required clearances. Building Services: Steven Collett // steven.collett@slc.gov // 801-535-7289 All construction within the corporate limits of Salt Lake City shall be per the State of Utah adopted construction codes and include any state or local amendments to those codes. RE: Title 15A State Construction and Fire Codes Act. Walls less than 5 feet from the lot line are required to be 1-hour fire-resistance rated with exposure from both sides. Eave projections less than 5 feet from the lot line are required to be 1-hour fire-resistance rated on the underside. These fire rating requirements are applicable to the east façade based on Fire Separation Distance. Openings in exterior walls between 3 feet and 5 feet based on Fire Separation Distance are allowed 25 percent maximum of wall area. Openings with less than 3 feet of Fire Separation Distance are not allowed. These opening limitations are applicable to the east façade based on Fire Separation Distance. FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE - The distance measured from the building face to one of the following: • To the closest interior lot line. • To the centerline of a street, an alley or public way. PLNZAD2025-00198 27 June 19, 2025 • To an imaginary line between two buildings on the lot. The distance shall be measured at a right angle from the face of the wall. Police: Andrew Cluff // andrew.cluff@slc.gov // 801-799-3805 I see no public safety concerns with the request. Engineering: Corey Legge // cory.legge@slc.gov // 801-535-6159 No concern from the Engineering Division. Please note that no private encroachment is permitted into the public right-of-way or alleyway in the rear of the house. Transportation: Jena Carver // jena.carver@slc.gov // 801-535-6694 *No comment received from transportation