HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLNZAD2025-01194 - 2252 S Lakeline CirFebruary10, 2026
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
DECISION AND FINDINGS
PLNZAD2025-00548
REQUEST:
Ian Kaplan, on behalf of the property owner, Matthew Nikols, is requesting an administrative
interpretation regarding a proposed addition and remodel at approximately 2252 & 2256 S
Lakeline Cir. Both lots are in the FR-3 (Foothills Residential) zoning district. The applicant is
requesting an interpretation regarding several questions related to the properties:
1. Do all existing non-permitted structures need to be torn down as part of the scope of
this remodel/addition?
2. Where will the “existing rear yard setback” be measured from?
3. What setback will the accessory structure be required to follow?
DECISION:
Based on the information below, the Zoning Administrator finds that:
1. A building permit cannot be issued until the plans demonstrate full compliance with the
zoning ordinance. Anynon-permitted structures, that were not legally established, and
that do not meet current zoning standards aresubject to enforcement and would need to
be removed.
2. Any future enlargements of the structure mayfollow the existing rear yard setback of
any legally established noncomplying building wall, but may not follow any existing
non-permitted building walls and associated setbacks.
3. The existing accessory structure is both a nonconforming use and a noncomplying
structure. Because it is not a principal building, it may remain as originally approvedin
its current location, but any future modifications or additions must comply with current
code.
FINDINGS:
PropertyHistory:
The subject lots were created as Lots 616 & 617 of the Arcadia Heights Plat “F” Subdivision,
recorded in 1962 (see attached copy for reference). The subdivision created these as two separate
lots, which were separately owned in 1965. Attached deeds show the owners in 1965 would have
been Lowell Jensen (Lot 616) and F.E.W. Inc. (Lot 617) (see attached deed records).
Permit records for the property indicate that the residence and attached garage were originally
permitted in 1965, (see attached permit card). County assessment records further indicate that
the single-family residence was built in 1966.
1
According to the 1963 Zoning Map and the 1964 Zoning Ordinance (attached, see Sec. 51-12-5),
which were in effect at the time of original permitting and construction, the subject properties
were in the Residential “R-1” zone, which required a 25-foot rear yard setback.
(Scan of 1963 Zoning Map, both BOA Case #5142 and 1973 map confirm R-1 zoning)
In 1965, the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to “reduce a portion of the rear yard to 19’
instead of the required 25’.” During the meeting, it was also noted that there was a 2nd story
balcony projection on the rear of the building (see attached minutes and plans, BOA Case #5142).
The 1964 zoning code would have allowed balconies to project up to 4’ into the rear yard (1964
Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 51-4-6).
2
(1965 BOA Site Plan, measurements added in red for clarity)
Property records show that Mr. Jensen acquired Lot 617 in 1968 (see attached deed record).
Additional permits for the swimming pool and pool house were issued in 1969. The initial
construction of the residence, pool, and pool house is visible in aerial imagery from 1977:
(1977 aerial imagery of the subject properties; Utah Geological Survey)
3
In1969, the BOA granted approval for a swimming pool in the front and side yard and for a bath
house that exceeded the size allowed for auxiliary buildings (see attached BOA case #5749). This
approval included the following conditions:
1. That this accessory building cannot be used for living quarters
2. That this lot can never be sold separately from the other lot unless the improvements are
removed
3. That the pool and bathhouse meet all rules and regulations of the State and the City
ordinances
4. That the drainage meet all requirements of the City Engineer’s office
5. That the height of the bathhouse not be above the present level of Lakeline Circle
6. That a permit, with a double fee, be taken out for the pool
7. That the applicant be given a rebuke for having started the pool without a permit.
By 1980, a new addition to the rear of the home is visible in aerial imagery. A search of City records
returned no records of any permits or approvals for this addition. The applicant’s narrative notes
that portions of the existing structure may be “non-permitted.”
(1980 aerial imagery of the subject properties; Utah Geological Survey)
4
(1985 aerial imagery of the subject properties; Utah Geological Survey)
A building permit was issued by the City in 1994 (BLD1994-89615). Minimal information is
available about permits from that time, asno site plan or building plans were retained.The permit
description states, “BUILD DECK AND ROOF STRUCTURE” and lists the size as 280 square feet
(permit information attached). It’s difficult to interpret the available imagery from the 90’s due
to low image resolution and shadows. No new improvements appearvisible on the 1994 imagery.
(July 1994aerial imagery of the subject properties; Utah Geospatial Resource Center)
5
An approximately 280-square-foot addition to the west side of the home is visible from the 1999
aerial imagery, matching the size noted on the 1994 permit. This deck addition would have been
compliant with the previously approved 19-foot rear yard setback and the 8’ minimum interior
side yard setback required in the R-1 district.
(1999 aerial imagery of the subject properties; SLC GIS)
Further additions to the rear of the structure are visible from aerial imagery starting in 2001. No
permits or other approval records for these additions could be located in City records.
(2001 aerial imagery of the subject properties; Utah Geological Survey)
6
The 2003 imagery shows another new addition to the west of the building, as well as other new
additions to the rear of the building.
(2003 aerial imagery of the subject properties; SLC GIS)
The additions visible in the 2003 imagery appear to match what currently exists on the property.
The various additions can be seen more clearly using oblique aerial imagery from the Salt Lake
County Assessor map(most clearly visible starting in 2010).
(2010 oblique aerial imagery of the subject properties;Salt Lake County Assessor Parcel Map)
7
According to the survey provided with this application, the newer addition on the west of the
building crosses the shared property line dividing the lots. This would not have been allowed by
the zoning ordinance at any time and would not have been permitted.
Non-Permitted Structures:
Under Salt Lake City code, all construction, unless specifically exempt, requires a building permit:
21A.04.030: BUILDING/DEMOLITION PERMITS REQUIRED:
It is unlawful, whether acting as owner, occupant or contractor, or otherwise to erect,
construct, reconstruct, alter, demolish, or change the use of any building or other
structure within Salt Lake City contrary to any provisions of this title without first
obtaining a building or demolition permit from the Division of Building Services and
Licensing unless the proposed improvements are such that the Division of Building
Services and Licensing does not require a permit.
City code also states that a permit shall not be issued unless the plans comply with all applicable
regulations:
18.20.050: APPLICATION; REVIEW; PERMIT ISSUANCE CONDITIONS:
A. Application Review: Except as provided in subsection B of this section, the application
plans and data filed by an applicant for a building permit shall be checked by the building
official. Said application may be reviewed by other government agencies or departments
to check compliance with the laws and ordinances under their jurisdiction. No building
permit shall be issued unless and until the plans and specifications comply with all
applicable land use regulations, including but not limited to Title 21A.
Based on the property history and applicable standards of City code, no permit can be issued for
any project that proposes to retain any non-permitted structures that violate current
requirements. All permit documents must show the property in full compliance with all applicable
sections of code.
Rear Yard Setback:
In the FR-3 Zoning District, the required rear yard setback is 35’ (21A.24.040.E.4). However, as
noted under the “Property History” section of this letter, the initial construction of the single-
family residence was permitted by the City, with specific approval for a reduced rear yard setback
of 19’. Because the initial structure was legally established, it meets the definition of
“Noncomplying structure:”
NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURE: Buildings and structures that serve complying land
uses which were legally established on the effective date of any amendment to this title
that makes the structure not comply with the applicable yard area, height and/or bulk
regulations of this title.
Noncomplying structures may be enlarged following an existing noncomplying building wall, as
outlined in section 21A.38.050:
8
21A.38.050: NONCOMPLYING STRUCTURES:
B. Enlargement: A noncomplying structure may be enlarged if such enlargement and
its location comply with the standards of the zoning district in which it is located or as
provided in this section.
1. Noncomplying as to Setbacks.
d. Rear Yards: A principal building noncomplying to rear yard setbacks may be
expanded provided the expansion follows an existing noncomplying building wall and
does not result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback and complies with side and
corner side yard setbacks of the underlying zoning district. If the building does not
comply with the existing side or corner side yard setback, the expansion shall be
permitted to extend to the side or corner side yard setback of the underlying zone.
Because this section of code applies specifically to noncomplying structures, the requirement for
an expansion to not “result in a decrease of the existing rear yard setback” would only apply to the
existing, legally established setback of the noncomplying structure – not to the existing non-
permitted setback that was never authorized. Any new additions to the building may follow the
19’ setback permitted by the approved variance. Staff was unable to find evidence that other
structures in the rear setback were legally established.
Accessory Building Setbacks:
Accessory buildings in the FR-3 zoning district may not be located in any required yard
(21A.24.040.E.5), including the required 35’ rear yard. The applicant’s proposed plans show the
pool house with an existing setback of 23’-4” to the rear (west) lot line. Furthermore,
current standards do not allow accessory buildings on separate lots without a principal
structure (21A.40.040). Because the building was legally established by approval of Board of
Adjustment case #5749, the building is considered to be both a nonconforming use and a
noncomplying structure (see attached BOA case for more details).
It should be noted that the noncomplying structure code only allows principal buildings to be
expanded along an existing noncomplying rear yard, not accessory buildings. There is no
provision in the code allowing an accessory building to be enlarged along noncomplying setbacks.
The existing structure may remain as originally approved, but any future modifications
must comply with current code. Because the structure is both noncomplying and
nonconforming, an expansion of the nonconforming use must also follow the standards of
21A.38.040, which limits enlargements to a one-time expansion of 25% of the occupied area. An
expansion could only occur in the buildable area, outside of the rear or side yards, due to the
prohibition on buildings in rear or side yards in FR-3 as per 21A.24.040.E.5 as previously noted.
If you have any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact Andy Hulka at (801)
535-6608 or by email at andy.hulka@slc.gov.
APPEAL PROCESS:
An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering or
interpreting this Title may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer. Notice of appeal shall be filed
9
within ten (10) days of the administrative decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Planning
Division and shall specify the decision appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision
to be in error. Applications for appeals are located on the Planning Division website at
https://www.slc.gov/planning/applications/ along with information about how to apply and
processing fees.
Andy Hulka
Senior Planner
CC: Nick Norris, Planning Director
Daniel Echeverria, Zoning Administrator
Casey Stewart, Planning Manager and Development Review Supervisor
Posted to Web
Attachments:
x Arcadia Heights Plat “F” Subdivision
x 1964 SLC Zoning Ordinance – Chapter 12 Residential “R-1” District
x 1965 Warranty Deed (Lot 616 – Jensen)
x 1965 Quit Claim Deed (Lot 617 – F.E.W. Inc)
x 1968 Warranty Deed (Lot 617 – Jensen)
x Board of Adjustment Cards – 2256 S Lakeline Cir
x Board of Adjustment Case #5142
x Board of Adjustment Case #5749
x Permit Card – 2256 S Lakeline Cir
x 1994 Building Permit Information
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
House No:
Permit:
2256 Street:LAKELINE Dir:S Override:Suffix:CIR
89615 Suite/Office:Address Id:64244Issued:7/7/1994
Job Type:
Inspector:
Owner Name:
Owner Addr:
Fee Flag:
Record Type:
BUILDING PERMIT Job Status:FINAL ( ) - Contr. Phone:
RICHARD NIELSEN Contractor:OWNER 47645
JOHN NIKOLS Fee:$89.10 6,000.00Valuation:
SAME Owner City:466- 43-98 Owner Phone:.
Paymt Type:$.00Credit Amt:0 Orig Amt:0
By:bld Last Upd:
Contact:Fax:Phone:
Email List:
51
Permit:89615 Issue Date:07/07/1994 Est Cost:6,000.00
REPAIR Construction Kind:Building Type:
Sq Ft:280 Nmbr Stories:1 Nmbr Buildings:1
Res Units:0 Garage Carport: Attach Detach:Garage Sq Ft:
Certificate Occ:Cert Type:F Inspect Every:120
0
Block:Concrete:Steel:Stucco:
Frame:Brick Var:Brick:Asphalt:
52
89615 07/07/1994
1/8/2026 Page 1 of 1
Salt Lake City Corporation
Building Permit Inspection Listing
Permit ID:Issue Date:
Inspection Kind:
Inspection Type:
Inspection Stage:
Comment:Violation:0
BL
999
COM
Insp Date:
Insp Time:
Inspector:
12
04/25/1995
(1130) NEW DECK AND ROOF STRUCTURE
53