The URL can be used to link to this page

PLNZAD2023-00936 -1363 S 400 EJanuary 11, 2024 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION DECISION AND FINDINGS PLNZAD2023-00936 REQUEST: This is a request for an administrative interpretation regarding the legal status of an existing fence and gate located at 1363 S 400 E (Tax ID#16-18-202-003-0000). The subject property is a corner lot that contains an existing 6’ fence and gate in the corner side yard. The fence encroaches into the sight distance triangle and the gate abuts a public sidewalk along the south property line. The applicant is seeking clarification on whether the existing fence is in violation of zoning standards. The subject property is located within the R-1-5,000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. DECISION: The Zoning Administrator finds that the subject fence and gate are in violation of the zoning standards because they were not legally established and thus, not considered legal noncomplying structures. To be considered legal, it will be required to come into compliance with current standards for sight distance triangles and gate location. FINDINGS: The subject fence is 6’ in height and located along the corner side yard of the property. The fence does not comply with current standards regarding gate location, which requires 17’6” setback from the property line or back of curb (21A.40.120.E.7). Additionally, the fence does not comply with the vision clearance regulations found in section 21A.40.120.E.5 , which limits fence height within a sight distance triangle area. Chapter 21A.38 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for continued use of legal noncomplying structures. A noncomplying structure is defined as: 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. Applicable Research The earliest evidence of the subject fence is a photo submitted by the applicant from 1995 (See Attachment A, Application Materials). The applicable code at the time stated that building permits were required only for fences that received previous variances (See attachment B, 1990 copy of the Zoning Code section 21.80.240). A building permit for the fence on the subject property was not found on record. While a permit wasn’t required for all fences, section 21.12.010 prohibited the erection and use of any structure that did not comply with the regulations found within the zoning code (attachment B, 1990 copy of the Zoning Code). The standards for fences at the time it was erected were as follow. Section 21.80.250 stated that “fences erected in a required front yard shall not exceed 4’ in height and no more than 3’ in height if the fence is within 30’ of the intersection of front property lines on any corner lot” (attachment B, 1990 copy of the Zoning Code).The zoning code recognized both yards adjacent to a street on a corner lot to be the “Front Yard”. The subject 6’ fence is located in a portion of the lot adjacent to a street and what would have been a front yard. As such, the existing fence did not comply with applicable standards at the time it was built. Because the subject fence was not legally established according to the regulations at the time of construction, it cannot be considered a legal noncomplying structure, and it is not subject to 21A.38 allowing legal noncomplying structures to remain. Because the fence was not legally constructed, it must be held to current zoning standards. Current code states that rear yard fences located on a property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be 6’ in height so long as it meets other requirements of the chapter (section 21A.40.120(E)(2)). With that said, fencing within a site distance triangle for a driveway must not exceed 30” in height unless the fence is at least 50% transparent, in which case it may be no higher than 4’. The sight distance triangle for driveways is 10’, as shown in figure 1 below (section 21A.40.120(E)(5)). Figure 1: 21A.62.050, illustration I Demonstrating a Sight Distance Triangle Regarding the gate location, section 21A.40.120(E)(7) requires gates for passenger vehicle access be setback 17’ 6” from the back edge of existing sidewalks. The existing gate is considered to be noncompliant with this regulation. In conclusion, to come into compliance with today’s code requirements, the fence would need to be 30” high in the 10’ sight distance triangle for the driveway on the subject property and the abutting driveway on the property to the south and the rolling gate would need to be set back 17’ 6” from the back edge of the sidewalk. If you have any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact Olivia Cvetko at (801) 535-7285 or by email at Olivia.Cvetko@slcgov.com. 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 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. Olivia Cvetko Principal Planner CC: Nick Norris, Planning Director Mayara Lima, Zoning Administrator Casey Stewart, Planning Manager and Development Review Supervisor Posted to Web Attachments: A: Application Materials B: 1990 Zoning Code Excerpt processing fees. Olivia Cvetko Pi i l Pl Sean Canterbury 1363 S 400 E Salt Lake City, UT 84115 520-301-6064 To Whom It May Concern, On November 8, 2023 I was approached by an SLC Civil Enforcement officer who told me that his office had received a complaint about my backyard fence not being in compliance with the sight distance triangle regulations set forth in Salt Lake City code 21A.40.120. Though it was not part of the complaint, the officer informed me that the sliding gate that leads to my garage was not in compliance with the 17’6” setback requirement outlined under the same code. He told me since there was no building permit on ﬁle, that I was in noncompliance and the fence and gate must be mitigated to ﬁt the code. I told him the gate had been there at least since the early 1990s – to which he said there was no such thing as grandfathering. He later walked back on this after I pressed him. He stated if I could produce a building permit for the fence prior to 1995 I could be grandfathered. I have not been able to determine the signiﬁcance of the 1995 date in relation to my fence. The officer stated that I had 14 days to submit a plan to remedy the fence and another 30 days once the plan was approved.b I have contacted the previous owner of my property. He said the fence was built in the late 1980s. He provided me with multiple photos of the fence, some of which are dated prior to April 1995. I have multiple neighbors – who are longtime Liberty Wells residents – who say they would sign an affidavit stating the fence has been around since the late 1980s.I am asking for a legal nonconformance as covered in 21A.62, due to the fact that my fence was built before the requirements for sight distance triangle and gate set back were codiﬁed; 1999 and 2014 respectively. I have not been able to determine with certainty when building permits for fences became a requirement in SLC code. I hope your office can assist in clariﬁcation of the timeline. My wife and I use the driveway in the backyard for secure storage of bicycles, yard equipment, etc. If we are unable to have a secure driveway due to the fence height being reduced, or no gate present, we are not able to use our own yard to securely store our personal property. We purchased the home in large part because of the secure driveway access that it has. We were unaware, and there was no disclosure made when we purchased the home in 2018 that the fence or gate could be an issue. There are 64 properties between 1300 S to 1700 S and 300 E to 500 E that appear to be in noncompliance with the sight distance triangle, gate setback, or both. This is approximately 10% of the properties that are in the block listed above. I have pulled and reviewed recent building permits for some of these fences which do not conform to the codes and don’t see any special exemptions for them. Most of these fences have no building permit that I could ﬁnd. We look forward to moving forward on the Administrative Interpretation project with the Planning Division. Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns. Sincerely, Sean Canterbury