SOUTH JORDAN CITY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
May 23, 2007
Present: Chairman Gary Chandler, Board Member Frank Wareham, Board Member Dan Fallows, Board Member Aleta Taylor, Board Member Troy Teeples, City Planner Greg Schindler, Planner Damir Drozdek, City Recorder Anna West.
Others: Darin Rohead, Hylan Harper, Emily Harper, Zac Hendricks, Dave Hirschi
6:30 P.M.
I. GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS – 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A. Roll Call
Chairman Chandler opened the meeting and noted that all Board Members were present. Chairman Chandler welcomed Aleta Taylor as the newest member of the Board.
City Planner Greg Schindler noted that at the previous Board of Adjustment meeting they had voted to postpone appointing a new chair and vice-chair until the next meeting due to board members being absent. So the Agenda needs to be amended to add this.
B. Approval of Agenda
Board Member Fallows motioned to amend the May 23, 2007 Board of Adjustment Agenda to include appointment of a chair and vice chair. Board Member Teeples seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously.
Board Member Wareham motioned that Gary Chandler continue as Chairman. Board Member Fallows seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
Board Member Fallows motioned that Troy Teeples continue as Vice-Chair. Board Member Wareham seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.
D. Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting held on March 28, 2007.
Board Member Wareham motioned to approve the March 28, 2007 Board of Adjustment Minutes. Board Member Fallows seconded the motion. Motion passes unanimously.
II ACTION ITEMS
None
III PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. File # BOA-2007.02, Request for a variance to Section 17.32.110 Letter “A” Number “2” and “3” of the South Jordan Zoning Ordinance pertaining to front and side yard setbacks and to Section 17.32.120 Letter “E” pertaining to projections into yards for a property located at 1206 West, Makiya Circle, Zach Hendricks, (applicant).
City Planner Damir Drozdek reviewed background information on the agenda item. He said right now the corner property of the house is about 6 feet from the property line and the front of the porch is 15 feet away and the house itself is 21 feet away from the property line. He stated that the required set-backs are 10 feet on the side 25 on the front.
Chairman Chandler asked about the easement and how the setback errors were discovered by the City. He said the first time it was discovered is when the building officials went out to the site. He said at that time there was a lot of dirt around the house and it was hard for them to measure the correct property lines. He said once the dirt was removed they were able to measure from the corner of the house to the property line. He said he is not sure how they missed the front set-back. He said once the notices were sent out to the surrounding property owners some of them called in to inquire of the set-backs. One of them went out and measured the set-backs herself and that is when they found that the front set-back was wrong too.
City Planner Drozdek showed some pictures of the property and foundations in question. He noted that the porch is about 15 feet from the sidewalk.
Board Member Taylor asked about the projection of the property and does it count the roof in the measurement. Planner Drozdek said they typically measure from foundations to the property line. He said the applicant discovered that the property was backfilled and the ground was not stable enough to support the foundations and footings by itself so they had to install some piers into the ground. He said the applicant feels that if they were to remove some of the piers that it would affect the safety of the building.
Board Member Taylor asked who backfilled the property. Planner Drozdek said he was not sure.
Chairman Chandler turned the time over to the Applicant to address questions of the Board.
David Hirschi 1074 N. 300 E. Centerville, Ut., said he is the attorney for the applicant and originally had made application to come before this board to review the side set-back issue. He said they asked the City to make in writing that this was the only issue. He said they received a letter which is in the packet from Mr. Schindler confirming that at that time the only issue the City was looking at was the corner set-back. He said they just learned last Monday that the City advised there were additional set-back issues. He asked if the City was prepared to discuss all of the issues. He said they are now asking for a variance that would allow for the 6 foot set back on the corner and the 4 foot variance on the front. He said this particular lot is a very difficult lot to build on. He said there have been two previous building permits for this lot. Now with the previous contractor backing off they want to finish this last lot with a home that will complete the subdivision. He said they want to build a structurally sound home and if this home is to be moved back, the end result may not be aesthetically pleasing.
Board Member Wareham asked if he is suggesting that this is the only floor-plan that can fit on the lot. Mr. Hirsche said he is suggesting that it is a floor plan that can be built on the lot and that the placement of the helical piers were done in a manner that created some structural integrity on the lot.
Chairman Chandler opened the Public Hearing.
Darin Rohead 1196 West Makiya Circle, South Jordan, said he is the property owner on the same side as the 6 foot set-back. He covered a bit of history on the purchase of his property in 2005. He said he had the option to purchase this particular property but chose not to because of existing problems. He said there were only dirt walls and an area for a sunken basement. There were not footings yet, just stakes for the footings.
Board Member Taylor asked Mr. Rohead who put the stone steps and the rock retaining behind the house in. He said the stonework was done at the same time that his property wall was done. He said he believes the same person did both walls.
Mr. Rohead said he has had several conversations regarding the property and is very excited to see a home built here to finish off the circle. He said he was very surprised to see the size of the home they are trying to put on the property. He said he asked the builders to survey the property several times especially when they cut into his yard and cut his sprinklers. He pointed out for the Board where the front facing stakes were located.
Board Member Taylor asked if there is a survey marker in the front of the property. Mr. Rohead said yes there is. He said there is also one in the curb. Board Member Taylor said she walked around the property and thought that was a very big house to put on this property.
Board Member Wareham asked if the stakes were there when the construction was started. Mr. Rohead said his property marker was there prior to the construction. He said he spoke with Zac the builder asking him to have the property surveyed correctly. Mr. Rohead said they went ahead with footings and walls without doing the survey. He said he believes that the home is too large for the size of the lot and would ask that the Board decline the variance.
Chairman Chandler closed the Public Hearing and asked the applicant and Mr. Hirschi to answer questions of the Board.
Chairman Chandler asked Mr. Hirschi if they had a site plan that was approved by the City. Mr. Hirsche said yes. Chairman Chandler said he feels it was clearly stated by the City the requirements that would have to be met to be in compliance by the applicant. He asked the applicants to clarify what they believe their hardships to be and also noted that the hardships can not be self imposed or economic so there is no need to have that discussion.
Applicant Zach Hendricks said just to clarify more on the plot map that was submitted to the City no one really knew where the rock walls that were put in by the developer had been placed, so that changed where I set the back of my home. He said he moved his house forward a few feet and cut back the size of the house. He said he did not know they were going against the legal set-back measurement. He said the stake he was using for his measurements was moved by the neighbor. He said he did not have a survey done until after the footings and foundations were poured because he was in a time crunch with the construction loan.
Chairman Chandler said he would like to get back to his question that the applicants still have not made clear what they believe their unreasonable hardship is.
Hylan Harper 209 N. 1200 West Orem UT, said he is here to assist the applicant. He said there are at least 25 homes in Parkway Palisades that have been granted the same type of set-back and did not have to apply for a variance. He said he feels that a couple of feet should not require a variance and thinks this is an undue hardship as it relates to other homes and feels that they should be granted the same enjoyment that the owner of those other homes have had.
Chairman Chandler said when you have an approved site plan for a structure and you just put the home in the wrong place then you should have amended the plan. Mr. Hendricks said he got an amended foundation plan and thought all was okay. He said he doesn’t have the plan with him because it is the one they have to keep on the site for inspections. He said it was stamped as approved by Ty Montalvo.
Board Member Teeples said this plot comes off of a county map so it should be correct. He said what was inaccurate was your measurement from the stake. He said this error was not verifying where the stake was to make sure it was correct.
Chairman Chandler said a statement says that the home was being constructed on this lot and was sized and located to fit the unique and difficult building terrain of the lot. He referred to page 6 of the response. He asked what this statement is based on and why did you proceed without getting the inspection necessary.
Mr. Hendricks replied it was because of the creek. He said no one really knew exactly how the creek rock wall was designed in there. He said he feels that is why the City made an error the first time they measured.
Mr. Harper said they tried to make sure they were meeting all of the set-back requirements and limits. He said they met with the City over and over to make sure they were in compliance.
Chairman Chandler referred to page two of the addendum in the variance request about a statement regarding the 6 ft. vs the 10 ft. set-back, and the front yard variance. He asked for clarification on that statement.
Mr. Hendricks said they called for an inspection on the helical piers and at the time they didn’t send anyone out. He said he went to the City to let them know why they were doing the helical piers. He said no on ever came out to do the inspection. He said he proceeded without the inspection because he could not be on site when the helical piers were being placed. He said if you tell them to pull off the job it would have cost $3,500 dollars to have the not do their work. He said South Jordan City told him this doesn’t require an inspection but they would like to see the work.
Board Member Wareham asked if the approved plan had the 21 ft. set-back from the curb to the front of the porch. City Planner Greg Schindler said the plan that was submitted did not show the 21 foot set-back.
Board Member Taylor said that you can visually see that they had not met the set-back requirements. She said even with a large pile of dirt there you would be able to get accurate measurements. She said you can just tell visually that it’s too close to the other property. She said she wouldn’t build a shed let alone a home without an exact survey.
Chairman Chandler said the responsibility lays with the contractor not the City to make sure all set-backs are met.
Board Member Wareham said there were red flags all through this process that you should have had a survey done and they were all ignored.
Board Member Taylor said that is why the City has ordinances in place and the ordinances need to be followed. She said this house if built could be re-sold in a couple of years and the new owners could come back and bring legal action against the City for allowing it to be built. If it is not done correctly and safely, it should not be done.
The applicants, planners and Board Members talked about various changes they could make to the home to bring it into compliance. They pointed out the different variance issues on a site map.
Chairman Chandler described the three variance issues, one is the 25 ft set-back for the front property line, a 10 foot set-back on the side, and one for the porch. The Board Members discussed what their responsibility is in this meeting and that they are here to approve or deny the variances and it will be all are approved or none will be approved.
Chairman Chandler reopened the Public Hearing for a late arrival with additional comments.
Mel Witt – 4177 West Sage Hill Road, Cedar Hills, Ut, said he represents Connie and Eric Christensen that live to the south. He said he is the architect that designed the home to the south of the property adjacent to the driveway. He said he was asked to be here for the property owners who are out of the country. He said they asked him to recommend the variance be denied. He said they went through a similar process and applied for a variance which was also denied. He said they want a solution however, this plan is not the solution. Mr. Witt submitted a two page statement from Eric and Connie Christensen. (Attachment A). He said they are objecting to the driveway on the property.
Chairman Chandler closed the Public Hearing.
Chairman Chandler reminded the Board members of the conditions that would have to be met in order to approve a variance. He said literal enforcement of the ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship, and that the hardship can not be self imposed or economic; that there are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone and those special circumstances exist only if they relate to the hardship complained of and the property owner is deprived of privileges granted to other properties in the same zone which would be R-1.8. The third finding would be that the granting of the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the zone.
Board Member Wareham stated that all of these errors discussed were the applicants’ errors. He said the applicant clearly created his own problems and hardships because of his own actions.
B. Potential Action Item (See III. A.)
Board Member Teeples motioned to deny all variances based on no hardship findings of the Board and the Spirit of the Land Use has not been observed. Board Member Wareham seconded the motion. Motion to deny all variances passed unanimously.
V OTHER BUSINESS
A. Calendaring Items
None
B. Planning Department Matters
None
VI ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Wareham motioned to adjourn. Board Member Fallows seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor to adjourn.
The May 23, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
This is a true and correct copy of the May 23, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting minutes, which were approved on August 15, 2007.
South Jordan City Recorder