[0:10] I make a

[0:12] >> Okay,

[0:12] >> I'll make a motion to approve me or the

[0:14] notes.

[0:14] >> Second.

[0:15] >> Okay. All in favor say I.

[0:16] >> I.

[0:18] >> Okay. Minutes are approved.

[0:25] Thank you. I did something right over

[0:27] there today.

[0:29] Okay, our first case tonight is case

[0:31] 2026-5.

[0:35] This is a

[0:38] variance to reduce a setback at 2898

[0:42] Washington Boulevard.

[0:45] Do we have the petitioner Nicholas

[0:47] Garcia here tonight? Would you like to

[0:50] come up and just introduce yourself and

[0:53] explain to us what you're doing?

[0:56] >> Yeah. Um, so I'm Nicholas Garcia. I'm

[0:59] actually the project manager on this uh

[1:02] redevelopment project that we have

[1:03] going. Um, at that location, it's the

[1:06] old Redhanger laundromat. Um, basically

[1:09] what the concept is is that we're

[1:11] building out a

[1:14] like a basically a business center for

[1:15] entrepreneurs. They can come together.

[1:17] So, it's a a group of entrepreneurs that

[1:20] bought the building. Um they're going to

[1:22] use it for basically personal business

[1:23] space where they can hold meetings,

[1:25] small gatherings. Um and then we are are

[1:29] putting in a addition for like a pickle

[1:31] ball court for private use basically on

[1:33] the site um on the

[1:37] see the south side of the building. And

[1:38] that's where we're coming into the issue

[1:40] with with some of the setbacks is

[1:42] meeting the city code for uh parking

[1:45] stalls um to basically make up the

[1:50] amount of square footage that that

[1:51] addition would bring it up to.

[1:55] >> Great. Great. Do we have any questions?

[1:59] >> We don't have any questions at this

[2:02] time. We'll allow the city to tell us

[2:05] what their findings were.

[2:07] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:08] >> Thanks.

[2:14] » Hello everyone.

[2:17] This uh is a request for variance to

[2:19] reduce the east or the rear yard setback

[2:22] in the regional commercial zone of CP3

[2:25] at 2898 Washington Boulevard.

[2:31] This is uh there are three parcels

[2:35] and this is located in the east central

[2:37] community plan. This is the location map

[2:40] of where this is at. So it's the

[2:43] northeast corner of Washington and 29th.

[2:48] And the applicant is requesting a

[2:50] variance to reduce the rear yard setback

[2:52] from 10 feet to 5 feet on the east

[2:55] property line located at that address.

[3:00] Under the com regional commercial site

[3:03] development stand standards, there are

[3:05] no front or sideyard facing a street uh

[3:09] setbacks.

[3:12] But if there's a parking lot, they are

[3:14] required to maintain a 15t sideyard

[3:17] facing a street setback.

[3:20] The same is uh for the rear. There isn't

[3:23] a setback unless there's a parking lot

[3:26] at wi in which case um a 10- foot

[3:29] landscape buffer is required because the

[3:33] site is adjacent to the R2EC

[3:37] residential zone.

[3:41] These are the three parcels that will

[3:43] need to be combined before any permits

[3:45] or um

[3:49] reviews are issued.

[3:53] The building was built in 1954

[3:57] and was the former Redhanger building.

[4:01] It's been vacant since about 2019.

[4:05] The existing canopy, you can barely see

[4:08] it in that picture, but there's an

[4:10] existing canopy that will be demolished,

[4:12] and this will be for private office uh

[4:15] building space.

[4:20] When we're looking at the

[4:25] criteria for variance, we're looking at

[4:28] Utah State Code 109A72.

[4:32] And these are the five criteria.

[4:38] This is a picture of the proposed site

[4:40] plan.

[4:42] The literal 10-foot rear yard setback

[4:46] would create an unreasonable hardship by

[4:49] eliminating those nine parking stalls on

[4:52] the east side.

[4:54] Uh these nine spaces are needed to serve

[4:57] the proposed use.

[4:59] The location of the existing building

[5:02] restricts the amount of usable space on

[5:06] uh both those areas to the south and the

[5:10] east.

[5:11] Because of the foot 15 foot sideyard

[5:14] setback that's required along 29th

[5:17] Street, there isn't enough room for

[5:19] parking and maneuver maneuverability of

[5:22] that. So the parking is being moved to

[5:26] the east side.

[5:29] Reducing the rear yard set back from 10

[5:31] to 5 feet would provide sufficient space

[5:35] for parking stalls as well as that

[5:37] maneuvering.

[5:41] The 10-foot

[5:43] setback is required to provide screening

[5:48] and to mitigate the impacts of

[5:49] development adjacent to residential zone

[5:53] property.

[5:54] This setback is intended to reduce

[5:57] effects of lighting, noise, privacy

[5:59] concerns, visual impacts, and access

[6:03] restriction.

[6:06] Because the applicant is requesting to

[6:08] reduce the required setback from 10 to

[6:11] 5t, installation of a solid wood, vinyl,

[6:15] or masonry fence is required along with

[6:19] a densely planted landscaped area. This

[6:23] is a picture of the residential directly

[6:26] adjacent to the red hangar location.

[6:30] This is an example of what that uh

[6:34] buffer could look like. Uh I chose the

[6:37] solid wood fence, but they have the

[6:39] option to do either vinyl or masonry and

[6:43] then evergreen planting along that side.

[6:46] As you can tell, uh the picture on the

[6:49] right shows a closeup of that parking

[6:51] that will be located on the east side.

[6:54] This will need to have curb and gutter

[6:57] because that'll keep everything in its

[7:00] place and provide a parking stop for

[7:03] those parked cars.

[7:09] This former Redhanger site has existed

[7:14] for quite a long time.

[7:17] and has been vacant for almost as long

[7:20] since 2019.

[7:22] The reuse of an existing building

[7:25] presents challenges and special

[7:27] circumstances that others in the same

[7:29] zone do not have. The existing location

[7:34] of the building on the site is a special

[7:36] circumstance attached to the property as

[7:40] this limits compliance with the current

[7:42] zoning ordinance.

[7:48] When we're looking at all the different

[7:50] types of criteria that we have to look

[7:52] at, we want to make sure that the

[7:54] general plan

[7:56] that the variance is consistent with the

[7:58] general plan and is

[8:02] not contrary to public interests.

[8:05] The general plan because it facilitates

[8:08] the occupancy of adaptive reuse of an

[8:11] existing vacant commercial building as a

[8:14] private office is consistent with the

[8:17] goal of for found in the general plan

[8:19] 14B8

[8:22] which is to encourage the preservation

[8:25] and reuse of vacant buildings whenever

[8:28] possible. And this will be one of those

[8:32] reuses.

[8:34] The produ proposed reduction to the east

[8:36] side rear yard setback will continue to

[8:39] provide that landscape buffer between

[8:42] the commercial property and the

[8:43] residential property. The solid wood

[8:47] vinyl or masonry fence will provide that

[8:50] screening that's required along this

[8:53] property line. In addition, the

[8:57] redevelopment of the vacant building

[9:00] and the site will promote ongoing

[9:02] maintenance

[9:04] investment in the property and this is

[9:07] not contrary to public interests. This

[9:10] is exactly what we want.

[9:13] The spirit of the zoning ordinance is

[9:16] observed because the reduced setback

[9:19] still require still provides that

[9:21] required buffer and the screening and

[9:24] substantial justice is achieved by

[9:26] allowing reasonable not uh modification

[9:29] of the site development standards

[9:32] for the re regional commercial zone. It

[9:35] maintains the intent of the setback

[9:37] requirement and supports the productive

[9:40] reuse of vacant property.

[9:44] Therefore, staff recommends approval of

[9:46] the variance to reduce the required

[9:48] 10-ft rear yard setback buffer on the

[9:51] east side to 5 ft for a private office

[9:54] located at 2898 Washington Boulevard on

[9:58] the following condition.

[10:00] that they install a solid wood, vinyl,

[10:02] or masonry fence along the east property

[10:05] line and the five- foot setback to

[10:07] include dense planting of evergreen

[10:09] shrubs, trees that will create that

[10:11] buffer for the adjoining residential

[10:14] neighbor. Are there any questions?

[10:19] >> I just want you mentioned that you're

[10:21] putting the curb in as a curb stop so

[10:23] the cars don't roll over. you the curb

[10:27] you the the hood of a car or the fronts

[10:29] of cars will still go into the

[10:30] landscaping though. Will you actually

[10:32] have a curb stop a little before the

[10:35] >> There there might be that requirement.

[10:37] >> Okay.

[10:40] » And that'll be done through the site

[10:42] plan review.

[10:45] » So I'm fine with the east side of it.

[10:48] The pickle ball court itself is going

[10:50] out on the corner where that porch

[10:52] basically is. So, if we look at the

[10:55] proposed addition that's located in the

[10:57] south part of that site, that's where

[11:01] the court will go.

[11:03] >> And the the five foot setback is from

[11:05] the curb or I mean, excuse me, from the

[11:06] sidewalk

[11:07] >> from the east property line

[11:10] >> is the five foot setback. This court is

[11:13] sitting how close to the sidewalk. So,

[11:16] there's no requirement for buildings to

[11:19] have a setback for the front or the

[11:21] sideyard. Only the parking lot requires

[11:24] a setback in that regional commercial

[11:26] zone.

[11:26] >> Okay. So, we still have a pickle ball

[11:28] court on this corner, though. That's 3

[11:30] feet from the sidewalk.

[11:32] >> Mhm.

[11:33] >> And there's a fence up on that.

[11:35] >> Um

[11:36] >> I mean corner, you can't have a fence.

[11:37] So, it's got to have some

[11:38] >> It'll be enclosed. Pardon me. It'll be

[11:40] enclosed.

[11:42] >> It's going to be enclosed into the

[11:43] building.

[11:43] >> Yes.

[11:53] So, there's no setback requirement for a

[11:56] solid building on a corner lot.

[11:58] >> No, there

[11:59] >> off that. Okay.

[12:02] I was big as sure was inside or outside.

[12:03] I was like, that seems odd, but okay,

[12:05] great.

[12:05] >> Yep. It if you were to look in the

[12:07] report, um I did provide some elevations

[12:10] of what that will look like. So that

[12:12] taller section of the building will be

[12:15] the uh sports court.

[12:18] >> Excellent.

[12:19] >> Great. Any other questions?

[12:23] >> Thank you.

[12:29] » Are there any interested parties that

[12:31] would like to speak regarding this?

[12:33] >> Mr. Chair, you could only have the

[12:36] applicant speak and other people.

[12:39] >> First mistake.

[12:41] >> Yeah. Okay, great. Okay. Uh, do we have

[12:45] any motion?

[12:50] Well, I I'm morally opposed to pickle

[12:52] ball, but I'll I'll move [laughter]

[12:55] that we approve the variance and find

[12:57] that the literal enforcement of the land

[12:59] use ordinance would cause an

[13:01] unreasonable hardship, that there are

[13:03] special cons circumstances attached to

[13:05] the property, that granting the variance

[13:07] is essential to the enjoyment of the

[13:09] substantial property right possessed by

[13:11] other property in the same zone, that

[13:12] the variance will not substantially

[13:14] affect the general plan or be contrary

[13:17] to the public interest, and that the

[13:18] spirit of the zoning ordinance is

[13:20] observed and substantial justice is

[13:23] done. Uh along with the condition uh

[13:27] proposed by staff that a wood fence and

[13:30] landscaping uh be placed in the 5- foot

[13:33] setback area.

[13:36] >> Great.

[13:36] >> I'll second the motion.

[13:38] >> Second. So, we have a motion to approve

[13:40] by board member Lance Evans

[13:45] and a motion to and a second by board

[13:48] member Scott Lson.

[13:52] » Roll call.

[13:53] >> Chair Caspersonson.

[13:55] >> Yes.

[13:58] » Board member Evans.

[14:00] >> Yes.

[14:01] >> Board member Larson.

[14:02] >> Yes.

[14:03] >> Okay, you're good to go. Thank you.

[14:08] Okay.

[14:10] Our second item of business is

[14:14] case 2026-6.

[14:18] And this is a variance to allow outdoor

[14:21] storage on an adjacent lot at 1877 West

[14:26] 2800 South for Connect. Do we have the

[14:31] petitioner?

[14:33] Please come forward and just tell us

[14:35] exactly what you're doing. give us your

[14:36] name. And

[14:39] >> good afternoon. My name is Matthew Brown

[14:41] and I'm representing Connect LLC today.

[14:44] Um, we're an internet service provider

[14:46] and we're bu building fiber optic

[14:47] infrastructure and we're building Augen

[14:49] City currently, which you guys might

[14:51] hate us for that, but but um and we have

[14:54] over 100 employees. The majority of

[14:56] those employees actually currently um

[14:58] working in Ogden City right now. Um,

[15:02] this is actually our our new

[15:04] headquarters. We're trying to make it

[15:05] our new headquarter location. Um we're

[15:09] leasing space that um across multiple

[15:12] parcels. So our our headquarters office

[15:14] space, you know, and then there's the

[15:16] yard and then there's an annex building.

[15:18] And so we're essentially leasing

[15:20] property across four contiguous um

[15:23] parcels. And that's where the issue is

[15:26] arisen from a site plan standpoint. And

[15:29] so this is just a a narrow request.

[15:32] We're not requesting a zoning change,

[15:34] new construction, or a new use. We are

[15:36] requesting relief from the application

[15:38] of OMC 15-23-5

[15:42] uh B1 so this longestablished industrial

[15:45] site can continue operating without

[15:47] requiring additional parcel

[15:49] consolidation.

[15:51] It's essentially the gist of it.

[15:53] I just wanted to say thank you though to

[15:55] the board and also for Jennifer the

[15:58] staff here at Aug City for the help that

[16:01] they've given us in getting this

[16:03] application submitted and getting to

[16:05] where we are right now. So thank you for

[16:06] your time.

[16:07] >> Great. You have any questions for me

[16:09] before?

[16:10] >> I don't I don't have any questions.

[16:13] Okay. Thank you. The city like to give

[16:16] us our findings.

[16:21] » All right. So, our second item is a

[16:23] request to allow outdoor storage in the

[16:25] front yard of an adjacent lot for

[16:28] Connects LLC

[16:30] at 1877 West 2800 South.

[16:36] There are three lots um that Connects

[16:40] will be using for outdoor storage. The

[16:43] property is located in the Ogden

[16:46] commercial industrial park zone and the

[16:49] parcel that they are requesting the

[16:51] variance on is approximately 1822 West

[16:55] 29th Street. This is what it uh on the

[16:59] location map it's pointing pointing to

[17:01] that particular parcel.

[17:07] The request for the variance is to allow

[17:09] outdoor storage in the front yard se uh

[17:11] front yard of an adjacent lot without

[17:15] requiring additional parcel combinations

[17:17] or subdivision action.

[17:22] This is a picture of the proposed layout

[17:26] of where they're going to be placing

[17:28] their storage. This is marked in red.

[17:32] So that parcel 0014

[17:35] shows the two areas that they're going

[17:37] to be storing. And then in the rear of

[17:40] that property is the um annex building

[17:44] or the storage warehouse type building.

[17:51] The green indicates uh where landscaping

[17:55] will be required.

[17:58] uh connects as a fiber internet service

[18:00] provider

[18:02] for the surrounding area and the

[18:04] proposed use is classified as a general

[18:06] contractor use in accordance with Ogden

[18:10] MUN municipal code section 15235B

[18:15] where outdoor storage is permitted. It

[18:19] is it must be located either to the side

[18:21] or the rear of the principal building.

[18:25] Outdoor storage must not exceed the

[18:27] height of a the required screened fence

[18:30] which is seven feet tall.

[18:33] And the

[18:37] uh height of the fence must be screened

[18:40] to minimize potential negative impacts

[18:43] from views of the rightway. So, as

[18:46] people are driving down 1900 West or

[18:49] 2900 South, they're not seeing that

[18:52] outdoor storage.

[18:57] The shed building was approved in 2002.

[19:03] This is the three parcels.

[19:06] So the three parcels are owned by

[19:09] different railbrite members

[19:12] and they don't wish to consolidate

[19:15] because the site already functions as

[19:17] one industrial site.

[19:22] This structure that was approved back in

[19:24] 2002.

[19:26] Uh this is the site plan for that

[19:28] approval.

[19:30] And at that time they were supposed to

[19:33] put in the 20ft set sideyard facing a

[19:36] street setback. So that's 2900 south on

[19:39] the south side. That was supposed to be

[19:43] um the setback that was supposed to have

[19:46] landscaping.

[19:47] This was never done. So this would be a

[19:51] requirement for the approval of the

[19:53] variance.

[19:57] When we're looking at those requests for

[20:00] variances, we have to look at Utah State

[20:02] Code 109A702.

[20:05] And these are the five criteria.

[20:12] The applicant's operational needs

[20:15] require the storage area to be located

[20:18] on the adjacent parcels

[20:20] and strict application of the ordinance

[20:24] would prevent the use of that land as it

[20:27] is leased area.

[20:30] Granting the variance would allow for

[20:31] that outdoor storage

[20:34] and would allow the property to be used

[20:37] in a manner that is consistent with the

[20:40] surrounding industrial and commercial

[20:42] areas

[20:43] while maintaining the intent of the

[20:45] ordinance.

[20:48] So this is a picture of what that fence

[20:50] looks like right now and the storage.

[20:54] This will have to be moved um and 20

[20:57] feet will have to be measured out from

[21:00] that fence because that's where the

[21:01] property line is. That will have to be

[21:04] landscaped and the fence would have to

[21:06] have privacy slats. This will be uh a

[21:10] way to mitigate that outdoor outdoor

[21:13] space.

[21:17] So, as we're looking at the three

[21:21] contiguous parcels that are being used,

[21:24] ConX rents the uh or leases the building

[21:28] up on the northeast corner and then they

[21:31] have used the storage of parcel 11 in

[21:36] the back for some of their equipment.

[21:39] and they're requesting the sto outdoor

[21:42] storage for lot 0014.

[21:48] The property is relatively flat and it

[21:52] has a standard rectangular

[21:54] configuration. It's not um doesn't

[21:58] really have this physical constraints.

[22:01] The accessory storage shed is located at

[22:04] the rear of that parcel and the

[22:07] remainder of the parcel remains vacant.

[22:11] The applicant currently leases all those

[22:14] areas that are shown in red.

[22:17] Um the requested variance would allow

[22:20] that outdoor storage.

[22:23] Although they're separate legal lots,

[22:26] they do function together.

[22:29] This is the unique circumstance attached

[22:32] to the property

[22:35] uh that

[22:37] limits the applicant's ability to have

[22:40] outdoor storage if literal enforcement

[22:43] of that

[22:45] ordinance were to be enforced.

[22:50] So by allowing that storage in the front

[22:53] set back that um that would allow them

[22:57] to utilize that property

[23:00] in the best way possible

[23:03] even though the site doesn't contain a

[23:06] principal building. The outdoor storage

[23:10] standards would effect effectively

[23:12] prevent the applicant from using the

[23:14] parcel for outdoor storage. They require

[23:18] quite a bit of outdoor storage and they

[23:20] need this amount of space.

[23:25] Despite it functioning as an overall

[23:27] industrial site, the

[23:31] um

[23:32] the outdoor storage standards would

[23:35] prevent the applicant from using it the

[23:37] way they need to.

[23:40] The purpose of the Ogden

[23:43] commercial industrial park is to provide

[23:45] attractive and safe environments for

[23:49] manufacturing enterprises, research

[23:52] laboratories, warehousing and

[23:54] distribution wholesalers.

[23:57] The zone is intended to maintain a

[23:59] unified and coordinated appearance for

[24:02] development

[24:04] uh visible from public streets. So this

[24:07] is a view of from 1900 west.

[24:11] Um it's a little hard to see but there

[24:13] is no screening on that side that faces

[24:16] 2900 south.

[24:19] So the 20ft sideyard facing a street

[24:22] setback would be required as well as the

[24:25] privacy slats for this use.

[24:30] Another

[24:32] factor that needs to be considered is

[24:36] the fact that these three parcels are

[24:38] separate. Therefore, they would require

[24:42] a cross access easement. So, this is an

[24:45] easement that is recorded that allows

[24:49] legal it's a legal agreement between

[24:52] property owners to allow shared access

[24:55] along property lines. So this would

[24:58] allow them to cross those property lines

[25:02] and ensures uh that it is recorded and

[25:06] permanent access rights are in place.

[25:11] So rather than having a potential

[25:15] buyer for one of those separate parcels

[25:18] and they don't want to give access to

[25:21] that to conx or connects um by recording

[25:27] those cross accessments

[25:30] we're ensuring that that gets um

[25:33] recorded and make sure that that's in

[25:36] place.

[25:40] Staff recommends approval for the

[25:42] variance to allow outdoor storage in the

[25:44] front yard parcel of 15-109-000014

[25:50] on the following conditions. The

[25:52] required 20ft sideyard facing a street

[25:55] setback be densely landscaped and the

[25:58] fence be fitted with privacy slats to

[26:01] minimize the visibility from the public

[26:03] way. And then the second is to record

[26:07] cross-axis easements for all three

[26:10] parcels with Weber County.

[26:13] Are there any questions?

[26:16] >> Yeah. So will Rights are hold going to

[26:18] keep retain ownership. This is a lease

[26:20] situation. Is there access from the

[26:22] south or is it only from the north?

[26:24] >> There is access from the south. They're

[26:26] not going to be using the access to the

[26:28] south. If you were to look in the lower

[26:33] souththeast corner, there is an approach

[26:36] there.

[26:36] >> Okay.

[26:37] >> So, that's a possibility, but

[26:39] >> but not planning on it.

[26:40] >> They're not planning on it. They're

[26:42] >> the current the current fence is not 20

[26:44] ft back. So, they need to replace the

[26:45] fence or move the fence.

[26:47] >> Um the fence is right on the property

[26:49] line. So, that would need to be have

[26:52] privacy slats on it. So the

[26:55] >> behind it, yeah, behind it would be the

[26:58] 20 foot setback that would have the

[27:00] landscaping.

[27:01] >> So they could do landscaping in front of

[27:03] and behind the fence.

[27:04] >> There is landscaping already in front of

[27:06] the fence. There's some

[27:08] >> questionable

[27:09] >> some Yeah, there are some trees there,

[27:12] but not enough to screen the outdoor

[27:14] storage.

[27:15] >> So the requirement is for them to

[27:17] install more landscaping. Ex.

[27:20] >> Yes.

[27:21] >> Okay.

[27:22] So, the current fence can stay where

[27:23] it's at and have the slashes put in.

[27:26] >> Yeah. Okay,

[27:27] >> that's correct.

[27:29] >> Great.

[27:29] >> Does that make sense? So, the the fence

[27:32] will have privacy slats and then behind

[27:34] it there will be some more um

[27:38] landscaping. Landscaping is required in

[27:41] all setbacks.

[27:47] How long uh will the I mean this is

[27:51] going to run with the land, right? This

[27:52] variance.

[27:52] >> This will run with the land. Yes.

[27:55] >> And so they have a lease between all

[27:58] three property owners.

[27:59] >> Mhm.

[28:00] >> They'll have an easement with all three

[28:01] property owners, but we're not going to

[28:03] join the parcels together.

[28:05] >> They do not want to. And this was the

[28:08] option that was

[28:11] >> okay

[28:11] >> was what they took. And if when if

[28:14] connects goes away, they'll maintain

[28:16] this right to just keep using this as

[28:18] outdoor storage.

[28:20] >> Um

[28:22] probably

[28:25] » it's in perpetuity. Really doesn't mean

[28:27] it has to stay there forever.

[28:28] >> Well, they'd have the right to keep it.

[28:30] So we're we're granting the right in

[28:33] perpetuity.

[28:34] >> Yes.

[28:40] » Thank you. They do have to have a

[28:42] business here in Ogden. They can't just

[28:44] use it the the parcel for storage. If

[28:47] they go somewhere else, that that's got

[28:51] to have some sort of connection to the

[28:54] business. And this is, you know, just

[28:58] using the site as it is normally being

[29:00] used.

[29:02] >> It's how it's being used today. Yeah.

[29:07] >> Thank you. Anything

[29:11] else from the petitioner?

[29:14] >> I'm trying not to get stuck on the

[29:16] principle of it.

[29:17] >> One thing I wanted to I mean she kind of

[29:19] talked about it already, but talking

[29:21] about how the south there was an

[29:22] entrance or on the southeast corner.

[29:25] It's not even hard surface coming in. So

[29:27] it's actually never really even been

[29:29] used in a network

[29:31] which I think kind of supports the the

[29:33] continuous parcels and the integrated

[29:36] you know side of the entire all the part

[29:38] combined together that kind of supports

[29:40] that was our intention when we we did

[29:42] this oh this is perfect

[29:45] just to point that out it doesn't even

[29:46] have a hard hard driveway coming into

[29:50] >> the approach the approach doesn't exist

[29:52] necessarily the right to use is there

[29:54] but no approach

[29:56] >> we just kind of thought, "Oh, that is

[29:57] the backyard, you know, kind of thing."

[29:59] But when it came down to the the

[30:01] specifics, then that's when it came up

[30:03] that was front yard.

[30:08] >> Maybe not that all that pertinent, but

[30:09] what kind of lease are you signing with

[30:11] them time frame wise?

[30:14] >> Okay.

[30:16] >> With right to renew or

[30:17] >> Yes.

[30:19] >> Right. Okay.

[30:23] Any other questions?

[30:25] Anybody want to make a move?

[30:28] >> Well, if we want to roll back to our

[30:29] five criteria, I'm happy to make a move.

[30:36] » All right. I propose that uh based on

[30:39] the uh to grant the variance based on

[30:42] the literal enforcement of the land use

[30:44] ordinance would cause an unreasonable

[30:46] hardship for the applicant. That is not

[30:47] necessary to carry out the general

[30:48] purpose of the ordinance. Two, there are

[30:51] no spe there are special circumstance

[30:52] attached to the property. do not

[30:54] generally apply to other properties in

[30:55] the same zone. Three, granting the

[30:57] variance is essential to the enjoyment

[30:59] of a substantial property right

[31:01] possessed by other properties in the

[31:02] same zone. Four, the variance will not

[31:05] substantially affect the general plan

[31:06] and will not be contrary to the public

[31:08] interest. And five, the spirit of the

[31:10] zoning ordinance is observed and

[31:11] substantial justice is done along with

[31:13] the caveat of uh the two uh uh

[31:16] guidelines from staff that there is a

[31:19] 20ft uh um setback with the um densely

[31:25] landscaped uh privacy being put in there

[31:28] and the privacy slats into the fence as

[31:30] well. The cross access easements for all

[31:33] three realight properties be in place

[31:35] and recorded.

[31:38] Do I hear a second?

[31:40] >> I'll second.

[31:41] >> Okay.

[31:43] Motion to approve has been made by board

[31:45] member Larson and a second by board

[31:48] member Evans.

[31:50] >> Chairperson.

[31:51] >> Yes.

[31:53] >> Board member Evans.

[31:57] » Yes.

[31:58] >> Board member Larson.

[32:00] >> Yes. Okay. You're good to go. It's been

[32:04] approved. Thank you.

[32:07] Okay, our

[32:10] third one today is

[32:13] case number 2026-7.

[32:16] Variance from the business exchange

[32:20] historical parking lot setbacks for the

[32:23] >> Exchange building located at 600 West

[32:26] Exchange Road.

[32:27] >> Is the applicant here? Would you like to

[32:29] tell us what you're doing?

[32:33] » State your name, please.

[32:35] My name is Thane Fischer and I am the uh

[32:38] developer for the acting developer for

[32:40] the exchange building. Uh and we are

[32:44] basically trying to get parking has it

[32:46] historically represented in the building

[32:49] uh and have the access public access to

[32:53] the front of the building as well as our

[32:55] handicap and ADA access to the front as

[32:58] well. And so currently the setbacks do

[33:01] not allow that. Uh for us to give a

[33:04] public access to the building without

[33:06] putting public access around the side or

[33:09] the back which it has never historically

[33:11] been the primary access point. Uh we are

[33:14] making this request.

[33:17] >> Great. Thank you.

[33:19] Any questions?

[33:22] >> No.

[33:22] questions. You're good. Perfect.

[33:26] [laughter]

[33:32] All right, this is an exciting project.

[33:35] I'm sure all of you are familiar with

[33:37] the Exchange building

[33:41] and this is located at approximately 600

[33:44] West Exchange Road.

[33:47] The building was built around 1931

[33:52] and the site is about 1.8 of an acre.

[33:56] The building will have approximately

[33:58] 16,800 square feet. It'll be a two-story

[34:01] building restored.

[34:03] It's currently vacant, but it will be

[34:06] restored as office space. And this is

[34:09] the location map to the right.

[34:15] The applicant is requesting a variance

[34:17] to reduce the business exchange historic

[34:20] setbacks to 10 ft for the site.

[34:25] The um exchange building is locally

[34:28] significant.

[34:30] Uh it's a historic resource that is

[34:33] associated with our livestock in

[34:36] industry and it's contribution to our

[34:39] economic

[34:40] uh development for Ogden City. This

[34:43] building is a art deco design

[34:47] and the building f features brick

[34:50] veneer, cast concrete and terracotta.

[34:55] The detailing reflects the prominence

[34:58] that the Ogden Union stockyards and its

[35:02] role on the livestock industry. This is

[35:05] a picture of what that layout looked

[35:07] like. So, in the front there was

[35:10] landscaping

[35:11] um and then a driveway and then the

[35:15] parking in the front and to the east

[35:17] side and then the stock yards are

[35:20] located in the back.

[35:22] Um

[35:24] the business exchange historical zone is

[35:28] a special district.

[35:30] It's surrounded or the main focal point

[35:33] is the business exchange building. This

[35:36] is a historic resource that creates the

[35:40] opportunity to preserve that history

[35:43] of the area while allowing for

[35:46] developments and compatible uses such as

[35:49] industrial research like manufacturing

[35:52] and the like. And the district is

[35:55] intended to interpret the history of

[35:59] earlier developments of the area.

[36:03] the proposed redevelopment to restore

[36:06] the building's historic character while

[36:10] adapting it for office use. The This is

[36:14] what it looks like. It's probably in

[36:17] worse disrepair than

[36:20] this picture. [laughter]

[36:22] Uh last time I checked it had more

[36:24] crumbling to it.

[36:26] Um the building is currently vacant and

[36:29] the pro proposed site plan includes

[36:32] about 96 95 parking stalls

[36:36] with minimal landscaping.

[36:39] Uh the parking layout will uh require

[36:43] revisions to its layout. The picture to

[36:47] the left shows where they're proposing

[36:50] parking and the additional parking to

[36:54] the east and to the north.

[36:58] So, in this drawing, they did not

[37:01] address the ADA. That will have to be um

[37:04] included in the site plan.

[37:08] Um

[37:10] for that number of parking styles, it

[37:12] would require about four ADA parking

[37:14] spaces.

[37:19] When we're looking at the

[37:22] granting of a variance to reduce that

[37:25] setback

[37:27] to 10 ft for the front and the sideyard

[37:30] facing a street, we have to consider the

[37:32] five criteria.

[37:34] And these are the the five criteria

[37:38] listed in 109A72.

[37:45] The literal enforcement of the 25- foot

[37:48] front yard setback and the 20 foot

[37:50] sideyard setback would create an

[37:53] unreasonable hardship by eliminating

[37:56] substantial um functioning parking area

[38:01] along the exchange road frontage.

[38:04] Historically, parking has been located

[38:08] in the front of the building and along

[38:10] its east side.

[38:12] Due to the location of the historic

[38:14] building um on the site and the required

[38:18] setbacks, opportunities to relocate that

[38:22] parking to other areas of the property

[38:24] are limited.

[38:27] A factor that has to be considered is

[38:30] historically there has been landscaping

[38:32] also in front uh of the building. So

[38:36] right up next to the to the front facade

[38:38] of the building there has always been

[38:40] landscaping.

[38:43] The

[38:45] as a condition of approval for the

[38:47] variance to reduce those setbacks.

[38:50] staff is recommending that a 10-foot

[38:54] landscaped area be installed in front of

[38:57] the building and on both sides of the

[39:01] front of the stairs. So, if you look at

[39:03] this picture, you can see the stairs

[39:05] that lead up to the front three glass

[39:08] panes. There's um landscaping on either

[39:12] side of that.

[39:14] So, we're requiring a reduction of that

[39:17] and having at least a 10-foot setback

[39:20] that will provide that landscaping in

[39:24] addition to that parking.

[39:28] With that landscaping,

[39:30] the modification of the parking lot

[39:33] would have to be done.

[39:37] This is an example of what it could look

[39:39] like. So, we have two approaches going

[39:41] in towards the front and some parallel

[39:45] parking stalls in front of the 10-ft

[39:48] landscaped area. The areas shown in

[39:51] green show where landscaping should be

[39:54] installed.

[39:56] And this is just a a general

[40:00] um possible revised parking lot layout.

[40:06] the um

[40:10] when looking at the other criteria, we

[40:13] want to really focus on the general plan

[40:16] chapter 4 and that's community identity.

[40:20] This is ensuring and encouraging the

[40:22] appropriate preservation, protection,

[40:25] enhancements, and rehabilitation of the

[40:28] sites and the districts.

[40:31] A lot of people don't put uh value in

[40:34] the landscaping, but landscaping can be

[40:37] an extension of that architecture.

[40:40] It creates a space that tells a story.

[40:44] It's an opportunity to tell the story of

[40:46] the history of the building.

[40:49] That's why we are recommending

[40:52] that that be put in place.

[40:58] The

[41:00] goal of the G Oh, the goal of the

[41:02] general plan is that community identity.

[41:06] Ogden City's historic buildings are the

[41:09] city's greatest assets.

[41:12] The exchange building is the focal point

[41:14] of the business exchange historical zone

[41:18] and the rehabilitation of the building

[41:20] provides a great opportunity to preserve

[41:23] that history and building and its

[41:25] enhancements.

[41:28] The important part of that architectural

[41:31] design is its enhancements.

[41:34] This includes the landscaping.

[41:38] Um,

[41:41] as a condition of approval, we're going

[41:43] to request that

[41:46] 10-ft landscaping. The design preserves

[41:50] the historic parking pattern

[41:53] associated with the property while

[41:55] incorporating the additional landscaping

[41:58] improvements that enhance the

[42:00] architecture of the building. It better

[42:03] aligns with the current site design

[42:05] standards

[42:07] and the proposed modifications provide a

[42:10] balance between those

[42:14] uh preserving the historic character of

[42:16] this building

[42:18] and creating a functional site that

[42:20] meets contemporary development

[42:23] requirements and expectations.

[42:29] Therefore, staff re recommends approval

[42:31] of the variance to reduce the front and

[42:33] the sideyard facing a street setbacks to

[42:36] 10 ft to accommodate parking in the

[42:38] front and the east side of the exchange

[42:40] building on the following conditions.

[42:43] Provide a 10-ft landscaped area along

[42:47] the front of the exchange building

[42:49] adjacent to its facade. So, right up

[42:52] against the building.

[42:54] modify the parking lot in the front and

[42:56] the sideyard facing a street to

[42:58] accommodate the required landscaping.

[43:02] Do you have any questions?

[43:07] » Um, is the landscaping an issue with the

[43:12] applicant at all?

[43:15] » Um,

[43:17] >> is that just something you guys have put

[43:18] in? Are they not wanting to put it in?

[43:19] I'm just curious.

[43:21] Yeah, the original site plan didn't have

[43:24] any landscaping

[43:27] and we are trying to

[43:30] put back what was historically there. So

[43:33] the parking was historically there but

[43:36] also the landscaping.

[43:38] It's a part of the general plan. It

[43:40] complies with those goals of community

[43:43] identity and preser preserving that

[43:45] history.

[43:46] And we think we feel it's a it's a good

[43:49] balance between the two.

[43:54] » Excuse me. Did do you want to say

[43:56] something about the landscaping?

[44:00] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

[44:03] >> Okay.

[44:07] » Thank you for the opportunity to make

[44:08] comments. Uh is it possible to go back

[44:10] to the plan that you had proposed with

[44:12] the landscaping? So, one of the

[44:14] challenges we're having uh with the pro

[44:17] uh with the parking also is the the

[44:20] number of parking stalls that we will

[44:21] need for the end user. This project

[44:25] really only works with the end user. Uh

[44:27] and it's very fluid project. We have a

[44:29] lot of entities from landmarks from

[44:32] planning uh really trying to make this

[44:34] all work. We do have an updated plan

[44:36] showing our handicap use. Uh we will put

[44:40] as much landscaping as we can as long as

[44:42] we can meet their requirement for their

[44:44] parking. Uh and then we're also trying

[44:47] to put you know one of the things when

[44:49] we ask for the RDA on this project is

[44:53] they wanted to have that lobby open to

[44:55] the public uh so the public could you

[44:58] know still come in and look at the

[45:00] historical use. The end user of this

[45:02] building is a um like a a military

[45:05] defense contractor. It's an engineering

[45:07] company, but their main client is the uh

[45:09] military, the DAD, DoD. And so we've

[45:13] worked with them to allow that to happen

[45:15] where we will have the lobby available,

[45:17] but we will need more of the angle

[45:20] parking that we have shown as well as uh

[45:23] and then we we can make the four ADA

[45:25] requirements which would be to the front

[45:28] uh lower side of the entry. It will also

[45:32] we put our handicap there uh that will

[45:35] meet the required ADA requirements uh

[45:38] with slope uh as well as you know uh we

[45:41] also have a delivery area so we can

[45:43] bring packages up through there. So

[45:45] there are some um requirements that are

[45:48] the endusers requirements that we're

[45:50] trying to address obviously stay uh

[45:54] within the historical

[45:56] uh shipo fed and uh landmarks

[46:00] requirements uh as well as landscaping

[46:03] requirements. So, it's a little bit of a

[46:04] Rubik's cube, but we would ask that um

[46:07] we can uh meet with planning and staff

[46:11] in order to uh achieve a common

[46:14] agreement on that. But there is a pretty

[46:17] hard number of parking stalls that we

[46:19] have to give them that uh would not

[46:22] include the public. So, we feel we can

[46:24] do that by putting the public where

[46:26] we've asked, but we do need it at an

[46:28] angle an angle process. Uh and I think

[46:31] on this one you can see that we do have

[46:33] a ramp there. We are landscaping the

[46:35] front uh very similar to what it was. Uh

[46:38] and we're also putting landscape to hide

[46:40] uh the ADA uh access point as well. Uh

[46:44] and we have updated drawings that we're

[46:46] more than happy to provide. Uh

[46:50] you know we're going to show them

[46:52] tomorrow at landmarks. Unfortunately the

[46:54] architect is traveling. I stepped in for

[46:56] him today. Uh and these plans are very

[46:59] fluid. So we'll have them available

[47:00] tomorrow.

[47:01] >> So you're talking about having landscape

[47:02] in the front though. You said landscape.

[47:04] >> Absolutely. Yeah.

[47:05] >> Do you have a problem with the 10 ft or

[47:06] you're just saying we need to get the

[47:07] angled back in there?

[47:08] >> We need to get the angle. We putting

[47:10] parallel parking to the front. We need the angled parking to

[47:13] accommodate that many stalls uh one for

[47:16] the as mentioned for the uh handicap but

[47:20] also giving public access to that front

[47:23] lobby. This is where we feel is the best area. we won't be able to bring

[47:28] them uh the public will not be able to

[47:31] enter from any of the other uh uh

[47:34] locations. So the rear exit as well as

[47:36] the side will not have public access

[47:39] because they'll be going into a secured

[47:40] site. So the lobby we are planning right

[47:43] now and if we can uh get approval

[47:45] through the historical uh agencies uh we

[47:49] will have that where you will be able to

[47:51] see it they'll be able to access it see

[47:52] the historical lobby but there'll be a

[47:54] glass wall that will require badge

[47:56] access uh to get back and so trying to

[48:00] keep the public ADA everything in the

[48:02] front of the building we do require the

[48:04] angle parking

[48:05] >> you need all 10.

[48:06] >> Yeah. So really the out of the two

[48:08] points, the first point is fine. It's

[48:09] just we need a little bit of latitude

[48:11] and flexibility with the landscaping uh

[48:14] as far as the rest of the uh of the

[48:17] project to get the the a number of units

[48:20] that number of parking stalls that we

[48:21] need and then also having our parking

[48:24] public parking in the front along with

[48:26] the ADA uh a access to the ADA ramp.

[48:31] What is your proposed generally

[48:33] landscaping in the front of it if it's

[48:34] not because the template setbacks too

[48:36] much is what you're saying?

[48:37] >> No, it's that really the setbacks is so

[48:39] that we can have access because

[48:40] currently we have the access point

[48:42] that's right in the middle on the south

[48:43] part or the the the the end the bottom

[48:46] part of the screen. Uh but we also are

[48:49] putting a uh we would go in, we'd have a

[48:51] oneway where people could park in the

[48:53] front and then they can exit to the to

[48:56] the west side. Uh and so that is uh what

[48:59] we are uh you know that would be new and

[49:02] that setback would uh reducing that

[49:04] setback would allow us to have a drive

[49:06] uh drive um lane there uh and then

[49:10] maximize the number of parking stalls

[49:12] for ADA and public to have access to the

[49:15] building as well as the lobby.

[49:17] >> So you guys can make it worth of the 10

[49:18] foot the 10-ft landscape buffer there.

[49:22] Yeah, we can we we just need we need to

[49:24] be able to have a drive lane that goes

[49:25] in there with the parking as far as the the landscaping in the front of the

[49:29] building. Uh there is area between where

[49:32] we have proposed the curb and the

[49:34] building itself for landscaping on the

[49:37] west side of the entry point. uh we are

[49:40] actually designing because that's going

[49:42] to be mostly uh a uh there'll be a

[49:45] sidewalk that will give us access to the

[49:47] public but there'll also be an ADA ramp

[49:49] and that is where we're looking to do

[49:50] the ADA ramp and that will be our only

[49:52] location for ADA

[49:55] which will be

[49:55] >> Oh, that's your double stack right

[49:56] there.

[49:57] >> Exactly. You can see so it' be basically

[49:59] behind there's the stairs that come up

[50:01] those uh we have to relocate those

[50:03] stairs a little bit to the uh to the

[50:05] west and then uh but you'll see that's

[50:07] where our ramp is as well. Okay.

[50:10] >> So, it's a little bit of a Rubik's cube

[50:12] for us. We're trying to I mean, if we

[50:14] had uh a little more flexibility, we

[50:16] would accommodate. We have We love

[50:18] landscaping as well, but we have some

[50:20] requirements that are put onto us by not

[50:23] only several different agencies, but

[50:24] also the end user.

[50:28] » So, we would request that we keep our

[50:30] angled parking.

[50:35] » Thank you.

[50:35] >> Any other questions before I turn

[50:37] around?

[50:38] >> Questions? Sorry to walk off the last

[50:39] one. No, you're fine. Thank you.

[50:41] >> All right. Thank you. [clears throat]

[50:43] Any other comments or concerns

[50:47] or

[50:47] >> I I just the staff's condition?

[50:51] >> Well, yeah, let's let's hear from

[50:52] Jennick.

[50:57] » So, when we're looking at parking

[51:01] requirements for an office building,

[51:04] it's usually one space per 300 square

[51:06] feet of building.

[51:08] Um, typically with the amount of

[51:12] proposed square footage, they would only

[51:14] need around 54 stalls. So 95 96 spaces

[51:21] is quite a bit more than what would be

[51:25] required.

[51:26] Um,

[51:31] so I I I think this would be a good

[51:34] compromise between those. Uh, six

[51:36] parking spaces for the public. That's

[51:40] more than adequate for

[51:43] anybody that would be going into that

[51:45] building for a visitation. I I would

[51:48] imagine.

[51:49] Um,

[51:52] so it it's basically up to you. But of

[51:55] those six that you have or seven you

[51:57] have up there, you're suggesting four of

[51:59] them have to be ADA.

[52:01] >> So we really have I mean three at that

[52:04] time for for general public.

[52:06] >> Correct.

[52:07] >> At the front door.

[52:08] >> Yeah. Which well

[52:10] >> and really you know that I don't

[52:13] understand why it couldn't be located

[52:16] off to the side with the path to the

[52:18] front. Um there's more space over there

[52:22] for ADA parking. Uh we typically require

[52:26] van size ADA parking stalls which

[52:30] require either eight ft for the stall

[52:34] 8ft access aisle

[52:36] um or the 115 formation

[52:42] and I believe there would be more room

[52:45] off to the side on the east side.

[52:51] What's What's past the west? Is a

[52:56] What's past their west property line?

[52:58] >> You can't go there.

[53:00] >> It's a no man's land. No person's land.

[53:03] >> No, it's a common area.

[53:05] >> It's a walkway.

[53:07] >> Yeah, it's just a walkway.

[53:10] >> Okay.

[53:10] >> Building.

[53:11] >> Yeah.

[53:12] >> Not sure you can see that on that.

[53:15] >> Okay. So, there's no chance there. Okay.

[53:18] Just had to ask question.

[53:23] You know, part of me goes back to like

[53:24] Sky Blue or Bloom or even Weber County

[53:26] transfer station.

[53:28] I, you know, there's not a whole lot of

[53:30] vegetation or buffer there. I mean, up

[53:32] at the actual transfer station clear

[53:34] back behind the scale house, there's

[53:35] some greenery, but that's nowhere near

[53:37] the road or screening or anything of

[53:40] that nature. So part of me is like in my

[53:42] mind in that area, are we really

[53:44] requiring that from other people as far

[53:47] as that landscaping buffer?

[53:51] Well, in my my brain's going to I would

[53:54] recommend to to grant the variance and just word it not as specific as the

[54:00] 10-ft landscape strip is shown here, but

[54:03] as as staff uh can work out and whatever

[54:06] compromise they can make. I don't know

[54:08] how much you guys have been doing

[54:09] already, but you know,

[54:12] >> today's question is should they get a

[54:14] variance for this?

[54:15] >> Yes.

[54:15] absolutely. And and staff and other

[54:18] boards can work out exactly that. It

[54:20] seems like there's an opportunity to put

[54:22] some more uh even if you just took out

[54:24] one space next to the front entrance and

[54:27] had small landscape islands or something

[54:30] that you know there's there's

[54:31] opportunities there and they can move

[54:34] forward with the variance if we just

[54:36] modify that number one a little bit.

[54:39] >> Yes, you can do that. You can modify

[54:41] your your conditions.

[54:44] >> Okay.

[54:45] >> Thank you. Would you like

[54:48] >> Sure.

[54:52] The building side is

[54:55] the end user will be using the entire

[54:57] building including the basement. Uh

[55:00] well, it's more of a garden level. So,

[55:02] it's not true basement. So, the the the actual square footage is just under

[55:06] 24,000 square feet. So, based on that,

[55:09] that'd be more than 75 uh roughly 72 to

[55:13] 74. Uh but they again they are an

[55:16] engineering company and will uh you know

[55:19] they have some open space for cubicles

[55:22] etc. They will maximize this is their

[55:24] headquarters for the the next 20 years

[55:26] if it can be done. So this isn't just

[55:28] something they're looking for for a five

[55:30] to 10 and they're looking to expand into

[55:32] this space uh and making it their

[55:35] headquarters uh for the long term. So

[55:37] the the parking is definitely uh kind of

[55:41] a hard a hard line for them on on on

[55:44] their side. So again, I just wanted to

[55:46] clarify that it's not 16,000, it's

[55:49] 24,000 square feet is the building size

[55:51] that would then up the parking uh based

[55:54] on that equation.

[55:55] >> They're planning on using the 24,000 ft

[55:57] is what you're saying. Oh,

[55:58] >> they're using the whole building. It's a

[55:59] single occupancy tenant and it does have

[56:02] a 20-year lease. It's

[56:03] >> fantastic. That's actually fantastic.

[56:06] >> Thank you. Any

[56:08] other comments? Okay.

[56:12] Do I hear a motion?

[56:14] >> We got to discuss a little bit.

[56:15] >> Okay.

[56:17] >> I mean, I I think we're number one, the

[56:20] building's fantastic. It's an awesome

[56:22] building.

[56:22] >> It is.

[56:23] >> We're watching it for decades do

[56:25] nothing. So, I I think the opportunity

[56:28] for it to become something is fantastic.

[56:30] It's great for the economy as well,

[56:32] having a long-term tenant. Um, but I I

[56:34] think the question is how do we how do

[56:37] we word it to say, "Hey, you know what?

[56:39] As you go through, you're still going to

[56:40] have to work with planning and

[56:42] get all your your permits and everything

[56:44] pulled right." That we're not we're not

[56:48] pigeon hoing them into you got to have

[56:50] this.

[56:51] And I think for me, it's just that front

[56:53] landscaping, that front parking area,

[56:55] right?

[57:00] » Yeah.

[57:01] I I think we just I would recommend

[57:04] modifying the condition when the staff

[57:06] has it just to provide a landscaped area

[57:09] along the front and as approved by other

[57:12] boards and staff

[57:15] >> that work

[57:16] >> well does that

[57:18] >> is that grant enough and then you guys

[57:20] got flexibility to work out the

[57:21] >> who's got power to tell me I'm doing

[57:23] something wrong that's part that's what

[57:24] it comes back to here.

[57:26] >> Yeah. I mean it it's this is why we have

[57:29] you guys make these decisions. Um yeah,

[57:32] you can make what you proposed. We would

[57:34] understand that condition.

[57:36] >> I think we make the proposal then on

[57:38] item one there that that landscaping

[57:41] exists

[57:43] um in some fashion allowing the parking

[57:46] to be there and meet the needs of

[57:49] the building as it were

[57:52] would get us there

[57:55] subject to their enviral approvals.

[57:57] >> Yeah. I mean, they have

[57:59] >> because you do have Landmark Commission

[58:00] to sign off on stuff, too. And

[58:02] >> you got a lot of people and Landmark

[58:03] wants it done for sure.

[58:07] >> Well, let me try this. Um,

[58:11] I move we find the literal enforcement

[58:13] of the land use ordinance would cause

[58:14] unreasonable hardship, that there are

[58:16] special circumstances attached to the

[58:18] property, that granting the variance is

[58:20] essential to the enjoyment of a

[58:21] substantial property right possessed by

[58:24] other properties in the same zone, that

[58:25] the variance will not substantially

[58:27] affect or the general plan or be

[58:29] contrary to public interests, and that

[58:31] the spirit of the zoning ordinance is

[58:33] observed and substantial justice is done

[58:35] for the following reasons.

[58:38] uh

[58:40] well that that it meets all those

[58:42] criteria. Uh and we and I move and move

[58:45] to grant the variance with the following

[58:47] condition.

[58:49] Uh that

[58:52] a landscape that the applicant provide a

[58:55] landscaped area along the front of the

[58:57] building adjacent to the facade of the

[58:59] exchange building or similar area as

[59:03] approved by city staff and other city

[59:07] boards. and to modify the parking lot in

[59:11] the front and side yard facing street a

[59:15] street to accommodate the required

[59:17] landscaping.

[59:20] >> Do we drop the two off there though?

[59:22] >> You want to just drop two?

[59:26] » Well, we can still discuss here. So,

[59:28] >> modify the parking lot in front.

[59:31] >> I mean, I guess the modification of the

[59:33] parking lot is to still just to meet the final need.

[59:37] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's how we'd word that.

[59:40] >> All right. Amend that motion to um

[59:45] instead of number two just to say

[59:49] modify the

[59:51] parking area to accommodate

[59:54] I'm not sure what well because we're not

[59:56] saying you have to modify it. I mean

[59:58] modify it as needed,

[1:00:00] >> you know, to to have.

[1:00:02] >> We're going to modify it as needed to

[1:00:04] meet number one, you know,

[1:00:05] >> or drop it. Well, I think number one is

[1:00:08] talking about the landscaping has to be

[1:00:09] in front of the building. I think that's

[1:00:10] important and that the details can be

[1:00:12] worked out. Uh and then the same I don't

[1:00:15] >> sure leave it then because we're just

[1:00:16] making the parking lot work.

[1:00:18] >> Yeah, it's just modify the parking lot

[1:00:20] in front and side

[1:00:23] to to well to accommodate

[1:00:27] landscape.

[1:00:27] >> Yeah, because it's not we don't have

[1:00:28] that required the 10 feet. I'm just

[1:00:30] >> I don't want to get get stuck in the mud

[1:00:33] there.

[1:00:34] Number two would be modify the parking

[1:00:36] lot in the front and the side yard

[1:00:39] facing a street to accommodate

[1:00:42] additional landscaping

[1:00:44] >> that works

[1:00:45] >> and provide park

[1:00:47] >> works for me. [cough and clears throat]

[1:00:49] >> Okay. A motion has been made by chair by

[1:00:53] board member Evans to approve. It has

[1:00:58] been seconded by board member Larson.

[1:01:01] >> Okay, I'll second that.

[1:01:05] I thought you seconded it.

[1:01:07] >> Yeah, well, I'm there. It's a work in

[1:01:09] progress. We're working through this

[1:01:10] together.

[1:01:11] >> Chair Caspersonson.

[1:01:13] >> Yes.

[1:01:15] >> Thank you. Board member Evans.

[1:01:17] >> Yes.

[1:01:18] >> Board member Larson.

[1:01:19] >> Yes.

[1:01:19] >> Thank you.

[1:01:22] >> Okay. Hope that works.

[1:01:24] >> Thank you. Appreciate understanding of

[1:01:26] this amazing project.

[1:01:28] >> It's going to be awesome.

[1:01:32] Okay.

[1:01:34] The only other business we had was to

[1:01:39] decide on a new chairman.

[1:01:42] >> Oh, we're not doing that today. Can I

[1:01:43] ask a question? Okay. Since we're have

[1:01:44] discussion times,

[1:01:47] comments from other interested parties

[1:01:49] if applicable is something we can

[1:01:51] discuss. And you mentioned there we

[1:01:52] don't invite other people besides the

[1:01:55] petitioner or applicant

[1:01:56] >> in a for a variance you're prohibited by

[1:02:00] law to have a public hearing on a

[1:02:02] variance. You can accept written

[1:02:05] testimony which is what we do. We send

[1:02:06] out the notice and say you can provide

[1:02:08] written testimony but

[1:02:11] >> so we can discuss it at that point if it exists.

[1:02:14] You can you can talk with the applicant

[1:02:16] and if the applicant has some like an

[1:02:19] expert that they want to testify on

[1:02:21] their behalf, they can. But

[1:02:23] >> okay,

[1:02:24] >> unfortunately [sighs]

[1:02:25] the legislature pulled that ability from

[1:02:29] neighbors to be able to testify on a

[1:02:32] variance

[1:02:33] >> which is a good

[1:02:34] >> in person. They can do it with grand.

[1:02:36] >> No, I'm curious because you're not

[1:02:37] getting any unless they're presenting

[1:02:39] facts. they're presenting facts,

[1:02:40] >> motions,

[1:02:41] >> then then they can put it in writing

[1:02:42] ahead of time. Otherwise, it's just

[1:02:45] clamor and we don't want to muddy the

[1:02:46] waters of what we can and can't do.

[1:02:48] >> Okay.

[1:02:51] With no further business, do I hear a

[1:02:53] motion? [clears throat] Have we done

[1:02:54] everything right?

[1:02:56] >> Yes.

[1:02:57] >> Okay. If you want to do it, chair.

[1:03:00] >> Well, I guess.

[1:03:04] Do we want to wait till we have more

[1:03:05] people here?

[1:03:08] Are we making the Stephanie Nicks the

[1:03:10] chairperson right now?

[1:03:11] >> Three's pretty good.

[1:03:14] >> I'll put a motion for Stephanie. She

[1:03:16] should have showed up. Um,

[1:03:19] >> are you done?

[1:03:20] >> I'm done. Well, I don't

[1:03:23] >> You're tapping out. [laughter]

[1:03:27] » You know, I would be happy to stay on

[1:03:29] for another few months. The only reason

[1:03:32] I'm moving to West Haven.

[1:03:35] >> Oh.

[1:03:36] And see,

[1:03:37] >> you haven't told me this yet.

[1:03:39] >> I'm sorry. [laughter] I'm telling

[1:03:42] >> you tried. You just kept interrupting.

[1:03:43] >> What?

[1:03:44] >> Yes, but I'm moving in probably January.

[1:03:47] So,

[1:03:48] >> okay.

[1:03:50] >> So,

[1:03:51] >> are you going to keep your house as a

[1:03:52] rental?

[1:03:52] >> No.

[1:03:55] >> I don't [laughter] I'm not a landlord.

[1:03:57] So, all those in favor of adjourning say

[1:04:01] I. Did I do that right? Yeah, we can we

[1:04:05] can

[1:04:06] >> do we have a motion to adjurnn?

[1:04:08] >> Motion to adjurnn.

[1:04:08] >> Okay.

[1:04:09] >> So moved.

[1:04:10] >> So all in favor say I. I.

[1:04:12] >> I.

[1:04:12] >> Okay.

[1:04:14] >> I think you'd make a fantastic chairman

[1:04:15] if you're replacing someone.

[1:04:16] Chairperson.

[1:04:18] >> You interested?

[1:04:19] >> What are you talking

[1:04:21] >> Yeah. We don't need to

Ogden Board of Zoning Adjustments BZA | July 22, 2026

Agenda

Transcript