I make a
>> Okay,
>> I'll make a motion to approve me or the
notes.
>> Second.
>> Okay. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Okay. Minutes are approved.
Thank you. I did something right over
there today.
Okay, our first case tonight is case
2026-5.
This is a
variance to reduce a setback at 2898
Washington Boulevard.
Do we have the petitioner Nicholas
Garcia here tonight? Would you like to
come up and just introduce yourself and
explain to us what you're doing?
>> Yeah. Um, so I'm Nicholas Garcia. I'm
actually the project manager on this uh
redevelopment project that we have
going. Um, at that location, it's the
old Redhanger laundromat. Um, basically
what the concept is is that we're
building out a
like a basically a business center for
entrepreneurs. They can come together.
So, it's a a group of entrepreneurs that
bought the building. Um they're going to
use it for basically personal business
space where they can hold meetings,
small gatherings. Um and then we are are
putting in a addition for like a pickle
ball court for private use basically on
the site um on the
see the south side of the building. And
that's where we're coming into the issue
with with some of the setbacks is
meeting the city code for uh parking
stalls um to basically make up the
amount of square footage that that
addition would bring it up to.
>> Great. Great. Do we have any questions?
>> We don't have any questions at this
time. We'll allow the city to tell us
what their findings were.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thanks.
» Hello everyone.
This uh is a request for variance to
reduce the east or the rear yard setback
in the regional commercial zone of CP3
at 2898 Washington Boulevard.
This is uh there are three parcels
and this is located in the east central
community plan. This is the location map
of where this is at. So it's the
northeast corner of Washington and 29th.
And the applicant is requesting a
variance to reduce the rear yard setback
from 10 feet to 5 feet on the east
property line located at that address.
Under the com regional commercial site
development stand standards, there are
no front or sideyard facing a street uh
setbacks.
But if there's a parking lot, they are
required to maintain a 15t sideyard
facing a street setback.
The same is uh for the rear. There isn't
a setback unless there's a parking lot
at wi in which case um a 10- foot
landscape buffer is required because the
site is adjacent to the R2EC
residential zone.
These are the three parcels that will
need to be combined before any permits
or um
reviews are issued.
The building was built in 1954
and was the former Redhanger building.
It's been vacant since about 2019.
The existing canopy, you can barely see
it in that picture, but there's an
existing canopy that will be demolished,
and this will be for private office uh
building space.
When we're looking at the
criteria for variance, we're looking at
Utah State Code 109A72.
And these are the five criteria.
This is a picture of the proposed site
plan.
The literal 10-foot rear yard setback
would create an unreasonable hardship by
eliminating those nine parking stalls on
the east side.
Uh these nine spaces are needed to serve
the proposed use.
The location of the existing building
restricts the amount of usable space on
uh both those areas to the south and the
east.
Because of the foot 15 foot sideyard
setback that's required along 29th
Street, there isn't enough room for
parking and maneuver maneuverability of
that. So the parking is being moved to
the east side.
Reducing the rear yard set back from 10
to 5 feet would provide sufficient space
for parking stalls as well as that
maneuvering.
The 10-foot
setback is required to provide screening
and to mitigate the impacts of
development adjacent to residential zone
property.
This setback is intended to reduce
effects of lighting, noise, privacy
concerns, visual impacts, and access
restriction.
Because the applicant is requesting to
reduce the required setback from 10 to
5t, installation of a solid wood, vinyl,
or masonry fence is required along with
a densely planted landscaped area. This
is a picture of the residential directly
adjacent to the red hangar location.
This is an example of what that uh
buffer could look like. Uh I chose the
solid wood fence, but they have the
option to do either vinyl or masonry and
then evergreen planting along that side.
As you can tell, uh the picture on the
right shows a closeup of that parking
that will be located on the east side.
This will need to have curb and gutter
because that'll keep everything in its
place and provide a parking stop for
those parked cars.
This former Redhanger site has existed
for quite a long time.
and has been vacant for almost as long
since 2019.
The reuse of an existing building
presents challenges and special
circumstances that others in the same
zone do not have. The existing location
of the building on the site is a special
circumstance attached to the property as
this limits compliance with the current
zoning ordinance.
When we're looking at all the different
types of criteria that we have to look
at, we want to make sure that the
general plan
that the variance is consistent with the
general plan and is
not contrary to public interests.
The general plan because it facilitates
the occupancy of adaptive reuse of an
existing vacant commercial building as a
private office is consistent with the
goal of for found in the general plan
14B8
which is to encourage the preservation
and reuse of vacant buildings whenever
possible. And this will be one of those
reuses.
The produ proposed reduction to the east
side rear yard setback will continue to
provide that landscape buffer between
the commercial property and the
residential property. The solid wood
vinyl or masonry fence will provide that
screening that's required along this
property line. In addition, the
redevelopment of the vacant building
and the site will promote ongoing
maintenance
investment in the property and this is
not contrary to public interests. This
is exactly what we want.
The spirit of the zoning ordinance is
observed because the reduced setback
still require still provides that
required buffer and the screening and
substantial justice is achieved by
allowing reasonable not uh modification
of the site development standards
for the re regional commercial zone. It
maintains the intent of the setback
requirement and supports the productive
reuse of vacant property.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of
the variance to reduce the required
10-ft rear yard setback buffer on the
east side to 5 ft for a private office
located at 2898 Washington Boulevard on
the following condition.
that they install a solid wood, vinyl,
or masonry fence along the east property
line and the five- foot setback to
include dense planting of evergreen
shrubs, trees that will create that
buffer for the adjoining residential
neighbor. Are there any questions?
>> I just want you mentioned that you're
putting the curb in as a curb stop so
the cars don't roll over. you the curb
you the the hood of a car or the fronts
of cars will still go into the
landscaping though. Will you actually
have a curb stop a little before the
>> There there might be that requirement.
>> Okay.
» And that'll be done through the site
plan review.
» So I'm fine with the east side of it.
The pickle ball court itself is going
out on the corner where that porch
basically is. So, if we look at the
proposed addition that's located in the
south part of that site, that's where
the court will go.
>> And the the five foot setback is from
the curb or I mean, excuse me, from the
sidewalk
>> from the east property line
>> is the five foot setback. This court is
sitting how close to the sidewalk. So,
there's no requirement for buildings to
have a setback for the front or the
sideyard. Only the parking lot requires
a setback in that regional commercial
zone.
>> Okay. So, we still have a pickle ball
court on this corner, though. That's 3
feet from the sidewalk.
>> Mhm.
>> And there's a fence up on that.
>> Um
>> I mean corner, you can't have a fence.
So, it's got to have some
>> It'll be enclosed. Pardon me. It'll be
enclosed.
>> It's going to be enclosed into the
building.
>> Yes.
So, there's no setback requirement for a
solid building on a corner lot.
>> No, there
>> off that. Okay.
I was big as sure was inside or outside.
I was like, that seems odd, but okay,
great.
>> Yep. It if you were to look in the
report, um I did provide some elevations
of what that will look like. So that
taller section of the building will be
the uh sports court.
>> Excellent.
>> Great. Any other questions?
>> Thank you.
» Are there any interested parties that
would like to speak regarding this?
>> Mr. Chair, you could only have the
applicant speak and other people.
>> First mistake.
>> Yeah. Okay, great. Okay. Uh, do we have
any motion?
Well, I I'm morally opposed to pickle
ball, but I'll I'll move [laughter]
that we approve the variance and find
that the literal enforcement of the land
use ordinance would cause an
unreasonable hardship, that there are
special cons circumstances attached to
the property, that granting the variance
is essential to the enjoyment of the
substantial property right possessed by
other property in the same zone, that
the variance will not substantially
affect the general plan or be contrary
to the public interest, and that the
spirit of the zoning ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is
done. Uh along with the condition uh
proposed by staff that a wood fence and
landscaping uh be placed in the 5- foot
setback area.
>> Great.
>> I'll second the motion.
>> Second. So, we have a motion to approve
by board member Lance Evans
and a motion to and a second by board
member Scott Lson.
» Roll call.
>> Chair Caspersonson.
>> Yes.
» Board member Evans.
>> Yes.
>> Board member Larson.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, you're good to go. Thank you.
Okay.
Our second item of business is
case 2026-6.
And this is a variance to allow outdoor
storage on an adjacent lot at 1877 West
2800 South for Connect. Do we have the
petitioner?
Please come forward and just tell us
exactly what you're doing. give us your
name. And
>> good afternoon. My name is Matthew Brown
and I'm representing Connect LLC today.
Um, we're an internet service provider
and we're bu building fiber optic
infrastructure and we're building Augen
City currently, which you guys might
hate us for that, but but um and we have
over 100 employees. The majority of
those employees actually currently um
working in Ogden City right now. Um,
this is actually our our new
headquarters. We're trying to make it
our new headquarter location. Um we're
leasing space that um across multiple
parcels. So our our headquarters office
space, you know, and then there's the
yard and then there's an annex building.
And so we're essentially leasing
property across four contiguous um
parcels. And that's where the issue is
arisen from a site plan standpoint. And
so this is just a a narrow request.
We're not requesting a zoning change,
new construction, or a new use. We are
requesting relief from the application
of OMC 15-23-5
uh B1 so this longestablished industrial
site can continue operating without
requiring additional parcel
consolidation.
It's essentially the gist of it.
I just wanted to say thank you though to
the board and also for Jennifer the
staff here at Aug City for the help that
they've given us in getting this
application submitted and getting to
where we are right now. So thank you for
your time.
>> Great. You have any questions for me
before?
>> I don't I don't have any questions.
Okay. Thank you. The city like to give
us our findings.
» All right. So, our second item is a
request to allow outdoor storage in the
front yard of an adjacent lot for
Connects LLC
at 1877 West 2800 South.
There are three lots um that Connects
will be using for outdoor storage. The
property is located in the Ogden
commercial industrial park zone and the
parcel that they are requesting the
variance on is approximately 1822 West
29th Street. This is what it uh on the
location map it's pointing pointing to
that particular parcel.
The request for the variance is to allow
outdoor storage in the front yard se uh
front yard of an adjacent lot without
requiring additional parcel combinations
or subdivision action.
This is a picture of the proposed layout
of where they're going to be placing
their storage. This is marked in red.
So that parcel 0014
shows the two areas that they're going
to be storing. And then in the rear of
that property is the um annex building
or the storage warehouse type building.
The green indicates uh where landscaping
will be required.
uh connects as a fiber internet service
provider
for the surrounding area and the
proposed use is classified as a general
contractor use in accordance with Ogden
MUN municipal code section 15235B
where outdoor storage is permitted. It
is it must be located either to the side
or the rear of the principal building.
Outdoor storage must not exceed the
height of a the required screened fence
which is seven feet tall.
And the
uh height of the fence must be screened
to minimize potential negative impacts
from views of the rightway. So, as
people are driving down 1900 West or
2900 South, they're not seeing that
outdoor storage.
The shed building was approved in 2002.
This is the three parcels.
So the three parcels are owned by
different railbrite members
and they don't wish to consolidate
because the site already functions as
one industrial site.
This structure that was approved back in
2002.
Uh this is the site plan for that
approval.
And at that time they were supposed to
put in the 20ft set sideyard facing a
street setback. So that's 2900 south on
the south side. That was supposed to be
um the setback that was supposed to have
landscaping.
This was never done. So this would be a
requirement for the approval of the
variance.
When we're looking at those requests for
variances, we have to look at Utah State
Code 109A702.
And these are the five criteria.
The applicant's operational needs
require the storage area to be located
on the adjacent parcels
and strict application of the ordinance
would prevent the use of that land as it
is leased area.
Granting the variance would allow for
that outdoor storage
and would allow the property to be used
in a manner that is consistent with the
surrounding industrial and commercial
areas
while maintaining the intent of the
ordinance.
So this is a picture of what that fence
looks like right now and the storage.
This will have to be moved um and 20
feet will have to be measured out from
that fence because that's where the
property line is. That will have to be
landscaped and the fence would have to
have privacy slats. This will be uh a
way to mitigate that outdoor outdoor
space.
So, as we're looking at the three
contiguous parcels that are being used,
ConX rents the uh or leases the building
up on the northeast corner and then they
have used the storage of parcel 11 in
the back for some of their equipment.
and they're requesting the sto outdoor
storage for lot 0014.
The property is relatively flat and it
has a standard rectangular
configuration. It's not um doesn't
really have this physical constraints.
The accessory storage shed is located at
the rear of that parcel and the
remainder of the parcel remains vacant.
The applicant currently leases all those
areas that are shown in red.
Um the requested variance would allow
that outdoor storage.
Although they're separate legal lots,
they do function together.
This is the unique circumstance attached
to the property
uh that
limits the applicant's ability to have
outdoor storage if literal enforcement
of that
ordinance were to be enforced.
So by allowing that storage in the front
set back that um that would allow them
to utilize that property
in the best way possible
even though the site doesn't contain a
principal building. The outdoor storage
standards would effect effectively
prevent the applicant from using the
parcel for outdoor storage. They require
quite a bit of outdoor storage and they
need this amount of space.
Despite it functioning as an overall
industrial site, the
um
the outdoor storage standards would
prevent the applicant from using it the
way they need to.
The purpose of the Ogden
commercial industrial park is to provide
attractive and safe environments for
manufacturing enterprises, research
laboratories, warehousing and
distribution wholesalers.
The zone is intended to maintain a
unified and coordinated appearance for
development
uh visible from public streets. So this
is a view of from 1900 west.
Um it's a little hard to see but there
is no screening on that side that faces
2900 south.
So the 20ft sideyard facing a street
setback would be required as well as the
privacy slats for this use.
Another
factor that needs to be considered is
the fact that these three parcels are
separate. Therefore, they would require
a cross access easement. So, this is an
easement that is recorded that allows
legal it's a legal agreement between
property owners to allow shared access
along property lines. So this would
allow them to cross those property lines
and ensures uh that it is recorded and
permanent access rights are in place.
So rather than having a potential
buyer for one of those separate parcels
and they don't want to give access to
that to conx or connects um by recording
those cross accessments
we're ensuring that that gets um
recorded and make sure that that's in
place.
Staff recommends approval for the
variance to allow outdoor storage in the
front yard parcel of 15-109-000014
on the following conditions. The
required 20ft sideyard facing a street
setback be densely landscaped and the
fence be fitted with privacy slats to
minimize the visibility from the public
way. And then the second is to record
cross-axis easements for all three
parcels with Weber County.
Are there any questions?
>> Yeah. So will Rights are hold going to
keep retain ownership. This is a lease
situation. Is there access from the
south or is it only from the north?
>> There is access from the south. They're
not going to be using the access to the
south. If you were to look in the lower
souththeast corner, there is an approach
there.
>> Okay.
>> So, that's a possibility, but
>> but not planning on it.
>> They're not planning on it. They're
>> the current the current fence is not 20
ft back. So, they need to replace the
fence or move the fence.
>> Um the fence is right on the property
line. So, that would need to be have
privacy slats on it. So the
>> behind it, yeah, behind it would be the
20 foot setback that would have the
landscaping.
>> So they could do landscaping in front of
and behind the fence.
>> There is landscaping already in front of
the fence. There's some
>> questionable
>> some Yeah, there are some trees there,
but not enough to screen the outdoor
storage.
>> So the requirement is for them to
install more landscaping. Ex.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
So, the current fence can stay where
it's at and have the slashes put in.
>> Yeah. Okay,
>> that's correct.
>> Great.
>> Does that make sense? So, the the fence
will have privacy slats and then behind
it there will be some more um
landscaping. Landscaping is required in
all setbacks.
How long uh will the I mean this is
going to run with the land, right? This
variance.
>> This will run with the land. Yes.
>> And so they have a lease between all
three property owners.
>> Mhm.
>> They'll have an easement with all three
property owners, but we're not going to
join the parcels together.
>> They do not want to. And this was the
option that was
>> okay
>> was what they took. And if when if
connects goes away, they'll maintain
this right to just keep using this as
outdoor storage.
>> Um
probably
» it's in perpetuity. Really doesn't mean
it has to stay there forever.
>> Well, they'd have the right to keep it.
So we're we're granting the right in
perpetuity.
>> Yes.
» Thank you. They do have to have a
business here in Ogden. They can't just
use it the the parcel for storage. If
they go somewhere else, that that's got
to have some sort of connection to the
business. And this is, you know, just
using the site as it is normally being
used.
>> It's how it's being used today. Yeah.
>> Thank you. Anything
else from the petitioner?
>> I'm trying not to get stuck on the
principle of it.
>> One thing I wanted to I mean she kind of
talked about it already, but talking
about how the south there was an
entrance or on the southeast corner.
It's not even hard surface coming in. So
it's actually never really even been
used in a network
which I think kind of supports the the
continuous parcels and the integrated
you know side of the entire all the part
combined together that kind of supports
that was our intention when we we did
this oh this is perfect
just to point that out it doesn't even
have a hard hard driveway coming into
>> the approach the approach doesn't exist
necessarily the right to use is there
but no approach
>> we just kind of thought, "Oh, that is
the backyard, you know, kind of thing."
But when it came down to the the
specifics, then that's when it came up
that was front yard.
>> Maybe not that all that pertinent, but
what kind of lease are you signing with
them time frame wise?
>> Okay.
>> With right to renew or
>> Yes.
>> Right. Okay.
Any other questions?
Anybody want to make a move?
>> Well, if we want to roll back to our
five criteria, I'm happy to make a move.
» All right. I propose that uh based on
the uh to grant the variance based on
the literal enforcement of the land use
ordinance would cause an unreasonable
hardship for the applicant. That is not
necessary to carry out the general
purpose of the ordinance. Two, there are
no spe there are special circumstance
attached to the property. do not
generally apply to other properties in
the same zone. Three, granting the
variance is essential to the enjoyment
of a substantial property right
possessed by other properties in the
same zone. Four, the variance will not
substantially affect the general plan
and will not be contrary to the public
interest. And five, the spirit of the
zoning ordinance is observed and
substantial justice is done along with
the caveat of uh the two uh uh
guidelines from staff that there is a
20ft uh um setback with the um densely
landscaped uh privacy being put in there
and the privacy slats into the fence as
well. The cross access easements for all
three realight properties be in place
and recorded.
Do I hear a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Okay.
Motion to approve has been made by board
member Larson and a second by board
member Evans.
>> Chairperson.
>> Yes.
>> Board member Evans.
» Yes.
>> Board member Larson.
>> Yes. Okay. You're good to go. It's been
approved. Thank you.
Okay, our
third one today is
case number 2026-7.
Variance from the business exchange
historical parking lot setbacks for the
>> Exchange building located at 600 West
Exchange Road.
>> Is the applicant here? Would you like to
tell us what you're doing?
» State your name, please.
My name is Thane Fischer and I am the uh
developer for the acting developer for
the exchange building. Uh and we are
basically trying to get parking has it
historically represented in the building
uh and have the access public access to
the front of the building as well as our
handicap and ADA access to the front as
well. And so currently the setbacks do
not allow that. Uh for us to give a
public access to the building without
putting public access around the side or
the back which it has never historically
been the primary access point. Uh we are
making this request.
>> Great. Thank you.
Any questions?
>> No.
questions. You're good. Perfect.
[laughter]
All right, this is an exciting project.
I'm sure all of you are familiar with
the Exchange building
and this is located at approximately 600
West Exchange Road.
The building was built around 1931
and the site is about 1.8 of an acre.
The building will have approximately
16,800 square feet. It'll be a two-story
building restored.
It's currently vacant, but it will be
restored as office space. And this is
the location map to the right.
The applicant is requesting a variance
to reduce the business exchange historic
setbacks to 10 ft for the site.
The um exchange building is locally
significant.
Uh it's a historic resource that is
associated with our livestock in
industry and it's contribution to our
economic
uh development for Ogden City. This
building is a art deco design
and the building f features brick
veneer, cast concrete and terracotta.
The detailing reflects the prominence
that the Ogden Union stockyards and its
role on the livestock industry. This is
a picture of what that layout looked
like. So, in the front there was
landscaping
um and then a driveway and then the
parking in the front and to the east
side and then the stock yards are
located in the back.
Um
the business exchange historical zone is
a special district.
It's surrounded or the main focal point
is the business exchange building. This
is a historic resource that creates the
opportunity to preserve that history
of the area while allowing for
developments and compatible uses such as
industrial research like manufacturing
and the like. And the district is
intended to interpret the history of
earlier developments of the area.
the proposed redevelopment to restore
the building's historic character while
adapting it for office use. The This is
what it looks like. It's probably in
worse disrepair than
this picture. [laughter]
Uh last time I checked it had more
crumbling to it.
Um the building is currently vacant and
the pro proposed site plan includes
about 96 95 parking stalls
with minimal landscaping.
Uh the parking layout will uh require
revisions to its layout. The picture to
the left shows where they're proposing
parking and the additional parking to
the east and to the north.
So, in this drawing, they did not
address the ADA. That will have to be um
included in the site plan.
Um
for that number of parking styles, it
would require about four ADA parking
spaces.
When we're looking at the
granting of a variance to reduce that
setback
to 10 ft for the front and the sideyard
facing a street, we have to consider the
five criteria.
And these are the the five criteria
listed in 109A72.
The literal enforcement of the 25- foot
front yard setback and the 20 foot
sideyard setback would create an
unreasonable hardship by eliminating
substantial um functioning parking area
along the exchange road frontage.
Historically, parking has been located
in the front of the building and along
its east side.
Due to the location of the historic
building um on the site and the required
setbacks, opportunities to relocate that
parking to other areas of the property
are limited.
A factor that has to be considered is
historically there has been landscaping
also in front uh of the building. So
right up next to the to the front facade
of the building there has always been
landscaping.
The
as a condition of approval for the
variance to reduce those setbacks.
staff is recommending that a 10-foot
landscaped area be installed in front of
the building and on both sides of the
front of the stairs. So, if you look at
this picture, you can see the stairs
that lead up to the front three glass
panes. There's um landscaping on either
side of that.
So, we're requiring a reduction of that
and having at least a 10-foot setback
that will provide that landscaping in
addition to that parking.
With that landscaping,
the modification of the parking lot
would have to be done.
This is an example of what it could look
like. So, we have two approaches going
in towards the front and some parallel
parking stalls in front of the 10-ft
landscaped area. The areas shown in
green show where landscaping should be
installed.
And this is just a a general
um possible revised parking lot layout.
the um
when looking at the other criteria, we
want to really focus on the general plan
chapter 4 and that's community identity.
This is ensuring and encouraging the
appropriate preservation, protection,
enhancements, and rehabilitation of the
sites and the districts.
A lot of people don't put uh value in
the landscaping, but landscaping can be
an extension of that architecture.
It creates a space that tells a story.
It's an opportunity to tell the story of
the history of the building.
That's why we are recommending
that that be put in place.
The
goal of the G Oh, the goal of the
general plan is that community identity.
Ogden City's historic buildings are the
city's greatest assets.
The exchange building is the focal point
of the business exchange historical zone
and the rehabilitation of the building
provides a great opportunity to preserve
that history and building and its
enhancements.
The important part of that architectural
design is its enhancements.
This includes the landscaping.
Um,
as a condition of approval, we're going
to request that
10-ft landscaping. The design preserves
the historic parking pattern
associated with the property while
incorporating the additional landscaping
improvements that enhance the
architecture of the building. It better
aligns with the current site design
standards
and the proposed modifications provide a
balance between those
uh preserving the historic character of
this building
and creating a functional site that
meets contemporary development
requirements and expectations.
Therefore, staff re recommends approval
of the variance to reduce the front and
the sideyard facing a street setbacks to
10 ft to accommodate parking in the
front and the east side of the exchange
building on the following conditions.
Provide a 10-ft landscaped area along
the front of the exchange building
adjacent to its facade. So, right up
against the building.
modify the parking lot in the front and
the sideyard facing a street to
accommodate the required landscaping.
Do you have any questions?
» Um, is the landscaping an issue with the
applicant at all?
» Um,
>> is that just something you guys have put
in? Are they not wanting to put it in?
I'm just curious.
Yeah, the original site plan didn't have
any landscaping
and we are trying to
put back what was historically there. So
the parking was historically there but
also the landscaping.
It's a part of the general plan. It
complies with those goals of community
identity and preser preserving that
history.
And we think we feel it's a it's a good
balance between the two.
» Excuse me. Did do you want to say
something about the landscaping?
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay.
» Thank you for the opportunity to make
comments. Uh is it possible to go back
to the plan that you had proposed with
the landscaping? So, one of the
challenges we're having uh with the pro
uh with the parking also is the the
number of parking stalls that we will
need for the end user. This project
really only works with the end user. Uh
and it's very fluid project. We have a
lot of entities from landmarks from
planning uh really trying to make this
all work. We do have an updated plan
showing our handicap use. Uh we will put
as much landscaping as we can as long as
we can meet their requirement for their
parking. Uh and then we're also trying
to put you know one of the things when
we ask for the RDA on this project is
they wanted to have that lobby open to
the public uh so the public could you
know still come in and look at the
historical use. The end user of this
building is a um like a a military
defense contractor. It's an engineering
company, but their main client is the uh
military, the DAD, DoD. And so we've
worked with them to allow that to happen
where we will have the lobby available,
but we will need more of the angle
parking that we have shown as well as uh
and then we we can make the four ADA
requirements which would be to the front
uh lower side of the entry. It will also
we put our handicap there uh that will
meet the required ADA requirements uh
with slope uh as well as you know uh we
also have a delivery area so we can
bring packages up through there. So
there are some um requirements that are
the endusers requirements that we're
trying to address obviously stay uh
within the historical
uh shipo fed and uh landmarks
requirements uh as well as landscaping
requirements. So, it's a little bit of a
Rubik's cube, but we would ask that um
we can uh meet with planning and staff
in order to uh achieve a common
agreement on that. But there is a pretty
hard number of parking stalls that we
have to give them that uh would not
include the public. So, we feel we can
do that by putting the public where
we've asked, but we do need it at an
angle an angle process. Uh and I think
on this one you can see that we do have
a ramp there. We are landscaping the
front uh very similar to what it was. Uh
and we're also putting landscape to hide
uh the ADA uh access point as well. Uh
and we have updated drawings that we're
more than happy to provide. Uh
you know we're going to show them
tomorrow at landmarks. Unfortunately the
architect is traveling. I stepped in for
him today. Uh and these plans are very
fluid. So we'll have them available
tomorrow.
>> So you're talking about having landscape
in the front though. You said landscape.
>> Absolutely. Yeah.
>> Do you have a problem with the 10 ft or
you're just saying we need to get the
angled back in there?
>> We need to get the angle. We putting
parallel parking to the front. We need the angled parking to
accommodate that many stalls uh one for
the as mentioned for the uh handicap but
also giving public access to that front
lobby. This is where we feel is the best area. we won't be able to bring
them uh the public will not be able to
enter from any of the other uh uh
locations. So the rear exit as well as
the side will not have public access
because they'll be going into a secured
site. So the lobby we are planning right
now and if we can uh get approval
through the historical uh agencies uh we
will have that where you will be able to
see it they'll be able to access it see
the historical lobby but there'll be a
glass wall that will require badge
access uh to get back and so trying to
keep the public ADA everything in the
front of the building we do require the
angle parking
>> you need all 10.
>> Yeah. So really the out of the two
points, the first point is fine. It's
just we need a little bit of latitude
and flexibility with the landscaping uh
as far as the rest of the uh of the
project to get the the a number of units
that number of parking stalls that we
need and then also having our parking
public parking in the front along with
the ADA uh a access to the ADA ramp.
What is your proposed generally
landscaping in the front of it if it's
not because the template setbacks too
much is what you're saying?
>> No, it's that really the setbacks is so
that we can have access because
currently we have the access point
that's right in the middle on the south
part or the the the the end the bottom
part of the screen. Uh but we also are
putting a uh we would go in, we'd have a
oneway where people could park in the
front and then they can exit to the to
the west side. Uh and so that is uh what
we are uh you know that would be new and
that setback would uh reducing that
setback would allow us to have a drive
uh drive um lane there uh and then
maximize the number of parking stalls
for ADA and public to have access to the
building as well as the lobby.
>> So you guys can make it worth of the 10
foot the 10-ft landscape buffer there.
Yeah, we can we we just need we need to
be able to have a drive lane that goes
in there with the parking as far as the the landscaping in the front of the
building. Uh there is area between where
we have proposed the curb and the
building itself for landscaping on the
west side of the entry point. uh we are
actually designing because that's going
to be mostly uh a uh there'll be a
sidewalk that will give us access to the
public but there'll also be an ADA ramp
and that is where we're looking to do
the ADA ramp and that will be our only
location for ADA
which will be
>> Oh, that's your double stack right
there.
>> Exactly. You can see so it' be basically
behind there's the stairs that come up
those uh we have to relocate those
stairs a little bit to the uh to the
west and then uh but you'll see that's
where our ramp is as well. Okay.
>> So, it's a little bit of a Rubik's cube
for us. We're trying to I mean, if we
had uh a little more flexibility, we
would accommodate. We have We love
landscaping as well, but we have some
requirements that are put onto us by not
only several different agencies, but
also the end user.
» So, we would request that we keep our
angled parking.
» Thank you.
>> Any other questions before I turn
around?
>> Questions? Sorry to walk off the last
one. No, you're fine. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. [clears throat]
Any other comments or concerns
or
>> I I just the staff's condition?
>> Well, yeah, let's let's hear from
Jennick.
» So, when we're looking at parking
requirements for an office building,
it's usually one space per 300 square
feet of building.
Um, typically with the amount of
proposed square footage, they would only
need around 54 stalls. So 95 96 spaces
is quite a bit more than what would be
required.
Um,
so I I I think this would be a good
compromise between those. Uh, six
parking spaces for the public. That's
more than adequate for
anybody that would be going into that
building for a visitation. I I would
imagine.
Um,
so it it's basically up to you. But of
those six that you have or seven you
have up there, you're suggesting four of
them have to be ADA.
>> So we really have I mean three at that
time for for general public.
>> Correct.
>> At the front door.
>> Yeah. Which well
>> and really you know that I don't
understand why it couldn't be located
off to the side with the path to the
front. Um there's more space over there
for ADA parking. Uh we typically require
van size ADA parking stalls which
require either eight ft for the stall
8ft access aisle
um or the 115 formation
and I believe there would be more room
off to the side on the east side.
What's What's past the west? Is a
What's past their west property line?
>> You can't go there.
>> It's a no man's land. No person's land.
>> No, it's a common area.
>> It's a walkway.
>> Yeah, it's just a walkway.
>> Okay.
>> Building.
>> Yeah.
>> Not sure you can see that on that.
>> Okay. So, there's no chance there. Okay.
Just had to ask question.
You know, part of me goes back to like
Sky Blue or Bloom or even Weber County
transfer station.
I, you know, there's not a whole lot of
vegetation or buffer there. I mean, up
at the actual transfer station clear
back behind the scale house, there's
some greenery, but that's nowhere near
the road or screening or anything of
that nature. So part of me is like in my
mind in that area, are we really
requiring that from other people as far
as that landscaping buffer?
Well, in my my brain's going to I would
recommend to to grant the variance and just word it not as specific as the
10-ft landscape strip is shown here, but
as as staff uh can work out and whatever
compromise they can make. I don't know
how much you guys have been doing
already, but you know,
>> today's question is should they get a
variance for this?
>> Yes.
absolutely. And and staff and other
boards can work out exactly that. It
seems like there's an opportunity to put
some more uh even if you just took out
one space next to the front entrance and
had small landscape islands or something
that you know there's there's
opportunities there and they can move
forward with the variance if we just
modify that number one a little bit.
>> Yes, you can do that. You can modify
your your conditions.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Would you like
>> Sure.
The building side is
the end user will be using the entire
building including the basement. Uh
well, it's more of a garden level. So,
it's not true basement. So, the the the actual square footage is just under
24,000 square feet. So, based on that,
that'd be more than 75 uh roughly 72 to
74. Uh but they again they are an
engineering company and will uh you know
they have some open space for cubicles
etc. They will maximize this is their
headquarters for the the next 20 years
if it can be done. So this isn't just
something they're looking for for a five
to 10 and they're looking to expand into
this space uh and making it their
headquarters uh for the long term. So
the the parking is definitely uh kind of
a hard a hard line for them on on on
their side. So again, I just wanted to
clarify that it's not 16,000, it's
24,000 square feet is the building size
that would then up the parking uh based
on that equation.
>> They're planning on using the 24,000 ft
is what you're saying. Oh,
>> they're using the whole building. It's a
single occupancy tenant and it does have
a 20-year lease. It's
>> fantastic. That's actually fantastic.
>> Thank you. Any
other comments? Okay.
Do I hear a motion?
>> We got to discuss a little bit.
>> Okay.
>> I mean, I I think we're number one, the
building's fantastic. It's an awesome
building.
>> It is.
>> We're watching it for decades do
nothing. So, I I think the opportunity
for it to become something is fantastic.
It's great for the economy as well,
having a long-term tenant. Um, but I I
think the question is how do we how do
we word it to say, "Hey, you know what?
As you go through, you're still going to
have to work with planning and
get all your your permits and everything
pulled right." That we're not we're not
pigeon hoing them into you got to have
this.
And I think for me, it's just that front
landscaping, that front parking area,
right?
» Yeah.
I I think we just I would recommend
modifying the condition when the staff
has it just to provide a landscaped area
along the front and as approved by other
boards and staff
>> that work
>> well does that
>> is that grant enough and then you guys
got flexibility to work out the
>> who's got power to tell me I'm doing
something wrong that's part that's what
it comes back to here.
>> Yeah. I mean it it's this is why we have
you guys make these decisions. Um yeah,
you can make what you proposed. We would
understand that condition.
>> I think we make the proposal then on
item one there that that landscaping
exists
um in some fashion allowing the parking
to be there and meet the needs of
the building as it were
would get us there
subject to their enviral approvals.
>> Yeah. I mean, they have
>> because you do have Landmark Commission
to sign off on stuff, too. And
>> you got a lot of people and Landmark
wants it done for sure.
>> Well, let me try this. Um,
I move we find the literal enforcement
of the land use ordinance would cause
unreasonable hardship, that there are
special circumstances attached to the
property, that granting the variance is
essential to the enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by
other properties in the same zone, that
the variance will not substantially
affect or the general plan or be
contrary to public interests, and that
the spirit of the zoning ordinance is
observed and substantial justice is done
for the following reasons.
uh
well that that it meets all those
criteria. Uh and we and I move and move
to grant the variance with the following
condition.
Uh that
a landscape that the applicant provide a
landscaped area along the front of the
building adjacent to the facade of the
exchange building or similar area as
approved by city staff and other city
boards. and to modify the parking lot in
the front and side yard facing street a
street to accommodate the required
landscaping.
>> Do we drop the two off there though?
>> You want to just drop two?
» Well, we can still discuss here. So,
>> modify the parking lot in front.
>> I mean, I guess the modification of the
parking lot is to still just to meet the final need.
>> Yeah. Yeah, that's how we'd word that.
>> All right. Amend that motion to um
instead of number two just to say
modify the
parking area to accommodate
I'm not sure what well because we're not
saying you have to modify it. I mean
modify it as needed,
>> you know, to to have.
>> We're going to modify it as needed to
meet number one, you know,
>> or drop it. Well, I think number one is
talking about the landscaping has to be
in front of the building. I think that's
important and that the details can be
worked out. Uh and then the same I don't
>> sure leave it then because we're just
making the parking lot work.
>> Yeah, it's just modify the parking lot
in front and side
to to well to accommodate
landscape.
>> Yeah, because it's not we don't have
that required the 10 feet. I'm just
>> I don't want to get get stuck in the mud
there.
Number two would be modify the parking
lot in the front and the side yard
facing a street to accommodate
additional landscaping
>> that works
>> and provide park
>> works for me. [cough and clears throat]
>> Okay. A motion has been made by chair by
board member Evans to approve. It has
been seconded by board member Larson.
>> Okay, I'll second that.
I thought you seconded it.
>> Yeah, well, I'm there. It's a work in
progress. We're working through this
together.
>> Chair Caspersonson.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. Board member Evans.
>> Yes.
>> Board member Larson.
>> Yes.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Hope that works.
>> Thank you. Appreciate understanding of
this amazing project.
>> It's going to be awesome.
Okay.
The only other business we had was to
decide on a new chairman.
>> Oh, we're not doing that today. Can I
ask a question? Okay. Since we're have
discussion times,
comments from other interested parties
if applicable is something we can
discuss. And you mentioned there we
don't invite other people besides the
petitioner or applicant
>> in a for a variance you're prohibited by
law to have a public hearing on a
variance. You can accept written
testimony which is what we do. We send
out the notice and say you can provide
written testimony but
>> so we can discuss it at that point if it exists.
You can you can talk with the applicant
and if the applicant has some like an
expert that they want to testify on
their behalf, they can. But
>> okay,
>> unfortunately [sighs]
the legislature pulled that ability from
neighbors to be able to testify on a
variance
>> which is a good
>> in person. They can do it with grand.
>> No, I'm curious because you're not
getting any unless they're presenting
facts. they're presenting facts,
>> motions,
>> then then they can put it in writing
ahead of time. Otherwise, it's just
clamor and we don't want to muddy the
waters of what we can and can't do.
>> Okay.
With no further business, do I hear a
motion? [clears throat] Have we done
everything right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. If you want to do it, chair.
>> Well, I guess.
Do we want to wait till we have more
people here?
Are we making the Stephanie Nicks the
chairperson right now?
>> Three's pretty good.
>> I'll put a motion for Stephanie. She
should have showed up. Um,
>> are you done?
>> I'm done. Well, I don't
>> You're tapping out. [laughter]
» You know, I would be happy to stay on
for another few months. The only reason
I'm moving to West Haven.
>> Oh.
And see,
>> you haven't told me this yet.
>> I'm sorry. [laughter] I'm telling
>> you tried. You just kept interrupting.
>> What?
>> Yes, but I'm moving in probably January.
So,
>> okay.
>> So,
>> are you going to keep your house as a
rental?
>> No.
>> I don't [laughter] I'm not a landlord.
So, all those in favor of adjourning say
I. Did I do that right? Yeah, we can we
can
>> do we have a motion to adjurnn?
>> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Okay.
>> So moved.
>> So all in favor say I. I.
>> I.
>> Okay.
>> I think you'd make a fantastic chairman
if you're replacing someone.
Chairperson.
>> You interested?
>> What are you talking
>> Yeah. We don't need to