[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