Applicant seeks variance for front-yard accessory building on steep lot at 1087 South 1300 East; city staff recommends denial

Property owners Richard Taylor and his co-applicant (identified in the hearing as Sam) asked the hearing officer to grant a variance permitting a front-yard accessory building (a covered parking structure or carport) at 1087 South 1300 East, citing an unusually steep driveway, pedestrian-safety concerns and a history of crime at the site. Salt Lake City planning staff recommended denial, saying the request reflects a self-imposed hardship, does not meet the minimum variance standards and raises staging- and riparian-corridor issues. The hearing officer took the matter under advisement and said he will issue a written decision within 10 days.

Sam (the applicant’s presenter) told the hearing officer the lot has a roughly 34% driveway slope and a roughly 10-foot elevation drop over 29 feet, which, he said, made the original driveway unsafe and unusable in winter. The applicants argued a front-yard covered parking structure would improve safety for occupants and pedestrians, provide secure on-site parking in an area they described as subject to vehicle break-ins, and is consistent with other nearby properties that have garages facing the street.

The applicants showed photos, elevation notes and a topography survey; they said their revised plan provides a vehicle-staging area of roughly 17.2 feet from the sidewalk and that they were willing to make that distance a condition of approval. They also said they had obtained building permits and had submitted riparian permits and a SWPP plan to address proximity to Red Butte Creek and a sewer alignment near the proposed work.

City planning staff, represented by Diana Martinez and the city zoning administrator, contested the applicants’ reading of the code and the examples they cited. Staff told the hearing officer that (1) some comparable properties with front-facing garages predate current code or the local historic overlay and therefore are not precedent under the current ordinance; (2) garages do not constitute a “substantial property right” that requires a variance; (3) replacement or relocation of legal parking requires an approved alternative before legal parking is removed; and (4) the applicant’s proposed staging pad includes public right-of-way and therefore does not provide the on-site staging the code requires.

Staff also pointed to a riparian-corridor overlay near Red Butte Creek and asked that, if the hearing officer were inclined to grant a variance, the decision be delayed until staff could verify by site visit that the proposed location is outside required riparian no-build areas (the city cited a 50-foot no-build distance from the high-water line as a review threshold). The city reiterated its recommendation to deny the variance, citing the self-imposed-hardship doctrine and the requirement that a variance be the minimum necessary.

The applicants disputed staff’s assertions about required permits and said they would provide records — including submitted retaining-wall permits and other documents — to show coordination with city inspectors. No members of the public rose to speak during the public-comment period on the item. The hearing officer closed the record, took the matter under advisement and said he would notify the parties of his written decision within 10 days.