Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grantsville planning commission backs variance and easement appeal for backyard structure at 43 South Mustang Way
Summary
The Grantsville City Planning Commission on July 17 recommended approval of an appeal by John Lassen Lancer to build a backyard structure that would slightly exceed RM-7 maximum building coverage and encroach into a public utility easement, conditioning approval on the structure being at least 5 feet from the property line.
The Grantsville City Planning Commission on July 17 recommended approval of an appeal by resident John Lassen Lancer to construct a backyard building at 43 South Mustang Way that would increase allowable building coverage in the RM-7 zone from 20% to about 25.35%, and which would encroach on a public utility easement. The commission attached a condition that the structure be sited at least 5 feet from the property line.
The application, introduced during the commission’s agenda item on a variance and encroachment request, included a requested increase of approximately 642 square feet in allowed coverage. Staff noted the applicant had received encroachment-release letters from multiple utility companies but not from Grantsville City Public Works. “All of the utility providers except for Grantsville City Public Works” had approved the encroachment, Speaker 3 said, adding that work carried out without that public-works approval would be at the homeowner’s risk.
Jessica (identified in the record as “Jessica with Conchats”), representing the applicant, told the commission the lot is small and that the team could scale down the proposed shop if needed to avoid the denied easement. She described an open-roof extension (about 14 by 8 feet) and said the main structure would be about 16–17 feet tall to the ridge, including foundation.
Commission discussion focused on proximity to a neighboring structure and fire-code implications. Commissioners and staff reported the existing gap between the proposed building and the adjacent structure was roughly 3–4 feet; several commissioners said they preferred a 5-foot minimum from the property line to avoid firewall requirements. Speaker 1 moved to recommend approval of the appeal and variance, specifying the 5-foot setback condition; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote.
The commission’s action is a recommendation to the next decision-making body (where applicable); permit issuance and construction remain subject to compliance with building code, any required public-works approval, and final engineering. The commission record showed no recorded roll-call vote; the item passed after a voice vote in which commissioners responded "Aye."
