Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draper hearing considers 5-foot setback variance so Rohrer family can add ADU; city argues hardship is mainly economic
Summary
The Rohrer family sought a 5-foot variance to convert part of an existing shop into an accessory dwelling unit so they can 'age in place.' City attorneys told the hearing the claimed hardship appears largely economic and does not meet the five statutory criteria for a variance; the hearing was closed and a written decision is expected by Friday.
Draper appeals and variance hearing officer Tim Pack heard arguments on a request from Ellen and Bob Rohrer to convert part of an existing shop into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that would sit 60 inches inside the city’s 20-foot setback requirement.
The Rohrers told the hearing the change would let the couple live with family nearby as they age. "A really great way for us to carry on as a family as we get older is to create an ADU," co-applicant Ellen Rohrer said during her presentation. She and relatives showed maps and photos to illustrate that an 8-foot Sports City fence, trees and site grading largely screen the structure from neighboring properties.
Assistant city attorney Spencer Duchaine, representing the City, urged the hearing officer that a variance is "an extraordinary form of relief" and must meet five statutory criteria. Duchaine said the facts presented appear to show a primarily economic burden and did not identify the extraordinary, non-self-imposed hardship the code and case law require. "The unreasonable hardship that the applicant has complained of here is a purely economic one," he said. Duchaine also warned that granting a variance could establish a vested property right that later owners might convert to short-term rentals.
Applicants described structural and site constraints as reasons the building cannot be moved to comply with the setback. Bob Rohrer said the portion to be converted is largely concrete and "built into the ground," and the family said demolishing or shifting the structure would require replacing thick footings and could damage a nearby irrigation culvert. The culvert was described in the hearing as a 15-inch conduit that is part of a long-standing local irrigation route. The family also noted the shop is only about two years old, increasing the cost and perceived waste of demolition or major reconstruction.
Hearing officer Tim Pack asked whether the hardship was more than financial; he cautioned that a purely economic hardship is generally not sufficient under the variance standard. The City’s presentation cited precedent and code interpretations, saying the applicant bears the burden to show all five criteria are met.
The hearing concluded without a formal vote; Pack closed the record and said he would draft a written decision and forward it to Community Development by Friday, possibly Monday. The written decision will state whether the variance is granted and, if so, under what conditions.
