Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies proposal to rebuild larger house on nonconforming 8,150‑sq‑ft lot after neighbors raise massing and shadowing concerns
Summary
Council voted to deny a request to reconstruct and enlarge a house on a nonconforming lot at 480 East 100 South, finding the proposal would significantly alter the neighborhood’s character and be incompatible with nearby lots. Neighbors objected to height, massing and a fence dispute.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The council denied a land‑use application to reconstruct a house on a nonconforming 8,150‑square‑foot lot at 480 East 100 South after a lengthy public hearing and neighbor testimony on April 14.
Applicant Corey Fabian told the council he had worked with planning staff and an architect to ensure setbacks, height limits and impervious-area calculations complied with code. "I meet all of the ordinances and all of the codes," Fabian said, adding that an earlier foundation was unsafe and a new house could not be rebuilt in the original footprint.
Neighbors urged denial. Kelly Workman, whose property borders the lot, said the neighborhood’s character (one‑story homes along the street) would be harmed and recounted a fence dispute and removal that remains unresolved. Another neighbor said the replacement home would cast long shadows and reduce livability. "This will be very different on that number 1," one councilmember said when reading the required nonconforming‑use findings.
City staff reviewed Section 3.22.070 of the development code and advised council that findings must be made on four criteria (character, property value/quality of life, vehicle/pedestrian impacts, and compatibility with the zone). Although staff said some technical standards were met (including an impervious-area calculation just under the limit), several councilmembers concluded the proposal failed to meet the findings on character and compatibility and moved to deny.
Outcome: Council voted to deny the proposed reconstruction. The applicant may resubmit a redesigned plan or appeal to the hearing officer.

