Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Retaining Wall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies request for 10–12-foot retaining wall; staff urged tiers or design changes
Summary
After extended questioning, the commission denied a variance request for a tall retaining wall in the Arrival subdivision, concluding the property has buildable area for tiered walls and that the request did not meet variance criteria; vote was 4–0 to deny.
The Eagle Mountain Planning Commission voted 4–0 to deny a request for a tall retaining wall in the Arrival subdivision after a prolonged technical discussion about grading, terraces and legal standards for variances.
Steven (staff) explained the requested wall would reach about 12 feet at one end and taper down the lot, and recommended denial because the five statutory variance criteria were not met — staff concluded there remained enough buildable area to construct tiered walls that would comply with current code. "Based on those criteria, staff is recommending that the variance is denied," Steven said during the staff presentation.
Applicant representative Guy Williams told commissioners the owner had planned a private field for his daughter and said the tiered option would ‘‘steal 20 to 30 feet of his land that he was planning on using for the soccer field,’’ noting prior site approvals and expressing disappointment at having to revise plans midstream. Commissioners pressed the applicants on the feasibility of tiered solutions, the minimum horizontal spacing rules (the code requires a terrace spacing equal to 1.5 times the average wall height), safety near the driveway and whether previous approvals created legal rights under the older code.
An HOA declarant told the commission the association had approved the developer's original plan and supported continued construction as proposed; staff and multiple commissioners replied that entitlements do not become effective until building permits are sought and thus current code standards apply to new permits.
After reviewing each variance criterion on the record, the chair moved to deny the variance citing staff findings (available buildable area for tiered walls, non-unique conditions and public-interest concerns). Commissioner Strong seconded; the motion passed 4–0. Staff and commissioners noted the city is actively reviewing retaining-wall code language and that the city engineer and city attorney will be involved in any code updates.
