WELCOME, EVERYONE. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 25, 2025 HEARING. I'VE REVIEWED THOSE. IS IT ON? A LITTLE CLOSER. I'VE REVIEWED THOSE MINUTES AND THOSE ARE APPROVED. NEXT ITEM IS THE VARIANCE APPLICATION filed by the Rohrer family. Did I say that correctly? Okay. Well, first, let's all make our appearances so we know who's at this hearing. I am the Appeals and Variance Hearing Officer. My name is Tim Pack. Would each of you like to make your appearance, come to the microphone, say your name so we pick it up on our record? MY NAME IS ELLEN ROAR. I'M THE CO-APPLICANT. WELCOME. I'M BOB ROAR. WELCOME. AND I'M MAX ROAR, THE SON. WELCOME. THANK YOU. AND FROM THE CITY? YES, I'M JENNIFER DESCHAMPSKI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. TODD DRAPER, PLANNING MANAGER. Spencer Duchesne, assistant city attorney for the city and council. Paul Gauman, planning coordinator. Okay, welcome everybody. All right, well, let's begin. Again, like I've said, I've read all the materials from you and from the city. If you have a presentation to make, if you'd like to say anything, now is the time. Feel free and go ahead. Yeah, please come to the podium. IF YOU WANT TO REFER TO ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS, DOCUMENTS, MAPS? MAX CAN DRIVE. SO BASICALLY, WE ARE A COUPLE WHO WANT TO AGE IN PLACE, AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH OUR SON AND HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER THAT PERHAPS A REALLY GREAT WAY FOR US TO CARRY ON AS A FAMILY AS WE GET OLDER IS TO CREATE AN ADU SITUATION ON OUR PROPERTY. IT'S JUST ABOUT AN ACRE. in Draper, Utah, and that's represented on the map here. Can we zoom in on that? And so, you know, we did consult with Ben Lieberman's group, so we did have some counsel look over our application with us, you know, to make sure we understood the rules and made a good case for the variance. I think the main points, I appreciate you having looked through our packet and feel free to answer any questions for us. I think the main points that we want to make is that our overall impact on the neighborhood will be minimal and that really the ADU laws are a great idea and a good way to develop with the Draper community so we can keep our family together and intact on our property. And I think some of the concerns that you might have as far as issuing a variance would be the impact on the neighborhood. And this is a good map to show that behind us is Sports City, and there is a eight-foot wall between us and Sports City, and then trees that block really the view except for the very top of where that building already exists for Sports City. And they've been great neighbors, and we love having the sounds of children, and there's the ward. I mean, it's a nice... neighborhood construct right now, and we don't think that this ADU would be imposing any unnecessary strain on our neighbors. Also, our neighbors are wonderful. Oh, and one of them is here. Barb is our neighbor to the right there on the picture to the east of us. That's Barb Olson and her husband. And then the other neighbors are the Orrs, our family vet. And Marty and Brandy had to work today, so they couldn't be here. But we have the understanding. The Orrs live next to the Orrs? The oars? The oars and the roars live next to each other, yeah. And so, you know, they're wonderful neighbors. Thanks, Barb, for the show of support today. And, you know, we appreciate the neighborhood and the cul-de-sac and the area that we've got here, and we think this is a respectful application. The variance is really only 60 inches off the 20 feet required. And so, you know, we're hoping that that's a tolerable variance for the – FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THAT'S REALLY THE POINTS I WANTED TO UNDERLINE TODAY. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A LETTER THAT KIND OF EXPLAINS THE OVERALL SITUATION. BUT THIS WILL ALLOW OUR FAMILY TO STAY CLOSE, TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER, AND AGE IN PLACE AS PART OF THE DRAPER COMMUNITY LONG TERM. OKAY. SO I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. In the back of the property, is that a garage or a workshop? What is the current structure? The current structure, what happened is we applied originally for an ADU and we were declined. We already had an existing garage there for the last three, four years. Currently, we have a permit to just improve the appearance of the garage. But that's when we realized that, oh, we could apply for a variance and get an ADU. So the intention is to leave one half of the building, the western side of the building, as a garage and then make the right-hand side or the eastern side of the building, that would be the ADU. And that's for which we have submitted those plans. Okay. So it would be one building and then the one side is the ADU and the other side is the garage. So the structure on the – on the east half, you're going to tear down? No, just build within it. Build within it? Are you going to expand the footprint? Or just build within it? Just build within it. Yeah, so right now it's all shop. We're going to move the shop all to the one western side, and then we're going to build within it on that footprint. And then the northeast corner of that structure, what is the distance between that point and that boundary line? Do you see where his mouth is, Hot Rod? Do you know how many feet that is, the northeast corner? It's well away. It's behind the 20 foot. Yeah. Because it's kind of, it's tipped a little bit. There you go. The northwest corner of the new, perfect, 14 feet. Feet three inches, I see. So it says existing shop and new project, but all of that footprint is on that property currently. The new project is just to redo the inside. Okay. So the portion of the new project, is it possible to build that within the 20-foot setback? Not without taking out the foundation. That's the problem, is the... it would require taking down a really viable building. You'd have to redo the footings and the... It would just be cost prohibitive and seems unnecessary given the overall structure. And even, see that variance? That fence from Sports City... is another six feet beyond that. Now, technically, that's the property line and the easement. And Sport City built their fence on their property set back from the easement line, but there is more, there's actually more room back there behind the shop than indicated. That's just the legal description, just for another bit of nuance. Okay. So, other than it being... You said it's cost prohibitive. Have you looked at the cost of doing that? Do you know if it's actually cost prohibitive? It would require taking the building down, like shaving the building off and then moving it. Bob, can you speak in the mic? So the one that says new project, if you look at the east wall, the wall on the right and the wall on the back, that's like eight feet tall concrete wall. So it's just a lot slopes from the east to the west. So it's built kind of into the ground. I mean, if it was just framed on top, it'd be fairly easy to move. But I mean, there are 10 inch thick walls. It's a massive wall because it had to be engineered to hold the dirt on the two sides. I don't know if we've got a picture of that. So yeah, so moving it would... be a major. So right here this is like the property is built up right there and there's concrete all around it but then there's also a five foot stone wall that comes around on this side to keep the top of the property level and that's where we have the lawn and the garden. And you can see that from This building is kind of built into that embankment on this side, and this area is elevated on the property. Yeah. See, there's a road that goes up to it. There's a little driveway for the wheelbarrows and stuff. And you built the existing structure, right, three years ago, you said? Yeah. Okay. And this is... doesn't really relate to what I have to decide or anything, but I'm just curious. Can you go back to the prior? With like the, well, it had the, yeah. So in the space titled New Project, is it possible to build a wall going from east to west along the 20-foot setback in the new project so that, and I don't know if this would actually comply, But is that possible? So that you build an artificial, like a wall, so that's behind the setback. So the ADU is actually contained within 20 feet. That would require moving the whole building. Yeah, everything without the slide four. I'm not talking about moving the outer walls of the existing compliance structure. I mean, as you build a wall within the existing structure. and so that your ADU is contained, literally contained within the 20 foot... Oh, so inside the building? Yeah, that's something to think... Anyway, that's... You mean that little piece? Yeah. We could make that storage? I don't know. That's something to maybe think about. So my other question is, so you said it's going to be cost prohibitive. Yeah. You don't know exactly. You haven't got any bids or anything. I understand it probably is, but do you have any bids to show how... costly it would be? Other than cost... Other than it being cost-prohibitive, is there any other reason why you can't comply? What about it is wasteful? To do that much construction for the 60 inches. This is where we came to the conclusion that it was worth applying for a variance. The reality of the situation is that beyond here is a wall that separates Fort City. It doesn't impact our neighbors in any negative way. The existing building is already there. It just seems like it would make good sense This is the view from Sports City. So this is in their parking lot. from our side. So, yeah, and, you know, again, Sports City is a vibrant part of the community. We're not really the noisy ones in this equation. And you said your lot is the only lot that backs up to Sports City? There's no other residential lots that? No, we all do. Oh, you all do, okay. Barb's piece, just that piece right there, and then there are two more neighbors. This is the ward right here. So this is, you know, once upon a time, Sports City, in compliance with their building requirements, put up this very nice eight-foot fence. That's what those images are to kind of protect the area. So that goes the whole length of their property. Okay. Okay. So that's what we're looking at is just that, is it just an appropriate grant of a variance given the overall, you know, situation in total? Yeah. And look, I think I agree that neighbors aren't going to complain. No one's going to maybe complain about this. But if the hardship is solely economic, meaning cost prohibitive, I can't grant it. So is there any other reason – any other burden or hardship that is unique to your property that you'd suffer, other than just being too costly to comply. Also behind that is where the water system goes, and that could be disruptive to that. So this is part of a 140-year-old piece of property. In fact, Bob is the water master. Once the neighbors found out he was a plumber, he got elected to keep an eye on this water system, and that also goes back behind here. So you're saying is there a canal or a culvert? Yeah. With water. Which one? And is it on your side of the property line? Yeah. Within the fence? Yeah, it's right on the easement probably. So from that stone fence that we've been shown, there's a six-foot easement. It's probably that white line. Maybe the planning people know exactly. So that runs from 700 West all the way down to the Jordan River. So when we irrigate, that water comes from Willow Creek. We pump it up from there, comes down the road, and then it's a 15-inch culvert that Barb would know. Maybe Sports City put that in there? You're not allowed to speak. Sorry. Oh, she's not allowed to speak. She's not allowed to speak, no. So I think I understand. That's okay. Yeah, that was removed there. Yeah, that's been there, like it's been there 140 years, and it's been improved. Not there. Yeah. Not there, though. Ma'am, you can't speak. But I understand what you're getting at. So are you saying that if to move the building or to demolish it, you were going to damage the culvert? Possibly. It's right on, you know, it's a couple feet off the back of our building is where that culvert is. Have you spoken with any contractors to see if it's possible to demolish the building without harming the culvert? It's just a possibility. Also, from an environmental standpoint, it just seems like, again, the word wasteful keeps coming up. Is that worth it? And the intention of this ADU, as good neighbors in Draper, we're hoping to appeal to your sense of, like, this is how you want to expand the area, especially on a lot this size with a family like ours. There's only five of us in our family. We have no interest in... renting it out or doing any of the things that would upset the lovely neighborhood we've created. We just want a place where we can grow old and have our family nearby. So overall economic hardship, yeah, it can be economic hardship in terms of, I don't know, I mean, 70-year-old people here trying to figure out a place to live and bring our family together. And you don't know what the future brings. It just seems like a really good plan for us and for Draper. And that building's only two years old, so to demolish a two-year-old building would be, you know, feels kind of odd. There's a lot of concrete in that building there, so. Okay. Our son is going to take over. So we work in construction. I would say the environmental impact of actually moving that building for the oars down here, downhill, would be pretty substantial because it's kind of a mudslide-prone set of properties going down the hill. especially with the irrigation ditch. So if somebody doesn't manage the gates properly, all that mud would just go into the Orr's house. So that's a reason that I think that we've done a good job of making sure that the tiers that we've built into the property maintain a slow flow of water down the hill. If you had to tear that building down, it would be more mudslide prone. For the time under construction, you could build it back better But I think that those would be things that would be cost prohibitive. In the money that we've spent as a family to build that shop to do it again, we probably wouldn't stay at that property long term. So if you were to demolish that portion, there'd be an increased risk of mudslide? Yeah. And was there mudslides before you built? thing that comes up is, you know, as we look at the surrounding communities, the setback everywhere around us, we looked at five communities that touches is 10 feet and Drapers 20 feet. So, you know, anybody that's got a building, like you can see in the neighborhood that they're that they put in years ago, with the 10 foot setback for, you know, an accessory, or just a accessory unit. now can't turn those into an ADU because it's changed to 20 feet. It didn't change. I guess you adopted that, what, in 21 you adopted your ADU requirements or something, the city of Draper? I think so. It was a year before we moved here that when they adopted those ADU requirements, they said, well, it has to be 20 feet, which seems kind of unusual, and everybody else is 10, and 10 on the sides. I don't know how that came about, but... And in this case, you know, it's not like we're affecting the neighbor to our back. In fact, as I walk through the neighborhood, there's 40-foot RVs parked two inches off their property line that the neighbors look at a 40-foot long RV. So it's, you know, if it's a matter of protecting the view of your neighbor, it's not affecting anybody. That's what we have. Yeah, that's in a nutshell. Thank you for your time. The city will present, and then you'll have an opportunity to respond if you'd like. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, guys, for your time. Thank you. Please stay. Please stay. Please stay. Especially if you'd like to respond. A few minutes to respond. Hi. So from the city's perspective, we're certainly not opposed to multi-generational family living in place and with particular regard to uh adus even dadus that's something that we have a legislative push for at the state level to allow these things to happen the larger issue that the city is looking at here is how we enforce our ordinances and and the erosion of our ordinances if we grant variances based on sympathetic applicants. And certainly the Rohrer family is a sympathetic applicant. We would love for them to be able to age in place and stay with their family and live at the same place. But unfortunately, the proposed ADU doesn't really comport with where a variance would be appropriate. A variance is an extraordinary form of relief. And I think the best evidence of that is if we look at the case law to see where variances have been granted have met all the five criteria that are required by statute and by city code for a variance. A variance is an extraordinary measure of relief and it requires extraordinary facts, which I don't think that the applicant has demonstrated here. If we review the five REQUIREMENTS OF A VARIANCE. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE AN UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT THAT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCES. THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT GENERALLY APPLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONE. GRANTING A VARIANCE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME ZONE. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE GENERAL PLAN AND WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. And the spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. It's the applicant's burden and responsibility to show that all five of these criteria can be met. With regard to the first one, that's where most applicants who are seeking a variance end up not being able to carry their burden, I should say. AND THAT ONE IS THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE AN UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP FOR THE APPLICANT THAT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE ORDINANCE. THE CASE THAT WE LOOK AT FROM THE CITY SIDE OF THINGS IS KIND OF OUR PARADIGM CASE FOR SHOWING THAT THIS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED AS IN THE CASE OF SPECT. WITH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE, That unreasonable hardship that that element talks about can't be purely economic or self-imposed. We've had applicants come in that met both of those criteria. We had an applicant once who had a self-imposed, purely economic situation that they would have had to rotate their building footprint, and it would have cost them another $300,000. They had the money. The problem was that they built according to did not build according to what their building plan said that they would build and they built into the setbacks and they rotated their house their house building footprint 20 degrees and that was a purely economic and and self-imposed incident this one i would say not necessarily self-imposed but it is purely economic this is like a this is not like the case in inspect versus big water town Inspect versus Big Water Town, what had happened there was a developer had come in and put backfill on a lot prior to closing on the lot. It was a quarter acre lot. It increased the grade from the building envelope to the street from 5% to 14%, which is an unreasonably steep driveway to have had to have built. The additional facts in that case were that there was a well that would have been right next to where their septic drainage field would have had to have been that's kind of not great to have wastewater being so close to your well water and so those were the factors that the court looked at and said yeah this is an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that wasn't necessary the general to carry out the general purpose of the land use ordinance The unreasonable hardships that the applicant has complained of here is a purely economic one. We don't really have even the figures on that, so I don't know necessarily that I would say that the applicants met that burden. If we're talking about special circumstances attached to the property, the other statutory requirement for the special circumstances is that the special circumstances must relate back to that unreasonable hardship. In the applicant's answers, the applicant stated that it was the wall that separates Sports City from the residential uses. And I don't think necessarily that that relates at all to the economic hardship that's complained of. From the city's perspective, we need to make sure that our ordinances are enforced across the board, across the city. in a broader perspective. And while it might be sympathetic to grant this variance to the Rohr family, if the Rohr family receives this to age in place, somebody else might come in and say, well, they had a purely economic situation. They had a special circumstance that didn't relate to an unreasonable hardship, and they got their variance. And they might be a less sympathetic applicant they might want to convert their um accessory structure into a detached accessory dwelling unit which have two different setback requirements the setback requirement changes based on the use according to our code and they might say well we want to what we want to do is is convert our our shop into an airbnb and could be in an identical situation and if we grant the variance in this case we just to let somebody age in place we'd have to grant the variance in the other case and that's what that gets to the heart of um the spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice done we can't say that substantial justice is going to be done based off of the type of living situation that's going to be going on what's more is if we grant a variance for the adu in that building, that becomes a vested property right that the city can't regulate after that point in time. And then it can become a short-term rental. And I'm not saying that the ROARs necessarily would be in that situation, but property lasts a lot longer than people. And buildings will last longer than people. And what could end up happening is that this gets turned into an Airbnb, and then we have neighbors who are maybe sympathetic to the ROARs now, but neighbors in the future who would not necessarily be sympathetic to having visitors come in and this kind of property being treated as a quasi-hotel situation. The city's setback for an accessory structure as it is right now, and that is 10 feet. If it's a dwelling unit, the change in the use changes the setback requirement because all dwelling units have a setback of 20 feet as opposed to 10 feet. So insofar as it's being used as a shop, insofar as it's being used as a shed, a little music studio or whatever it is that you could possibly do out there in that building, that's fine insofar as it's being used as somebody's primary residence. That's when it requires a 20 feet setback. And I don't feel that the applicant has met the burden of showing that all five elements of the statute have been met. Outside of that, I've submitted the brief. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. closing statement or whatever you like to do. Time's yours. Could you state your name again? Max Rohrer. Thanks. Yep. I would say that that I understand. Is that close enough? Just speak into the mic. Okay. You don't need to address me. Address him. He's the one deciding. Okay. So I think that that makes sense. I get that there are rules in place for that. We don't know what the neighbors would do for Airbnbs in their own house, in their own basement, without changing any of the much larger buildings on the block. I think that this group has gathered in this room because there should be some way to see if there is a reasonable bending of the rules. Not for everybody. I think that we're not asking you to change the rules from 20 feet to 10 feet for everyone. city of draper i think that we're talking about a space that would probably fit on two of these folding tables that's out of compliance but doesn't seem to change the scope of the bigger issues that you're trying to promote in the city of draper so that part i think there is an appeals process uh which makes me believe there is you know this this group of people that would say yes this is technically over a line um by It's 69 inches for one triangle of the property. Is that something that breaks the intent of what these rules were established for? As mentioned, if we were the 20 feet away from the corner of the property and built a water slide or something that was really obnoxious to the neighbors, it would be a different story but maybe closer to compliance. I think that a... quiet corner of a building that's dug into the side of the hill, I would say from the research that we've done, seems to be the least offensive variance to ask for. That would be what I would add. And I appreciate zoning because it's important. So your neighbors don't. We moved because one of our neighbors in Missouri, they had this beautiful forest. We lived on a farm and they tore it down. and all of that mud flooded onto our property. And we have this nice clear spring that came out of the ground that was just filled with mud. So we could do that and be in compliance. It's more impactful. And for me, I can't speak for my parents, but I would probably move instead of do that to the neighbors that we like down the hill. So this would be, we think A low impact way to be good citizens within what we think Draper is describing as a way to promote higher density living in a sustainable and. Nice way to the neighbors, and it's just that kind of pizza triangle that we wish were 69 inches closer to. The center of the property, but it's not something that I would as. you know, a future tenant of the property, gamble versus, like, a college fund for my daughter. Like, we wouldn't do it based on what we know to be, and I'm sorry we don't have numbers to move the whole building with us today from a contractor, but knowing what we spent and the amount of labor and time that we had a dusty lot to get it to this point, I wouldn't do that again, I guess, as kind of the personal effect of these rules. So that would be... OF THE GREY AREA THAT WE HOPE TO PRESENT TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I KNOW I THINK I READ IN THE PAPER WHEN WE FIRST MOVED HERE THAT ONCE THE ADU REQUIREMENT WAS ACCEPTED OR VOTED ON FOR DRAPER THAT ONE OF THE one of the things they were trying to accomplish, the city of Draper, is there was, I think, a grace period that anybody that had an ADU that was built before that could bring it into compliance and have it inspected and stuff. Well, I mean, if somebody did build an ADU in a building that was 10 feet off the property, I mean, they'd have to tear it down because now they can't bring it into compliance if it's not the 20-foot setback that's required for the ADU as opposed to just the accessory building. So... That's what, you know, I think it's a 10-feet difference that's kind of hanging us up here, obviously, you know, between an accessory building and accessory dwelling in it. So I think that's what we've got. So thanks for the time. Appreciate your time. Anyone else? Okay. Well, I'm going to close the hearing. Thank you for your time. Jennifer, anything I need to specifically do to magic words? Well, do you have a time frame you're expecting to get a decision? So I'll write a decision. I'll send it to Jennifer. And I'll get that done by Friday is my anticipation. Monday maybe, but I'd like to get these done while they're fresh in my mind. Thanks, everybody. Thank you.