Okay.

Well, welcome everyone.

The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes of the March 25th, 2025 hearing.

I've reviewed those.

Is it on?

Yes.

A little closer.

I've reviewed those minutes and those are approved.

Next item is the variance application filed by the Roar family.

Did I say that correctly?

Okay.

I've uh well, first let's um let's all make our appearances so we know who's at this hearing.

Uh I am the uh appeals and variance hearing officer.

My name is Tim Pack.

Um would each of you like to make your appearance, come to the microphone, say your name so it we pick it up on our record.

My name is Ellen Rohr.

I'm the co-applicant.

Welcome.

Um Bob Rohr, Norwegi to Ellen Rohr.

Welcome.

And I'm Max Roar, the son.

Welcome, thank you.

And uh from the city.

Yes, um, Jennifer Doshremski, 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 and from the city.

Um 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.

Um if you want to refer to any of the submissions documents, maps.

Max can drive.

So basically, we are um uh 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 uh that's represented on the map here.

Can we zoom in on that?

And so um uh you know, we we uh did consult with uh Ben Lieberman's group, so we did have some counsel um uh can uh look over our application with us, you know, to make sure we understood the the rules and made a good case for the the variants.

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 um 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 an 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 you know 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, all in one of them is here, Barb is our our neighbor to the right there on the picture to the east of us.

That's uh Barb Olson and her husband, and then the other neighbors are the ORs, our family vet, and Marty and uh Brandy had to work today, so they couldn't be here.

But we have the roar understanding.

The oars, the oars and the roars live next to each other, yeah.

And so uh, you know, they're uh wonderful neighbors.

Thanks, Barb, for the show of support today.

And uh, 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 um variance is really only 60 inches off the 20 feet required, and so you know it's uh we're hoping that that's a tolerable variance for the for the planning commission.

And uh that's really the the uh the points I wanted to underline today.

know they're uh wonderful neighbor thanks barb for the show of support today and uh 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 um variance is really only 60 inches off the 20 feet required and so you know it's uh we're hoping that that's a a tolerable variance for the for the planning commission and uh that's really the the it the points I wanted to underline today um and if you have any uh other questions um you know we have the the answers to your questions we have a 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 yeah so I do have some questions so in in the back of the property is that a is that a a garage or a workshop what what is the current structure yeah the current structure what happened is we applied originally for an ADU and we were declined and we already had an existing um garage there for the last three four years that yeah and so 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's the ADU and the other side is the garage.

So the the structure on the on the east half you're gonna tear down no just build within it build within it so you can expand the footprint or just build within it just build within it yeah so right now it's all shop we're gonna move the shop all to the one western side and then we're gonna build within it on that footprint.

And then the the northeast corner of that structure what is the distance between that point and that boundary line the north boundary line do you see where his mouth is hot rod do you know how many feet that is the northeast corner northeast is probably about 20 I don't know if we can put that on or it's well behind the 20 foot yeah that's way because it's kind of it's tipped a little bit there the northwest corner of the new project oh perfect 14 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 um so the the portion of the new project is it 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 the footings and the and the it would just be cost prohibitive and and seems unnecessary given the 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 in the easement and sports 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 the shop than indicated that's just the legal description just for another bit of nuance.

Okay so other than that 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 the building the the one that says new project is actually built into the ground so it's it's almost like Bob can you can you speak in the mic yeah thanks 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 this 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 were 10 inch thick walls it's a massive wall because it had to be engineered to hold the uh the dirt on the two sides I don't know if we've got a picture of the so yeah so moving it would be a major so right here this is like the the property is built up right there and there's a con 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.

If I go back to this, just see how this is here.

So there's a rock wall right there, and then this is gravel, and then this is grass, but that's all up against the building.

So the 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.

Like a little driveway for the the wheelbarrels and stuff.

And you built the existing structure, right?

A couple years 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 can you go back to the prior?

Is it here?

With like the well, it had the yeah, the so in the in the space titled new project.

Is it 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 is that possible?

So that's you build an artificial like a wall.

That would be so that's behind the setback.

So the ADU is actually contained within 20 feet.

Yeah, everything would also slide for it.

So I'm not talking about moving the outer walls of the existing compliance structure.

Here 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 storage?

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 gonna be cost prohibitive.

Yeah.

You don't know exactly, you haven't got any bids or anything?

I understand it it probably is, but you haven't do you have any bids to show how costly it would be?

Okay.

No.

Other than cost you can see that this this would have to, the whole building would have to move, which would also then disrupt this containment situation over here.

Okay.

Other than it being cost prohibitive, is there any other reason why you can't comply?

I guess it just seems wasteful.

What about it is wasteful?

To do that much construction for the 60 inches.

This is where we came, you know, to the conclusion that it was worth applying for for a variance.

Like the reality of the situation is that there beyond here is a wall that separates Sports 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 to grant the variance, which is why we applied.

You're gonna click on the PDFs up there to show the to left left to left the PDF.

So the applicants images to left.

Oh, here.

Oh, okay.

This is this is the view from sports city city.

So this is in their parking lot here and here, and then move these up.

And then this is the view from our side.

So yeah, the and you know, again, Sports City is uh is a vibrant part of the community.

We're not really the noisy ones in this equation.

And you said your your lot is the only lot that backs up to Sports City, there's no other residential lots that no that we all do.

Oh, you all do, okay.

Yeah, if you go back here, you can see this is this is the oars, and this is Barb's, and this is this is 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 um 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 they did that goes the whole length of the property of their property, and uh and the ward is up there too.

So that's what that's what we're looking at, is just that is it just an appropriate grant of a variance given the overall um you know situation in total.

Yeah.

And and look, I think I agree that neighbors aren't gonna complain.

No one's gonna 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 you're is unique to your property?

You'd suffer.

Other than just being too costly to comply.

Well, there's also the um I don't know how important it is to you, but it is to our neighbors that right back there is also the water system.

So let me go back, let me go back here up to this map.

I guess it's I think this is still easier to see right here.

But there is an old Draper water system, the West Creston uh um irrigation system.

I don't know if you're aware of that, but also behind that is where the the water system goes, and that could be disruptive to that.

So this is part of a hundred and four-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 there is there a canal or a culvert?

Yeah.

With water.

Which one?

It's uh a culvert in our area, it's a uh culvert, in some areas it's open.

And is it on your side of the proper property line?

Yeah, within the fence?

Yeah, it's right on the easement proper, probably.

Yeah, so from that stone fence that we've been shown, there's a six-foot easement, and 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 uh Willow Creek, we pump it up from there, it comes down the road, and then it's a 15-inch culvert that uh Barb would know.

Maybe Sports City put that in, or I think we so you're you're not allowed to speak.

Sorry.

Oh, she's not allowed to speak.

She's not allowed to speak, no.

So and I so I think I I understand what I would just shed line into that.

That's okay.

Yeah, that was removed there.

Yeah, that's been there, like it's been there a hundred and forty years, and it's been improved not there.

Yeah, though not there.

So open ma'am, yeah.

You you can't speak.

Yeah, sorry, thank you.

But I I understand what you're getting at.

So are you saying that if to move the building or to demolish it, you are going to damage yes the culvert?

Yeah, but it's possible it's right on, you know, it's a couple feet off the back of our building, is where that um that culvert is.

Have you spoken with any contractors to see if it's possible to to demolish the building without harming the culvert?

We haven't talked to anybody about the it's just a possibility.

Also, from uh environmental standpoint, it just seems like again the word wasteful keeps coming up.

Is that is that worth it?

And and the you know, 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 you know, 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, you know, 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 to live and um you know 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.

Okay, yeah, and that building's only two years old, so to demolish a two-year-old building would be you know, yeah, just feels kind of odd.

There's a lot of concrete in that building there.

So our son is gonna take it.

So we we work in construction.

I would say the environmental impact of actually moving that building for the oars down here would 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 horse 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, it would be more mudslide prone.

Okay.

For the time under construction, you could build it back better.

But I think that you know 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.

Uh 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 you built?

Well, we just kind of maintained it so it doesn't.

You can see with that gravel and the way we cropped up the property.

It was a most level as well.

It was a mud sliding.

Okay.

That's where we put the rock wall over.

But I mean, another thing that comes up is, you know, as we look at the surrounding communities, um, the setback everywhere around us.

We looked at five communities that touches is 10 feet, and Draper's 20 feet.

So, you know, anybody that's got a building, like you can see in the neighborhood that there that they put in years ago with the 10-foot setback for uh you know, an accessory or just a accessory unit now can't turn those into an ADU because it's changed to 20.

Didn't change.

I guess you adopted that one 21.

You adopted your ADU requirements or something, the city of Draper.

Yeah.

So it was a year before we moved here, that um when they adopt 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 tar 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 um, you know, if it's a matter of protecting the viewer, your neighbor, it's right, it's not affecting anybody.

So that's what we have.

Yeah, that's not true.

Yeah, I know that uh you know we put a lot of thought into the report, and we appreciate that you read it, and our hope is that you say yes.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

Um the city will present, and then you'll have an opportunity to to respond if you'd like.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, guys, for your time.

Thank you.

Please stay.

Oh, please stay.

Please stay.

Um, especially if you'd like to respond.

You know, if you want a few minutes to respond.

Yeah.

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.

Um, that's something that we have a legislative um push for at the state level to allow these things to happen.

Um the larger issue that the city is looking at here is how we enforce our ordinances and um and the erosion of our ordinances if we grant variances based on uh sympathetic applicants.

Um, and certainly the Roar family is a sympathetic applicant.

We would you know love for them to be able to age in place and stay with their family and live at the same place, but unfortunately uh the proposed um 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 extraordinary measure of relief and it requires extraordinary facts, um, which I don't think that the applicant has demonstrated here.

Um if we review the five uh 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.

Uh 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 uh be contrary to the public interest.

And the spirit of the land use ordinance is observed and substantial justice done.

Uh it's the applicant's burden and responsibility to show that all five of these criteria can be met.

Um, with regard to the first one, that's where most applicants who are seeking a variance end up uh getting not being able to carry their burden, I should say.

With the literal enforcement of the ordinance, that that literal that unreasonable hardship that talks about that that element talks about can't be purely economic or self-imposed.

We've had applicants come in with that 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.

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 that 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.

If we're talking about special circumstances attached to the property, the the other statutory requirement for the special circumstances is that the special circumstances must relate back to that unreasonable hardship.

And the applicant's answers, the applicant stated that it was the um the wall that separates sports city from the residential uses.

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 Roar 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 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 convert our shop into an Airbnb.

And they 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 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 became 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 ends up happening, what could end up happening is that you know 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 and uh this kind of property being treated as a quasi hotel situation.

Um the city's 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 use 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 uh you know, uh a shed, um, you know, a little music studio or whatever it is that uh 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 um, I don't feel that the applicant has met the burden of showing that all five elements of the statute have been met.

Um outside of that, I've submitted the brief.

If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

No questions.

Um, you'd like to respond, make a closing statement or whatever, whatever you'd like to do.

Time's yours.

Could you state your name again?

Uh Max Roar.

Thanks.

Yep.

I would say that that I understand is that close to the just speaking of the mic and 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.

Um we don't know what the neighbors would do for Airbnbs in their own house in their own basement without changing uh any of the the much larger buildings on the block.

Uh 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 uh we're not asking you to change the rules from 20 feet to 10 feet for the city of Draper.

Um, 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 this group of people that would say, yes, this is technically over a line by 69 inches for one you know triangle of the property.

Um is that something that breaks the intent of what these rules were established for as mentioned, you know, 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 uh 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.

Uh, I would say from you know the research that we've done seems to be the least offensive uh variance to ask for.

That would be um what I would add, and I appreciate zoning because um it's important, so your neighbors don't um 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 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 uh in a sustainable and um nice way to the neighbors.

Uh and it's just that kind of pizza triangle that we wish were 69 inches closer to the um center of the property, but it's not something that I would as you know, a future tenant of the property um gamble versus like a college fund for my daughter.

We like we wouldn't do it based on what we know to be and I I'm sorry we don't have numbers to 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 added a dusty lot to get it to this point uh I wouldn't do that again I guess is kind of the the personal effect of these rules so that that would be kind of the the gray area that we hope to present today.

Okay thank you very much so I know I 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 um one of the things they were trying to accomplish the city of Draper is there was like I think a grace period that anybody that had an ADU that was built before that was 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 uh the 20 foot um 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 hang us up here obviously you know between a an accessory building and the sesory dwelling in it so I think that's what we've got.

So thanks for the time.

Appreciate your time.

Anyone else okay well um I'm going to close the hearing thank you for your time Jennifer anything I need to specifically do to magic magic words.

Well do you have a time frame your expecting to get a uh decision?

Um so I'll I'll write a decision I'll send it to Jennifer and I'll get that done my and by Friday is my anticipation.

Um Monday maybe but I'd like to get these done while they're fresh in my mind.

Okay.

Thanks everybody.

Okay.

Thanks everybody.

Okay.

Thank you.