Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES December 5, 2018 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Necia Christensen at 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, Utah. WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS Necia Christensen, Angela McConkey, Sandy Naegle, Josh Pettersson, Scott Spendlove, and William Whetstone WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman, and Brenda Turnblom WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were ten people in the audience. B-11-2018 Tom Checketts – Variance 5511 S 6055 W M Zone REQUEST: Tom Checketts has filed a request with the West Valley City Board of Adjustment seeking a variance from the West Valley City Code. The variance is from Section 7-6-302 which Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 2 requires the minimum building setback in a Manufacturing Zone to be 20 feet from an adjacent residential zone or use. The applicant is seeking a variance of 20 feet to locate buildings at property lines along the east and south sides of the parcel for a proposed storage unit development. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends light manufacturing land uses. ◻ The subject property is known as parcel Number 20-14-126-009 and is 6.42 acres. A new self- storage development is being proposed on the property. The parcel to the north is occupied by SilencerCo. That property received Conditional Use approval originally as Durrant’s Crown Bakery in 2005. SilencerCo took over the building in 2008, expanded the facility in 2013 and added additional parking to the south of the building in 2015. There are single family homes along the eastern border of the property, located in Kearns, that were built in 1979. There are three single family homes to the south that were built in 2012 as part of the Greater Southridge subdivision. To the west is the Forterra Precast concrete plant, which was built in 1998. ◻ Along the east edge of the property is a large berm that was installed after the concrete plant received conditional use approval (C-45-97). The berm extends from the southern edge of this property all the way north to 5400 South. The applicant for the concrete plant received a variance from the Board of Adjustment to install a 10’ high landscaped berm in lieu of the 6’ tall masonry wall that was required by code at the time (B-1-98). ◻ Mr. Checketts approached the City about doing storage units at this location earlier this year. He expressed interest in eliminating the landscape berm and putting the storage units right at the property lines along the north, east, and south boundaries. Staff explained that this would require a variance along the eastern and southern property lines, due to the existing residential uses and the 20’ setback that is required in the City code. ◻ The applicant has also filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit for the storage unit project. This application will be heard at the December 12th Planning Commission Hearing. If the applicant is unsuccessful in obtaining the requested variance, the project could still be approved by either leaving the berm in place and installing landscaping on the berm, or by removing the berm and meeting current code requirements for commercial development next to residential, which would include building a 6’ tall masonry wall along property lines and landscaping the 20’ area between the wall and the new buildings. ◻ The applicant believes that reducing the setback along these areas will eliminate an area that will not be readily visible and would lessen noise and light for the neighboring properties that the new development may create. The applicant also feels that this 20’ Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 3 space would create an area where illicit activities could occur. ◻ The applicant has provided a site plan of the proposed storage unit complex, as well as the elevations for the buildings that would be adjacent to the existing residential properties. The proposed buildings along residential property lines that would act as a wall would be about 10’- 8”. Mr. Checketts has also provided answers to the variance criteria. ◻ Should the Board of Adjustment find in favor of the variance request, the applicant will still need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-302 requires the building setback to be 20 feet from a residential use or zone. The applicant is requesting a variance of 20 feet to place the buildings at property lines. The West Valley City Land Use Development and Management Act Section 7-12-107 outlines the standards or conditions for approving a variance. The Board of Adjustment may grant a variance only if: 1. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the zoning ordinance. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. According to Williams, American Land Planning Law (Volume 5, Criteria for the Validity of Variances, pages 131 and 133 et.seq.) there is a presumption against granting a variance and it can only be granted if each of the standards are met. In Wells v. Board of Adjustment of Salt Lake City, the Utah Court of Appeals held that a Boards decision to grant a variance would be illegal if the required statutory findings were not made. Scott Spendlove verified that if this variance is approved, the property line of the adjoining residents will be near the cinderblock construction wall of the storage units, with about 1-1/2’ of dead space between the property line and the building. Scott Spendlove asked if the existing berm will be removed and graded. Brock Anderson answered yes. The existing chain link fence will remain. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 4 Referring to exhibit B, presented by the applicant as an example of a setback variance, Scott Spendlove said he does not recall this property coming before the Board of Adjustment requesting a setback variance. Brock Anderson and Steve Lehman do not recall issuing a variance for this property. Brock Anderson said that perhaps the storage units were built prior to the surrounding residences. William Whetstone asked about the three gaps between the storage unit buildings. Brock Anderson said a concrete wall will continue between the gaps, however, the wall will be notched down in height. Applicant: Tom Checketts 182 South 1950 East Layton, Utah 84040 Tom Checketts said he learned during the design review meeting that there needs to be a break in between buildings every 300’. A fire hydrant will be located at each break. If this variance is approved, Tom Checketts intends to place a footing along the east and south sides of the property. After construction is completed, the neighbors may remove the chain link fence and gain a couple of feet of property. Tom Checketts is hoping to move the storage unit buildings closer to the property line to better control storm water. Buildings will slope towards the middle of the property and water will be captured and slow released into the storm drain lines under 6055 West. Tom Checketts listed problems concerning the berm that have been reported by surrounding residents: weeds, rodents, and erosion. The configuration that is being proposed will solve these problems. Tom Checketts feels that a 20’ setback between residential and the storage units will invite crime to the area. Tom Checketts discussed the benefits of fortress-style storage units: By having the tall side of the building toward the propery line, the ambient light and noise pollution will be eliminated for neighbors. Tom Checketts said the existing berm was installed to reduce the effects of 24-hour construction of the Pre-Cast Concrete plant. The berm is about the same height as the storage unit wall that will be constructed. The view of surrounding neighbors will not be obstructed any more than it is obstructed now by the berm. Tom Checketts presented pictures of other storage units, saying he has not found an instance of self-storage units abutting residential that does not have a zero-lot line. Tom Checketts said he prefers the look of a clean wall over a chain link fence topped with barbed wire. Tom Checketts said he is grateful for the input he has received from neighbors who are concerned about the height of the storage units. After receiving this input, the storage Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 5 units were redesigned. The shortest buildings in the facility will now be against residential property lines. The designed height of the proposed wall is 10’8”. Tom Checketts remarked that one resident he spoke to mentioned that another storage facility was the quietest neighbor he ever had. This will be a class A facility with a resident manager on site. There will be 24-hour supervision even though the facility may not be 24-hour accessible. Tom Checketts feels the storage units will provide a nice buffer between the residential and manufacturing areas. Tom Checketts read his answers to the five variance criteria: 1. Because the Property is long and narrow, the setback takes up a greater percentage of the property than if it were “more square.” For instance, just having a 20-foot setback along 6055 West causes over 8% of our site to be in landscaping. Without this variance our setback area would likely be over 20% of the Property. Without the variance we will be required to install and maintain almost four times the landscaping that code calls for. Granting this variance gets us closer to the 5% required landscaped area. 2. The special circumstance of the physical characteristics of the Property is its narrow shape. The special circumstance of the planned use on the Property is the extremely minor impacts self-storage creates. Self-storage does not create the negative impacts that some other permitted uses in a manufacturing zone create. Self-storage is quiet, does not produce smells or vibrations and the hours are limited. 3. Other property uses in the zoning district have been allowed to make use of their property without burdensome regulation so long as the negative impacts of their use are mitigated. Our proposed use will generate few, if any, negative impacts. Granting this variance will allow us to not only develop and use the Property (like others in the same zoning district) without burdensome regulations, but it will in fact reduce the potential negative impacts for our neighbors. 4. Granting this variance will be beneficial to the health, safety and welfare of the public interest for the reasons set forth in this application, including, but not limited to, reduced issues with rodents, runoff, weeds, noise and light. Further avoiding a “hidden alleyway” will prevent an area from developing that could attract illicit activities. 5. Granting this variance for a use that complies with the manufacturing zone permitted uses, but does not share many of the negative impacts as other permitted uses in the manufacturing zone is fair, serves justice and will benefit the neighbors and the applicant. Dan Orton, 5584 South China Plate Drive, has lived on his property 39 years. He does not want a 10’8” wall along the back of his property. He is concerned that it will shade his garden and change his view. He is also concerned about the property value of his home. He does not feel this variance meets the five criteria requirements. The residential neighbors need to be considered in this decision. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 6 Scott Spendlove asked Dan Orton if a variance is not granted; if the berm is removed, a wall is erected, and a 20’ landscaped buffer installed, how he would feel about that. Dan Orton responded that he did not know. Josh Pettersson noted there will be no difference between a block wall and a storage unit building block wall for residents on the other side. Josh Pettersson noted that the block wall will be installed a few feet away from the property line, giving residents additional footage in their back yards. Necia Christensen asked Dan Orton if he has had problems with rodents in his yard. Dan Orton said he has had problems with gophers and voles, however, he feels unkept yards create more of a rodent problem than the berm. Josh Mercer, finance professional for SilencerCo, 5511 South 6055 West, is representing SilencerCo as both the seller of the land and the future neighbor of the storage facility. Josh Mercer said he has found the Tom Checketts family to be friendly, respectable, and reasonable and feels they will be good neighbors. Josh Mercer reported that SilencerCo has received complaints from neighbors about rodents in the past. He assumes that removing the berm and placing a barrier along residential properties will alleviate the rodent problem. Josh Mercer said 2017 was a difficult year for SilencerCo. Thankfully, 2018 has been better, but the sale of this land is to satisfy the demands of their lender. Patrick King, 5967 West Plumbago Avenue, Kearns, has a home that faces the berm. He is concerned that the storage facility walls will attract graffiti. He asked what kind of barrier will be put up and how it will be maintained. Necia Christensen said the cinderblock wall will be against the backyards of residences. Patrick King asked about fire access to the property. Sandy Naegle said fire access will be through the storage facility. There being no further comments, Necia Christensen closed the public portion of the meeting. Motion: Sandy Naegle moved to approve B-11-2018 based on the criteria presented. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. Discussion: William Whetstone clarified that if the variance is granted, there will be a 10’8” building wall on the east side of the property next to residential. If the variance is not granted, there will be a 6’ masonry wall, 20’ of empty space, and then a 10’8” high building wall. Brock Anderson answered that is correct. The requirement is a 6’ minimum height wall, however a higher wall may be requested. Josh Pettersson referred to exhibit B which shows other storage units abutting residential properties. He also Googled other examples of storage units within West Valley. He noticed they all use the building wall near the property line next to residential. None of Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 7 the board members recollect any other requests for storage units asking for variances to eliminate the required landscaping along residential. Necia Christensen said any time a 20’ buffer is provided without lights near a residential area, it creates a place for criminal activity to happen on a regular basis. She appreciates the neighbors being here, but feels if they get the 20’ landscaped buffer they are asking for now, they will complain about it later when they see nefarious activities happening in the dead space behind the building. Scott Spendlove said each variance request is considered individually. He does not believe this variance request meets criteria one and two. He believes the nature of the business is what is causing the hardship, not the size and configuration of the lot itself. He believes using examples of storage units along Redwood that are not within the same zoning district and are not applicable to this situation. For these reasons, he would vote against granting this variance. Scott Spendlove wishes to stipulate that the Planning Commission consider the verbal and written feedback that has been provided by the surrounding neighbors. Necia Christensen and William Whetstone feel the variance criteria have been met. William Whetstone feels that the size and shape of the property is a hardship. Requiring 20’ of landscaping along the property would create a dead space, regardless if it is a manufacturing or a storage facility. Necia Christensen said the length and amount of dead space created by a landscaped buffer creates a special circumstance which will provide an area for terrible things to happen. Josh Pettersson noted that one fifth of the property would be lost in creating an unusable landscaped buffer. Sandy Naegle does not believe graffiti will be a problem because the wall of the storage unit will be along private back yards. Graffiti usually occurs in public areas. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Scott Spendlove No William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – B-11-2018 Approved – Majority Approval of Minutes from October 3, 2018 – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2018 Page 8 Brenda Turnblom, Administrative Assistant