Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Necia Christensen in the City Council Chambers at West Valley City Hall 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119, and using Zoom at: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84610414968 WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS Necia Christensen, Angela McConkey, Sandy Naegle, Scott Spendlove, and Josh Pettersson ABSENT WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 2 people in the audience. B-6-2022 Wasatch Commercial Builders Variance 1820 West Printers Row Zone: Manufacturing REQUEST: Matthew Oborn, representing Wasatch Commercial Builders is requesting two variances from the West Valley City Code. Both variances are from Section 7-6-303(3)(a). This section requires that the minimum setback adjacent to a street be permanently landscaped and that fences above 3 feet in height be prohibited within the minimum setback adjacent to a street. The applicant is asking that both requirements be waived due in part to the existing right-of-way being a dead-end street and that the required landscaping and fencing location is not visible to the general public using Printers Row (2300 South). BACKGROUND: The subject property is known as parcel 15-22-127-006. The property is zoned Manufacturing and and has been in use by Wasatch for approximately 3 years. The original concept plan for Wasatch and this parcel did not include outside storage, so it was staff’s understanding that this area was going to be used as it was with previous owners as parking. The area in question would have been fine, had that portion remained parking. Although the area along the existing right-of-way does not meet ordinance, the parking has been there for so long, it was determined that it could continue as it has for many years. However, when staff recently became aware that outside storage was going to be a component of the current business operation, and a change to a more intense use, staff communicated with the property owner that landscaping and screening would be required. Historical photographs show the area on the east side of 1800 West as having landscaping, but the west side has never had landscaping, at least that staff could find. In addition, the photographs also indicate that the area in back of the existing Wasatch building has been used for parking since 1997. Outside storage did not occur until 2019 – which is about the time that Wasatch took control of the property. Due to the nature of their business operation, outside storage is a needed part of their business as well as leasing a portion to the property owner to the west. The property does have a unique circumstance in that it is located on a road on the east side (1800 West) that dead ends at the north property line. The business to the north of that is also used for outside storage. Staff discussed options with the applicant especially the variance criteria. They believe that there are special circumstances with the property being on a dead-end street. They believe that the general public won’t be affected as they don’t drive down the dead-end street, and the  neighboring properties to the east don’t believe landscaping is necessary and with the drought not needed. The applicant also expressed concern that if they were required to remove 20 feet for landscaping it would render a good portion of their property unusable. Approximately 5,700 square feet would be lost for that purpose. In addition, water has never been provided along the east side of the site due to landscaping not being required in the past. In order to assist the Board in its decision, the applicant has provided a letter to the Board, and answers to the variance criteria. A letter from the adjacent landowner has also been provided. Lastly, the applicant in a good faith effort, is willing to improve the street scene along 1800 West. They are willing to remove the fabric screen and install slats which will dramatically improve the visual look along the right-of-way. They are also willing to remove the existing asphalt and install fabric, cobble and boulders to mirror the landscaping that was installed up along Printers Row. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-303(3)(a) requires that the minimum setback adjacent to a street be permanently landscaped and that fences above 3 feet in height be prohibited within the minimum setback adjacent to a street. 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, ACriteria 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 Board=s decision to grant a variance would be illegal if the required statutory findings were not made. Necia Christensen had Matthew Oborn, the applicant, approach the podium. She asked Mr. Oborn what Wasatch Commercial Builders does. He pointed out Fairbourne Station and explained that they constructed that building. Mrs. Christensen then asked Mr. Oborn to read aloud his answers to the five variance criteria questions. 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. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance prohibits the full use of the property used for our storage which is also used for storage by the adjacent land owner and has been for nearly 10 years. In addition, literal enforcement would prohibit another tenant from being able to locate here due to the loss of property. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Our property is located on a dead end street which only serves 2 businesses. Our business and one to the east. The property owner to the east does not see any value in 20 feet of landscaping as this area has limited vehicular access. 3. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. The property has been utilized with outside storage in one capacity or another. Given that it is right next to property on the north side that is also used for outside storage, we believe the variance is an essential component of our property right. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Since there is no general public use of the existing dead end road, the general plan will not be affected as no one will see this area. The only persons would be employees of the two businesses at the end of the road. The reduction of landscaping will actually reduce water useage and therefore becomes a benefit to the community. The area will be enhanced with cobble and boulders and with better screening, so the site will be improved over what it is today. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because the variance will allow the full site to be utilized and will eliminate unnecessary landscaping that will not be visible to the public. Mrs. Christensen asked Mr. Oborn to summarize why he wanted this request approved. Mr. Oborn explained that they had purchased this lot, intending to use the total square footage. He explained that moving the fence and adding landscaping would decrease the size of usable land to the point that he would lose a tenant and revenue. Mr. Oborn noted that he has already beautified the frontage and is willing to replace the asphalt with cobble and boulders. Mrs. Christensen asked the Board for a motion. Motion: Sandy Naegle motioned to grant both variance requests based upon the applicants answers to the variance criteria questions. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Pettersson stated that he works near the subject property and has often driven past it. He believes this is a unique situation where 18th West is a dead-end street, and many people do not need to view the property. Mr. Pettersson stated that adding cobble and boulders would enhance the area's beauty. Scott Spendlove said he also feels this is a unique circumstance where the City inherited the right-of-way from the County. He believes the City would have handled the dedication differently. Mr. Spendlove noted that adding irrigation to the subject property for landscaping would be counterintuitive to the situation. He stated his one concern would be adding the cobble and boulders. Mr. Spendlove pointed out some traffic and parked cars along 18th West. He is concerned that people would need to walk in the street going to and from their vehicles and suggested adding a footpath. Steve Lehman explained that the property is in the manufacturing zone, for new development sidewalk is required on one side of the street. In past situations like this, sidewalk would have been required on the east side of the street. Since this is existing development sidewalk would not be required. Necia Christensen stated that it would be fair to say this is a County issue that the City is cleaning up. Steve noted that the County needed to be more particular with its planning as the City is now and having the existing structure very close to the right-of-way does impede landscaping on the east side which would then make for a difficult transition for landscaping to the rear of the property. He said that he would agree with Mrs. Christensen's statement. Roll Call Vote: Sandy Naegle Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Necia Christensen Yes Approved – B-6-2022- Unanimously OTHER Approval of Minutes from September 7, 2022 Meeting Motion: Scott Spendlove motioned to approve the minutes from the August 3, 2022 meeting. Sandy Naegle seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Approved – Minutes from September 7, 2022 – Unanimously There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant