Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Officer's Decision - PLNZAD2025-00128SALT LAKE CITY LAND USE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER REQUEST FOR VARIANCE CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00128 APPLICANT: JON GALBRAITH PROPERTY OWNER: GRANARY MONTAGUE GP, LLC (JEFF GRASSO) PUBLIC HEARING HELD MARCH 20, 2025 DECISION ISSUED MARCH 31, 2025 On March 20, 2025, a public hearing was held on this matter. Jon Galbraith and Jeff Grasso appeared on behalf of the property owner Granary Montague GP, LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”). During the hearing, Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Grasso provided direct testimony. Cassie Younger, Salt Lake City Senior Planner, and Mayara Lima, Salt Lake City Zoning Administrator, appeared and gave testimony on behalf of the Salt Lake City (the “City”). No members of the public provided written comments or appeared to comment during the public hearing. After reviewing the evidence submitted, testimony provided, and arguments presented, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Property Owner owns certain real property located at approximately 936 South 400 West, Salt Lake City, Utah, more particularly described as Salt Lake County Parcel Nos. 15- 12-179-009-0000, 15-12-182-008-0000, and 15-12-182-007-0000 (the “Subject Property”). 2. The Subject Property consists of essentially vacant land within Salt Lake City’s General Commercial Zone. 3. The Subject Property is rectangular and flat. The Property is not unique in size, shape, or topography, compared to the parcels which surround it. 4. Applicant proposes a multi-family project with 186 family sized units. 5. Applicant proposes the construction of 15 buildings of townhomes, an amenity building, and private driveway. 6. As part of the development, applicant proposes security gates which will open automatically using a Radio-Frequency Identification system. 7. Applicant proposes six gates within the development: one at each entrance of the private drive aisles with the following setbacks: a. 9.7 feet for the entries on the west; b. 7.5 feet for the entries on the east; and c. 12 feet for the entries on the north and south. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00128 MEMORANDUM DECISION 2 8. Applicant also proposes that each gate will be 6 feet tall. 9. While the Subject Property is frequently occupied by transient and unhoused individuals, the neighborhood and other surrounding areas are also frequently occupied by transient and unhoused individuals. 10. Applicant and City Staff agree that crime is also prevalent in the neighborhood. 11. Without the proposed variance, Applicant asserts that it will suffer an unreasonable hardship. Specifically, that equity and debt investors are hesitant to invest capital for the project without a perimeter gate due to safety and security concerns. Additionally, if Applicant is required to comply with the literal requirements set forth in the City’s zoning code, Applicant would lose approximately 20 units and the monthly rent would increase by approximately 4%. 12. Applicant would also have to remove either the clubhouse building or the outdoor pool/hot tub area to comply with literal requirements set forth in the City’s zoning code. 13. The hardships alleged by Applicant are self-imposed or economic in nature. 14. Applicant seeks two variances. The first is a variance for the height restriction of the proposed gates, and the second is the required setback for the gates from the property line. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A variance may only be granted if the Applicant establishes all required criteria in Salt Lake City Code. 2. Literal enforcement of the setback requirement and the gate height requirement in the code would not cause an unreasonable hardship for the Applicant. 3. The Applicant has not established an unreasonable hardship because the alleged hardship is not related to the size, shape, or topography of the Subject Property, and the alleged hardship does not come from circumstances peculiar to the Subject Property but rather come from conditions that are general to the neighborhood. 4. The hardships alleged are self-imposed or economic in nature. 5. There are no special circumstances attached to the Subject Property that do not apply to neighboring properties or other properties in the General Commercial Zone. The Applicant has not established special circumstances because the Applicant has not established that special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship and that the special circumstances deprive the Subject Property of privileges granted to neighboring properties or other properties in the General Commercial Zone. 6. The granting of the requested variances is not essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by neighboring properties or other properties within the General Commercial Zone. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00128 MEMORANDUM DECISION 3 7. The Applicant has the burden of proving that all of the conditions justifying a variance have been met. Applicant has failed to meet this burden. DISCUSSION To obtain a variance, an applicant has the burden of proving that all of the conditions justifying a variance have been met. See Utah Code Ann. Section 10-9a-702 (3) and Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.060. Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.18.060 sets forth five standards, each of which must be established by the Applicant in order to qualify for a variance. Specifically, the Applicant must prove the following: 1. Literal enforcement of this title would cause an unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of [Title 21A]; 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 district; 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan of the city and will not be contrary to the public interest; and 5. The spirit of this title is observed and substantial justice done. Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.A. An applicant must establish all of these standards. Accordingly, the failure to prove even one of the requirements precludes an applicant from qualifying for a variance. The Applicant is unable to establish at least three of the requirements, each is addressed in turn. 1. Applicant Has Not Established an Unreasonable Hardship The first standard Applicant must establish is that the literal enforcement of this title would cause an unreasonable hardship. The Applicant asserts two hardships: (1) safety and security concerns related to crime and occupancy by transient and unhoused individuals of the Subject Property if a 6-foot gate is not allowed and (2) a reduction in the number of units if gate setbacks are enforced. Under Salt Lake City Code, these hardships do not constitute an unreasonable hardship which qualify for a variance. In determining whether or not enforcement of zoning requirements would cause unreasonable hardship, “the appeals hearing officer may not find an unreasonable hardship unless: 1. The alleged hardship is related to the size, shape or topography of the property for which the variance is sought; and CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00128 MEMORANDUM DECISION 4 2. The alleged hardship comes from circumstances peculiar to the property, not from conditions that are general to the neighborhood.” Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.B (emphasis added). Further, hardships which are self-imposed or economic in nature do not constitute an undue hardship. Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.C. The Applicant fails to establish the criteria necessary for the alleged hardship to qualify for a variance. A. The Alleged Hardships Do Not Relate to the Size, Shape, or Topography of the Subject Property The Subject Property does not have unique characteristics that significantly differ from neighboring parcels. Indeed, the Subject Property is a similar size to neighboring parcels. The Subject Property is also not unique in shape. Each of the parcels comprising the Subject Property is rectangular. The Subject Property also does not have unique topography, there are not rivers, streams, cliffs, grading, or other topographical conditions which significantly differ from the surrounding parcels. Indeed, all parcels in the area are relatively flat. The safety and security concerns do not relate to the size, shape, or topography of the Subject Property. Applicant argues that the amount of vacant land creates an inviting location for transient and unhoused individuals. This, however, is at best a tangential connection to the size of the Subject Property. The issues of safety and security are general to the neighborhood and are not unique or exacerbated by the size of the Subject Property. Rather, it to the extent that there are greater issues with crime or occupation of the Subject Property by unhoused or transient individuals than the surrounding parcels, this appears to be due to the vacant and undeveloped nature of the Subject Property and not from any unique physical characteristic. Additionally, the reduction in number of units is not related to the size, shape, or topography of the Subject Property. Appellants assert that by complying with the gate setback they would lose approximately 20 residential units. The City Staff, however, notes that this reduction could be addressed by alternative designs such that no units are lost and the Subject Property would still comply with the setback. The loss of available building space in this case does not relate to restrictions related to the size, shape, or topography of the Subject Property. Indeed, all properties which have setbacks lose a portion of the potential buildable area. In this case, there is nothing about the Subject Property itself which creates the alleged hardship. B. The Alleged Hardships Do Not Come From Circumstances Peculiar To The Subject Property, But Rather Arise From Conditions That Are General To The Neighborhood The alleged hardships are not related to the circumstances peculiar to the Subject Property, but rather relate to the conditions that are general to the neighborhood. First, the hardship described by Appellants relating to safety and crime are conditions general to the neighborhood. Applicant failed to establish how that hardship is unique to the Subject Property. The City concedes that crime and safety are a concern for the neighborhood. Transient and unhoused individuals occupy CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00128 MEMORANDUM DECISION 5 numerous public and private locations throughout Salt Lake City and the areas surrounding the Subject Property. Next, the hardship related to the gate setback are unrelated to the circumstances of the Subject Property but rather originate from the setback applied to all properties within the General Commercial Zone. There are no circumstances peculiar to the Subject Property, compared to the neighboring properties, which make it harder or impossible to comply with the setback for the gate. C. The Alleged Hardships Are Self-Imposed or Economic in Nature Applicant alleges that having a shorter fence would not provide adequate security, which would make the units less desirable or adversely impact project funding. This hardship is self- imposed as Applicant could design or implement alternative measures to increase safety. It is also economic in nature. During the hearing, Applicant conceded that losses to units and marketability were economic in nature. Accordingly, based on the testimony presented, the Applicant has failed to establish that the literal enforcement of the gate height and gate setback would cause an unreasonable hardship. For this reason alone, Applicant does not qualify for a variance. 2. Applicant Did Not Established That Special Circumstances are Attached to the Property. The Second Standard requires that the Applicant establish that there are special circumstances which attach to the Subject Property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone. In determining whether or not there are special circumstances attached to the property … the appeals hearing officer may find that special circumstances exist only if: 1. The special circumstances relate to the alleged hardship; and 2. The special circumstances deprive the property owner of privileges granted to other properties in the same zoning district. Salt Lake City Code § 21A.18.060.D (emphasis added). Applicant has failed to establish any special circumstances relating to the Property which relate to the alleged hardships. Additionally, the applicant failed to establish that there were special circumstances which deprive the Applicant of the privileges granted to other properties in the General Commercial Zone. Specifically, as noted above, there are no special characteristics of the Subject Property which differ from its neighbors. It is of a similar size, shape, and topography as the surrounding properties. Additionally, as described by the City, other surrounding properties would be required to meet the same requirements related to the height of the gate and the setback. CASE NO. PLNZAD2025-00128 MEMORANDUM DECISION 6 3. Applicant Has Not Established That Granting The Variance Is Essential To The Enjoyment Of A Substantial Property Right Possessed By Other Property In The Same District As noted above, other surrounding properties would be required to meet the same requirements related to the height of the gate and the setback. The Applicant has not shown that other properties have rights which the Applicant is deprived of due to the restrictions on gate height and minimum required gate setback.1 As the Applicant has failed to meet three of the required standards and the failure to establish even one necessitates the denial of the request for a variance, the remaining standards are not addressed. DECISION For the foregoing reasons, the Applicant’s requests for variances relating to (1) the height of the gate and (2) the minimum gate setback are DENIED. This decision may be appealed to the Third District Court within 30 days of the date of this decision. Dated this 31st day of March 2025 /s/ Clayton H. Preece Clayton H. Preece Appeals Hearing Officer 1 Applicant also argued that other properties are not subject to the same setback requirements. The City explained that due to changes in ordinances the other properties are legal non-conforming setbacks as the setback requirements changed after those properties were constructed.