Board of Adjustment

Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 1 WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 11, 2018 The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Necia Christensen at 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, Utah. WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS Necia Christensen, Angela McKonkey, Josh Pettersson, Scott Spendlove, and William Whetstone ABSENT Sandy Naegle WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman and Brenda Turnblom WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were three people in the audience. Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 2 B-5-2018 Neil Nixon - Variance 3536 and 3556 S 5600 W C-1 Zone REQUEST: Neil Nixon is requesting a variance from the West Valley City Sign Code for wall signs on two buildings. The variance is from Section 11-5-109 which limits the amount of wall signage on the sides of a building to five percent of the first story face. The variance request is to allow for 13.2 percent signage on the east side elevation of the building at 3536 South and 14.4% signage on the east side of the building at 3556 South. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends commercial/office land uses. ◻ The subject property is known as Parcel Numbers 14-35-228-029 and 14-35-228-032. This commercial complex is called Hunter Park Plaza (HPP). There are four different buildings in the complex, built between 1995 and 2001. The property is zoned C-1. ◻ The property will be impacted by the widening of the 5600 West and 3500 South intersection by UDOT, in conjunction with the Mountain View Corridor project. There are currently two monument signs on the property. Both will be removed with the roadway expansion. The new right-of-way line will be moved about 18’ to the west, which will place it close to the existing buildings and make it difficult to construct new monument signs on the property. ◻ The applicant approached staff about options for signage on the property once the road widening occurs. The only permanent signage allowed on the property is wall and monument signs. The code does not allow for additional wall signage on a building if ground signs are not used. ◻ The applicant is proposing to place additional wall signage on two buildings in place of the monument signs that will be removed. One sign would be 80 sq. ft. and the other would be 51.75 sq. ft. for a combined total of 131.75 sq. ft. Title 11 would allow for two monument signs on the property, one on each parcel. Each monument sign could be up to 6’ tall and 60 sq. ft. in sign area, for a combined total of 120 sq. ft. With the existing wall signs that are on the east elevations of both buildings, and the proposed signs, the northern building would have 13.2 percent signage, and the southern building would have 14.4 percent signage. Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 3 ◻ Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, and/or if the applicant decides o pursue placing new signage on the property even if the variance request is denied, the applicant will work with staff regarding a building permit. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: ◻ Section 11-5-109 requires that wall signs on the sides of buildings be no more than five percent of the first story building face. The applicant is seeking a variance of 8.2% on the northern building and 9.4% on the southern building. 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. Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 4 Applicant: Neil Nixon 6442 Timpanogos Way Taylorsville, UT 84129 Discussion: Neil Nixon addressed the changes UDOT is making to this intersection and how it will affect the business on his property. UDOT is creating two left turn lanes with a single thru lane in all four directions. After the intersection, traffic merges back to two lanes. Most of the widening of the street will take place on his (the west) side of the street. Neil Nixon feels that because drivers will be merging into traffic, they will not be noticing his signs, which will reduce visibility for his business. Neil Nixon read his responses to the five conditions for receiving a variance: 1. These HPP businesses will be denied 120 sq. ft. of signage with the elimination of the two existing monument signs. The area that will be left between the sidewalk and the buildings, following the widening of 5600 West, will not be sufficient to relocate signs there. The unreasonable hardship is the advertising space that these businesses will lose. There is no provision in the sign code that allows for additional wall signage if a ground sign is not used on the property. This request is to simply put the signage on the buildings instead of on the ground, which would not be contrary to the general purpose of zoning or sign ordinances. 2. There are many other properties that will be affected by the widening of 5600 West, but in most cases, the buildings along the road are set back significantly farther than these three buildings of HPP. Other businesses will still have sufficient space to put up a monument sign, even after the road widening occurs. At this HHP location the road widening will leave little to no room for ground signage. 3. Monument signs are allowed in any commercial zone in the city. All other businesses along 5600 West, south of 3500 South in this area have monument signs, and even after the road widening, there should be sufficient space to still have monument signs. The HPP businesses will be denied a substantial property right possessed by others in the same zoning district by not having this signage. 4. Putting signage on the buildings, instead of on the ground, will not be contrary to the public interest and does not substantially affect the General Plan. The public interest will be served by having adequate signage to facilitate wayfinding and business identification. 5. The spirit of the Zoning Ordinance is observed because there would still be about the same amount of signage that would be allowed if there were still two monument signs on the property. One concern is that two-sided monument signs can be readable by cars coming from both directions, which is not the case with a one-sided sign mounted on the sur face of a building. A monument sign has twice the signage Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 5 surface as a flat sign. Thus, we think the need for a somewhat larger square footage sign on the flat surface of the building is warranted, because it is not as readily seen. The businesses would be allowed to advertise as any other business could, and we believe substantial justice would be done. William Whetstone asked if there is room enough to place a monument sign on the street instead of on the building. Brock Anderson said the minimum setback regardless of the height of the sign is 5’. If the sign is over 5’, then the setback must match the additional height. After looking at the measurements of the park strip, sidewalk, and setback, it was determined that a monument sign is not a possibility nor is a pole sign allowed. Michael Finch, 3447 South Freemont Circle, is in support of the applicant. He has a business in the 3556 South building. He said he needs as much signage as possible. He is also concerned about the other tenants. If they do not do well, fewer customers will come into the center and that will negatively impact his business. Having no further comments, Necia Christensen closed the pubic portion of the meeting. Motion: William Whetstone moved to approve B-5-2018 based on the criteria presented. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. Necia Christensen noted that this road has been widened several times over the years. The setback reduction was not imposed by the applicant and this will affect these businesses financially. Not allowing these businesses the signage they need will negatively impact them even more. Scott Spendlove said it is evident that the literal enforcement of the zoning would cause an unreasonable hardship in this case. The hardship is not caused by the applicant, but by UDOT’s widening of 5600 West. The west side of 5600 West will take a greater hit from the traffic configuration than will the east side. The variance will not negatively affect the General Plan. The spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed because we are still controlling unmitigated signage by only increasing signage by 12 sq. ft. This variance will run with the property. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McKonkey Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – B-5-2018 Approved – Unanimous Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 6 B-6-2018 Ayyoob Abbaszadeh – Variance Request 5255 West 3990 South R-1-8 Zone REQUEST: Mr. Ayyoob Abbaszadeh, is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the frontage of a lot in the R-1-8 zone be 80 feet. The applicant is requesting a frontage variance of 2 feet for the purpose of subdividing the existing property to create an additional building lot. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends low density residential land uses. ◻ The subject property is known as parcel 14-36-379-014. The legal description for this property is the East 11.8 feet of lot 6, all of lot 5 and the west 53.15 feet of lot 4, Hunter Heights Subdivision. ◻ The Hunter Heights Subdivision was approved by the Salt Lake County Planning Commission in 1958 and recorded thereafter. The original subdivision consisted of 18 lots. Based on a recorded deed, staff believes that the current configuration of the subject property was established in 1987. The original lot 5 was modified to take in a portion of lots to the east and west. ◻ As staff began to research the application, it became apparent that not only was the subject property modified, but three properties to the east and one property to the west were also modified. Only one property to the east has more than 80 feet of frontage with the other two having 76 feet or less. The lot to the west has the required 80 feet of frontage. ◻ Staff researched whether these adjustments were done by plat amendment or lot line adjustment and nothing can be found. It is staff’s opinion that the property owners adjusted these lines without approvals from the City, but all were done at roughly the same time as this property, which was in 1987. ◻ After all of these property line adjustments, the resulting frontage for this property was 158 feet in width. Staff does not know why these properties were modified, but one could assume that the resulting width was to accommodate a future home. ◻ A few months back, staff was approached by the applicant to see about the possibility of building a new home on the larger undeveloped portion of this property. Staff explained Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 7 that the property would need to be subdivided and that each resulting lot would need to meet provisions of the R-1-8 zone. Namely, that the area of each lot contains at least 8,000 square feet with a minimum frontage of 80 feet. ◻ Based on the existing legal description, the property is 158 feet in width. In order to meet the frontage requirement of the R-1-8 zone, a 2-foot variance would be needed for the east lot. Staff did evaluate whether the new lot would meet the area requirement and it would with approximately 9,360 square feet. ◻ At the present time, an existing dwelling occupies the western half of the property. A detached carport is located on what would be the new lot, but would be removed for a new dwelling. The location of the existing dwelling would meet setback requirements from the new property line as well. ◻ Staff explained the variance criteria and that the Board of Adjustment would need to evaluate the criteria in relation to the specifics of the property. The applicant believes that the variance criteria can be satisfied and that a new home on what has been the vacant portion of this property will improve the area and is only 2 feet short of what is needed by ordinance. ◻ Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant will be required to submit a minor subdivision application to divide the property. The new single-family dwelling would be required to meet all provisions of the City’s housing standards. ◻ ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Land Use Development and Management Act requires that the minimum frontage of a lot in the R-1-8 zone be 80 feet. The West Valley City Land Use Development and Management Act Section 7-18-107 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. Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 8 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 Board’s decision to grant a variance would be illegal if the required statutory findings were not made. Applicant: Ayyoob Abbaszadeh 1916 South 1600 East Salt Lake City, UT 84105 Discussion: Ayyoob Abbazedeh noted that the minimum area of an R-1-8 lot is 8,000 sq. ft. Multiplied by two it is 16,000 sq. ft. This lot is 120 deep and 158 wide = 18,960 sq. ft. After this lot is divided into two, the two lots will still have 15-20% more square footage than required in the R-1-8 zone. If a variance is granted for this property, the 2’ setback reduction from 80’ is only a 1-1/2% difference. This variance will allow these lots to fit in better with the existing area, as the neighboring lots to the east have less than 75’ frontage and the lots to the west have 71’ frontage. Ayyoob Abbaszadeh read his answers to the five variance criteria: 1. Lots of this size (almost 19,000 sq. ft.) are more common in agricultural areas. The situation that I am in is a practical difficulty. While the property has a single-family dwelling, the other 9,360 sq. ft. is a hardship to maintain and would be better used by a new home. The existing property has a carport in the middle of what would be the lot, which makes no sense. Most R-1-8 zoned properties are almost never more than 80 feet wide, yet this one is 158 feet wide. 2. The property has been this shape for many years. The home was placed toward the west line, leaving a large space on the east. It is as if the people who divided this knew that one day someone would want to have another lot here. There are no other properties in this area that are zoned R-1-8 with this much width. 3. This variance would allow us to place a new home on property that is very consistent with other properties in this area. Although the frontage will be less than the required 80-feet, the size of the lot is the same as others in the same zoning district. 4. The property is zoned for low density land uses. I don’t desire to put anything here but a single-family dwelling. The width and area of the property would allow us to build a new residence meeting all zoning codes. No one will know that the new home was on a lot that needed special consideration because it will look no different than the other homes on this street. Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 9 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because the variance is minor. A new home here will fit in with the neighborhood. The improper lot lines on this property have created a domino effect for the lot lines of surrounding neighbors. Scott Spendlove suggested that if this variance is granted, City staff should contact and work with surrounding property owners to amend their lot lines. Brandon Hill agrees that corrected lot lines will make homes easier to sell with less complications at closing. Motion: Scott Spendlove moved to approve B-6-2018 based on the criteria presented. City Staff will contact lots 3 and 4 to make them aware of the need for and to encourage plat adjustments. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. Necia Christensen said granting this variance is the logical thing to do. These lots were adjusted in 1986 without City or County approval. Steve Lehman reported he searched for the deed when the property was created. The earliest he could find was dated 1987. The plat was done in 1958. This home was built over the top of the original property line. Steve Lehman assumes that these lot line adjustments happened after the homes were already built, in order to fit the homes inside the lots. Steve Lehman is interested to see if permits were issued by the City for the construction of these homes, or if it was done under County jurisdiction. Scott Spendlove feels the applicant has done a good job meeting the five variance criteria. He said that by subdividing the 18,960 sq. ft. lot we are making it more in compliance with the spirit of the zoning ordinance. We will now have two lots, close to the 8,000 sq. ft. requirement, as opposed to one abnormally large lot. He does not think a 2’ variance defeats the purpose of the zoning. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McKonkey Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – B-6-2018 Approved – Unanimous Approval of Minutes from May 2, 2018 – Continued Board of Adjustment July 11, 2018 Page 10 Approval of Minutes from June 6, 2018 - Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Brenda Turnblom, Administrative Assistant