Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 5, 2012 This meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Necia Christensen at 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, Utah. WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS Sioeli Uluakiola, Russell Moore, Scott Spendlove, Sandy Naegle, and Necia Christensen Those Absent: WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik and Nichole Camac WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Assistant City Attorney AUDIENCE: Approximately eight (8) people were in the audience. B-2-2012 Cory Angell - Variance 4460 South 3600 West REQUEST: Mr. Cory Angell, is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-305(1) of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the frontage of a lot in the R-1-8 zone be 80 feet. Mr. Angell is requesting a frontage variance of 12.7 feet in order to subdivide an existing property having two separate dwelling units into two individual lots. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends low density residential land uses. � The subject property is known as Parcel Number 21-05-327-016. While not part of a formal subdivision, the property contains a single family dwelling and a duplex. Mr. Angell would like to divide the existing parcel to create two individual lots. The single family dwelling and duplex would then be eligible for individual ownership. � Mr. Angell purchased the property as an investment. His development plan is to create a subdivision so that each dwelling unit will stand on its own. He intends to modify the interiors of these buildings to conform with building codes and the exteriors to better align with the City’s desire for attractive housing. � Zoning on this property did not exist until 1965. According to Salt Lake County Records, the existing structures were built in 1951. There would have been no regulations in place that would have prevented a single family dwelling and duplex from being built on the same property. While the current R-1-8 zoning does not allow duplexes or multiple dwellings on one lot, they are considered nonconforming due to the lack of zoning when they were constructed. � The future subdivision will create two lots from the existing parcel. The lot that will contain the single family dwelling will satisfy all frontage and area requirements. However, the south lot will meet the area requirements, but lacks the necessary frontage and will require a variance. The R-1-8 zone requires that the minimum lot width be 80 feet. Based on the proposed subdivision, the south lot would have 67.3 feet. Thus, the applicant would need a variance of 12.7 feet. � When Mr. Angell visited with staff about the possibility of a variance, staff explained that the City would prefer individual ownership of these properties as they tend to be better maintained. In addition, the improvements that Mr. Angell will be making will be a substantial upgrade from the existing condition. � Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant will be required to submit a minor subdivision application. � ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-305(1) 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. 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. Steve Pastorik presented the application. Necia Christensen asked if the front portion of the property will be divided. Steve replied yes. Applicant: Cory Angell 16 Altawood Lane Cory Angell Mr. Angell stated that there is enough depth to do the correct lot size of 8,000 square feet but the width of the lot presents the problem. He indicated that major renovations are currently being conducted on the property. Mr. Angell added that the rear of this property  and the neighboring parcel will eventually be large equestrian lots. He added that the ability to subdivide the lot allows for easier financing. 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. Mr. Angell stated the two residential uses would be separated into two separate properties which would meet today’s standards. Steve Pastorik agreed and stated that this would allow the property to come into compliance. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Mr. Angell stated that there are no other properties in the area that have two homes on one lot. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. Mr. Angell stated that this will allow the homes to be similar to others so that any property owner can purchase their own lot. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Angell stated that this will not affect other people or the General Plan because it will simply bring the property into compliance. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Angell indicated that this variance will allow the property to come into compliance which observes the zoning ordinance and provides justice for both the property owner and the City. Discussion: The Board had no further questions or concerns of staff. There being no further discussion regarding this application, Chairperson Christensen called for a motion. Motion Mr. Spendlove moved for denial of the variance as it does not meet the criteria.  Ms. Naegle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Spendlove stated that he doesn’t feel all 5 conditions are being met. Ms. Christensen disagreed and indicated that this variance will bring the property into compliance. Mr. Moore asked when the zoning was changed. Steve replied it was changed by the City Council within the last month. Mr. Uluakiola asked if the property was in compliance prior to the zone change. Steve replied no. Mr. Moore stated that there are several hardships for the applicant. He added that one of these is that the bank would not provide financial support to purchases or sellers since the property is not in compliance. Brandon Hill stated that financial loss or the potential gain of property cannot be considered by the Board of Adjustment. He added that the fact that the property is out of compliance is something that the Board can look at and base their decision on. A roll call was taken. Mr. Uluakiola No Mr. Moore No Mr. Spendlove Yes Ms. Naegle No Chairperson Christensen No Motion Fails - B-2-2012– Split Vote There being no further discussion regarding this application, Chairperson Christensen called for a second motion. Motion Mr. Moore moved for approval of the variance. Mr. Uluakiola seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. Mr. Uluakiola Yes Mr. Moore Yes Mr. Spendlove No Ms. Naegle Yes Chairperson Christensen Yes Motion Carries - B-2-2012– Majority B-3-2012 Don Bawden 2221 West 3800 South R-1-8 Zone REQUEST: Mr. Don Bawden, has filed an application with the West Valley City Board of Adjustment requesting a non-conforming use determination in order to continue keeping livestock on the property noted above. WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends low density residential land uses. BACKGROUND: � The subject property is located at 2221 West 3800 South. It is also known as Parcel Number15-33-427-006. It is approximately .60 acres in size and is bordered on the east, south and west by existing residential uses. � This application is being presented to the Board of Adjustment at the request of the property owner. In anticipation of selling the property to a potential buyer who would like to keep animals, the owner is petitioning the Board to review the property and determine the non-conforming status of the existing and future right to house animals. Prior to this application, staff was not aware of any neighbor concerns regarding the keeping of animals. � The subject property was zoned R-1-8 at the time of West Valley City’s incorporation. According to a 1965 County zoning map, the subject and surrounding properties were zoned R-2. Under Salt Lake County jurisdiction, there were many designations under the R-2 zone. The majority of which would have permitted the keeping of farm animals. According to the property owner, animals have been kept continuously on this property since their ownership in 1969. � To help verify the existence of farm animals, the applicant has submitted a petition from adjoining neighbors and residents who have lived in the area for quite some time. This letter states that from April 1969 to June of 2012, animals have been kept on this property. � Generally, the size of the property along with evidence from existing out-buildings is a historical indication that agricultural uses could have existed on the property in question. Properties along 3800 South and west of 2200 West are large and deep which are typical of the old Granger farming community. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-18-106(3) of the West Valley City Land Use Development and Management Act reads: (3) Non-conforming Use of Land. A non-conforming use of land lawfully existing on the effective date of this Chapter may be continued provided such non-conforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other open land, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. If the non-conforming use is discontinued for a continuous period of more than one year it shall constitute an abandonment of the use and any future use of such land shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. � The applicant is not requesting an expansion of a non-conforming use. They are requesting a determination that the existing use, i.e., the keeping of animals be allowed to continue on this property. Steve Pastorik presented the application. Applicant: Don Bawden 2221 W 3800 S Don Bawden Mr. Bawden stated that he originally moved to West Valley City in the 1960’s to have horse property. He stated that he is now selling his property due to age and the difficulty of managing it. He indicated that he spoke with several neighbors who are not concerned with the agricultural use on the parcel since this is how it has always been used. Mr. Bawden stated that several people in the area still have livestock. Russell Moore stated for the record that he knows Mr. Bawden but his decision will not be affected by this acquaintance. He asked Mr. Bawden if there is a well on the property. Mr. Bawden replied no. Mr. Ulukialoa asked if there have ever been complaints. Mr. Bawden replied no. Necia Christensen asked if there will still be a limit to the number of animals allowed on the property. Steve replied yes and explained that there is a point system based on the total acreage. Mr. Moore stated that he has known Mr. Bawden for several years and feels confident that he has presented an accurate portrayal of his property. There being no further discussion regarding this application, Chairperson Christensen called for a motion. Motion Ms. Naegle moved for approval. Mr. Uluakiola seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. Mr. Uluakiola Yes Mr. Moore Yes Mr. Spendlove Yes Ms. Naegle Yes Chairperson Christensen Yes Motion Carries - B-3-2012– Unanimous Vote B-4-2012 Affordable Car Care - Variance 3385 West 3500 South C-2 Zone REQUEST: Mr. Phil Hardy, representing Affordable Car Care, is requesting a variance from Title 11-5- 103(1) of the West Valley City Code. This title would require that a proposed monument sign be setback from the property line a distance of 5 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of 2 feet in order to place the proposed sign within 3 feet of the property line. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends commercial land uses. � Affordable car care is located at 3385 West 3500 South having a parcel number of 15-32- 226-018. Zoning for this property is C-2, which allows for a variety of commercial uses one of which is car repair. � The existing business has been in operation for just over a year. Mr. Albert Ohannesian who operates this business explained to staff that many of his clients, who come from other cities in the valley, have a difficult time locating his business. While he believes that installing a monument sign will help, he is trying to overcome three challenging issues: 1. The location of the business sits approximately 41 feet in back of the existing sidewalk. The Golden Corral on the other hand sits approximately 7 feet in  back of the existing sidewalk. This, according to the applicant, lessens the ability for drivers heading east on 3500 South to clearly see his location. 2. Recent landscaping improvements installed as part of the 3500 South widening project make it difficult to see signage. 3. Due to bus rapid transit, people coming to this site must enter from the west. In addition to Golden Corral’s building, trees placed in the parkstrip as part of the 3500 South improvement project do limit the visibility of this property. � For these reasons, the applicant would like to petition the Board for a setback variance. The owner would like to install a new monument sign to be located at the northeast corner of the property. The sign would be 5 feet in height and would comply with all other City requirements regarding monument signs. Part of the reasoning for the reduction in setback is in direct relation to the location of the Golden Corral. � As part of the application, a number of photographs have been submitted. They depict the view of the applicant’s property from various points along 3500 South. In addition, Mr. Hardy has submitted information to the Board that addresses the variance criteria. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Title 11-5-103(1) of the West Valley City Code would require a minimum setback of 5 feet as it relates to monument signs. 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. 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. Steve Pastorik presented the application. Applicant: Favored Phil Hardy Albert Ohannesian 3385 W 3500 S Phil Hardy Mr. Hardy provided a petition signed by customers who agree that the building is very difficult to see. Mr. Hardy stated that there are transformers on 3500 south and various other signs that are not 5 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Hardy stated that the Golden Corral is very close to the sidewalk and is a taller building so it is very difficult to see Affordable Car Care. He added that people are only able to access the business heading east on 3500 South since there is a median that prevents westward traffic from turning in. 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. Mr. Hardy stated that the sign type will enhance the beauty of the site. He stated that the property owner is given an unreasonable hardship because he doesn’t have the ability to attract customers into his business since his building is very difficult to see. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Mr. Hardy explained that the majority of other properties in the area are clearly visible. He stated that this building is hidden behind Golden Coral which is closer to the street and added that there are other objects, such as trees, that hinder the view of Affordable Car Care. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. Mr. Hardy stated that other people on the street have visibility where Affordable Car Care does not. He indicated that the business has challenging access to the public and this is unique to this property. The difficult access was not self-imposed since the road widening of 3500 South is what caused this problem. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Hardy stated that the property owner is only asking for a 2 foot variance which is not significant enough to affect the General Plan or cause concern for the public. He added that having the sign visible will promote public safety and is also beneficial for customers. Mr. Hardy explained that Affordable Car Care is a successful business with competitive rates and an honest business owner. He indicated that all of this is beneficial to the public. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Hardy stated that justice will be granted to the property owner and the spirit of the zoning ordinance is being observed since this request is only for 2 feet. Discussion: Necia Christensen asked if the transformers would be anywhere near the sign. Mr. Hardy indicated that those are on a separate property and wont block or impede the proposed sign. Albert Ohannesian, the property owner, stated that he has taken care of and beautified this property since he purchased it over a year and a half ago. He indicated that customers pass his business all the time and it is difficult for people to turn around so most often prospective customers simply move on to another auto company along 3500 South. He stated that a visible sign will help clients know where his business is. There being no further discussion regarding this application, Chairperson Christensen called for a motion. Motion Mr. Spendlove moved for approval of the variance. Mr. Uluakiola seconded the motion. Discussion: Scott Spendlove stated that the applicant has made a good case and everything seems to meet the criteria. Mr. Ulukiaola agreed and added that he couldn’t find the building when he went to see it for this meeting. Mr. Moore indicated that it is obscured by the trees but he disagrees that moving the sign closer to the right-of-way will help. Brandon Hill indicated that the loss of business and visibility isn’t something the Board of Adjustment can consider when making their decision. Mr. Spendlove stated that safety and other factors are still important. Ms. Christensen stated that her reasons for approving this sign are not economic based. Steve indicated that commercial properties are required to have 20 feet of landscaping but since the road was widened along 3500 S this puts many business owners on uneven footing.  A roll call was taken. Mr. Uluakiola Yes Mr. Moore No Mr. Spendlove Yes Ms. Naegle Yes Chairperson Christensen Yes Motion Carries - B-4-2012– Majority Vote OTHER The minutes from February 1, 2012 were approved. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Nichole Camac, Administrative Assistant