Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 3, 2013 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 Russell Moore, Scott Spendlove, and Necia Christensen Those Absent: Sandy Naegle WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Nichole Camac WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Assistant City Attorney AUDIENCE: Approximately two (2) people were in the audience. Board of Adjustment Page 2 VARIANCES B-5-2013 John Sanders 2543 South Derby Street A Zone REQUEST: Mr. John Sanders, has filed a request with the West Valley City Board of Adjustment seeking a variance from Section 7-6-206(1) of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the minimum side yard setback in the agricultural zone be 10 feet for dwellings and accessory buildings. The applicant is seeking a variance of 4.04 feet from the existing dwelling and a variance of 5.19 feet from an existing accessory building. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends low density residential land uses. � The subject properties wherein the variances are being requested are located within Block 16 of the Chesterfield Plat A Subdivision. This Subdivision was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder on July 8, 1915. � Mr. Sander’s approached staff about the possibility of reconfiguring his lots to be more consistent with other lots in the subdivision. Staff informed him that a lot line adjustment application could be submitted, but that the newly configured property lines would be too close to the single family dwelling on what would be the north lot, and the out building on what would be the center lot. � Based on a survey by Wasatch Surveying and Design, the proposed lot line adjustment would leave a setback to the single family dwelling of approximately 5.96 where 10 feet is required. The setback adjacent to the out building on the center lot would be approximately 4.81 where 10 feet is required. Thus, the variance requests of 4.04 and 5.19 feet respectively. � After discussing the setback criteria of the A zone, staff mentioned that the Board of Adjustment would be the appropriate place to start. We discussed the variance criteria and explained that this would be a good option as there are special circumstances attached to the property. � As mentioned previously, the properties are uniquely configured due to an old rail line. The name of this line was the Salt Lake and Utah Interurban Railroad. Researching this railroad, staff learned that this line was to primarily serve the Salt Lake Valley, Tooele County and portions of Utah County. These lines were used to move people and goods and services. It is staff understands that these lines were abandoned in 1940. As the railroad right-of-way was vacated, each owner ended up with a portion of what was the rail line. Original property lines were not modified to reflect the traditional platting of the subdivision. � The Salt Lake and Utah Interurban Railroad had a direct impact on the Chesterfield Subdivision. In the case of this application, creating very unusual shaped properties. While owners of properties in the Chesterfield Subdivision have incorporated the vacated portion of the railroad into the design of their lots and buildings, Mr. Sander’s would like to adjust his property lines to be more consistent with other properties in this area. Board of Adjustment Page 3 � Zoning at the time of the City’s incorporation was R-2-10H. This allowed two dwellings per 10,000 square foot lot and did allow horses. Subsequent to the City’s incorporation, the zoning was changed to agriculture. It has remained in this category up to the present time. � To summarize, Mr. Sander’s would like to adjust the existing property lines to be more consistent with those of the Chesterfield Plat A Subdivision. Two variances would need to be granted to be able to do so. The standard lot configuration for properties in this subdivision is 90 feet wide by 242 feet deep. This would provide sufficient area to meet the 21,780 square foot requirement, which is .5 acres in size. The configurations which Mr. Sander’s has submitted meet all requirements to do so. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-206(1) of the West Valley City Land Use Development and Management Act requires the setback for dwellings and accessory buildings be 10 feet. The West Valley City Land Use Development and Management Act Section 7-18-107 outline 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 Board’s decision to grant a variance would be illegal if the required statutory findings were not made. Steve Lehman presented the application. Discussion: Scott Spendlove asked if the homeowner to the south can be cited for having a property line that runs through the corner of their home. Steve replied that the structure was likely built prior to the City’s incorporation and indicated that this isn’t something the landowner would get cited for. He added that the mapping system the City uses can be a foot or two off. Board of Adjustment Page 4 Applicant: John Sanders 2543 S Derby Street John Sanders Mr. Sanders stated that he bought these properties as one piece. He stated that he purchased the homes and just wants to straighten the property lines. He indicated that he will never sell the property but wants everything to be corrected for his children. 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. Sanders stated that the unreasonable hardship is that the existing configuration makes it difficult to manage the properties due to extremely odd property lines. The limited frontage of the middle property makes a future sale of this property impractical. The south parcel actually has a property line running through the dwelling, and the unreasonable hardship would be that we have to keep this in place if we are unable to move the property lines. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Mr. Sanders stated that unlike other traditional lot configurations in the A zone, these properties have been historically configured by the old railroad. These lots in many ways do not conform to the A zone. By granting the variance, these lots would be brought more into conformance, while keeping the required frontage and area requirements. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. Mr. Sanders stated that the ability to hold or sell his property is a substantial property right. He indicated that while he is going to retain these properties, he believes that he has the right to configure the property to be more uniform with those in the general area. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Sanders stated that the variance will not affect the general plan because he will be making the lot lines more consistent with other lots next door. If anything, the variance will bring the properties more into compliance even with a small reduction in the side yard setback. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. Mr. Sanders stated that the spirit of the zoning ordinance will be observed because the properties will be more reflective of the neighborhood. Discussion: The Board of Adjustment likely had no further questions or concerns of the applicant. Board of Adjustment Page 5 There being no further discussion regarding this application, Chairperson Christensen called for a motion. Motion Mr. Spendlove moved for approval. Mr. Moore seconded the motion. Discussion: Necia Christiansen agreed to the approval motion and indicated it seems like a very logical decision to grant this variance. A roll call was taken. Mr. Moore Yes Mr. Spendlove Yes Chairperson Christensen Yes Motion for approval carries - B-5-2013– Unanimous OTHER The minutes from June 5, 2013 were approved. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Nichole Camac, Administrative Assistant