Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES October 3, 2018 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Necia Christensen at 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, Utah. WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS Necia Christensen, Angela McConkey, Sandy Naegle, Scott Spendlove, and William Whetstone ABSENT Josh Pettersson WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman, and Brenda Turnblom WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were five people in the audience. Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 2 B-9-2018 Ben Dymond Variance 2535 West 3800 South R-1-8 Zone REQUEST: Ben Dymond, representing the property owner, is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the front setback for a single-family dwelling in the R-1-8 zone be 25 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance of 10.17 feet in order to construct a front entry on what is presently the east side of the dwelling. The property is located at 2535 West 3800 South and is zoned R-1-8. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends low density residential land uses.  The subject property is known as parcel 15-33-403-016. This parcel is also known as lot 632 in the Wright Subdivision #6. This subdivision was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office in October 1959. According to County records, the single- family dwelling was constructed in 1959.  The existing dwelling, as well as other homes in this area were constructed having unique architectural designs. Many homes do not have a formal entry that is visible from the street. Rather, the front entry to the home is gained through the carport.  The property owner approached staff about the possibility of making a more formal entrance on the east side of the dwelling and enclosing the carport to have a secure a single car garage. The applicant explained that it would also help with safety concerns having a front door that would be seen from the street as opposed to being hidden in the garage. Staff explained that the setback for the garage would not be a problem, but that the entrance on the east side of the dwelling would encroach the front setback.  By locating the front door on the east side of the dwelling, a 25-foot setback would be required. The current setback is 20 feet. The proposed porch extension would encroach into the setback leaving 14.83 feet to the property line, thus the variance request of 10.17 feet. The City does allow unenclosed front porches to extend 5 feet into the setback provided that you have a minimum distance of 20 feet. While the applicant could install a front door meeting the 20-foot setback, the porch would not have a cover for the elements.  As mentioned previously, the existing single-family home is located in phase 6 of the Wright Subdivision. There are multiple phases of this subdivision south of 3800 South and east of 2700 West. Some time ago, the City initiated a housing improvement program with the Community Development Corporation of Utah (CDCU). Through this program, homes have been purchased and rehabilitated within the City. The City would contribute by using Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 3 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to support this effort. To date, three homes in this area have been remodeled and repaired. One objective of this program was to encourage neighboring owners to reinvest in their own homes.  Staff mentions this not because this home is part of this program, but to illustrate the applicant’s desire to improve their own home. The fact that the home owner wants to improve the outside appearance of the home and provide a true front entry and enclosed garage embodies many of the principles that guide the housing program mentioned above.  As staff discussed the proposal with the applicant, staff explained the variance process and criteria that the Board needs to consider. The applicant believes that they are substantially improving the home and allowing one side of the home to be the front of the home, where one does not exist now will help improve the neighborhood.  Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant will be required to submit the appropriate building permits for the modifications.  ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code requires that the minimum front setback in the R-1-8 zone be 25 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. 1. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. 2. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. 3. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. 4. 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. Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 4 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. Applicant: Ben Dymond, Dymond Design 3983 West Misty Drive Taylorsville, UT 84129 Ben Diamond is representing Ana Morales, the owner of the property. He read the answers to the five variance criteria: 1. The unreasonable hardship is that we don’t have a front door, which for us creates a safety concern. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would prohibit us from putting a front door where the front door should to be. The new entrance would allow people to enter our home in the family room and not kitchen. The door would be seen from the street, thus helping with our safety concerns. 2. This home is the only single family dwelling that fronts 3800 South with a depth of 75 feet. The shallow area within this lot runs north/south, thus making it difficult to have a true front entrance to our home. While other homes in the area also don’t have a true front door, the majority of homes in this area do, thus we believe we have a special circumstance. 3. While many properties in this area don’t have a front door, the majority of homes in this area do. The enjoyment of a substantial property right is that we have safety when we open our front door. By moving the front door to the east side, we also are now allowed to enclose our carport, providing additional safety for our home. 4. The variance will not affect the general plan. In fact, what we are proposing to do with our home, not just the front door, is to invest in our neighborhood by following the City’s pattern of home improvement in the area. This will improve the aesthetics of our home which is definitely in the public’s interest. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because the variance is relatively minor. The City already allows a covered porch to extend into the setback 5 feet provided you have 20 feet to the property line. Based on that provision of the ordinance, the City values covered porches. Motion: Sandy Naegle moved to approve B-9-2018 based on the criteria presented. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Necia Christensen asked if we have received any comments from neighbors. Steve Lehman answered no. William Whetstone said he has worked with the Community Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 5 Development Corporation of Utah and they have done a great job revitalizing homes in this area. Although this home is not being remodeled by the CDCU, he supports this type improvement to the neighborhood. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – B-9-2018 Approved – Unanimous B-10-2018 Shell Sign - Variance 4018 W 4100 S C-1 Zone REQUEST: Michael O’Brien is requesting two variances from the West Valley City Sign Code for a new monument sign. The variances are from Section 11-5-104, which sets the maximum height of a single tenant monument sign at 6’ tall and requires that the setback from property line be equal to the sign height. The request is for 2’-8” of additional height for the sign and a variance of 5’ for the setback. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends commercial/office land uses.  The subject property is known as Parcel Number 15-31-477-018. There is a convenience store and fuel pumps on the property that were built in 1989. The property is zoned C-1.  The City will be reconstructing 4100 South next year, which will include widening of the right-of-way in several locations. The existing 20’ landscaped area adjacent to the sidewalk on the subject property will be impacted. From the edge of the new right-of- way there will be about 8.5’ remaining of the landscaped area. It will not be possible to relocate the existing sign in this area, and there is not room to expand the landscaped area to accommodate the sign due to the proximity of the fuel pumps. Earlier this year the Planning Commission granted this property an exception to the code that requires a 20’ Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 6 wide landscaped area adjacent to a street.  The applicant approached staff about options for signage on the property once the road widening occurs. There is another monument sign on the property that faces 4000 West that will not be impacted. The code allows for two monument signs on the property because there are two frontages. The applicant would like to place a new sign in the same general area as the existing sign.  The applicant is proposing to replace the existing monument with a sign that is 8’-8” tall, and 31 sq. ft. in sign area. The code allows for the sign to be up to 50 sq. ft. in area. To keep the sign from being right next to the sidewalk or being too close to the fuel pump area to the north, the applicant is proposing to place the sign 3’-8” from the property line.  Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, and/or if the applicant decides to 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 11-5-104 requires that single tenant monument signs be no more than 6’ tall and have a minimum setback equal to the sign height. The applicant is seeking variances of 2’-8” for the height and 5’ for the setback. 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 Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 7 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. Applicant: Brad Groneman, for and behalf of his boss, Michael O’Brien 4018 West 4100 South West Valley City, UT Brad Groneman read the answers to the five variance criteria: 1. If our variance request is not granted and we lose our monument sign along 4100 South, it will have a very substantial negative impact on our sales of both gasoline and other products as well as our inside store sales. This negative impact may mean the closure of the business in the long run. The variance if granted, will still allow for the general purpose of the ordinance as other specifications of the monument sign will still comply with current ordinances. 2. The only reason that our current sign is non-compliant is due to the City’s plan of widening the roadway and to do that required “taking” a strip of land that provided the setbacks required for compliance. Obviously other properties that are not subject to this ‘taking” will not have to deal with the issue. 3. Both Property Owner and Tenant have enjoyed a mutually beneficial, long- term business relationship that provides goods and services to the City. It is essential that the variance be granted in order to continue said relationship for the foreseeable future. Other businesses in the area not affected by the City road widening project will have in fact gain an advantage over this property. 4. The subject property was already given an exception for the width of the required landscape area due to this City project. The Planning Commission agreed that requiring the property to provide the required 20’ landscape buffer would also cause undue hardship and when granted, deemed not contrary to the public interest. The current sign, being in this same landscaped area that was given the exception, should also be provided the same consideration. Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 8 5. Only a portion of the ordinance is being asked to be waived and thus have a minimal effect on the ordinance itself and will result in the continuation of a successful business in the community. Motion: William Whetstone moved to approve B-10-2018 based on the criteria presented. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Necia Christensen asked if the height of the proposed sign will obstruct the view of traffic. Brock Anderson answered that City staff is comfortable with the placement of the sign. There are 20’ clear view areas next to the entrances. The sign is outside of the clear view areas. William Whetstone asked if the ground the sign is on will remain raised. Brock Anderson said the landscaping standards require a berm, so the berm will remain. Scott Spendlove asked why we are seeing this variance request again after the Planning Commission already granted a landscaping exception. Brock Anderson explained that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant an exception for signage. William Whetstone asked if making the sign smaller is an option. Brock Anderson said the City requires a 1’ masonry base on the sign. The sign is designed to be visible to traffic. Brock Anderson noted that the City wants to make the same amount of signage available to the owner, especially since the road widening is an involuntary situation for the property owner. Brad Groneman said the price sign is what draws his attention to a gas station. Losing signage will have a negative impact on the business. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – B-10-2018 Approved – Unanimous Approval of Minutes from May 2, 2018 – Approved Approval of Minutes from June 6, 2018 - Approved Board of Adjustment October 3, 2018 Page 9 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. Brenda Turnblom, Administrative Assistant