Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES June 2, 2021 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Necia Christensen using Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/6165398014 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 Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There was 1 person in the audience. B-2-2021 Benson Variance 4460 South Renardo Place R-1-6 Zone REQUEST: Jonathan Benson is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the rear yard setback in the R-1-6 zone be 20 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance of 5 feet in order to build an addition on the back of the existing dwelling. The property is located at 4460 South Renardo Place (3460 West) and is zoned R-1-6 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 6,000 square feet). BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends low density residential land uses. � The subject property is known as lot 59 of the Colony East Phase 2 Subdivision. This subdivision was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office in 1970. The property is zoned R-1-6 which is a residential zone with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. � The applicant approached staff about the possibility of adding an addition to the back of the existing dwelling. The purpose for the addition is to increase the space within the kitchen for the Bensons to gather as a family. The proposal is to encroach the 20-foot rear setback requirement by 5 feet for a total distance from property line of 15 feet. Thus, the variance request of 5 feet. � The request before the Board is rather unique in that Section 7-6-204(b) of the City’s Ordinance allows for a reduction in the rear yard setback to 15 feet if the dwelling has an existing two-car garage. However, the existing dwelling does not have a two-car garage, nor is the lot wide enough to accommodate a two-car garage. � The applicant’s property is a cul-de-sac lot. As is common with cul-de-sacs lots, the dwelling is pushed back on the lot in comparison to other properties in the same neighborhood. You will notice how this impacts the buildable area if you compare the applicant’s home with the home to the north. While the Benson’s did not build this home, they are recognizing the challenges of its placement in what they are proposing to do. � To further compound the applicant’s situation, the home was constructed at an odd angle which eliminates the applicant’s ability to construct a two-car garage even if they wanted to. The north side property line setback is right at 10 feet, while the south property line setback is approximately 12 feet where 6 feet is required. Since the home is positioned towards the north side of the lot and situated on an angle, the ability to add another bay for a two-car garage is not an option. � One aspect of the applicant’s petition is that the request is related to the provision mentioned previously in this report of a reduced rear yard setback. Staff did some research about why the 15-foot setback is allowed if the home has a two-car garage. Prior to West Valley City’s incorporation, Salt Lake County had a similar provision in their ordinance that allowed a dwelling with a two-car garage and minimum garage side setback of 8 feet to have the same 15-foot rear setback. Since the County did not require a two-car garage, nor did West Valley City in its early days, staff assumes that the two-car garage was used as an incentive for someone that wanted to build a home or add on to their existing home with a reduced rear yard setback. � As already discussed in this staff report, even if the applicant wanted to construct a two-car garage, they do not have sufficient room to do. The applicant believes that what they are proposing to build would not be contrary to the zoning ordinance as the reduction of 5 feet is relatively minor and would be allowed if they were able to build a two-car garage. The applicant has provided a letter outlining the variance request and answers to the variance criteria. � Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant will work with staff regarding a building permit for the new addition. � ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code requires that the rear yard setback in the R-1-6 zone be 20 feet.  Section 7-6-204(b) of the City’s Ordinance allows for a reduction in the rear yard setback to 15 feet if the dwelling has an existing two-car garage. 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. Jonathan Benson, the applicant, explained his family had moved from a larger home in Taylorsville to a smaller home in West Valley City. Mr. Benson said their family has grown; they have a new child who is 18-month-old. Mr. Benson showed the Board the small size of his current kitchen and how the entire family is unable to eat together. Mr. Benson answered the five variance criteria questions: 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. The purpose for the City’s zoning ordinances are to promote health, safety and welfare of the citizens. We seek a variance of zoning ordinance §7-6-202, which generally requires a 20 foot setback. We seek a 15 foot setback, as allowed by §7-6-204(b): “For Single Unit Dwellings constructed prior to July 8, 1986, with a two-car garage, the Rear Yard setback may be reduced to a minimum of 15 feet.” The approval of this variance will not negatively affect the purpose noted above. The unreasonable hardship is that our home is built on an irregular lot in a cul de sac, which makes building a two car garage an impossibility. If we had a two car garage, we would automatically qualify for the 1986 zoning 15 foot setback. (§7-6-204(b)) 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. As you can see from the attached aerial view of our property, because of the bulge of the  cul-de-sac, our property is much shallower compared to other lots on our street. Our neighbor’s home to the north is built much farther from the rear set back than our property is, simply because their front property line isn’t pushed back toward their home by the cul- de-sac curve. As a result of the irregular shape of our lot, the home was built on an angle in relation to the rear property line. This is evident from the attached site plan. This has the unintended effect of making the rear setback more impactful on our ability to add on to the rear, because the northwest corner of any addition will be closer to the rear property line than the southwest corner. So even if we are in compliance with the setback on the northwest corner of the addition, we actually lose the ability to build to the setback line on the southwest corner of the proposed addition. Finally, because of the irregular shape of our lot, our home is smaller than other homes on our street. As such, our kitchen dining area (immediately adjacent to the kitchen) currently only accommodates five people at the table. This wasn’t a terrible problem for us until we had our fourth child. Our 18 month old is still in a highchair. But when he sits at a chair, we will not be able to fit him around our table, which has to be abutted up to the south wall because there isn’t sufficient space. Even now, when we invite family or friends for dinner, some of us have to stand in the kitchen and use counter space instead of being seated at the table. 3. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. We hope to maintain our substantial property right of being allowed to use all of the living space provided by applicable zoning laws. Homeowners on an irregular lot have restrictions in maximizing their buildable space that other homeowners do not have. Homeowners who aren’t on an irregular lot can easily build a two-car garage (our two neighbors to the south at the end of our cul-de-sac both have two-car garages). Not only can we not have a two car garage due to the irregular angled lines of the side property lines, coupled with the bulge of the cul-de-sac which forced our home to be built farther back on the property, we also don’t qualify for a 15 foot setback instead of the 20 foot setback simply because we don’t have a two car garage. As homeowners we get the double whammy of not being able to have adequate garage space and not being able to build out to the 15 foot setback. A variance allowing us to build out to the 15 foot setback instead of the 20 foot setback would allow for an additional 19’x5’ area. Though this is only around 95 square feet of additional space, it is a significant amount of space for a home that is just over 1000 square feet on the main level. It would provide nearly 10% more space of living area on our main floor, and it would allow all of us to sit around our dinner table. We would even be able to have family and friends over occasionally. This is absolutely essential to our ability to use our home in an enjoyable way. Without this variance, we are considering having to move in order to have a dining space that will accommodate our growing family. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. The general plan and zoning already allow for a 15 foot setback for homes built prior to 1986, if they have a two car garage. We see little evidence that allowing us to build an  additional 5 feet beyond the 20 foot setback will have any ill effect on the public interest, especially where others are allowed to do so if the only difference between their home and ours is if they have a garage. We have very good relationships with our neighbors, and we do not believe any will object to our proposed addition. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done The zoning ordinance is in effect to ensure that our neighborhood is orderly and safe. Zoning ordinances are passed to ensure that neighbors do not use their property in a way that interferes with other neighbors’ use of their properties. Zoning ordinances serve to protect all homeowners by ensuring buildings are built to certain standards that enhance the value of all properties in the area. Our proposed project requests that instead of building a 19’x11’ addition (which is compliant with the applicable 20’ setback), we be allowed to build a 19’x16’ addition. We ask that we be allowed to build to the 15 foot setback even though our property cannot house a two car garage. Where a variance would not be needed if we had a two car garage, and where we cannot build a two car garage because of the irregular shape of our cul-de-sac lot, the small exception to the zoning ordinance (allowing for a 15 foot setback for a home built prior to 1986, even though we do not have a two-car garage), does not violate the spirit of the ordinance in any way. In fact, substantial justice is achieved where this Board can make a small exception given the unique circumstances of our property. Motion: Sandy Naegle motioned for approval of B-2-2021 a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code based upon the justification for the answers of five variance questions that have been written into the records. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Scott Spendlove said that Mr. Benson did a great job breaking down the criteria. Scott thinks that the uniqueness of the lot size and the angle of the house, only allowing for an expansion on the southwest side of the home, are critical factors for approval of the variance. Scott said that he does not need to consider the 15-foot setback allowance for a home with a two-car garage, the angle and the position of the house meet the criteria. William Whetstone said that he agrees with Scott. William wondered if the 5-foot reduction for the setback would cause any safety issues. However, Steve covered there would not be any issues during his presentation. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – B-2-2021 Approved – Unanimous  Necia asked for a motion for the April 7, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion: William Whetstone motioned to approve the meeting minutes Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – April 7, 2021 Meeting Minutes – Unanimous There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant