Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES August 4, 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, Josh Pettersson and William Whetstone ABSENT Brandon Hill and Sandy Naegle WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There was 4 people in the audience. B-3-2021 Chris Pange – Variance Request 3909 South 4800 West R-1-8 Zone REQUEST: Chris Pange is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the minimum frontage in the R-1-8 zone be 80 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance of 15 feet for the purpose of subdividing the existing property to create an additional building lot. The property is located at 3909 South 4800 West. BACKGROUND:  The subject property is known as parcel 15-31-302-005. The property is not part of a formal subdivision, but it is bordered on the north and south by lots in the Sundown Phase 5 Subdivision.  The subject property is approximately .54 acres in size and is zoned R-1-8. This zoning requires a minimum frontage of 80 feet and an area of 8,000 square feet per lot. Due to the size of the property, the applicant would like to subdivide the existing parcel to create an additional building lot. This would necessitate a subdivision application to be reviewed and approved by the city.  The property dimension is 157.7 feet in width and 139 feet in depth. In order to subdivide the property without the need of a variance, the property would need to be 160 feet in width. As just noted, the property is just shy of this number. What compounds the problem even more, is that the existing home is positioned toward the center of the lot, thus leaving an area of 65 feet to construct a new dwelling. The existing home would meet the 80-foot requirement, but the potential new lot would be 65 feet in width, thus, the variance request of 15 feet.  As mentioned previously, the lot depth is 139 feet. If the variance was to be granted, the new lot would be approximately 9,035 square feet. The existing home would sit on a lot of approximately 12, 780 square feet. In summary, the only variance needed for a new lot would be a frontage variance of 15 feet.  Staff explained the required setbacks from the existing dwelling to a new property line and for the potential new dwelling. The applicant has submitted an illustration of a home that would fit the new lot if the variance was granted.  In discussing the potential variance, staff explained the variance criteria and that the Board would need to find in favor of each criteria in order to grant the variance. The applicant has provided responses to the criteria as part of the application.  Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant would be required to submit a subdivision application to create the additional building lot. 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 Code 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. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to continue B-3-2021 to the September 1, 2021 BOA Meeting. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. The applicant was not in attendance. Byron Beck, a neighbor, expressed that he did not have any issues with the variance request. He stated that the subject property would match the existing homes across the street if the variance is approved. Josh Pettersson stated that he would like to hear the applicant answer the variance criteria questions and have the opportunity to speak with the applicant before voting on this application. He feels communication with the applicant is essential for an appropriate and fair vote. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Motion Carries – B-3-2021 Continued – Unanimous B-4-2021 Granger Hunter Improvement District - Variance 1490 West 3100 South BRP Zone REQUEST: Granter Hunter Improvement District is requesting a variance from Section7-6-308(1)(a) of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the maximum height for Buildings or Structures within 100 feet of a property line shared with a Residential Use or Zone shall be 20 feet or one Story. Granger Hunter is proposing to install a new water treatment plant and the building is proposed at 34 feet in height, thus, GHID is requesting a variance of 14 feet to build a structure taller that what is allowed in the BRP zone. The property is located at 1490 West 3100 South and is zoned BRP. BACKGROUND:  The subject property is known as Parcel 15-27-276-003 and is owned by. At the present time, the site contains a number of facilities including a water storage tank, booster pump station and well pump station.  According to the applicant, they are finishing the design of a water treatment plant that will be located on said property. The treatment plant will receive water from nearby wells and will remove ammonia, manganese and iron. The site is large enough to house the new building, but the needed height of the building exceeds the allowable height in the BRP Zone where adjacent to existing residential zoning.  The proposed height of the building is 34 feet. The adjacent water tank height is 33.5 feet, and the well house is 14 feet. The booster pump station is 17 feet tall, and the storage facility is 35 feet tall. These buildings were likely constructed prior to the Jordan Meadows neighborhood to the east.  According to the applicant, the proposed 34-foot building height is necessary to accommodate the filtration equipment as well as an overhead crane above the equipment. The height of the building cannot be lowered without impacting the functionality of the water treatment plant.  To help mitigate some of the potential impacts from a taller building, the applicant is proposing downturned lighting, an 8-foot pre-cast masonry wall, and landscaping to help buffer the residential property to the east.  Staff discussed the possibility of rezoning the property to the A or Agricultural zone which would have allowed the buildings height, but the timing of Planning Commission and City Council, and then back to Planning Commission for a conditional use was lengthy, so a decision was made to pursue a variance.  Section7-6-308(1)(a) of the West Valley City Code requires that the maximum height of a building or structure within 100 feet of a property line shared with a Residential Use or Zone be 20 feet or one story. The proposed building height is 34 feet, thus a variance of 14 feet is being requested.  The applicant has provided a letter outlining the conditions wherein a new building is required. The applicant has also provided responses to the variance criteria relating to this case. A site plan has also been provided showing the location of the proposed building in relation to other facilities on site and the residential housing to the east.  Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant will be required to work with staff regarding a permitted use application. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section7-6-308(1)(a) of the West Valley City Code requires that the maximum height of a building or structure within 100 feet of a property line shared with a Residential Use or Zone be 20 feet or one story.  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. Todd Marti 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; and The parcel owned by Granger-Hunter Improvement District is currently zoned BRP, which is a Business/Research Park. This site is currently a public utility installation, which is a permitted use for a BRP. In order to improve the aesthetics and taste of the groundwater used to supply residents of West Valley City, GHID is planning on constructing a water treatment facility that will remove iron, manganese, and ammonia from the water. The two filter vessels that will be located in this building are approximately 15 feet tall, with additional vertical height required for an overhead access crane for maintenance, personnel on an elevated gantry, heaters, and the roof trusses. Without the ability to construct the water treatment building at the required height, the project cannot be constructed. The filters will not physically fit in a building only 20 feet in height due to requirements for the overhead crane, maintenance access, pitched roof, and heaters. The purpose of the zoning ordinance next to a Residential Zone is to reduce impacts to neighboring properties. The height of two of the existing structures is already similar, therefore the additional building will not create additional impacts to the Residential Use. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district; and Because this site is a permitted use as a Public Utility Installation, the same standards for Business/Research Parks do not apply. Two of the existing buildings already exceed the height limitations (the reservoir and the storage facility). Other Granger-Hunter Improvement District sites also have taller facilities, such as water reservoirs, that exceed a 20-foot height limitation. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district; and To the north of the parcel in question is a parcel owned by Rocky Mountain Power (zoned partially as agriculture and as R-1-8) which has many facilities at a height higher than 20 feet. The only other nearby BRP zoned property is another parcel owned by Granger-Hunter Improvement District that currently has a wastewater lift station (with a 26 foot tower). 4. The granting of the variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest; and The construction of the water treatment facility is in the public’s interest because of the improvement of the quality of water being produced at the three well sites, and to the physical aesthetics of the site itself (which is currently under-developed and not landscaped). No impacts to the general plan are anticipated because this site will always be a Public Utility Installation, due to the location of the existing well, pump station, reservoir, and storage building. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is maintained because this site is a permitted Public Utility Installation. To substantial changes to zoning are proposed at this time. Scott Spendlove explained that there is potential for increased regulations with water filtration. He asked Mr. Marti if the subject property has room to expand, anticipating the need to filter more chemicals from our water. Mr. Marti said that Granger Hunter has room to build another structure or add on to the existing structure. He stated there had been a conversation about needed a reverse osmosis system added to this location. Steve Lehman asked Mr. Marti if the reverse osmosis system building would comply with the height requirements. Mr. Marti stated the height would be approximately 34 feet, similar to this variance request. Josh Pettersson asked if this variance would cover just the building or the entire site. Steve said this would cover just the building, and the applicant would need to come back before the Board for another variance when they are looking to build a second structure. Christina Osborn, the design engineer, explained that the intent would be to extend the roofline on the existing structure, keeping it the same height of 34 feet. Necia Christenson asked if this variance would cover the expansion where it would not be a separate structure. Steve said that he believes this would be an extension of the same building with the same infrastructure. Therefore, this variance request would be a blanket statement covering the future expansion, and the applicant would not need to  come back for a second variance request. Steve said he would speak to Brandon Hill, the Legal Department Division Head, to ensure his explanation is accurate. Steve noted that the Board should include in their motion that this variance that will cover this building and any additions. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to grant the variance for B-5-2021 for the existing structure and any future additions to the existing structure. William Whetstone seconded the motion. Discussion: Scott Spendlove stated that he is happy to see proactivity when it comes to the treatment of our water. Necia Christenson said that she has driven past the subject property, and it does not look like an eyesore from the street. However, she understands a neighbor wanting a fence blocking the view of the location. William Whetstone stated that his only concern was the possibility of neighbors not supporting this structure being added. However, Steve stated earlier in the meeting there has not been any negative feedback. Mr. Marti said they have been working with the neighboring residential development to minimize any issues they would have. Josh Pettersson said that he feels that the applicant presented solid answers to the variance questions and have continued to develop the site without imposing others. Necia agrees with Josh and stated this project does not interfere with the adjacent residential homes, park, or the county property. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Motion Carries – B-4-2021 Approved – Unanimous OTHER Approval of Minutes from June 2, 2021 Meeting Motion: Scott Spendlove motioned to approve the meeting minutes William Whetstone seconded the motion.  A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Josh Pettersson Abstained – Josh did not attend the June 2, 2021 Meeting Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – June 2, 2021 Meeting Minutes – Majority Vote for Chair, Vice Chair for the 2021-2022 fiscal year. Motion: William Whetstone motioned to keep Necia Christensen as Chair and Scott Spendlove as Vice Chair. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Motion Carries – Necia Christensen - Chair and Scott Spendlove - Vice Chair. Approved – Unanimous There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant