Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 1, 2021 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Necia Christensen in the City Council Chambers at West Valley City Hall 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119, and 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 WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There was 2 people in the audience. B-3-2021 Chris Pange – Variance Request 3909 South 4800 West R-1-8 Zone This application was continued from the August 4, 2021 Board meeting. 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 criterion 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. Benjamin Miller, representing the applicant, addressed the Board and 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. If most all the other properties in the area have 80 sf of frontage, it would prove to be a hardship that this property with 158 ft of frontage is so large, yet we wouldn't have the ability to subdivide and build a new home without removing the current structure residing on the right side of the lot. 1. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The existing structure on the lot is built in such a way that doesn't allow us to subdivide right down the middle. This causes friction where the lot itself contains enough square footage for a new build by zoning standards, yet because of the frontage width size the plans to subdivide must have further consideration before approval. Development of a new build would however keep to the zoning parameters of 8ft spacing between the home and neighboring property line, as well as 1Oft spacing between the garage and neighboring property line since we are going to utilize the benefits of the depth (142 ft) of the lot to build new. 2. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. This variance would allow us to place a new home on property that is very consistent with other properties in this area. Although the frontage will be less than the required 80- feet, the size of the lot is the same as others in the same zoning district. 3. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. The lot that we own is within two feet of code for two lots(160ft)-but because of the current position of the home on the lot, subdividing will leave the empty lot smaller by width compared to the rest of the property containing the current home. Part of the General Plan states that housing types considered for infill will have to be compatible in style and scale to the surrounding neighborhood. We believe that the new home we wish to develop will meet that objective.  4. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because the variance is relatively minor. The overall size of this parcel at 9,230 sq. ft. will still allow for the construction of a new home. Building a new home would not infringe on any neighboring properties as the zoning requirements for spacing will be recognized, and there is ample parking to allow development without causing hardship to surrounding property owners. The request is not out of character with other properties in this general area. Necia Christensen asked Mr. Miller if or the applicant had anything else to add. Chris Pange, the applicant, said that the existing building is beautiful. However, it needs work, and he can’t wait to get started on this project. Mr. Miller added that they would rehab the existing building and build a brand new building making the property aesthetically pleasing. Necia asked Steve Lehman if there had been any feedback from neighbors of the subject location. Steve said that he had not received any calls about this proposal. He received a call from a property owner in the area interested in how the Board will vote on this proposal because he would like to do something similar with his property. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned grant the variance for B-3-2021. Scott Spendlove suggested adding a second condition to the motion to include the submitted pictures or potential ideas for the subject home to keep in character with the neighborhood. Josh stated that Steve mentioned the building structure submitted represents what could be built but not necessarily what would be built on the subject property. He asked Steve if the Board is being asked to vote on the adjustment to the frontage area and not necessarily the proposed building. Josh stated that the applicant would still need to meet all of the building requirements. Steve noted that Josh is correct. He then addressed Scott's comments, and he explained they could add the applicant will build a home that meets the City's criteria for housing to the motion. Josh stated that he would add the proposed building will meet the City's criteria for housing to his motion. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Necia asked Scott why he felt the building should be added to the motion. Scott explained that three of the five variance criteria mentioned being consistent and keeping with the neighborhood's character, and he wanted to reenforce that statement. He stated that it is not uncommon for the Board to grant a variance referencing ideas submitted by the applicants. Necia agreed with Scott. Steve noted that the width of the lot is 66 feet which is a bit narrow for a garage to be built attached to the side of the home. However, the lot is 140 feet deep, which  would allow room for a detached garage and a single-family house to fit on the subject location without a problem. Josh thanked Steve for his explanation. He did not want to grant a variance and find out they could not build a home meeting City code. Steve gave an example of a subdivided lot, and the home built on the property was larger than proposed. He explained that this project did meet all of the City's requirements. However, also needed a variance for the frontage reduction. Necia stated that her concern was the applicant would find out the house would not fit on the subject property and need to come back for another variance. She feels confident this will work based on Steve's explanation. Scott stated that the variance criteria questions were answered, giving valid options and reasons for the request. He feels this project will be consistent with the neighborhood. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Motion Carries – B-3-2021 Approved – Unanimous OTHER Approval of Minutes from August 4, 2021 Meeting 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 Scott Spendlove Yes William Whetstone Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Sandy Naegle Abstained – Sandy did not attend on August 4, 2021 Motion Carries – August 4, 2021 Meeting Minutes – Majority There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant