Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES November 3, 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 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-5-2021 Squared Away Properties - Variance 2601 South Constitution Boulevard M Zone REQUEST: Bob Dance, representing the property owner, is requesting a variance from Section 7-9-112(1) which states that the required landscaping for parking lots with 5 or more vehicles be 20 feet in depth from property line. Mr. Dance is requesting a reduction from 20 feet to 10 feet, thus a variance request to reduce the required landscaping from 20 feet to 10 feet. The subject property is known as Parcel Number 15-21-452-011. This property is located in the M Zone and is not part of any formal subdivision. A portion of the building is used for automobile repair and a small office in the northwest corner of the building. The second story portion of the building is vacant. In August of this year, the subject property was acquired by Squared Away Properties. The new owner was approached by a realtor with a prospective tenant for the 2-story portion of the building. The proposed tenant is a local Church having a congregation of approximately 150 people. Churches are permitted in the manufacturing zone but would require City review and site plan approval. In a letter to the Board, Mr. Dance explains that the requested variance is related to the change of use requirements. In order to locate a church within the existing building, it would necessitate a remodel. As such, that would then entail a remodel of the existing site, including the parking lot and would involve additional landscaping along 2590 South. The property owner is not opposed to providing the additional landscaping, or a reduction to the drive access on the north side. The proposed site plan indicates two drive approaches meeting City standards instead of one massive open approach. The modifications to the north side of the property would also provide parking and access to the church. The issue at the center of the variance request is that by bringing the site up to current standards, the landscaped area on the north side of the property and adjacent to 2590 South would need to be 20-feet. Based on the building footprint and existing improvements, including the proposed 20 feet of landscaping, the site would be deficient of 10 parking spaces. If the landscaping on the north side of the parking area is reduced to 10 feet, then the proper number of parking stalls can be provided, and the church will be able to occupy the space. Mr. Dance explains that the owner wants to provide a building that will improve the look and tenant use of the building and be a better neighbor in this area. The presence of a church should provide a little more security for the immediate neighboring buildings since it is used on off- times from the neighbors – during evenings and weekends. The building as it currently exists is a bit rough. According to Mr. Dance, the original building was built in 1973, a two -story portion was added on in 1979 – both prior to West Valley City’s incorporation. Mr. Dance explains that the site plans and drawings approved by the County prior to 1980, are reflective of what currently exists on the property today. Section 7-9-112(1) requires that there be 20 feet of landscaping measured from the property line. In most locations in the City, the property line is located at the inside of sidewalk. However, in manufacturing zones, and especially in older manufacturing areas, there is no sidewalk. A portion of this property contains a sidewalk right at the corner and sidewalk exists on the north side of 2590 South. However, based on discussions with the City Engineering Division, sidewalk on the south side of 2590 South is not projected to extend eastward. While that does not change the location of the property line, standard improvements such as sidewalk will not exist on the south side of 2590 South. As there is no sidewalk along this portion of the right-of-way, the applicant is requesting that 20 feet of landscaping be installed, but 10 feet of that would be measured from the back of curb which does not count towards the required 20 feet of landscaping. Thus, a variance of 10 feet of landscaping is being asked for – although 20 feet of landscaping will be installed. Staff discussed the reasons for the variance with the applicant and they have provided answers to the variance criteria. Those have been made part of the packet and will be discussed in the hearing. Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant will be required to work with staff and other departments regarding the site design. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-9-112(1) requires that there be 20 feet of landscaping measured from the property line. 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. Steve Lehman presented the variance request. Necia Christensen asked Bob Dance, the applicant, to state his case to the Board. Mr. Dance explained that the current owners purchased this property recently and have already started making improvements. He pointed out the many cars parked on the property belonging to an auto repair business adjacent to the subject location. Mr. Dance stated that the owner has had those vehicles removed and has prohibited the storage of cars on the site. He explained that they wanted to get the highest and best use out of the property and had an interest from a Church to lease the second floor of the property in question. Mr. Dance explained that the amount of parking needed is based upon the number of seats inside the property. He explained leasing the second floor to the Church will provide additional revenue to the owner repurpose into the property. Mr. Dance 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 zoning ordinance causes a hardship related to the improvement of the subject property at 2601 South Constitution Boulevard. Since this property was built in 1973, the city’s requirements have been modified. Because of the setback of the now-existing building, from the north property line, there isn’t enough distance from the property line to the front of the building to allow what might be considered “normal” parking layout, with the parking spaces being placed perpendicular to the face of the building. The original drawings showed parking to be oriented in that direction, and with the new ordinance parallel parking is the only way of achieving parking in front of the tenant spaces. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Because of the placement and depth of the 1973 building, this property is different than other, newer building layouts. For instance, the newer building north across the street  from this property was laid out to allow for the parking spaces to be laid out to give the building adequate parking and allow for the landscape setback, etc. 3. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. Granting the variance will give the property owner the ability to lease a space on the east end of the building that is not feasible without the variance 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. As far as we know, this is an unusual circumstance that should only apply to this particular property. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done. By granting this variance, the property owner will add significant improvements to the property. What is now asphalt will become an area of landscaping to enhance to the site, in compliance with city requirements. The open “driveway” will be reduced from 227 feet of asphalt to two driveway openings of 30’ each and the remainder will be landscaped space. (Note that the owner has previously engaged a landscape company to prepare drawings for the future landscaping. We will send those drawings as soon as possible). Brian Arbuckle, the property owner, addressed the Board. Mr. Arbuckle said that the revenue generated from the Church will benefit us and the City by upgrading the site. He said that it would be beneficial to them as well as the City to move forward with some kind of arrangement so that there is confirmation we can continue to grow. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to approve B-5-2021. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Josh Pettersson said that the applicant did a good job answering the variance questions, especially when addressing the spirit of the zoning ordinances observed, and substantial justice has been done. Mr. Pettersson said even if we do not consider the financial aspect, an addition of a Church is beneficial for the City and the tenant. He noted that this project would remove two hundred and twenty- seven feet of asphalt, replacing it with beautiful landscaping. Mr. Pettersson said that not granting the variance would allow this site to remain as is without any improvements.  William Whetstone feels that other options, such as a parking agreement, would fulfill the applicants' needs. However, he is in support of granting the variance. Scott Spendlove feels that adding the two formal drive approaches and a Church to a commercial zone would be an improvement. Sandy Naegle agrees with Scott. 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-5-2021 Approved – Unanimous OTHER Approval of Minutes from September 1, 2021 Meeting Discussion: William Whetstone thought that Brandon Hill was not in attendance, however, he was not marked absent. Brandon Hill confirmed that he did not attend. Motion: William Whetstone motioned to approve the meeting minutes subject to the modification of marking Brandon Hill absent. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion with the modification. 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 – September 1, 2021 Meeting Minutes – Unanimous There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant