Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MAY 4, 2022 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/84610414968 WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS Necia Christensen, Angela McConkey, Sandy Naegle, Scott Spendlove, and Josh Pettersson ABSENT WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 5 people in the audience. B-3-2022 Harvey – Variance Request 3961 South 2200 West A Zone REQUEST: Todd Harvey is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the minimum side and rear yard setbacks in the A zone be 10 feet. Mr. Harvey is seeking a variance of 7 feet in order to build a new detached garage to replace an existing structure. BACKGROUND:  The subject property is known as parcel 15-34-351-008. The property is not part of a formal subdivision. Zoning for this property is A or agriculture and has been zoned this way since West Valley City’s incorporation. Properties to the north, south and west are a combination of R-1-8 and R-1-10.  The subject property is approximately .57 acres in size and contains a single-family dwelling and duplex. The single-family dwelling was constructed in 1909 and the duplex was constructed in 1975. Both buildings are currently being used for residential living.  Mr. Harvey approached the City about building a new detached garage to the east and north of the existing single family dwelling. Currently, the area where the new garage is planned is occupied by existing structures connected together comprising approximately 963 square feet. The new proposed garage will be 937 square feet and will be one building as opposed to different buildings.  Mr. Harvey explained that these buildings were likely built without permits and have outlived their usefulness and safety. For this reason, he is proposing to build a new structure in accordance with City building and zoning codes.  What makes this a unique case is that the property is zoned A. In the agriculture zone, the setback for accessory buildings is 10 feet. In a typical R-1 zone, the setback is 1 foot. The difference being that in agricultural zones the expectation is that accessory buildings are used for agricultural purposes and may contain sounds and odors that are common in that setting. In this case, Mr. Harvey’s property does not have animals and has not had animals since the duplex was constructed and more than likely even before that time.  This request would be for the removal of the existing structure and a replacement of a new structure for vehicle parking and storage of common yard maintenance equipment. Due to the limited area for the new structure, the requested setback is 3 feet, thus a 7- foot variance. One justification the applicant points out is that the front setback for the older single-family dwelling is 60 feet from 2200 West, where the requirement is 30 feet, thus greatly reducing the area for any type of outbuilding.  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 building permit for the new garage.  ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code requires that the minimum side yard setback in the A zone be 10 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. Necia Christensen asked Todd Harvey to read his answers to the five variance criteria questions. Mr. Harvey presented his answers. 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 variance will allow me the opportunity to remove older structures that were built without building permits and were built too close to the property line. The existing single- family dwelling was built in 1909 without a garage. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would prohibit me from building a garage for vehicles and yard maintenance equipment. The duplex was added in 1975 and so there is limited space to build a garage for the existing single family residence.  2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. My property has two special circumstances. First, it is zoned A which has a greater setback requirement (10 feet) for accessory structures than a standard R-1-8 zone which is 1 foot. The greater setback is a requirement for buildings that would house animals or products for animals. I don’t have animals, nor the space for them so the requirement is a special circumstance associated with my property. Surrounding properties to the north and west are zoned R-1-8. Secondly, and perhaps the greater circumstance is that the existing single family home is setback 60 feet from 2200 West. The front yard setback in the A zone is 30 feet. This reduces the area in the back for any reasonable outbuilding. 3. 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 me to remove old structures that are not safe and build a new garage which others have done in this area thus granting me the same property right as others. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Zoning was not in place when the original home was built. The older outbuildings have been in place for quite some time. I will be removing those and replacing with a single building. The new building will meet all building codes with setbacks that would be consistent if my property was zoned residential like others around it. By building a new garage, I am reducing the overall size by 26 feet. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because the variance will provide me the opportunity to build a new building meeting building codes and zoning ordinances that are more common in a residential setting, and not an agricultural setting which this property is not. Necia Christensen asked Mr. Harvey how long he had lived at the subject location. He stated that the property has been in the family for years and when his grandfather passed away seven years ago, Mr. Harvey purchased the home. David Hanson, a neighbor of the applicant, said that he uses the irrigation water for his garden in the rear of the house to the north. He is concerned that the proposed structure will damage the ditch, and he will no longer be able to use the irrigation water. Necia asked Mr. Hanson if he had a large amount of land requiring the use of irrigation water. Mr. Hanson stated that he has a small garden now; however, he has family members who have farm animals and rely on irrigation. Mr. Hanson is working on his property and, at some point, would like to have animals on his property also. Josh Peterson asked Mr. Hanson if his main concern was possible damage to the ditch and how close the structure is to the ditch. He said the garage's proximity to the ditch is also a concern. Mr. Hanson helped construct a brick wall next to the existing carport located on the subject property because it would fall into the ditch. Scott Spendlove asked if the applicant was Mr. Harvey's neighbor. Mr. Hanson said that is correct. Scott asked if he feels that all of his concerns with the applicant have been addressed and resolved. Mr. Hanson stated that he has been sick for quite some time and has not been able to have a conversation with Todd Harvey since he moved in next door. Scott asked Steve if the variance is granted would the applicant need to meet all requirements in the City Code pertaining to the proposed garage. Steve stated that he would need to obtain a building permit and inspection if the variance is granted. Mr. Lehman lives in the same neighborhood as the applicant and knows the members of the public attending this meeting. He said that the main concern as he has discussed this with the neighbors is the ditch and that water will continue to flow correctly. Steve explained that the City does not have jurisdiction over the canal. Typically, the City provides contact information for the company that owns the ditch, and they will address any concerns. Steve noted that the proposed structure would be further away from the ditch, so that should address Mr. Hanson's concerns. Pete Moesser, a neighbor, addressed the Board. Mr. Moesser is also concerned about the ditch. He said the applicant's property line is in the middle of the canal, and if he places the garage where he is proposing to, it will be built into the middle of the ditch. Steve explained that the proposed structure would be shifting three feet away from the ditch, not into the ditch. Mr. Moesser thanked Steve for the clarification and said that was his only concern. Scott asked Mr. Harvey to clarify the placement of the proposed structure to help ease the public's concern. Mr. Harvey used the site plan to show that the irrigation water would not be impeded. Motion: Scott Spendlove motioned to grant the variance for B-3-2022 based upon the information introduced in the answers to Mr. Harvey’s criteria questions. Scott noted that the applicant could have applied for a rezone that most likely would have been granted, which proves he is not trying to circumvent the system in any way. However, the variance request was mainly about saving time. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to close public comment.  Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Motion Carries – Public Comment Closed – Unanimous Discussion: Josh Pettersson stated that there are several unique circumstances surrounding this request. He appreciates the public concerns and the applicant’s response. Josh wanted to emphasize how the setback of the house is an essential factor in granting the variance. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Motion Carries – B-3-2022 – Unanimous OTHER Approval of Minutes from April 6, 2022 Meeting Minutes Motion: Sandy Naegle motioned to approve the meeting minutes from April 6, 2021. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Josh Pettersson Abstained Motion Carries –April 6, 2022 Meeting Minutes – Unanimous There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant