Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES AUGUST 3, 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 Sandy Naegle WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 4 people in the audience. B-4-2022 Olsen – Variance Request 3755 South 5450 West RE Zone REQUEST: Mark Gibbons, representing Rhett and Kristyn Olsen is requesting a variance from Section 7-6- 202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that the minimum side yard setback adjacent to a street be 20 feet. The applicant is seeking a variance of 9.8 feet in order to construct a new two-car garage in conjunction with planned modifications to their existing residence. BACKGROUND:  The subject property is known as lot 102 of the Reserve Subdivision. This subdivision was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office in September 2019 and consists of 8 lots. The existing dwelling was located on the original property that became part of the Reserve subdivision. Said subdivision is accessed from a private street to which this dwelling is a corner lot in said subdivision.  The subject property is approximately 12,100 square feet in size and is the smallest lot in the subdivision. According to Salt Lake County records, the original home was constructed in 1930. When the property was purchased to build the subdivision, the detached garage associated with the dwelling was demolished to allow for development of the subdivision.  The Olsen’s purchased the home in 2018. While the detached garage would be removed, they have made various improvements to the older home and now are proposing an expansion of the existing dwelling to improve the property even more. Part of their plans are to build a 2-car garage along with the addition to the home so that it better matches existing dwellings in the new subdivision. And would provide the opportunity to park their vehicles in a secured place.  Staff was asked about whether a 2-car garage could be added to the property. Given the design and location of the private street, there is little room on the side or back for a garage whether attached or detached. Staff initially thought that the 20-foot setback would only apply to dedicated rights-of-way. However, after discussion the language in the ordinance which simply states, “street side setback” staff determined that a variance would be needed for the new garage location.  While reviewing the drawings for the proposed garage, staff noticed that not only is a new garage planned, but an entire remodel of the existing dwelling. Staff looked at a number of options with the applicant to determine if another location was suitable for a garage, but the only viable place is in the standard location off to the side of the dwelling adjacent to the private street.  The proposed setback from the new addition/garage would be 10.2 feet from the right-of- way line of the private street where 20 feet is required. The applicants approached neighbors and the Home Owner’s Association to get their feedback on the proposal. The Olsen’s have the support of neighbors and the Association as the proposed changes to the home would be an improvement for the subdivision and would look more in character with existing dwellings.  Staff pointed out that the addition would be located adjacent to a private street, and that across the street to the south is a detached garage so there would be no visual impact to a neighboring dwelling. In addition, the side yard next to the garage would be fenced adjacent to the street.  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. In addition, the applicant has provided illustrations of existing dwellings and proposed elevations and site plan for the new garage. Staff would like to point out that a letter of support has also been submitted from the HOA.  Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance, the applicant would be required to submit a building permit for the addition to the existing dwelling.  ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code requires that the minimum side yard setback in the RE zone be 20 feet from a street. 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. Mark Gibbons, representing the property owner, said the subject property is small, outdated, and no longer fits the neighborhood. He stated that the Olsens love the neighborhood; therefore, they want to expand their home to stay and grow their family. Mr. Gibbons pointed out that the addition of a garage will provide parking and room for storage. Mr. Gibbons read his answers to 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. When the property surrounding this house was subdivided, the previous detached garage on the property was demolished to make way for the private subdivision road. The current owners purchased this property without a garage. Due to the small size of the lot and the placement of the existing house, building an appropriate garage is not possible. The benefit to the house would be an added garage as well as more square footage to the house itself. If the variance is not granted, the enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause loss of potential square footage and the lack of a functional garage. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The existing dwelling was constructed in the 1930’s and moved to its current location in the 1950’s was built without an attached garage. By adding a garage and making over the house it will enhance the streetscape by giving the residence more dimension. The special circumstance is that the house is within a private road and has an easement of 20 feet from that road. To accommodate a 2 car garage, we are requesting a 9.8 ft encroachment. 3. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. While nearly all other lots in the neighborhood are large enough to include a large residence plus attached garage, when this parcel was divided into lots, this lot became very small. In order for the house to remain a viable residence in the community, a two  car garage needs to be added. Nearly every home in this neighborhood has a 2 car garage, and all the homes in this subdivision have a 3 car garage. West Valley City values the property around 300,000. The majority of homes in this community are valued in the 700,000-800,000 range. The home is severely undervalued without a 2 car garage as well as the outdated style of the house. The style that the house is currently no longer fits with the standards of the developing neighborhood size and amenities. The variance will permit us to add on a garage to the existing house which otherwise would not be available. In addition to that it would provide more square footage and would increase the property values. This would provide a much more attractive, and functional house. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. While all of the other homes in this development are designed to meet the RE Zone standards, the fact that this is an existing house and is permitted to remain on the lot, if the board allows the variance, the finished house will be more consistent with the current and new homes being built in the subdivision. While other homes in the area do not have a garage, we believe that if the variance is granted and were are allowed to the garage within the easement it will align with the City’s goals and objectives. By bringing the home up to the same standards of the homes that surround it will help all property values and the beautification/continuity of West Valley City. The requested variance is the only place capable on the property that could build a 2 car garage. Due to setbacks required for 5450 West, the variance request does not impede views of traffic from any direction on the city road or on the private road. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed and substantial justice done. While the zoning ordinance requires 20’ street side setback, in this instance, because the lot is adjacent to a private road, when you include the width of the private road, even granting the variance the distance from house to house (lot 102/103) will be a minimum of 58’. The owner is requesting as little encroachment as possible (<50%) into the setback to try and maintain the spirit of the ordinance. Rhett Olsen, the applicant, thanked Steve Lehman and the Board of Adjustments for hearing his request. He explained that the neighborhood he currently lives in is welcoming, warm and feels like home. Mr. Olsen said that he has not been able to find another area that would provide the same environment, so they want to remain in their home. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to approve variance B-4-2022 and open a discussion. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Josh Pettersson said that the letters from their neighbors, all in favor of this request, are what spoke up most to him. He said they probably welcome the expansion to the subject property, where it will fit better with the surrounding homes. Mr. Pettersson thanked Mr. Gibbons for reading his answers to the five variance criteria questions. He believes this request aligns with the spirit of zoning and West Valley City. Josh explained that the ordinance states “street setback,” making this a unique situation where we are unsure if the street leading to the subject property is private or public. Scott Spendlove said that the applicant did a great job answering the questions and prefacing the reason for the variance request. He feels the intent of the RE estate almost mandates this being a unique situation and requires us to grant the variance. Necia Christensen said she has driven through the subject location and can understand wanting to live there. She stated that she agrees with Mr. Spendlove’s view of how the RE zone affects the Boards decision. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Approved – Variance B-4-2022 – Unanimous OTHER Approval of Minutes from May 4, 2022 Meeting Minutes Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to approve the meeting minutes from May 4, 2021. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion.  A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Approved –May 4, 2022 Meeting Minutes –Unanimous Vote for Chair/Vice Chair Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned for Necia Christenson as Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Scott Spendlove as Vice Chair. Angela McConkey seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Motion Stands –Vote for Chair/Vice Chair –Unanimous There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant