Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MAY 3, 2023 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 9 people in the audience. B-2-2023 Pets and Such - Variance 3668 West 3500 South C-2 Zone REQUEST: Nick Kuhn, is requesting a variance from Section 7-2-118(4) of the City Code. This section requires that where a garbage enclosure was not originally required on a developed lot, an enclosure shall be installed upon the issuance of a new business license on the developed lot. Mr. Kuhn is asking that the existing dumpster be allowed to remain where it has been since the property was developed and without an enclosure. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends commercial land uses. The subject property is known as Parcel Numbers 15-29-377-032 and 15-29-377-066. This property is located in the C-2 zone which allows general commercial uses. The property has been used by a variety of commercial businesses since 1983. The property has also been zoned C-2 since the City’s incorporation. According to the applicant, Pets and Such has been at this location for over 30 years. Recently, a change in business ownership prompted the City to evaluate the existing site for compliance with the approved site plan. During that evaluation, it was noted that a dumpster enclosure needed to be provided for the site to be compliant. The property owner approached staff about a variance since this site was not required to have a dumpster enclosure when it was built. Staff confirmed this after reviewing the original site plan. The existing dumpster is located on the north side of the building shared by both businesses at this location. According to the applicant, the dumpster has been there for the entire time they have operated their business. The applicant believes that to comply with current site plan requirements they would need to install the enclosure in front of the building. According to Mr. Kuhn, there is no other viable place to locate the enclosure due to setback requirements adjacent to 3690 West and limited space on the back side of the building. The applicant believes that putting an enclosure in front would look unsightly and due to the type of refuse generated from the pet store, it would be unappealing to patrons who visit this store. The site itself is approximately 20,000 square feet which complies with provisions of the C-2 Zone. However, the building square footage is approximately 7,500 square feet which would require 30 parking spaces. Only 28 spaces are provided so locating a dumpster in the front parking lot would further reduce the needed spaces for this center. After discussing the variance criteria with the applicant, they’ve decided to pursue relieve from the Board of Adjustment. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-2-118(4) of the City Code requires that where a garbage enclosure was not originally required on a developed lot, an enclosure shall be installed upon the issuance of a new business license. 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. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. 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. Nick Kuhn, the applicant, said that Pets & Such has been operating from this location since 1988, and their dumpster was kept behind the business from the start. He said that his dad, who owned the pet store, is retiring, and he will be taking over. Mr. Kuhn said when he was trying to change the name on the business license, he found out an inspection would be required. After the inspection, he was informed that the dumpster would need to be enclosed. Mr. Kuhn stated that the only permitted spot for the enclosure would be in the front of the business. He explained that if the dumpster were to be moved, he would lose parking spaces. Mr. Kuhn noted that the odor and look of a dumpster where the customers park would hurt his business. Mr. Kuhn 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 this building was constructed, there was not a dumpster code in place. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would reduce the parking spaces that are required for this center. In fact, the center is already void of 6 required spaces, so by adding a dumpster enclosure in the parking lot would be unreasonable and a further hardship than already exists. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. This property was developed prior to current city ordinances. All improvements were made per the approved site plan. With today’s ordinances, the parking requirement would be for 34 spaces and the site currently has 28 spaces. By virtue of this property being approved prior to current ordinances is a special circumstance. 3. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. The business operation is not going to change. Modifications to the parking, store front or anything else will remain as it has for the last 36 years. The only thing that is changing is ownership from parent to child. In order to enjoy a substantial property right we are simply asking to continue to operate a long standing business in WVC. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. Since the dumpster enclosure was not required when this building was built, we don’t believe the general plan is affected at all. In fact, if we put the dumpster enclosure up front it would be unsightly, reduce needed parking, and would eliminate patrons from the odors that are customary to a pet store. 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 not change one thing on this property. Substantial justice is done because the business can continue as it was originally established. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to grant the variance for B-2-2023. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion. Discussion: Scott Spendlove said that given the setback on the west side of the building and 3500 South, there would not be another suitable location for the dumpster. He pointed out that the subject property is already deficient in the required number of parking stalls, and  having a dumpster next to customer parking or a pedestrian walkway would not be ideal. Therefore, he feels the variance should be granted. Scott noted that the variance criteria have been met. Josh Pettersson said he agrees with Scott and would not want to take more parking spaces away to make room for the dumpster. He pointed out that there have not been any issues or complaints regarding the dumpster in thirty-five years, so it doesn't seem that it is or would be an issue. Scott Spendlove asked Steve what the vacant lot next to the subject property is zoned. Steve said it is zoned C-2 (General Commercial). Scott said, in that case, we would not expect a residential development on that property. Steve said that's correct. Roll Call Vote: Angela McConkey Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Necia Christensen Yes Unanimously – B-2-2023 – Approved B-3-2023 Barffusson - Variance 3350 West Enterado Avenue R-1-7 Zone REQUEST: Danny Quintana, representing the property owner, is requesting a variance from Section 7-9-114(4)(e) of the City Code. This section requires that no more than 40 percent of a front yard may be covered with a hard surface. The applicant is requesting a variance of 30% in order to exceed the allowable hard surfaced area in the front yard. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends residential land uses. The subject property is known as lot 312 of the Westview No. 3 Subdivision. In November 2022 the City issued a building permit for a new garage addition/remodel for the Barffusson property. A site plan is included in the Boards packet. At that time, a note was placed on the site plan indicating that the amount of hard surfacing in the front yard exceeded 40% but since it was configured prior to 1980 (West Valley City’s incorporation) the city would be fine with that. Areas on the site plan were identified as to what would be concrete and what would be landscaping. Although staff does not have a survey showing exact dimensions of concrete, we are able to measure pretty concisely with computer tools to give us those numbers. As near as staff can tell, the front yard area is approximately 2,800 square feet in size. 40% of that area would constitute 1,120 square feet. As measured, the hard surfacing is approximately 1,960 square feet or roughly 70%. Thus, the variance request of 30%. As mentioned previously, staff did agree to allow the hard surfacing that was in existence prior to the City’s incorporation to remain. That number was 1,370 square feet or approximately 49%. According to a recent aerial photograph, it appears that the additional concrete for the second drive approach along the west property line and a larger radius for the main drive increased the hard surfacing to the numbers illustrated above. The improvements made to the existing dwelling and garage are a good addition to the neighborhood. Staff believes that one contributing factor to the hard surfacing issue is that the dwelling is setback from the street approximately 52 feet due to the side entry garage. In a typical front load garage situation, the setback is 25 feet. Staff has discussed the variance criteria with Mr. Quintana and responses have been provided as part of the packet. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-9-114(4)(e) of the City Code requires that no more than 40 percent of a front yard may be covered with a hard surface. 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. Danny Quintana stated that he home in question is aesthetically pleasing and neighbors are present tonight to state their approval. He mentioned that we live in a desert and xero scaping should be encouraged. Mr. Quintana noted that this is a very minor variance request. Danny Quintana 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. Literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would prohibit the full use of the property used for parking. With a front side entry garage, the turning radius is challenging to access the doors, so more concrete was needed for this to layout to work. The unreasonable hardship is that the owner’s would be required to remove a substantial amount of concrete. 6. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The property is located in an area where there are only a few other homes with side load garages. The front setback distance to the dwelling is over 50 feet thus being a special circumstance that is unique to this property. 7. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. The property has been improved with a new garage and wider driveway which allows the owners to better access the garage. The additional driveway allows vehicles to park behind the garage thus being out of the front setback. 8. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. The property is well maintained and has a new addition which adds to the consideration of the public interest. The yard does have the percentage of liv e plant material required by ordinance. The owners will be enhancing this area to further add character to the lot and front yard. 9. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because the variance will allow the full use of the property that is currently used for parking. The homeowners paved this area as opposed to using gravel which others in the city have done. Steve Lehman said he had something to add to Mr. Quintana’s presentation. He pointed out a typical frontage for a similar home is between 80 to 100 feet. Steve stated that the requirement was 70 to 75 feet when the subject property was constructed. He noted that the smaller frontage could also contribute to the hardship especially where the home was constructed originally with a side entry garage. Leslee Wright said she has lived across the street from the subject property for fifty years and has witnessed many people living there. She stated that the improvements made by the current property owner look great and enhance the neighborhood. Mrs. Wright noted that she is in support of granting the variance.  Briana Barffuson said she currently lives in Saint George but previously lived up the street from her aunt, which owns the subject property. She feels the driveway and garage improve the look of this home. Mrs. Barffuson is excited for her aunt to purchase a 5th Wheel now that she has room to store it. Kara Cano stated that she lives at the property in question. She pointed out that her father put in the cement driveway, and it would be heartbreaking if the driveway needed to be removed. Mrs. Cano said they can now keep their vehicles in the driveway keeping the street clear, which helps to prevent accidents. Juan Barffuson, a relative of the property owner, grew up in this neighborhood. He stated that he had walked back and forth to school for many years, and most homes looked the same; nothing had changed. Mr. Barffuson is upset that his family is being prosecuted for improving their property. Motion: Scott Spendlove motioned to approve B-3-2023 based on the criteria submitted: the lot size and the placement of the house and garage. He noted that the City supports two-car garages, which aids in meeting the spirit of the zoning ordinance. Scott also stated that their neighbors' comments helped him decide to approve the variance. Josh Pettersson seconded the motion. Discussion: Necia Christensen said she could tell the neighbors had put a lot of thought into their presentation and were supportive. She feels the driveway and garage enhance the property. Josh Pettersson stated that the setbacks and frontage of the subject property make this a unique situation. He explained that what sticks out to him is the vehicles being parked in the driveway and not on the street, which is a real benefit. Josh noted that he agreed with Necia's comments. Roll Call Vote: Angela McConkey Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Necia Christensen Yes Unanimously – B-3-2023 – Approved OTHER Approval of Minutes from the April 5, 2023 Meeting Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to approve the minutes from the April 5, 2023 meeting. Scott Spendlove seconded the motion.  Vote: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Approved – Minutes from April 5, 2023 – Unanimously There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant