Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 5, 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 Josh Pettersson WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 2 people in the audience. B-4-2023 Julio Raymundo - Variance 3969 South 6400 West R-1-8 Zone REQUEST: Julio Raymundo is requesting three variances from the West Valley City Code. Section 7-6-202 requires the property to have an 80-foot frontage at the 25-foot setback line and that the garage side of the dwelling have a setback of 10 feet. The applicant is seeking a 33-foot frontage variance for the frontage and a 5-foot garage side setback variance. Section 7-11-207 requires that where the garage is attached to the home and the garage door is facing the street, the width of the front of the house excluding the garage shall be 15 feet. The applicant is seeking a 10-foot variance as only 5 feet of the house will be displayed. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends residential land uses. The subject property is known as Parcel 14-35-304-035. It is not a recorded lot, nor is it part of a recorded subdivision. This property was created from a County tax deed in 1982. It appears that this parcel was part of the larger parcel to the north. Due to back taxes being owed, a portion of the original property was divided off to settle the delinquent taxes. Staff has included a copy of the tax deed for the Boards review and to help establish how this parcel was created and when. The property is approximately .29 acres in size and is bordered on the north by an existing single family dwelling and existing single family housing to the east being part of the Wood Haven Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1-8 which is a single family zone requiring a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Mr. Raymundo approached staff about the possibility of building a new home on this property. Staff explained that due to the unique shape and size of the property, variances would most certainly be needed. Mr. Raymundo explained the proposed size of the dwelling being 35 feet wide and 50 feet deep and its proposed location. Based on that information, 3 variance requests would need to be reviewed by the Board. As just mentioned, the applicant’s proposal to build a new home on this parcel would necessitate 3 variances. Staff would like to explain each below: Variance 1: The first variance is regarding frontage. The R-1-8 zone requires a minimum frontage of 80 feet which is measured from side to side at the 25-foot setback line which is  typically at the back of sidewalk. In this case, the property width at the 25-foot back measures 47 feet – thus a variance of 33 feet is needed. Variance 2: The second variance is regarding the garage setback. The R-1-8 zone requires a minimum setback of 10 feet on the garage side. The applicant is proposing to locate the dwelling 5 feet from property line – thus a variance of 5 feet is needed. Variance 3: The third variance is regarding the width of the front elevation in regards to the garage. City housing standards require that where the garage is attached to the home and the garage door is facing the street, the width of the front of the house excluding the garage shall be 15 feet. The applicant is proposing that 5 feet of the elevation be displayed – thus a 10-foot variance is needed. Staff would like to address each of the variances as they relate to the parcel configuration and property constraints.  Variance 1: While the property is rather deep, it is really narrow. The resulting property from the tax sale is only 47 feet wide at the 25-foot setback. While the lot does widen a bit as you go east, the lot would never meet the 80-foot frontage requirement.  Variance 2: The home is relatively narrow at 35 feet. The garage side is proposed to be 5 feet, with the opposite side adjacent to the canal being 8 feet – which meets ordinance. One of the reasons the applicant is proposing the garage on the north side is that the City installed a drive approach when improvements to this property were made as part of the 6400 West improvement project. Keeping the drive approach there seems logical.  Variance 3: The applicant is proposing two garage doors of 12 feet each. With the necessary structural components to accommodate these doors, the applicant is left with 5 feet for the entrance. The applicant could install a standard 16-foot or even an 18 foot garage door and meet the ordinance as required. However, he has selected to request the variance. After discussing the variance criteria, Mr. Raymundo decided to pursue variances to build a new home on this property. The applicant’s position is that a new home on this property is better than weeds and other activities that he has expressed concern about. Should the Board of Adjustment approve the variances, the applicant will be required to work with staff on a new building permit. The Board should evaluate each of the variances individually. The Board has the option to approve each variance or deny each variance or a combination thereof based on the variance criteria provided.  In conclusion, staff would also like to add a disclaimer that a canal easement does exist along the south side of this property. While the parcel boundary is established, staff is not aware of a survey indicating where the easement is located in relation to the proposed dwelling. This will be something that will need to be evaluated if a new home is built on the property to ensure that the dwelling does not encroach the canal access easement. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 requires the property to have an 80-foot frontage at the 25-foot setback line and that the garage side of the dwelling have a setback of 10 feet. Section 7-11-207 requires that where the garage is attached to the home and the garage door is facing the street, the width of the front of the house excluding the garage shall be 15 feet. 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. Chloe Raymundo, the applicant’s daughter, 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. The purpose for the City’s zoning ordinances are to promote health, safety and welfare of the citizens. The approval of these variances will not negatively affect the purpose noted above. The unreasonable hardship is that we are trying to build a home on property created by SL County that has very limited options. While we are trying to do the best we can, we are unable to develop this property which is a hardship. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The property was created by a tax sale. We assume the size was relative to the amount of taxes the prior owner needed to pay. That is why the property is so oddly configured. There are no other properties in this area that are restricted like this property. 3. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. The substantial property right is that we be allowed to build a new home. We have tried to reduce the numbers of variances and believe that the 3 requested would allow us to enjoy the property as it exists. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. We believe building a new home removes an eyesore from the neighborhood. It also reduces problems that might occur here being next to the canal. We have put our home closer to 6400 West than the home to the north so as to try and avoid putting it side by side. The back of our home is about at the beginning of the front of the home to the north. A new house will not be contrary to the general public but will only improve other property values in the area. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because a new home will be built. Substantial justice will be done because the home meets as best, we can almost all of the required setbacks and housing standards. Motion: Scott Spendlove motioned to grant all three variances for B-4-2023, based on the answers to the five variance criteria questions.  Angela McConkey seconded the motion. Discussion: Sandy Naegle said she is frustrated with how the County divides property to sell for tax debt. She mentioned that the process makes it challenging to make a fair decision. Sandy was ready to deny the variance requests before this meeting; however, she has a different point of view after listening to the information from Steve Lehman and the applicant. Angela McConkey said she lives close to the subject property, which would be a good use of property that needs to be used better. Scott stated that he can relate to Sandy's feelings. He thought three variance requests seemed like a lot for this property. Scott pointed out that it is a legal lot and well over 8,000 square feet. Scott stated that he jogs past this property and can see how a home with a yard would fit well there. Necia Christensen noted that she read Mrs. Lockaby's letter and went to look at the property, and it could be more attractive. The property is very narrow and would be challenging to develop. She said she was also ready to deny this request. Mrs. Christensen said after hearing the applicant's answers to the criteria questions, have no choice but to grant the variances. Roll Call Vote: Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Necia Christensen Yes Unanimously – B-4-2023 – Approved Other Vote for Chair and Vice Chair Motion: Sandy Naegle motioned for Necia Christensen as Chair and Scott Spendlove as Vice Chair. Angie McConkey seconded the motion. Vote: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Sandy Naegle Yes  Unanimously- Vote- Approved Approval of Minutes from the May 3, 2023 Meeting Motion: Scott Spendlove motioned to approve the minutes from the May 3, 2023 meeting. Angie McConkey seconded the motion. Vote: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Approved – Minutes from May 3, 2023 – Unanimously There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant