Board of Adjustment Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 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 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-5-2023 Hodson - Variance 4521 South Orleans Way R-1-8 Zone REQUEST: Mr. Don Hodson is requesting a variance from Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code. This section requires that accessory buildings be located in the rear yard setback for residential properties. Mr. Hodson is asking for a variance of 9 feet to allow a portion of an accessory building to extend forward into the side yard setback. BACKGROUND: WEST VALLEY CITY GENERAL PLAN recommends residential land uses. The subject property is known as lot 30 of the Meadow Heights No. 11 Subdivision. This subdivision was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office in December 1973 which predates West Valley City’s incorporation in 1980. The County did not have garage requirements as the City does today. The Hodson residence was constructed with a single carport. Staff was contacted by A-Shed who is working with the applicant to build a detached garage for storage of a vehicle and boat. In discussing the required setbacks, staff informed the contractor and applicant the detached garage would need to be located in the rear setback. Meaning the garage would need to be placed behind the rear plane of the dwelling. The rear yard setback for the existing dwelling is approximately 24 feet from property line. The detached garage is going to have a 3-foot rear setback, leaving 21 feet of depth for the garage. The requested depth of the detached garage will be 30 feet to accommodate the storage that is needed. It is no wider than a standard detached garage. Due to the needed depth, the proposed detached garage will end up extending forward into the side yard setback a distance of 9 feet. Staff inquired about the possibility of adding on to the existing dwelling to avoid the variance request. However, staff was informed there is a grade difference between the carport driveway and remaining side yard of approximately 30 inches. This would make an addition to the existing carport difficult if not impossible and cost prohibitive as the existing driveway would need to be removed. Not to mention the patio cover at the rear of the dwelling. Staff inquired about the possibility of placing the detached garage at the southeast corner of their yard. Staff was informed that the neighbor would not allow access or use of their property for construction purposes which would make it difficult to construct the garage. While a detached garage could be located at that location there are a few negative aspects in addition to the neighbor not willing to participate:   The detached garage would occupy a majority of the applicants existing rear yard thus reducing outdoor activity opportunities.  The detached garage would obscure views from inside the dwelling.  The detached garage would extend toward the side street (Belfort Drive) but would be able to meet the 20-foot setback requirement. However, even with the setback, the location would put the front portion of the garage from a visual perspective in the front setback of the adjacent home to the east. Whereas the proposed location for the detached garage, puts the garage behind the home to the north and is adjacent to their garage side thus preserving the visual integrity within the front setbacks of both the Hodson’s neighbors. Mr. Hodson wants to be a good neighbor and believes the proposed location is more suited for the detached garage as it would be less noticeable in the community. After discussing all options for the request, staff explained the process and variance criteria. Mr. Hodson has provided answers to the criteria and will be available for the Boards review. ORDINANCE SUMMARY: Section 7-6-202 of the West Valley City Code requires that accessory buildings be located in the rear yard setback for residential properties. 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: 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. Mr. Don Hodson read his answers to the five 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 unreasonable hardship is that we have a carport and not a garage like many in our neighborhood. Though there are carports and single car garages, the majority are two car garages where people have more space to store vehicles etc. We thought about adding on to our existing structure, but there is a pretty good drop off in grade at the north side of the carport not allowing us to do an addition and it is this grade difference that makes a garage addition almost impossible. If we were able to do an addition, we could go as close as 4 feet to the property line. We are proposing this same 4 feet although a detached structure can go as close as 1 foot. 2. There are special circumstances attached to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zoning district. The lot depth is 72.8 feet. In a standard R-1-8 subdivision, the lot depth is regularly 100 feet. That alone means we lose about 27 feet of space. Lastly, as mentioned above, the edge of the carport drops off making an addition to the existing structure difficult, especially where it would be enclosed. 3. The variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same zoning district. Our subdivision consists of homes with carports and single and two car garages. Some lots are deep enough to build a detached garage to help where only a carport exists. Although we have a home, we believe that a substantial property right is to have a garage consistent with what WVC requires in current ordinances and what most people have in WVC. 4. The variance will not substantially affect the general plan and will not be contrary to the public interest. We believe building a new detached garage will create a better environment for our neighbors as our vehicles will be out of view. The detached garage will be approximately 40 feet from the street and set towards the northeast corner of our lot. Close to 90% of the garage would be in the back yard and the side setback is 4 feet – which is more than a detached garage would allow. 5. The spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done  We believe the spirit of the zoning ordinance is observed because we are only asking to build a structure to keep vehicles and our boat out of public view consistent with what others have done. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the variance request. Scott Spendlove pointed out the proposed location of the garage and the two structures next to it and asked if they were sheds. Steve said yes, they are two detached structures. Scott said he thought that some homes along Orleans Way had been removed. Steve explained that due to UDOT’s improvements along Bangerter Highway, many homes will be purchased by UDOT and removed as part of that project. Scott asked if the Board could consider how that project would impact the property. Steve explained that the Board typically focuses on what has been discussed regarding the subject lot rather than on the construction along Bangerter Highway. Necia Christensen said she believes the improvements could have a significant impact and should be considered as part of the variance request. Steve agreed that it is substantial and could be added to the discussion for the Board to consider regarding the variance. Brandon Hill, City Attorney, said that they can consider how widening Bangerter Highway impacts the property in question. Scott asked Steve if there was any feedback from other neighbors. Steve said no, just Mr. Davis who spoke today. Don Hodson, the applicant, said he would like to build a garage for his vehicles and boat to clean up his property. Don Davis said that he is Mr. Hodson’s neighbor to the east. He said he was unaware Mr. Hodson was proposing to put the garage in the northeast corner of his property. Mr. Davis explained that when he spoke with Mr. Hodson, he was looking to put the garage right next to his property, and he did not want any negative impact. Mr. Davis stated that he favors the variance, knowing that it would be on the other side of the property. He said that the proposed location of the garage would be safer for Mr. Hodson to come and go from his property. Motion: Josh Pettersson motioned to approve the variance for B-5-2023. Angela McConkey seconded the motion. Discussion: Scott said this has been an excellent example of meeting the criteria for a variance request. He pointed out that it is challenging to build a detached garage next to a carport. Scott stated that this would visually improve the property, and with the construction along Bangerter Highway, he feels it is in the spirit of zoning to encourage the beautification of this neighborhood. Josh Pettersson said that he agrees with everything Scott said. Roll Call Vote: Angela McConkey Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Necia Christensen Yes Josh Pettersson Yes Unanimously – B-5-2023 – Approved Approval of Minutes from the July 5, 2023 Meeting Motion: Sandy Neagle motioned to approve the minutes from the July 5, 2023 meeting. Angie McConkey seconded the motion. Vote: Necia Christensen Yes Angela McConkey Yes Scott Spendlove Yes Sandy Naegle Yes Josh Petterson Abstained Approved – Minutes from July 5, 2023 – Majority There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant