Planning Commission Meeting

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2013 The meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Chairman Phil Conder at 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, Utah WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Harold Woodruff, Brent Fuller, Jack Matheson, Terri Mills, Phil Conder, Barbara Thomas, and Imaan Bilic ABSENT Joe Garcia WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Steve Lehman, Jody Knapp, Lee Logston, and Nichole Camac AUDIENCE Approximately eleven (11) people were in the audience 3600 Constitution Blvd. West Valley City, UT 84119-3720 Phone (801) 966-3600 Fax (801) 963-3559 West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION Z-2-2013 West Valley City 4209 and 4207 West 3550 South R-4 to R-1-8 2.5 acres West Valley City staff has requested a zone change for two parcels totaling 2.5 acres at 4209 and 4207 West 3550 South from R-4 (residential, multi-family) to R-1-8 (single family residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). Surrounding zones include R-4 to the north and east and R-1-8 to the west and south. Surrounding uses include apartments to the north, vacant property recently approved for apartments to the east and single family homes to the west and south. The subject property is designated as mixed use in the General Plan. At this location, mixed use is defined as medium density residential (7 to 12 units/acre), office and retail. The west parcel includes a home that, according to the Salt Lake County Assessor, was built in 1912 and the east parcel includes a home that was built in 1965. City staff initiated this application in response to comments made by the residents of the surrounding neighborhood during the public hearings on April 24 and May 8 for the conditional use permit for apartments on the property to the east. For reference, a copy of the minutes from these meetings is attached. A petition with 29 signatures from residents of the surrounding neighborhoods was submitted in opposition to the apartments proposed by Mr. Evertsen. Specific concerns mentioned by neighboring residents included the level of density, potential negative impact to property values, impacts to the quality of life, the lack of maintenance of the existing apartments in the area, loss of privacy, the image of the area and compatibility with a single family neighborhood. If this rezone is approved, the property could be developed as single family homes by extending the south stub street to the north. The owners of the subject property, Kim and Sharlene Henderson, are opposed to this rezone and have provided the attached letter in response to this application. In the letter, the Hendersons bring up several points that warrant a response. Below are staff’s responses to the points raised in the Henderson’s letter following the numbering used in their letter: 1. The Hendersons are correct in that there is no development on the table for their property. If the City were to wait until a conditional use application for apartments be submitted, the applicant would be vested in the right to build apartments. Any effort to change the zoning at that point would not remove the applicant’s ability to build apartments. 2. When the City was incorporated in 1980, the subject properties were zoned R-4-8.5, which is now simply R-4. Shortly after incorporation, the City initiated several large downzones for entire neighborhoods that had been zoned by the County as either R-2-6.5 or R-2-8. While downzones by the City are less common today, the City has used this tool to meet City land use goals. 3. The subject properties do fall within the Granger Center Community Development Area (CDA). This CDA includes properties on both sides of 3500 South between 4400 West and 3600 West and was established in 2006 with the following stated objectives: a. Encourage and accomplish appropriate development and economic development within the Project Area. b. Retain auto dealerships that might otherwise relocate outside of West Valley City. c. Attract related businesses to adjoining sites. d. Stimulate adaptive reuse of property. e. Promote and market the Project Area for economic development that would be West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 3 complimentary to existing businesses and industries or would enhance the economic base of the City. f. Provide for the strengthening of the tax base and economic health of the community. g. Provide for compatible relationships among land uses and quality standards for development, such that the area functions as a unified and viable center of social and economic activity for the City. A CDA designation affords the City increased flexibility in using property and sales tax monies as incentives to encourage community development. So far, the CDA has been used to incentivize the expansion of the car dealerships in the area. In summary, the CDA’s primary purpose is to promote business and does not directly affect residential uses. 4. No comment. 5. As stated above, staff initiated this application in response to comments made by the residents of the surrounding neighborhood about the impacts of existing multi-family residential and their desire to limit future multi-family residential in the area. It is true that there are few remaining developable R- 4 zoned properties. In fact, staff found there are 4 remaining developable R-4 zoned lots not including the Henderson’s property. In terms of impacts, if the subject properties were to develop under the current zoning, up to 48 units could be built. Combining these potential 48 units with the 60 units at the Pine Valley Apartments and the 16 units recently approved for Shane Evertsen, there would be a total of 124 apartments. The Fire Department requires a second access for multi-family residential over 100 units. This means that the stub street to the south would be needed as a second point of access for the multi-family area. As per the City’s subdivision ordinance, the Public Works Department would require this stub street to be either extended to the north or terminated with a cul- de-sac. In other words, there would be some traffic cutting through the neighborhood to the south to access any future apartments. A 6’ wall would only be required along the south property line if parking was adjacent to the south property line as is the case with the property to the east. 6. The Hendersons mentioned statements made about “low income people” during one of the public hearings for Mr. Evertsen’s conditional use. This application’s purpose is solely about the appropriate land use and associated density. 7. As stated in item 1 above, if the City were to wait until a conditional use application for apartments be submitted, the applicant would be vested in the right to build apartments. If the Hendersons do not “gift” a small portion of their property to Mr. Evertsen for him to complete the cul-de-sac, he will not be able to meet City requirements. If the Planning Commission finds that a downzone to R-1-8 is not appropriate, another option would be to change the zoning on the property to RM. The maximum density allowed in the RM Zone is determined by the General Plan land use designation, which in this case is medium density residential. A zone change from R-4 to RM in this situation would result in a decrease of potential density from 19.4 units/acre to 12 units/acre. For comparison, the density of the Pine Valley Apartments to the north is 12.4 units/acre and the density of the project approved to the east is 16 units/acre. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval of the zone change from R-4 to R-1-8. 2. Approval of a zone change from R-4 to RM. 3. Continuance for reasons determined during the public hearing. 4. Denial, the zoning should remain R-4. Applicant: Opposed: Opposed: Opposed: West Valley City Kim Henderson Shane Evertsen Sharlene Henderson 4209 W 3550 S 4200 W 3550 S 4209 W 3550 S West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 4 Opposed: Carina Fierro 4200 W 3500 S Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Kim Henderson, the owner of the properties being discussed, stated that there is no proposal for development on the property. He indicated that he has lived on the property for 25 years and this is a City initiated change due to changes occurring on the neighboring property. He indicated that zoning is something that should be guaranteed to a property owner and stated that changes have occurred in the neighborhood over the years that he didn’t approve of but understood that change does happen. Mr. Henderson indicated that he feels he is being singled out and losing the right to develop his property the way he sees fit. He stated that the community should understand that this is a multi-use area with a variety of zones. Mr. Henderson stated that there will be an increase in traffic throughout the subdivision if the property is developed as single family which will impact the neighborhood and create a safety concern for the elementary school located near the property. He stated that there will be a significant financial loss to him if the zoning is downgraded as well. Phil Conder asked if the stub street to the south would need to be extended if apartments were developed. Steve replied most likely yes because the Fire Department would likely need a second access with the addition of more apartments in the area. He indicated that Public Works would require the stub street to be extended through as well or terminated in a cul-de- sac for a single family neighborhood. Mr. Henderson stated that there is no proposal to do anything at this time and doesn’t feel it should be addressed now. Chairman Conder stated that the Planning Commission does look forward and attempt to determine what is best for the neighborhood. Shane Evertsen, the property owner to the east, stated that this is a good location for apartments. He indicated that the property is isolated with no access into the residential neighborhood at this time. Mr. Evertsen stated that developing the property with the R-4 zoning would be difficult to meet ordinance requirements and create the highest density allowed so this will likely never happen. He added that extending the stub street is unfeasible. Mr. Evertsen stated that changing the zone is presumptuous and financially unfair to the property owner. Sharlene Henderson, the owner of the properties being discussed, asked what the difference between R-4 and RM is. She also questioned if apartments were to develop on the R-4 property if the highest density would be allowed or if the Planning Commission would review it. Ms. Henderson stated that the zoning has been the same for a very long time and questioned whether it could simply be grandfathered in. Steve replied that there are very few R-4 zonings left in the City since this was initially inherited by Salt Lake County prior to the City’s incorporation. Steve stated that the R-4 zone allows 4 units per 9,000 square feet and the RM zone is tied to the City’s General Plan for allowed density which would be about 12 units per acre at this location. Steve indicated that if the zone were to remain R-4 the amount of allowable density would depend on various factors and the type of development would likely be a conditional use that is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Steve stated that a grandfathered or non-conforming use is generally defined as a building that was legal at the time of construction but is illegal under current zoning laws. Carina Fierro, representing the property owner to the east, stated that this was a staff initiated zone change due to concerns expressed by residents in the area. Phil Conder agreed and added that as the City changes different areas are looked at and evaluated for change. Ms. Fierro stated that she had hoped residents would attend this meeting and indicated that the existing apartments have been significantly cleaned up and negative police statistics have decreased since Mr. Evertsen became the property owner. West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Henderson stated that this is one small property in the area. Commissioner Thomas asked if the applicant has talked to staff about the RM zoning. Mr. Henderson stated yes and indicated that he just feels zoning shouldn’t be addressed at this time since there are no plans to develop the property. Commissioner Thomas asked what the difference between RM and R-4 is. Steve read the ordinance and explained that the RM zone basically allows less dense multi-family apartments, offices, and daycare/ pre-school services (without the need to be attached to a church) but everything else is similar. Brent Fuller asked if the stub street will need to be extended with an RM zoning. Steve replied it would depend but would need to be a cul-de-sac at minimum. Jack Matheson asked if the existing apartments would conform to an RM zoning. Steve replied that density would be slightly over but setbacks would likely comply with requirements in the RM zone. Commissioner Matheson stated that he wouldn’t want to see anything more dense in the area but thinks the RM zone would be a good fit for the property. Harold Woodruff asked when the next General Plan update is scheduled. Steve replied the next one will likely be undertaken soon but is a long process. Commissioner Woodruff stated that he feels multi-family does make sense here and feels R-4 could encourage various special need facilities (like senior living, etc) with a higher density which is becoming more and more needed. Barbara Thomas stated that she feels the RM zone provides more options and fits better than R-4 or single family. Terri Mills stated that she is concerned with the lack of amenities in the area and stated that more apartments without amenities would be a significant problem. She added that zoning changes do happen and it can be unfortunate and frustrating for property owners. Commissioner Woodruff indicated that staff should look into changing ordinance requirements for amenities only being required in projects with 50 or more units. He stated that smaller properties are being developed the more the City grows and changes like this should be reflected. Motion: Commissioner Thomas moved for approval of a zone change from R-4 to RM. Commissioner Bilic seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Commissioner Bilic Yes Commissioner Fuller No Commissioner Matheson No Commissioner Mills Yes Commissioner Thomas Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Chairman Conder Yes Majority -Z-2-2013- Approved SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-14-2013 CR England Subdivision 4701 West 2100 South M Zone BACKGROUND Pat Harris with Ensign Engineering and representing CR England, is requesting a new subdivision to be known as the CR England Subdivision. The purpose for the new subdivision is to create a new lot for CR England to construct a new office building. In order to accomplish this, the proposed subdivision will amend lots 1 and 2 of the Honeywell Electronic Materials Amended and Restated Subdivision which was recorded in June 2008. West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 6 The proposed subdivision is located in the manufacturing zone adjacent to 2100 South. Access to the subdivision will be gained from 2100 South and from a new access road proposed through lots 3 and 4. The private road will subsequently cross lots 3 and 4 to provide access to lot 2. Due to the construction of the new building, lot 2 will have limited access from 2100 South as the original plat had intended. However, the Planning Commission can approve access from the newly created private road if it is reasonable and if the subdivision plat contains cross access easements that clearly note how lot 2 is to be accessed. During the study session, some questions were raised about the future extension of 2400 South. At this time, it is proposed that the extension of 2400 South will intersect with 4800 West which runs along the west boundary of lot 1. It is not known at this point how this road will be configured at the intersection, but it is expected to make this connection in the future. Because this application is a commercial subdivision, and due to the nature of the proposed use, staff and agency comments will be addressed during the conditional use processes. The subdivision plat will illustrate easements and access information applicable to the division of this property. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the CR England Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency concerns. 2. Continue the application in order to address concerns raised during the public hearing. Applicant: Pat Harris 45 W 10000 S Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Pat Harris, the applicant, had nothing further to add. The Planning Commission had no further questions or concerns. Motion: Commissioner Fuller moved for approval. Commissioner Matheson seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Commissioner Bilic Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Matheson Yes Commissioner Mills Yes Commissioner Thomas Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Chairman Conder Yes Unanimous -S-14-2013- Approved CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS C-18-2013 Matthew Wirthlin representing EZPawn 5635 West 3500 South C-2 Zone West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 7 This application was continued during the public hearing on May 8th. The motion for continuance was for a decision only, which means that the public hearing has been closed for this application. Matthew Wirthlin, who represents EZPawn, has requesting a conditional use permit for a pawn shop within an existing building on 0.65 acres located at 5635 West 3500 South. The property was recently rezoned from C-1 (neighborhood commercial) to C-2 (general commercial). The Planning Commission denied the zone change application; however, the applicant appealed the denial and City Council approved the application. Surrounding zones include C-2 to the north and east as well as the northeast corner of 5600 West 3500 South, C-1 to the south and R-1-8 (single family residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) to the west. Surrounding uses include a shopping center to the north, McDonalds on the northeast corner, a convenience store to the east, a small shopping center to the south and single family homes to the west. The property falls within the Hunter Town Center Plan, which designates this property as part of the town center district. On the town center district, the Hunter Town Center Plan states: “The plan encourages the greatest intensity of development at the intersection to help more people to easily ride high capacity transit. Office uses and high density residential should be emphasized since they generate the most ridership for transit. Retail is also welcome.” The applicant has submitted a letter, which is attached, that supports this application. Also included with this report is a copy of the ALTA survey, proposed building elevations and the proposed floor plan. As discussed during the rezoning process and the study session for this application, there are several site maintenance and code violation issues that need to be addressed to bring the property into compliance with City standards. A lengthy list of conditions is proposed by staff to address these issues. The Planning Commission can impose reasonable conditions to mitigate reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed use. In the case of pawn shops, City staff has identified through research several detrimental effects of pawn shops including: 1. An increase in the demand for police services 2. An increase in burglary and similar offenses 3. An increase in vandalism and a decline in neighborhood civility 4. Declining property values and worsened perceptions of the neighborhood 5. Increased law enforcement and regulatory costs These detrimental effects are discussed in more detail in the attached document entitled “Pawn Shops, Crime, and Neighborhood Effects” prepared by the Legal Department. Staff has also proposed conditions to mitigate to these detrimental effects. During the public hearing on May 8th, there was considerable discussion about revising some of the conditions recommended by staff. The conditions that were considered for revision are highlighted below. Staff Alternatives 1. Approval, subject to the following conditions: Use Restrictions/Requirements • All improvements, maintenance and clean up required by the conditional use permit shall be made prior to the issuance of a business license and prior to occupancy. • No outside storage or display of any kind is permitted. All merchandise must be housed within the building. • Given the proximity of residential use, hours of operation shall be limited between the hours of 9 AM to 7 PM. • All receipt, sorting and processing of goods shall occur within the building. West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 8 • The use of bars, chains or similar security devices shall be prohibited. • The business shall comply with all requirements of the City Code including Chapter 17-23 regulating pawn shops. • The window and door areas along the north and west sides of the building shall not be reduced in area, nor shall changes be made to such windows or doors that block views into the building. • Windows shall not be tinted or obscured in any way, including by temporary or painted window signs, and the interior lighting of the business shall remain at adequate levels to clearly see into the business from the exterior of the business. • Prior to occupancy of the business, the business owner shall sign a trepass authority letter authorizing the West Valley City Police Department to enforce trespass law. A copy of this letter shall be provided to the Planning Division. Maintenance • All graffiti on the subject property shall be removed. Graffiti was observed on the trash enclosure, on the fence along the west property line and on the west side of the building. Any future graffiti, vandalism or similar damage shall be repaired in 24 hours. • All garbage shall be removed from the site. • All potholes in the parking lot shall be repaired. • All weeds in the landscaped areas shall be removed. All landscape areas must be maintained in a healthy, weed free state. • The bus bench located south of the sidewalk along 3500 South shall be removed from the site. • To cover discoloration on the building and flaking paint on the trash enclosure, the building and trash enclosure shall be repainted. • All parking stalls shall be restriped according to the approved site plan for this site. • The subject property and adjacent sidewalk shall be inspected by the proprietor daily for purposes of removing any litter found thereon. All litter, garbage and similar debris must be removed daily. Improvements • Solid visual barrier gates shall be installed on the trash enclosure. • The power cables which serviced awnings that have been removed shall either be utilized for new awnings or removed and capped. • A lighting plan shall be submitted for review by City staff to verify compliance with current lighting standards. Any lighting deficiencies or overages shall be corrected. • At least one tree per 30’ of frontage shall be installed within the landscaping along 3500 South. Tree selection must be made from the list of trees in Section 7-13-103 of the Zoning Ordinance. • The space between the west side of the building and the west property line shall be improved with trees planted every 30’ and lawn or other groundcover. • If a monument sign is desired, it shall be integrated with the existing RadioShack sign and brought into compliance with the current sign code. • A sign shall be posted in the front of the business indicating that no loitering is permitted. Persons not immediately engaged in business activities shall not be permitted to loiter. • Security cameras shall be installed on the interior and exterior of the building including the parking lot. Footage from security cameras shall be retained at least one week and shall be made available to the Police Department upon request for investigation of criminal activity on or around the site. 2. Continuance, for reasons determined during the public hearing. Applicant: Matt Wirthlin DECISION ONLY/ NO COMMENT West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 9 Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Phil Conder indicated that this item has been continued for decision only and indicated that public comment has been closed. Chairman Conder stated that the rezone was denied by the Planning Commission but approved by the City Council. He indicated that the Planning Commission has the option to mitigate any concerns with conditions but a pawn shop is allowed at this location. Jack Matheson stated that he doesn’t like the idea of bars on the windows and suggested bollards in the parking lot to prevent people from driving through the window and stealing goods. Terri Mills stated that she likes the idea of retaining security video recordings to one month instead of one week. Brent stated that spandrel glass on the north side is a good idea and feels this is better than seeing into a storage area. Commissioner Fuller asked if the building would return to the Planning Commission if the street is expanded in the future and the northern portion of the building is removed. Steve indicated that this typically would not return for Planning Commission review but could be added as a condition if the Planning Commission wishes. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the other conditions listed. Motion: Commissioner Thomas moved for approval subject to the staff conditions modifying the following conditions: - The window and door areas along the north and west sides of the building shall not be reduced in area, nor shall changes be made to such windows or doors that block views into the building, except on the north side where the storage area is located where spandrel glass will be allowed. - Windows shall not be tinted or obscured in any way, including by temporary or painted window signs, and the interior lighting of the business shall remain at adequate levels to clearly see into the business from the exterior of the business, except on the north side where the storage area is located where spandrel glass will be allowed. - Security cameras shall be installed on the interior and exterior of the building including the parking lot. Footage from security cameras shall be retained at least one month and shall be made available to the Police Department upon request for investigation of criminal activity on or around the site. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Commissioner Bilic Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Matheson Yes Commissioner Mills No Commissioner Thomas Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Chairman Conder Yes Majority -C-18-2013- Approved C-13-2013 Highbury Cinemark (Arbor Gardner Highbury) 5390 West High Market Drive M Zone (11.56 Acres) Arbor Gardner Highbury is returning for approval of their wall signs for the Cinemark Theater approved by Planning Commission on May 22, 2013. This review concerns 1) approval of wall signage design and coverage limitation compliance, and 2) approval of the tower sign design. The overall Highbury Center shopping center conditional use (C-51-2012) was approved on January 9, 2013, including a 36,000 square foot theater. The Cinemark design was approved on May 22, 2013, but the exact West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 10 dimensions of the wall signs was undecided at that time. Approval was given under the condition that the signs come back for approval. Wall signs: Because there is a pole sign on 5600 W, the applicant is limited to 10% on the primary façade and 5% on the secondary façades. The proposed wall signage consists of a large Cinemark NextGen illuminated letter sign over the building entrance on the west, a lighted XD Extreme Digital Cinema wall sign, and a tower marquee on the south side. The applicant has designated the south façade of the building as the primary façade. The background was dropped from the XD Extreme Digital Cinema sign in order to meet coverage limitations on the south façade, and sign area for the tower marquee sign is applied to both the south and east facades of the building. Only the lettering portion of the tower marquee counts as sign space. The proposed wall sign designs now meet our ordinance. Tower sign: The tower marquee is unique in that it doesn’t fit into one the categories (monument, pole or wall sign) defined in the sign ordinance. In terms of the size, the lettering is within the allowed area for a wall sign. The sign ordinance does allow an applicant to “submit an alternative sign plan or design for unique and special circumstances, provided such sign(s) achieves the intent of the above standards and this Ordinance.” This sign meets at least two of those standards: 1) all monument signs in the complex have a similar design and lettering, and 2) the sign has a unique overall design. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing Continuance, to allow for the resolution of any issues raised at the public hearing Applicant: Not Present Discussion: Lee Logston presented the application. Terri Mills stated that she is disappointed that the sign ordinance doesn’t consider color or count background as part of the overall sign. She indicated that signage can enhance or detract from a building and stated that often signage seems to detract in West Valley City. Brent Fuller stated that the City may want to look into modifying the sign ordinance. Motion: Commissioner Matheson moved for approval. Commissioner Thomas seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Commissioner Bilic Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Matheson Yes Commissioner Mills Yes Commissioner Thomas Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Chairman Conder Yes Unanimous -C-13-2013- Approved West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 11 C-22-2013 Old Dominion Freightliners 2828 W. Parkway Blvd. M Zone (29.3 Acres) The applicant, Furst Construction, is requesting a conditional use amendment for a building expansion at Old Dominion Freightliners. The zoning for this area is M, Manufacturing. The West Valley City General Plan anticipates light manufacturing uses for this area. The surrounding zone and uses are Manufacturing. Old Dominion is currently operating from this location and are in the process of acquiring additional property and would like to expand their facility. As part of the expansion they are proposing to demolish the existing shop building and reconstruct a brand new facility in the northwest side of the site. The shop building will be approximately 184’ x 100’ and will include some office space, service bays and a wash bay for trucks. The building will be constructed of two-toned gray tilt-up concrete panels for the walls and metal panel fascia and roof similar to the existing office space that was constructed in 2006. They are also proposing to add additional office space and loading docks to the north and west of their existing facility. The new dock building to the west will be approximately 318’ long and 70’ wide (50 bays), with an office area located on the east end. The office area is proposed to be the same two-toned gray tilt-up concrete building with a metal roof and fascia. All sides of the building will be primarily truck bay doors except for the office space area. The bay doors facing Parkway will be painted gray to match the building, similar to the existing bays. The expansion to the north will add 25 more bays and will be approximately 115’ x 71’. Due to the nature of this business and the need for maneuvering areas on site, the 5% required landscaping will be primarily focused along the frontage on Parkway Boulevard and the parking areas. The landscaping along Parkway must be at least 20’ wide with a 2’-3’ berm and completed per the Landscaping on High Image Arterials section of the WVC Code. There is a 5’ wide landscape strip along the north edge of the parking lot and a 25’ wide strip that runs along a portion of the west side of the site. These areas occupy approximately 6.7% of the site and will all be landscaped with trees and at least 50% live plant material per the approved plans. The total number of required parking spaces for this use is 228 spaces. There are 239 stalls existing and there will be 24 additional spaces added along the southwest side of the site. Therefore, the parking is sufficient for this use. There has not been any additional signage proposed with this application, however if any is added in the future a sign permit must be acquired and all signage must meet the standards set forth in the sign code. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing, as well as the following conditions: 1. Site design and elevations must be constructed per the approved plans. 2. The doors along the south side of the building facing Parkway Boulevard shall be painted to match the building color. 3. The landscaping along Parkway must be completed per the standards in the Landscaping on High Image Arterials (7-13). The remaining landscaped areas must contain one tree every 30’ and at least 50% live plant material. West Valley City Planning Commission May 22, 2013 Page 12 Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing or to allow for a revised site plan/elevations to be submitted. Applicant: Bob Furstenau 7579 Mary Esther Discussion: Jody Knapp presented the application. Barbara Thomas stated that 75 additional bays is a significant increase and questioned what these bays are used for. Jody replied this is a truck transfer business so there are trucks moving in and out of the site. Terri Mills asked if the bays will match the color of the building. Jody replied yes. Bob Furstenau, representing the applicant, indicated that large trucks come in and the product is transferred to smaller trucks that disperse elsewhere. He stated that product is typically stored for a day or less. Commissioner Thomas asked which direction trucks usually come from. Mr. Furstenau replied it depends and indicated that most likely come from the 201 freeway or 3200 West. He stated that the applicant is happy to comply with all conditions proposed by staff. Motion: Commissioner Thomas moved for approval subject to the three staff conditions. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Commissioner Bilic Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Matheson Yes Commissioner Mills Yes Commissioner Thomas Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Chairman Conder Yes Unanimous -C-22-2013- Approved PLANNING COMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from May 8, 2013 (Regular Meeting) Approved Approval of Minutes from May 15, 2013 (Study Session) Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ Nichole Camac, Administrative Assistant