Planning Commission Meeting

MINUTES OF THE WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 12, 2025 THE WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2025 AT 4:00 PM IN WEST VALLEY CITY HALL, 3600 CONSTITUTION BLVD, WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AND CONDUCTED BY CHAIR MARTELL WINTERS. THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: Mathew Lovato, Chair (online) Martell Winters, Commissioner Nancy Drozdek, Commissioner (online) Harold Woodruff, Commissioner Renee Layton, Commissioner (online) Rob Durfee, Commissioner PLANNING DIVISION STAFF PRESENT: Steve Pastorik, CD Director Brock Anderson, P&Z Senior Planner Jody Knapp, P&Z Zoning Administrator Steve Lehman, P&Z Planning Manager Julie Davis, P&Z Administrative Assistant LEGAL DEPARTMENT: Brandon Hill, City Attorney PRESENTATIONS: GPZ-1-2025 Sam Drown 3201 S Redwood Rd. General plan change from General Commercial and Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre) to Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units/acre) and zone change from C-2 and R-1-12 to RM on 3.18 acres. This application was continued by the Planning Commission during the public hearing on February 26, 2025. Only six Commissioners were present and three of the six did not support approval of the applicant’s proposal at the time. Since February 26th, the applicant has made the following changes in light of feedback from the Planning Commission: • Parkstrip and sidewalk were added to the north side of the new road. • The wall along Lester Street was removed. • The townhome plans were modified so that: o the two units closest to Lester Street now have a door and porch that face Lester Street, o the fenestration (window) percentage on the front was increased, and o the front door of one of the units was moved to be adjacent to the front door of Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 1 of 11  another unit so that a larger porch feature could be added. Sam Drown with Concord Homes has submitted a General Plan/zone change application on 3.18 acres involving 4 parcels located at 3201 S Redwood Road. The two west parcels are currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. The two east parcels are zoned R-1-12 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 12,000 square feet) with a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre). The proposed zone for all of the property except for 0.55 acres surrounding the Beto’s restaurant is RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) and the proposed General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units/acre). The zoning on the 0.55 acres surrounding Beto’s would remain C-2 and the General Plan designation would remain General Commercial. Surrounding zones include C-2 and RM to the north, R-1-12 and R-1-4 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 4,000 square feet) to the east, R-1-12 and C-2 to the south, and C- 2 to the west. Neighboring uses include a strip mall and 3-story condos to the north; single family homes to the east; single family homes, a vacant lot, and a used car business to the south; and Utah Barricade to the west. The property includes two homes, the Beto’s restaurant, and several other buildings. The applicant is proposing to demolish all of the existing buildings except the Beto’s restaurant and construct a 31-unit, two-story, for-sale townhome development. The proposed density of the project excluding the 0.55 acres for the Beto’s restaurant is 9.7 units/acre. All units would be front-loaded with 2-car garages and include 3 bedrooms. All garages have driveways that are deep enough to park in. The attached concept plan and application materials from the applicant provide details on and support for the proposed project. In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Is this the right location for a townhome development? 2. Assuming the location is appropriate, does the quality of the project further City goals? These two questions are explored below. Is this the right location for a townhome development? According to the City’s zoning ordinance, zone changes to the RM zone can only be considered by the City if the following four conditions are met: 1. For properties without existing Structures which are proposed to be developed, the property must be a minimum of one acre and the Density must not exceed 12 units per acre. For properties with existing Structures proposed to be redeveloped, the property must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet and the Density must not exceed 20 units per acre. For properties that are west of Redwood Road and within one-half mile of the West Valley Central light rail station, the Decker Lake light rail station or the Redwood Junction light rail station, the Density may exceed 20 units per acre; 2. The property shall meet any one of the following four requirements: (i) have access and Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 2 of 11  Frontage on a Street with a planned Right-of-way width of at least 80 feet (for properties under two acres) or 100 feet (for properties two acres or larger) as indicated on the Major Street Plan; (ii) be adjacent to existing multifamily residential development on two sides; or (iii) be located west of Redwood Road and within one-half mile of the West Valley Central light rail station, the Decker Lake light rail station, or the Redwood Junction light rail station; or (iv) if the property is vacant, was vacant as of January 19, 2021, will be an exempt housing development under 24 CFR 100.304 or successor regulation with a density no greater than seven units per acre, and have access and Frontage on a Street with a planned Right-of-way width of at least 80 feet; 3. A Development Agreement must be proposed with the zone change application that addresses Dwelling Unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, Landscaping, and project Amenities; and 4. A traffic impact study prepared by a registered traffic engineer is required for projects with 100 or more Dwelling Units. This application meets the first condition in that the property has existing structures, is over 20,000 square feet in area, and has a proposed density below 20 units/acre. For the second condition, the subject property has access and frontage on Redwood Road, which has a planned right-of-way width over 100’. On the third condition, the applicant has proposed development agreement standards, and those standards are addressed later in this report. The fourth condition does not apply because the project is under 100 units. While the property is eligible for RM zoning, the City may still deny requests for RM zoning. The points below may help the Commission answer the first question. • There are eight developed or approved townhome developments that front or have access on Redwood Road. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of another townhome development at 2996 S Redwood Road during the public hearing on January 29th, 2025 that has yet to be reviewed by the City Council. • As part of the City’s General Plan update effort, staff discussed this property, along with other properties along Redwood Road that are likely to redevelop, with both the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission was supportive of townhomes; however, the City Council’s preference was for commercial along Redwood Road and single family detached homes on the east portion of the property. • Redwood Road is currently a 7-lane arterial street that is serviced by UTA bus route 217. • Average annual daily traffic (AADT) on this segment of Redwood Road was 26,000 in 2023. A 7-lane arterial can handle a traffic volume of 40,000 at a level of service (LOS) C and 46,000 at a LOS D. Does the quality of the project further City goals? City Code requires requests for the RM zone to be accompanied by a development agreement proposal that addresses dwelling unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, landscaping, and project amenities. These items, along with other considerations, are addressed below. Dwelling Unit Sizes Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 3 of 11 In the zoning ordinance, the minimum unit size for 3-bedroom townhomes is 1,400 square feet. There are four proposed floor plans with sizes at 1,567, 1,652, 1,673, and 1,698 square feet. Exterior Materials For materials, the City’s multi-unit residential design standards state: “All multi-unit residential Building exteriors shall be brick, stucco, stone, tile, metal panels or fiber cement siding. With the exception of brick or stone which may be used on the entire Building exterior, no single material shall comprise more than 60 percent of a Building’s exterior. Where stucco, tile, metal panels or fiber cement siding are used, at least 20 percent of the Building’s exterior shall be brick or stone. Wood and vinyl may be used as trim, soffits and/or accent materials only.” The applicant is proposing a combination of brick and fiber cement lap siding (horizontal) and board and batten siding (vertical). According to the applicant, the percentage of brick meets the 20% requirement. While the fiber cement siding exceeds the 60% rule, there is a variety in color and a mixture of horizontal and vertical application and the City has granted an exception in such cases. Architecture Based on a preliminary review of the proposed building architecture by staff, the proposed units appear to meet many of the architectural requirements in the City’s multi-unit residential design standards. Areas that fall short of the ordinance requirements are addressed below: • The ordinance requires at least 25% of the front façade to be fenestration (i.e. windows). Based on rough measurements from staff of the original submittal, the fenestration on the front was just under 17%. The applicant has since submitted an updated elevation with more windows and the fenestration percentage is now 22% of the front façade. This standard is fairly easy to meet for townhomes with rear-load garages and more difficult to meet for front-load garages. The City has granted exceptions to this standard for front- loaded units; however, an exception is typically granted after the applicant shows that they have maximized the window space and there really aren’t practical ways to meet the standard. In staff’s view, a sufficient number of windows has been added to meet the intent of the ordinance. • The ordinance requires three window treatments with at least two window treatments per window on the front of buildings. Based on staff review, one treatment – varying the size and/or style of windows and window grids – was identified. • The ordinance limits the percentage of the front devoted to garage doors to a maximum of 60% of the length of the building. The garage door percentage is at 64%. In this case, adding more width to the units would likely result in the loss of units. The applicant is requesting an exception here due to the limited width of the property and the relatively low proposed density for a townhome development. Part of the intent of the most recent changes made to the front façade was to deemphasize the garages. Landscaping The ordinance requires a total of 50% landscaping and recreation space. The applicant’s concept shows 50.3%. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 4 of 11 Project Amenities For a project of this size, the ordinance requires one amenity. The proposed project includes one amenity from the ordinance – a tot/lot playground. The applicant is also proposing a privacy wall along Redwood Road and vinyl fencing along the north and south sides of the property. Garages/Parking The ordinance requires all townhome units to include a 2-car garage. The overall parking requirement for townhomes is 4.75 with 2 in a garage, 2 in a driveway, and an additional 0.75 within the project. All of the units meet the 4.75 stall requirement. Other Considerations Back in 2023, the owners of the Beto’s site requested a parking reduction as permitted in Section 7-9-104 of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested parking reduction, which included a concept plan with proposed site modifications, was approved at 17 stalls (the approval letter is included with this report). The development of the proposed project would require changes to the Beto’s site that are possible because of the approved parking reduction. Staff recommends that the development agreement includes a provision that the Beto’s site be modified substantially like the concept plan that was included in the parking reduction request. In addition, the landscaping on the Beto’s site is in need of maintenance. The original concept plan included 15 parking spaces along the west side of Lester Street that would back onto Lester Street. The Public Works Department expressed a safety concern about this amount of parking backing onto Lester Street, which is a collector street. This concern was relayed to the applicant, who then submitted a revised concept plan with parking no longer along Lester Street. The applicant is now showing shared stalls on the Beto’s site. There is an existing wall along the west side of Lester Street that is located roughly one foot from the back of the curb. There is no parkstrip or sidewalk along the frontage of the property. Staff is recommending that the wall be removed and that a parkstrip and sidewalk be installed along the frontage. The City Council has expressed concerns about for-sale townhome developments becoming rentals as well as the possibility of townhomes becoming boarding homes or homes where rooms are rented to individuals. In recently approved developments, the City has included certain provisions in the development agreement to address these concerns. Items i, j, and k under the approval alternative below are such provisions. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This General Plan/zone change application should be approved subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards and exceptions proposed by the applicant along with the following additions recommended by staff: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the property owner shall apply for a permitted use application on the Beto’s site and make the modifications substantially like those shown in the concept plan submitted with the parking reduction request (AD-2-2023). Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 5 of 11  b. No parking stalls shall be allowed along Lester Street. c. The Redwood Road streetscape improvements in Section 7-10-204 shall be installed across the entire frontage including the Beto’s site. All streetscape landscaping shall be maintained as required in Section 7-6-303. d. The City may hold the building permit for the last building until all of the required improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, street paving, ADA ramps, survey monuments, streetlights, amenities, landscaping, etc.) are installed. e. The existing wall along Lester Street shall be removed. The Developer shall dedicate 10’ of right-of-way along the west side of Lester Street. A 5’ wide parkstrip and a 5’ wide sidewalk shall be installed along the entire frontage of Lester Street. f. A 6’ tall precast concrete wall shall be installed along Redwood Road (excluding the Beto’s site). The wall shall be setback 5’ from the sidewalk. The 5’ space between the sidewalk and the wall shall be landscaped. Building setbacks shall be measured from the property line and not the wall. The precast concrete wall shall meet the specifications in subsection 9 of Section 7-2-114. g. Along the north side of the residential development, a 6’ tall vinyl fence shall be installed wherever this type of fence does not already exist. Along the south side of the Property, a 6’ tall vinyl fence shall be installed wherever a masonry wall does not exist. As required in Section 7-6-303, a 6’ tall masonry wall shall be installed between the east side of the Beto’s site and the residential development. h. The new street running east to west through the Project shall include a 5’ parkstrip and a 5’ sidewalk on both sides of the street for the entire length of the street between Redwood Road and Lester Street. i. No basement entrances shall be allowed in the Project. j. No more than 30% of all housing units in the Project may be used as rentals. At least 70% of the housing units in the Project shall be owner-occupied. These rental restrictions shall be set forth clearly in the recorded covenants and shall be enforced by the homeowners association of the Project. k. No more than four (4) unrelated persons can live in a single home. This limitation shall also be set forth clearly in the recorded covenants and shall be enforced by the homeowners association of the Project. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. This application should be denied. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented. The applicant, Sam Drown with Concord Homes, was present and added that he feels this lot is a good location for townhomes and will add to the neighborhood. He made improvements to the design that were suggested by the Commission at the February 26, 2025 meeting. Brent Parks, a resident at 3300 South, has mixed feelings about this development. He said it would add additional traffic on Lester Street, which is not wide enough for two cars to pass at the same time. He suggests considering redeveloping the entire block for better traffic management Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 6 of 11 and safety. John Domichel, one of the Trustees of 3201 S. Redwood Road, added that Lester Street is a 30 foot wide road and he has never seen cars waiting longer than normal to turn off of Lester Street. He made a point that commercial developers aren’t interested in this lot because they would lose the depth of the property; store fronts would want to be right off Redwood Road. He added that the strip mall to the north of this property struggles with long term tenants. Only three businesses there have remained tenants since it was built. He feels this location is central to so much of what West Valley City has to offer and the lot would be an ideal location for families. Brent Parks returned to the podium to disagree with John’s opinion that there are long waits turning off Lester Street, because he has issues turning off Lester Street. Speeding is also a recurring issue on 3300 South. Rosie Rylee, who tried to have speed bumps installed, said the traffic on Lester Street and 3300 South is a big issue and also school busses drop off there. Adding 30 to 60 more cars would add to the safety issue. John Domichel returned to the podium to suggest the new street not have access (dead end) to Lester Street. Brent Parks returned to the podium to suggest a locked gate to traffic on Lester Street. Commissioner Durfee asked what would happen to the parking spaces shared with Beto’s if Beto’s were to sell. Steve P. answered that an easement would be part of the subdivision plat that would be perpetual. Commissioner Durfee foresees an issue down the road if a different restaurant moves in that would need that parking. Commissioner Winters asked Steve to show on the concept plan what the frontage would look like if a commercial property was south of Beto’s. Steve P. explained that section wouldn’t meet the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet to permit a commercial business there unless the lot was deeper than the Beto’s parcel. Commissioner Woodruff shared that he can’t see anything other than commercial on Redwood Road. Commissioner Winters asked what the requirement is for a developer to obtain a traffic study. Steve P. replied that the project must be in an RM zone and at least 100 units. Commissioner Winters shared that residential on this lot would be better than what is there now (nothing). Commercial might not be successful given the rotation of businesses at the neighboring strip mall, and the inability to acquire the additional property south of the property in question. Commissioner Layton asked if Public Works could put something in place to encourage safety measures. Steve P. replied that Public Works does have traffic calming measures that could be utilized if their analysis determines they would be needed. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Drozdek shared that she still is not comfortable with the one-way entrance into Beto’s off the proposed street. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to deny GPZ-1-2025. Commissioner Durfee seconded. A roll call vote was taken: Commissioner Layton Yes Commissioner Durfee Yes Commissioner Winters No Commissioner Drozdek Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Chair Lovato Yes SPLIT—GPZ-1-2025--DENIED C-3-2025 Swenson Development Storage 4053 S. 7200 W. M Zone, 2.96 acres The applicant, Swenson Development LLC, is requesting conditional use approval for a self storage facility at 4053 S. 7200 W. The zoning for this property is M, Manufacturing and the General Plan designation is Commercial Light Manufacturing. The surrounding zone is M, Manufacturing to the south, R-1-8 to the north, R-1-10 to the east. There is a park across the street to the west in Magna’s jurisdiction. To the south there is land that was the old West Valley City animal shelter and to the east and north are residential homes. This property was rezoned in 2024 (GPZ-1-24) from A, Agricultural to M, Manufacturing zoning subject to a Development Agreement and the requirements outlined in Ex. B (see attached). The site design has slightly changed since that review. As the applicant started doing more formal design and grading it became clear that it would not be possible for the buildings to be built at the property lines as originally planned. Therefore, things have been designed in a more terraced manner internally to the site. There is still one building on the north property line, Bldg A, and then additional landscaping was added on the interior of the site to accommodate some of the slope areas. There will be (4) four main buildings designed as follows: Building A: 24 Units Built at the north property line and not to exceed 10’ in height per the Development Agreement. The north side of the building will be CMU creating masonry wall buffer, and the south side of the building is a metal wall paneling. There will be an 8’ CMU wall to match the building along the north property line in the areas that are not occupied by the building itself. That wall will continue out to 7200 West along the parking area up to within 20’ of that front property line. The remaining wall area will be 3’ tall to comply with the clearview requirements in City Code. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 8 of 11 The 8’ CMU wall will continue along the entire east side of the site as well. The existing wall along the south side of the property will remain and must be maintained in good condition. If it is determined during site design or construction that this wall needs to be replaced it shall be reconstructed as an 8’ solid CMU wall to match the other masonry walls on the property. Building B: 23 units per floor – 26 total The north side of the building is at grade with building A. There is an upper level accessed from the south side. The height of the building on the north side is ~23’. The height on the south side is ~12’. The bottom section of the north side of the building is CMU and the second level is metal wall paneling. The south elevation is all metal wall paneling. Building C: 78-104 Units This building is for interior RV and Boat storage. The doors for this building are on the north side. The interior is an open concept with units stacked 3 deep. There is also an RV Wash and dump station on the west end. The building is 22’3” tall and constructed of metal paneling. Building D: 582 Units – 18 drive up. This building has frontage along 7200 West and is visible from the public right-of-way. Therefore, the building design is required to meet the Commercial Design Standards. The building materials are shown as two-tone stucco and CMU with metal paneling accents, cement board siding and windows for the office portion. The building is 3 stories and is approximately 36’10” tall at north end. The height does comply with the setbacks required adjacent to a residential zone. Site: Final installation of the landscaping along the frontage will be deferred as outlined in the Development Agreement. Once the roadway construction is complete the landscaping on site will include 1 tree every 30’ and 50% live plant material coverage not including tree canopies. Additional landscaping will be provided in the 20’ setbacks adjacent to residential with a minimum of one tree for every 300 SF as well as 50% live plant material coverage not including tree canopies. There will be no outside storage at this facility. There will also not be an onsite manager or caretakers dwelling for this facility. The Fire Department has reviewed a preliminary grading plan and has indicated that grading by Fire Code cannot exceed a 10 % grade. Also, the turning radius needs to be 25' for the front and 45' for the rear. These requirements will be verified and reviewed during the formal plan review process upon Planning Commission approval. All lighting for the site must be installed in accordance with the standards outlined in 7-9-113 including the following: 1(f) Illuminance levels shall be a minimum of 0.5 horizontal footcandles and 0.3 vertical footcandles. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 9 of 11 1(g) Lighting shall be arranged or directed as to reflect the light away from adjacent properties and to prevent glare for Street traffic. The Intensity of light at adjoining residential properties shall not exceed 0.1 footcandles. Staff Alternatives Approval subject to any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following conditions: 1. This project shall comply with the Development Agreement standards in Exhibit B. 2. The buildings must be completed per the approved plans and building D be designed in accordance with the Commercial Design Standards. 3. There shall be an 8’ masonry wall constructed along the north and east property lines adjacent to residential to match building A as outlined in the staff report. 4. The existing masonry wall along the south property line shall be maintained or replaced with a solid 8’ CMU wall to match the other masonry walls on the property. 5. The site shall be landscaped per the approved plans and as outlined in the Development Agreement. 6. Site lighting must comply with 7-9-113 7. Must meet requirements of all affected departments and agencies including but not limited to West Valley City Public Works and Fire Department. 8. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented. The applicants and architects, Jared Forsyth and Jason Green, were available to the Commission. They didn’t have anything to add to the presentation. There were no questions or comments. Motion: Commissioner Durfee motioned to approve C-3-2025 with conditions one through eight. Commissioner Woodruff seconded. A voice vote was taken and all members voted in favor of the motion. UNANOMOUS—C-3-2025--APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: The Commission considered the Minutes of the Study Meeting held February 19, 2025, and the Public Hearing held February 26, 2025. There were no changes. Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and all members voted in favor of the motion. The Commission discussed filling the vacancy of Vice Chair. The Commission all agreed in favor of Commissioner Martell Winters filling the vacancy. Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve Commissioner Winters as Vice Chair. Commissioner Durfee seconded. A voice vote was taken and all members voted in favor of the motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 10 of 11 There being no further business of the West Valley City Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday, March 12, 2025, Commissioner Woodruff moved to adjourn the meeting at 4.57 pm. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, accurate and complete record of the proceedings of the Study Meeting of the West Valley City Planning Commission held, March 12, 2025. Respectfully submitted, Julie Davis Julie Davis, Admin Assistant Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 12, 2025 Page 11 of 11