Planning Commission Public Hearing

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 13, 2020 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Meaders with an electronic meeting: Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/ 95328405803 WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Brent Fuller, Clover Meaders, David McEwen, Martell Winters, Cindy Wood, Mathew Lovato, Darrick Porter and Harold Woodruff ABSENT Mathew Lovato and Darrick Porter WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Steve Lehman, Brock Anderson and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 4 people in the audience. Z-3-2020 Richard Defa 3793 South 5725 West Zone change from A to R-1-8 1.5 acres Richard Defa has submitted a zone change application for a 1.5 acre parcel located at 3793 South 5725 West. The property is currently zoned A (agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) with a General Plan designation of low density residential (3 to 4 units/acre). The proposed zone is R-1- 8 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.). Surrounding zones include R-1-7 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 7,000 sq. ft.) to the north and west and A to the south and east. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a zone change from A to RE (residential estates) on the property to the south. As a reminder, City ordinance only allows zone changes to R-1-8 on properties less than 2 acres. The property to the south is about 8 acres. Surrounding uses include single unit dwellings to the north and west and vacant property to the south and east. The subject property includes a home that was built in 1909 that will be demolished. The applicant has submitted a concept plan that shows the subject property being subdivided into 5 lots. The average lot size is 10,487 sq. ft. The Zoning Ordinance requires that “All new Subdivisions involving a rezone of property, or a PUD, shall participate in a Development Agreement that addresses housing size, quality, exterior finish materials, Streetscapes, Landscaping, etc.” The applicant has committed to build homes that meet the City’s design standards. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. The application should be approved as it complies with the General Plan. The approval is made subject to a development agreement that requires that the new homes meet the City’s design standards. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve Z-3-2020 as per staff alternative 1. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – Z-3-2020 – Approved GPZ-3-2020 Joe Salisbury 2892 S Decker Lake Dr. General plan change from commercial/light manufacturing to high density residential and zone change from A and M to RM 16.05 acres Joe Salisbury with DAI has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for 16.05 acres of property located at 2892 S Decker Lake Dr. The property is currently zoned A (agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) and M (manufacturing) with a General Plan designation of commercial/light manufacturing. The proposed zone is RM (multiple unit dwelling residential) and the proposed General Plan designation is high density residential (12 to 20 units/acre). Surrounding zones include A and RM to the west, A and M to the north, M to the east and M and RM to the south. Surrounding land uses include the E Gate Apartments, Decker Lake Youth Detention Facility and Decker Lake Park to the west and north and office uses like Petzl and the Department of Homeland Security to the east and south. The subject property is currently vacant. The applicant is proposing a total of 320 housing units including 247 apartments and 73 townhomes with 55 of the townhomes being rear load and 18 being front load. The townhomes would be two-story buildings, range in size from 2 to 4 bedrooms and include two-car garages for each unit. Each apartment unit would have one garage space in either a tuck-under garage or a detached garage. While the applicant did provide a couple of potential apartment renderings, details as to the unit mix and unit sizes were not provided. The attached concept plan and application materials from the applicant provide details on and support for the proposed project. By way of background, a General Plan/zone change request was made on this same property back in 2013 by DAI for a 368-unit apartment development with a density of 23 units/acre. The Planning Commission recommended denial to the City Council and the City Council denied the application. Just last year, DAI submitted another General Plan/zone change request on this same property for 4.8 acres of office/warehouse and 136 townhomes. Shortly after their submittal, the City initiated a moratorium on all zone changes to the RM zone. Although DAI’s application was submitted before the moratorium took effect, they chose to postpone their application while the Council considered potential code changes. Once the Council adopted several code changes relating to multi-unit residential design standards and RM zone eligibility criteria, DAI chose to withdraw their previous application and then submitted this application. In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Is this the right location for an apartment 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 an apartment development? When considering this question, there are many aspects to consider including recent code changes, transportation infrastructure, neighboring land uses and balancing City objectives across the City. Each of these topics is addressed below. Recent Code Changes One consideration is the City Council recently amended the criteria to determine whether a property would be eligible to apply for the RM zone. Prior to this change, the subject property was not eligible to be rezoned to the RM zone. The recent code change made properties located on the west side of Redwood Road and within ½ mile of the Decker Lake or Redwood Junction light rail stations eligible to be rezoned to RM. The subject property is within ½ mile of both stations. While the property is eligible for RM zoning, the City may still deny requests for RM zoning. Transportation Infrastructure One of the recent code changes made requires a traffic impact study prepared by a registered traffic engineer for projects with 100 or more dwelling units that are requesting RM zoning. This should have been submitted with the application; however, since this is a new requirement, staff missed this in the initial application review. If the Commission is in favor of residential use on this site, staff recommends that the required traffic impact study be submitted prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation to the City Council. Neighboring Land Use Neighboring uses that seem the most compatible with the proposed residential development include the E Gate Apartments and Decker Lake Park. The Decker Lake Youth Detention Facility and neighboring office space seem more compatible with the current General Plan designation of commercial/light manufacturing. Another land use consideration for the area is the number of existing or proposed apartments. The neighboring E Gate Apartments include 304 units and the West Pointe Apartments to the south include 104 units. The City also just received a General Plan/zone change application for the property on the northwest corner of 3100 S Decker Lake Dr. where 225 apartment units are proposed. If the two proposed apartment developments are constructed there will be 953 units within ¼ mile of each other. Balancing City Objectives Across the City When reviewing a General Plan/zone change for apartments in a specific area of the City, the Commission should consider not only site-specific issues but citywide goals as well. Given the regular inquiries staff receives regarding apartment development, it seems clear that apartments, if allowed, would be built just about anywhere in the City. However, doing so would preclude other important objectives from being accomplished and would put our housing stock out of balance. Therefore, deciding where to approve zoning for new apartment developments takes careful consideration of both area specific issues and citywide goals. Below are statements within the General Plan in quotations that highlight the need for a comprehensive view when considering a zone change for apartments along with commentary from staff:  “In areas where retail development is aging (at least 30 years old) and underperforming and where transit is readily accessible, consider the addition of some multi-family residential as part of a redevelopment strategy to add more retail demand.” This objective was part of the reason for approving apartments on the old Kmart site on Redwood Road as well as the apartments at Valley Fair Mall.  “Maintain zoning in areas currently zoned for office or industrial development to allow opportunities for new commercial development.” This seems to be the part of the reason that a request for apartments on this site was denied in 2013.  “West Valley City should work to maintain at least one job for each person in the labor force within the City.”   “When considering rezone requests for high density residential development, the proximity to transit, the size of the project and the proposed level of quality (i.e. exterior and interior finishes and amenities) should be primary factors for evaluation along with other site-specific considerations.” The proposed level of quality is addressed later in this report.  “Redevelop blighted multi-family residential with higher density residential.” Examples of this would be the redevelopment that occurred on Harvey Street and in Fairbourne Station. There are other areas in the City where this approach will be needed. In summary, when considering where to approve apartment developments, the City should balance considering area specific issues which have already been discussed, providing retail support within retail areas, preserving land for job creating uses, supporting transit and redeveloping blighted areas. This site has no neighboring retail, would consume land that could be used for job creating uses and is vacant or not needing redevelopment. A residential use on this site would likely support transit to some degree. Does the quality of the project further City goals? City Code requires requests for the RM zone to be accompanied with a development agreement proposal that addresses dwelling unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, landscaping and project amenities. Each of these items is addressed below. As a reminder, the recent code changes mentioned earlier included several changes to the City’s design standards for multiple unit dwelling residential. In the sections that follow, there are several deficiencies identified in the applicant’s proposal when compared with the recent code changes. The applicant was made aware of these deficiencies and is working on a revised proposal. Dwelling Unit Sizes The proposed project includes a mix of townhomes with two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four- bedroom units. Since the fourth bedroom is in the basement and basement area is not considered for minimum area, we will consider the minimum sizes for two-bedroom and three-bedroom townhome units. As described below, some of the proposed unit sizes are below the minimum required for units that are attached to the side of each other. Unit Type Minimum Size from Proposed Size (Sq. Ft.) Ordinance (Sq. Ft.) 2-bedroom townhome 1,100 1,037 3-bedroom townhome 1,400 1,348, 1,432, 1,453 and 1,465 As mentioned earlier, details on the unit mix and sizes for the apartments were not provided. If the Commission is in favor of residential use on this site, staff recommends that these details be provided before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. 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 fiber cement siding, brick/stone, metal paneling and stucco. Based on the townhome elevations submitted, it does not appear that the minimum of 20% brick or stone is used. If the Commission is in favor of residential use on this site, staff recommends that the townhome elevations be modified to reflect the 20% brick or stone and that specific information be provided on the exterior materials for the apartments before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. Architecture Based on a preliminary review of the townhome architecture by staff, the proposed townhomes appear to be deficient in the required 25% fenestration requirement on the fronts, one garage treatment and potentially the minimum roof pitch of 6:12. Since the applicant provided two alternative apartment renderings, staff did not perform a preliminary review of the apartments. If the Commission is in favor of residential use on this site, staff recommends that the townhome elevations be amended and that specific information be provided on the proposed apartment architecture before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. Landscaping The ordinance requires a minimum of 15% usable open space with no more than 60% building coverage. The proposed useable open space is over 18% and the building coverage is below 60%. Project Amenities The proposed project exceeds the City’s requirements for amenities. For a project of this size, the ordinance requires five amenities. The proposed project includes 9 amenities listed in the ordinance: outdoor pool, club house, fitness room, tot lot, covered pavilion, fire pit, sports courts, walking trail and hot tub. In addition, the project also includes a dog park, lawn gaming area, benches throughout and dog waste stations. The applicant is also offering to invest $100,000 in amenities to improve Decker Lake Park. Ideas for improvements include the following: playground, outdoor fitness and stretching stations, viewing areas and benches, picnic tables and dog waste stations. Interior finishes and amenities include quartz countertops; wood-style flooring; washer and dryer; Smart Home technology; high-speed internet and large walk-in closets, linen closets and/or pantry. Other Issues  Parking: The overall proposed parking ratio is 2.4 stalls/unit. For townhome developments, the Council has recently required more parking (over 3 stalls/unit) by way of development agreement. Also, the code was recently changed to state: “All parking shall be made available free of charge.” The proposed management standards include this statement: “Every unit will be required to rent at least one interior garage parking stall as  part of the recurring monthly rental charges.” This statement implies that a charge could be levied for additional parking spaces.  Fencing: The development agreement mentions a 6’ white vinyl fence around the perimeter of the project. In staff’s view, a solid fence along Decker Lake Dr. is not recommended.  Interior Features: Certain features outlined in the interior finishes portion of the development agreement proposal need further clarification. For example, will quartz countertops be used in both kitchens and bathrooms and what exactly will be included in the “Smart Home technology”? Staff Alternatives: 1. Continuance. This application should be continued to allow the applicant time to submit the required traffic impact study, provide more details on the proposed apartments, amend townhome designs to comply with code requirements and clarify certain provisions of the proposed development agreement. 2. Denial. This application should be denied to preserve the land for job creating uses and to focus apartment development in areas that accomplish more citywide objectives. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Steve explained just before this public hearing he had a short conversation with the developer, and they are requesting a continuance. The developer explained to Steve that they would like to provide updated information addressing the issues in the staff report. Steve stated if the Planning Commission would like him to go over the details of the proposal he would. Chairperson Meaders stated there would not be a need for Steve to go over the details of the proposal where the Planning Commission did hear the details in the pre-meeting, and this proposal will likely be continued. Joe Salisbury, the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission and thanked them for listening to the proposal. Joe stated that he is looking forward to coming back with more information to address the issues in the staff report. Chairperson Meaders asked if two weeks would be enough time. Joe said absolutely. Chairperson Meaders opened public comment. There was someone who wanted to address the Planning Commission; however, we could not hear the audio. Chairperson Meaders kept public comment open until the May 27, 2020, public hearing. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to continue GPZ-3-2020 to the May 27, 2020 public hearing. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – GPZ-3-2020 – Continued C-9-2020 Fetzers’ Inc. Warehouse 4850 W 3500 S M Zone (3.89 acres) The applicant, Joe Wixom with Fetzers’ Inc., is requesting conditional use approval for warehouse and light industrial uses. The overall property is 7.73 acres and is zoned both M, Manufacturing and C-2, General Commercial. The West Valley City General Plan designates this area as light industrial and mixed use. The surrounding zoning is C-2 to the south and west, and R-1-8 to the north and east. Adjacent land uses include a dental office and restaurants to the south, Esparanza Elementary to the west and single unit dwellings to the north and east. The property was originally approved as a shopping center (C-22-1988) and an approximate 95,000 sq. ft. building was constructed in 1989, which was vacated by Shopko last year. The applicant applied for a general plan and zone change earlier this year for 3.89 acres of the parcel in order to operate a warehouse out of the building (GPZ- 1-2020). On March 17th the City Council approved the request and the zoning was changed from C-2 to M. A development agreement was also approved on the property, which limits the Manufacturing Zone uses in the building to warehouse and limited light industrial. Uses listed within the C-2 Zone as outlined in 7-6-301 of the West Valley City code are also allowed. Fetzers’ Inc. currently operates from another location in West Valley City where they manufacture a variety of wood products. The company needs additional space for storage. The old Shopko building will be used primarily as a warehouse for completed products before they are distributed. Light industrial uses pertaining to the assembly or disassembly of products from premanufactured components are also allowed inside the building per the development agreement. Sanding, cutting, painting or any other use that would require venting to the outside are prohibited. The site will mostly remain as it is. The area to the east of the building that was used as the garden center for Shopko will be converted into additional parking. Parallel parking stalls will also be added along the north and west sides of the building. Based on the building square footage, 47 parking stalls are required for the warehouse use. 42 stalls will be provided with the additional parking added around the building and the other 5 stalls can be accommodated in the front parking lot. In the future the applicant could subdivide the property and the front parking lot area may be redeveloped. At that time a shared parking agreement would need to be put in place to ensure the warehouse building still has all the parking stalls that are required in Title 7. Much of the landscaping needs repair on the property. The applicant will replace any lawn that is dead. Some trees that were part of the original landscaping approval have been removed, and these will be replaced. The applicant will also be redoing the landscaping in the parking lot islands. The trees will remain, but the lawn will be removed and four shrubs per tree and at least 50% live plant material will be added. Most improvements to the building will be on the interior. The building exterior will be repainted. The development agreement requires that a two-tone paint color scheme be used. The applicant has indicated that the front of the building will have three-tone paint, and the sides and back of the building will have two-tone paint. There are some existing loading docks on the east side of the building. These will remain and the dock area may be expanded in the future. There is an existing masonry wall in place for screening. Per the development agreement, all loading and unloading will be conducted between 6 AM and 8 PM, Monday through Saturday. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. All items outlined in the development agreement shall be met. 2. The site shall be improved per the approved site plan. 3. Parking shall be provided per section 7-9-104 of the West Valley City Code. 4. Landscaping shall be installed/maintained per the approved landscape plan, which includes 50% live plant material in all planting areas. 5. The building shall be painted per the approved building elevations. 6. There shall be no outside storage on the property. 7. Requirements of all affected departments and agencies shall be met. 8. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. Joe Wixom, the applicant, thanked Brock for his hard work. Commissioner Wood stated she drives by the subject property almost every day and has noticed large trucks parked on the west side of the property. Commissioner Wood asked Mr. Wixom if the trucks belong to his business. Mr. Wixom explained that the trucks are not his and he has been working with the police department to locate the owners and ask them to find another location to park their trucks. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve C-9-2020 subject to the 8 staff alternatives. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Unanimously – C-9-2020– Approved SA-3-2020 Highbury Centre Subdivision – Lot 3 Amended 5432 West High Market Drive C-2 Zone 2 Lots 11.5 Acres BACKGROUND The Utah Department of Facilities Construction and Management is requesting consideration to amend lot 3 of the Highbury Centre Subdivision. The purpose for the amended plat is to create an additional building lot within a portion of lot 3. The subject property is located at approximately 5432 West High Market Drive and is zoned C-2. ISSUES: The Highbury Centre Subdivision was recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office in 2013. The original subdivision consisted of 10 lots. The proposed amended subdivision plat will amend lot 3 to create a new building lot. The newly created lot will be located at the east end of the building that houses Marshalls and Maurices. The intended use will be a liquor store which will be relocated from Redwood Road. The new lot will encompass the east end of the building and will extend to the south to provide parking for the new use. Access to this lot will be gained from both 5370 West and High Market Drive. Internal access will also be gained from the west which is the Target property. The original subdivision contained various easements for water/sewer, parking and access. While these easements are still applicable for the amended plat, the applicant will need to ensure that these are still viable given that a new lot is being proposed. Staff is not aware of any improvements that will need to be made to the site as they are already existing. An Operating Easement Agreement has been recorded between all property owners allowing the proposed use at this location. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Amendment to lot 3 of the Highbury Centre Subdivision. 2. Continue the application for reasons determined in the Planning Commission meeting. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Commissioner McEwen asked where the nearest liquor store is if we lost the one on Redwood Road. Brandon replied there is a liquor store on 33rd and State Street. Brandon stated there is a new liquor store being built in Taylorsville that is about 1.5 miles from the one on Redwood Road. Michael Neadeau, the applicant, stated he had nothing to add and Steve did a great job presenting the application. He said he would answer any questions from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not have any questions for Mr. Nadeau. Commissioner Winters stated it was helpful to learn the applicant is not looking to add a building to the subject property. Commissioner Winters stated in most other states liquor is sold in every convenient store. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve SA-3-2020. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood No Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Majority – SA-3-2020– Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant