Planning Commission Public Hearing

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 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 WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 10 people in the audience. GPZ-7-2020 Holiday Oil 6443 West 3500 South General plan change from low density residential to neighborhood commercial and zone change from R-1-8 0.34 acre This application was continued during the Planning Commission meeting on September 23. The Commission wanted to grant the applicant additional time to see if more landscaping could be added along 3500 South. Holiday Oil has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for a 0.34 acre parcel located at 6443 West 3500 South. The property is currently zoned R-1-8 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 8,000 SF) with a General Plan designation of low density residential (3 to 4 units/acre). The proposed zone is C-1 (neighborhood commercial) and the proposed General Plan designation is neighborhood commercial. Surrounding zones include R-1-8 to the west and south, A (agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to the north and C-1 to the east. Surrounding land uses include homes to the west and south, a church to the north and a convenience store to the east. The subject property includes a home that was built in 2002. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and neighboring convenience store and car wash to make way for a larger convenience store, car wash and fuel canopy. If this General Plan/zone change is approved, a conditional use permit will be required for the planned redevelopment. The City’s Major Street Plan shows the future right-of-way width for this portion of 3500 South as 106’. The existing right-of-way width is 80’. Section 7-2-111 states: “Wherever a Front Yard is required for a Lot facing on a Street for which a Subdivision plat has been recorded in the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the depth of such Front Yard shall be measured from the mapped Street line provided by the Subdivision plat. Where a Subdivision plat has not been recorded and no widening is anticipated in the Major Street Plan, measurements shall be made from the existing Right-of-way line. Where widening is anticipated in the Major Street Plan, measurements shall be made from the proposed Right-of-way line.” According to the applicant, requiring a minimum landscaped setback of 33’ as measured from the existing right-of-way line along 3500 South would make the site unusable for a convenience store. If the Commission believes that the proposed General Plan/zone change is appropriate and that a landscaping exception should be granted by development agreement, staff suggests that the development agreement require 13’ of right-of-way dedication. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement requiring 13’ of right-of-way dedication as described in this report and allowing an exception to the additional landscaping required. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. This application should be denied as the parcel should remain residential. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Commissioner Winters explained looking at the map and seeing one business near the subject location with a similar setback as the subject property. Therefore, the two businesses would look alike when they widen 3500 South. He feels that the 33-foot setback is not needed in this case. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GPZ-7-2020 subject to staff alternative 1. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – GPZ-7-2020 – Approved ZT-7-2020 West Valley City A zone text change to create the Chesterfield Overlay Zone At the request of the Planning Commission and City Council, City staff is requesting a zone text change to create the Chesterfield Overlay Zone. Related to this application is application Z-8- 2020, which applies the proposed overlay zone to the Chesterfield neighborhood. The Chesterfield neighborhood is unique in that homes within the neighborhood are generally older and smaller than most of the rest of the City and many of the neighborhood streets do not include curb, gutter and sidewalk. The attached PowerPoint presentation includes information that highlights ways that the Chesterfield neighborhood is unique. The proposed Chesterfield Overlay Zone includes standards for new development that will allow new homes that are more compatible with existing homes. Below is a brief explanation for the standards included in the proposed overlay zone: 1. Minimum Area for Homes – As mentioned above, many of the homes within the Chesterfield area are older and smaller than most other homes within the City. The average year built of homes in Chesterfield is 1965. The Citywide average is 1980. Within the R-1-6 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 6,000 sq. ft.) zone, 77% of Chesterfield homes are smaller than 1,400 sq. ft., which is the proposed minimum size for ramblers within the overlay zone that are zoned R-1-6. Within the A (agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) zone, 73% of Chesterfield homes are smaller than 1,600 sq. ft., which is the proposed minimum size for ramblers within the overlay zone that are zoned  A. In addition, a large portion of Chesterfield falls within a flood zone where basements are not allowed. 2. Maximum Building Height – 95% of homes within Chesterfield have only one story. 3. Exterior Materials – The exterior of most homes in Chesterfield is some form of siding or stucco. 4. Minimum Garage Size – 43% of homes do not have a garage. 5. Garages within the R-1-6 Zone – Most of the lots within the R-1-6 zone are 50’ wide. After accounting for side yard setbacks, there is 34’ of width remaining for a home. With a two-car garage being at least 20’ wide, only 14’ would remain for the non-garage portion of the home. For homes with attached garages, City Code requires the width of the front of the house excluding the garage to be at least 18’ for ramblers and 15’ for multi-levels. Also, for those Chesterfield homes within the R-1-6 zone that do have a garage, 76% of the garages are detached from the home. 6. Flag Lots Prohibited – The City Council does not support flag lots in Chesterfield. 7. Improvement of Right-of-Way – Many streets within Chesterfield do not have curb, gutter and sidewalk. Those streets where improvements are still required within the overlay zone are streets that provide access to community uses like the Tongan United Methodist Church, American Preparatory Academy, Khadeeja Islamic Center and Redwood Elementary. 8. Design Treatments – Since the overlay zone allows smaller homes and does not require brick or stone, the list of design treatments needed to be amended for the overlay zone accordingly. 9. Design Variation – Given the variety of homes within Chesterfield, the City Council wanted to prevent “cookie-cutter” type houses in the neighborhood. Included with this report is a table that compares the proposed overlay zone standards with the current ordinance requirements. Staff Alternatives: 4. Approval. 5. Continuance. 6. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented this application. He noted receiving many calls about this application. One question was, would this go back retroactively. Steve explained it would not. He stated the overlay zone would apply to new homes and homes with an investment of $50,000 or more. Crystal Johnson, a resident of Chesterfield, asked why Parkway Ave is getting curb and sidewalk? And who is paying for it? Steve explained this is a requirement for new developments in the area. He said that the City does not intend to add curb, gutter, and sidewalk to the entire street. If there is an existing home, they will not be required to make those improvements. Mrs. Johnson stated there isn’t much vacant land on Parkway Ave, so why does this street need improvements? Steve explained that improvements would be seen over time as new homes develop. Chair Meaders said the overlay zone doesn’t create the requirement; this requirement is already there, right? Steve said that is correct; with the current code, new developments are required to put in curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Charles Reynolds, property owner in Chesterfield, asked if the overlay zone would allow for multifamily dwellings. Steve explained that Chesterfield contains R-1-6 and A zones, and those zones do not allow multifamily dwellings. The overlay zone will not change what is allowed. Kemble, representing Mark Wallace, a property owner in Chesterfield, explained Mr. Wallace owns ten lots and is looking to combine the lots and build a new home. Kemble explained a concern with drainage for this property. Steve explained that with this being a specific situation, Public Works would need to look at it. He stated if this is a new home, there would be a possibility for a delay agreement, where the required improvements would be pushed to a future date. Kemble stated that with the combined lots, he would have ample room for a front- loaded garage. He asked if this would be allowed within the overlay zone. Steve explained the existing R-1-6 lots within the overlay zone are much narrower than other areas in the City. Therefore, they would be required to have a detached or side-loaded garage. Steve told Kemble that he brought up a great point, and the Planning Commission could recommend an exception that lots with a 65-foot frontage or more can have a front-loaded garage. Kemble asked if Mr. Wallace does have the footage; how do we get the exception? Steve explained the Commission could request the exception to City Council. Louis Griggs, a resident of Chesterfield, stated she has lived there for 78 years and is wondering why they are putting in the overlay zone without helping to change their lifestyle? Steve explained the thought behind the overlay zone is to have new homes more in line with the existing structures. He stated to build a new home with the current standards; the house could be two to three times larger than the existing homes. Commissioner Winters is in favor of the overlay zone. He feels it protects the people by keeping new homes more in line with what is already in the area. Commissioner Winters asked the Commission if they think curb, gutter, and sidewalk should be a requirement. Commissioner McEwen finds it interesting that the City is considering adding Chesterfield improvements to head toward the school where they are hesitant to do that for the rest of the City. Commissioner McEwen stated the City has made it clear that they want to progress and upgrade  their property. He questions if this overlay zone is protecting the Chesterfield area. He stated that Chesterfield is underdeveloped and not maintained so, he is not in favor of the overlay zone. Commissioner Winters asked Commissioner McEwen if he feels the code should remain as is without the overlay zone. Commissioner McEwen said yes, this would give Chesterfield the ability to progress. Commissioner Lovato feels this area is different from the rest of the City, and many people are protective of the Chesterfield area. He stated the overlay zone would help to preserve the area. Commissioner Wood feels the overlay zone singles out the Chesterfield area, and the rest of the City needs to comply with higher standards. Commissioner Woodruff expressed the need to remember the overlay zone consists of minimum standards. People can still build bigger homes with higher standards. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve ZT-7-2020, with the modification that R-1-6 zones with a frontage of 65 feet or more can have a front-loaded garage. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen No Commissioner Wood No Commissioner Winters Yes Majority – ZT-7-2020 – Approved Z-8-2020 West Valley City Between 2420 South and 2920 South and between 1680 West and the Jordan River Add the Chesterfield Overlay Zone 202 acres West Valley City planning staff has requested a zone change to add the proposed Chesterfield Overlay Zone to properties located between 2420 South and 2920 South and between 1680 West and the Jordan River. Associated with this application is application ZT-7-2020 which creates the proposed Chesterfield Overlay Zone within the Zoning Ordinance. If approved, the proposed Overlay Zone would apply to 493 parcels. The underlying zoning on all of these parcels is either R-1-6 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 6,000 sq. ft.) or A (agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre). Those properties with A zoning will retain their animal rights if the Overlay Zone is adopted. The proposed Overlay Zone will apply to all new homes and additions to existing homes. The Overlay Zone standards address housing design and right-of-way improvements. It does not change allowed uses, setbacks or density regulations. Staff Alternatives: • Approval. • Continuance. • Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented this application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve Z-8-2020 Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen No Commissioner Wood No Commissioner Winters Yes Majority – Z-8-2020 – Approved SMI-9-2010 Woodhollow Estates PUD Phase 4 - Preliminary Plat 6310 South 7020 West R-1-10 Zone 9 Lots 2.7 Acres BACKGROUND: Ken Olson is requesting preliminary approval for the Woodhollow Estates PUD Phase 4 Subdivision. The subdivision is bordered on the north by property zoned C-2 and the west by the Woodhollow Estates PUD Phase 2 Subdivision. U-111 is located immediately to the east and two communication facilities are located to the south. As mentioned in the study session, this phase was not part of the original Woodhollow Estates PUD development and was therefore not part of the development agreement. The developer recently petitioned the City to include this property within the overall project and suggested several enhancements to the development agreement, not only for this property, but for the remainder of the Woodhollow Estates PUD Subdivision. However, the amended agreement would not affect phases 1 or 2 which were developed by Century Homes. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: Public Works: ▪ Authorization required of ditch/water users for any abandonment, relocation, piping or any other modification to existing ditches or irrigation systems. ▪ Soils report will be required. ▪ Will need to address grading and drainage concerns. ▪ Masonry wall required along U-111 ▪ Revisions to plat required. ▪ Contact Salt Lake County for approval regarding street names and subdivision name. Building Division: ▪ Soils report will be required prior to final plat review. Utility Companies:  ▪ Standard Utility Easements required. Kearns Improvement District: ▪ Developer will need to coordinate all matters regarding water and sewer services. Fire Department: ▪ Project to meet all fire codes relating to this type of development. ▪ Hydrants to be shown on plat. ISSUES: The subdivision will consist of 9 lots on 2.7 acres. This equates to an overall density of 3.3 units per acre. Lots range in size from 7,500 square feet to 16,700 square feet. The average lot size has been calculated at just over 10,000 square feet. All lots meet the area and frontage requirements of the development agreement. Access to the subdivision will be gained from a stub street in phase 2 of the Woodhollow Subdivision to the west. As part of this subdivision, a new road and cul-de-sac will be constructed. The cul-de-sac will be constructed to provide a turnaround for residents and emergency vehicles. It will also provide access to the southern properties for when they develop. While there are no plans to develop this property at the present time, at some point in the future this could change. Access and infrastructure would be available if the communication properties were to develop. The proposed subdivision has a substantial grade change from the south to north and east to west. The preliminary plat identifies these grades throughout the subdivision. The City Engineering Division will review the proposed grading plan. Should there be problems or concerns with regards to existing or proposed grades, those will need to be resolved prior to City Council review. The developer will need to illustrate how the site will be contoured and what retaining methods if any, will be used to ensure slope stability and to eliminate potential grading problems between lots. The developer is proposing to install a decorative masonry wall along the east side of the development being adjacent to U-111. All other fencing requirements will be per the development agreement. More specifically, the sides of the development adjacent to the communication tower and commercial property will be fenced with black vinyl coated chain link. Residents could install a vinyl fence at these locations if desired. The masonry wall will be required to match the masonry wall being installed along 6200 South. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant Preliminary Approval for the Woodhollow Estates PUD Phase 4 Subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1. That the subdivision be guided by the recorded development agreement. 2. That the developer contacts the Salt Lake County Auditor’s Office regarding the subdivision name and all street names associated with the development. 3. That compliance be made with the Kearns Improvement District i.e., water line extensions, connections, water rights and fire protection. The developer shall resolve all matters pertaining to these services prior to final plat review. 4. That the developer coordinate all matters associated with any irrigation or open ditch systems with the City Engineering Division. 5. That the new right-of-way be dedicated and improved in accordance with plans and profiles approved by the City Engineering Division. Infrastructure shall be extended to the south of the subdivision. 6. That a decorative masonry wall be installed along the east side of the development. Wall pattern, design and color shall be in accordance with the masonry wall used along 6200 South. All other fencing shall be per the development agreement. 7. That the developer submits a soils report for the subdivision. Recommendations resulting from this report shall be placed on the plat regarding special considerations if any. 8. That the developer provides a detailed grading and drainage plan. Said grading plan shall identify areas of concern with regards to existing slopes. The grading plan will need to illustrate how the site will be contoured and what retaining methods if any, will be used to ensure slope stability. Measures shall be taken early on to eliminate potential grading problems between lots. These plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division prior to final plat review. B. Continue the application to address issues raised by the Planning Commission. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented this application. Ken Olson, the applicant, said that Steve had covered this application and, he did not have anything to add. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve SMI-9-2020 subject to the eight staff alternatives.  Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – SMI-9-2020 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from September 2, 2020 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from September 9, 2020 Regular Meeting Commissioner Wood motioned for approval of the September 2, 2020 and September 9, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant