Planning Commission Public Hearing

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 9, 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 Cindy Wood WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, Brock Anderson, Steve Lehman and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 5 people in the audience. ZT-8-2020 West Valley City A zone text change to Section 7-2-114 to add specific fence regulations to properties along 4100 South between Redwood Road and 8400 West. 0.34 acre The City’s Public Works Department is requesting a zone text change to Sections 7-2-114, which is the Section of the Zoning Ordinance that addresses fence regulations. The proposed change would add specific fence regulations to properties along 4100 South between Redwood Road and 8400 West. The following language from the Public Works Department is proposed: “This paragraph applies to all properties fronting on 4100 South Street. All new fences constructed on the front property line and side yards in front of structures shall be black  ornamental Iron or aluminum metal fence; it shall have a three rail panel, with three or four inch air gaps; 2.5" posts; 0.75" square pickets.” The following justification for this change was provided by the Public Works Department: “The City has invested millions of dollars to the reconstruction of the 4100 South roadway. Inside the project, it is planned to replace current fencing with a wrought iron (steel/aluminum) fence. As a main artery through the City, it would be valuable to have uniform fencing along the entire corridor to continue the aesthetic of the roadway. Within the 4100 south Reconstruction Project, all fences removed will be replaced with the new style of fence. The City is offering to replace all existing fences not included within the project scope with the new style of fence. The new ordinance will require all NEW fences to be in the same style/specification.” By way of background, the 4100 South Reconstruction Project extends from Bangerter Highway to 5460 West and is nearing completion. Fencing is currently being installed. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Commissioner McEwen asked Steve if the City cannot reach a property owner, can they still have the fence installed at no cost to them? Steve did not have the answer; however, he will look into it. Commissioner McEwen asked if the City will be contacting the property owners by mail. Steve said he believes they would send a notice by mail. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve ZT-8-2020 Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes  Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – ZT-8-2020 – Approved ZT-9-2020 Randy Moore An ordinance amendment to define qualified 55 or older development and to allow properties with access and frontage on a street with a planned right-of-way width of at least 80 feet where a qualified 55 or older development is proposed to apply for the RM zone Randy Moore has requested an ordinance amendment to define qualified 55 or older development and to allow properties with access and frontage on a street with a planned right-of- way width of at least 80 feet where a qualified 55 or older development is proposed to apply for the RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) zone. Section 7-5-101 of the zoning ordinance includes conditions to determine whether or not a property is eligible to be rezoned to the RM zone. Subsection of 4 of Section 7-5-101 states: “Property within City limits may only be amended or rezoned to the RM zone if all of the following conditions are met: a. 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; b. The property shall meet any one of the following three requirements: (i) have access and 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; c. A Development Agreement must be proposed with the zone change application that addresses Dwelling Unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, Landscaping, and project Amenities; and  d. A traffic impact study prepared by a registered traffic engineer is required for projects with 100 or more Dwelling Units.” The applicant’s proposal would amend (changes are underlined) condition b above to: “b. The property shall meet any one of the following three requirements: (i) have access and Frontage on a Street with a planned Right-of-way width of at least 80 feet (for properties under two acres or a qualified 55 or older development in which the density must not exceed 8 units per acre) 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;” The applicant is also proposing the following definition from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for qualified 55 or older development: “Qualified 55 or older development” means a development where at least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older; and The facility or community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and The facility or community must comply with HUD's regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.” Included with this report is map that shows remaining vacant land within the City as well as roads designated on the Major Street Plan as an 80’ right-of-way and roads designated as 100’ right-of-way or more excluding nonaccess highways and freeways like I-215 and Bangerter Highway. The map also highlights the one-half mile areas within eligible light rail stations. The purpose of this map is to illustrate where rezone requests to the RM zone are currently allowed and where they would be allowed if this application is approved. Also included in this report is a graph showing the population of the City by age. As of 2018, 17% of the City’s population was aged 55 or older. Over the next 10 years, just over 15,000 more residents will fall into the 55 or older cohort. For reference, the table below lists four developments within the City that were developed as qualified 55 or older developments: Project Name Address Year Built Acreage # of Density Zoning Units Valley Vu Villas 3561 S 4800 W 2000-2002 11.8 80 6.8 R-1-8 Hunter Villas 3260 S Hunter Villa Ln 2002-2003 16.3 90 5.5 R-1-10 Reunion Woods 3639 S 5600 W 2009-2013 4.1 24 5.9 R-1-8 Majestic Villas 3151 S 7200 W 2015-2019 12.9 81 6.3 R-1-8 All of the projects listed in the table above were developed as planned unit developments (PUDs) in the R-1-8 or R-1-10 zones. Section 7-5-101 limits rezones to the R-1-8 and R-1-10 zones to properties under 2 acres. So, if this application is not approved, any future qualified 55 or older development as defined by the applicant would need to be:  rezoned to RM,  less than 2 acres and rezoned to R-1-8 or R-1-10 or  on property already zoned R-1-8 or R-1-10. Since the four existing qualified 55 or older developments don’t exceed 7 units/acre in density, staff recommends that the density for qualified 55 or older developments be capped at 7 units/acre. Following the Planning Commission’s study meeting, Mr. Moore provided this additional information to staff: “One item that was not discussed yesterday was that the Planning Commission did study this one year ago, and recommend approval to allow RM zoning on 80’ right of way roads with a reduced density of 7 units per acre. With no requirement of for a 55 or older development. The proposed change that I have requested is only allowing this with a 55+ community. This is much more restrictive than what they passed before. I would like you include this in the report if appropriate. As far as the density I can modify our request to 7 units per acre. If you want to make that change that is fine. Your map was very good. It appears that this would not allow very many properties to possibly be included with this change. There have only been 4 of these communities built in the City. The main concerns were with the possibility of the development allowing under age residents, now or in the future. There are a number of reasons why I don’t believe this will happen. 1. The home plans and the community are designed for an “empty nester” older, homeowner. This would include one level home plans, in some cases no basements, ADA bathrooms or halls where requested, etc. They are not conducive to family living. 2. The CCR’s of the development will include the 55 or older requirements. They will be enforced strictly by the HOA or manager for the benefit of the residents. 3. The marketing of the community is for it to be a 55 or older community. To move away from this in the future would certainly not work for the existing homeowners and not be the intent of the community. 4. HUD has specific rules governing the 55 or older developments and if they are not followed the development can lose its ability to continue with the age restrictions. This is spelled out in the HOPA or Housing for Older Persons ACT.  5. I spoke to the HOA president of the Hunter Villas HOA. And to the management company that is currently managing the Valley Vu HOA. They both stated that they have had NO issues with younger homeowners. When a home is resold they need to apply to the HOA and verify that at least one of the homeowners is on the deed and must be 55 or older. Both of the HOA’s stated that currently they hove very few homeowners that are younger than 55. The manger for the Valley Vu HOA stated that he believed every home has at least one homeowners that is 55 or older at this time. He did not know of any younger homeowners. I asked how they enforce this and they both stated that with the makeup of the current residents that if any concerns were to come up that they would hear about it quickly from the current homeowners. They have many residents that are concerned about this, but it just has not happened. I looked through the MLS at homes that have resold in these communities and the listings on the homes state that they are a “55+ community”. 6. Many of the homeowners use reverse mortgages that require homebuyers to be 62 years old or older. There is a real need for these type of Communities in the City. As you stated well yesterday, with an aging population, residents that sell their existing homes currently have NO option for new 55 or older communities to move to. In many cases they are having to move out of the City if they desire a lower maintenance lifestyle.” As a reminder, if this application is approved, zone changes will still remain a legislative decision. This means that the Planning Commission or Council does not have to approve rezone requests to the RM zone that meet the conditions outlined in the ordinance. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved to allow more opportunities for qualified 55 or older development with the change that such developments would be capped at 7 units/acre. 2. Approval. This application should be approved to allow more opportunities for qualified 55 or older development as proposed by the applicant. 3. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 4. Denial. This application should be denied because there are already sufficient opportunities to rezone property to the RM zone. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented this application. Randy Moore, the applicant, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Moore explained that a year ago he had suggested having a property on an 80-foot right-of-way with seven units/acre to be eligible to apply for RM zoning. He did not include only 55+ communities. The Commission approved this suggestion; however, the City Council denied this request. Mr. Moore explained this proposal would consist of only 55+ communities that can apply. He explained that there are only four senior  communities in the City, and he does not expect a considerable increase in applications if the proposal is passed. Mr. Moore then addressed the Commission's concern of the senior communities allowing younger residents to reside in their communities. He explained the HOA and the current residents want to maintain the 55+ age restriction, and he does not see this being an issue. Commissioner Fuller expressed his concern with smaller senior communities, two acres or less, not having enough residents to enforce the 55+ age restriction. Commissioner Fuller asked Mr. Moore if he agrees that these communities should be larger than two acres. Mr. Moore agreed. Steve explained that currently, one could apply if it is two acres or less. He stated Mr. Moore is proposing to allow for an application if the property is two acres or more and a senior development. Steve said the code already allows for one to apply if the property is under two acres. He then pointed out the smallest senior development in the City is four acres. Commissioner Fuller feels the proposal should include properties larger than two acres, so there are enough residents to maintain the community's control. Steve said the Commission could make a recommendation to the Council that senior properties less than two acres can't apply. Mr. Moore reiterated this proposal would only allow them to use it, and the Commission does not need to approve the application. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve ZT-9-2020 staff alternative 1. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller No Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Majority – ZT-9-2020 – Approved Z-9-2020 Michelle Krogius and Brett Garrett 2454 S 5600 W Zone change from A to M 20.2 acres Michelle Krogius and Brett Garrett, representing the Sansone Group, have requested a zone change on two parcels totaling 20.2 acres at 2454 S 5600 W from A (agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to M (manufacturing). Surrounding zones include M to the north, east and west and A to the south. Neighboring uses include vacant property to the north, east and south and the Mountain View Industrial Park to the west. The subject property is designated as light manufacturing in the West Valley City General Plan. The City’s Major Street Plan, which is part of the General Plan, shows 2540 S extending through this property. The applicant has submitted a concept plan, which is attached. Also attached is a letter from the applicant describing the proposal. The intended use is a distribution warehouse on the two subject parcels along with an 18.5-acre parcel to the east that is already zoned M. The proposed building would be similar to the buildings in the Mountain View Industrial Park and ARA Industrial Park to the west. The total building area is 575,000 square feet. Given the size of the proposal (over 10 acres), a conditional use permit would be required for the use approval assuming the zone change is approved. Next year, the City is planning to extend 2540 S to the east and provide a road connection between 2400 South and Parkway Blvd as shown in the attached exhibit. To facilitate this construction, staff recommends a development agreement requiring the dedication of right-of- way for the construction of these roads. The City’s Public Works Department is also requesting that the development agreement include a provision that requires the developer to reimburse the City for utilities installed in the roads that will service the proposed development. The City approved a similar zone change for a property developed by the Sansone Group along SR-201 that was subject to a development agreement that addressed the building architecture so that the buildings would be comparable in design to other recently developed light industrial buildings in the area. Staff recommends the following language be included in the development agreement:  All façades of the building shall incorporate at least one of the following two treatments: o A color change to the same material applied to at least 20% of the façade. o A material change applied to at least 20% of the façade.  Variation in the parapet wall heights shall be included along all façades of the building.  Windows shall be included on both corners of the east façade. Staff Alternatives:  Approval. This zone change should be approved subject to a development agreement requiring the items described in this staff report.  Continuance.  Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented this application. Allison Witte, the applicant, said Steve did a great job explaining this application. She mentioned this proposal is based on the properties located to the north, west, and east is zoned M (manufacturing), and these properties are listed as M on the West Valley City general plan. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve Z-9-2020. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – Z-9-2020 – Approved C-14-2020 Decker Lake Station Apartments 3036 & 3078 S Decker Lake Dr RM Zone (2.79 acres) Rockworth Companies is requesting conditional use approval to construct a 219-unit, seven- story, apartment development. The property is zoned RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) and is designated as very high density residential in the City’s General Plan. The table below outlines the unit sizes and mix for the project, as well as the minimum unit sizes required in the code.  Unit Type # of Units Sq. Ft. Minimum Sq. Ft. Required by Ordinance Studio 59 541 400 1 bedroom 97 719 600 2 bedroom 63 855 850 Total 219 Background The property is located on the north-west corner of Decker Lake Drive and 3100 South. Surrounding land uses include the Maverik Center to the south, the Rocky Mountain Power corridor and E-Gate Apartments to the north, an undeveloped lot and three hotels to the west, and the Apartments at Decker Lake to the east. In September of this year the site received RM zoning approval, which included a development agreement for the project. The development agreement is attached for reference. Project Review The proposed building is 7 stories. The first and second floors will be a parking garage, with ground- level and second story units on the exterior of the east and south elevations. The five- stories above that will include the remaining units and common space, including a center courtyard area accessible from level 3. Each unit will have a balcony of at least 60 sq. ft. Parking and Pedestrian Connections The development agreement requires that there be at least 332 parking stalls on the site, with at least 240 of those stalls in a garage. The tables below outline the proposed parking for this project as well as ordinance requirements: Type of Parking Provided Number of Stalls Garage parking 248 Surface parking 85 Total parking provided 333 Parking ratio provided 1.52 spaces per unit Unit Type # of Units Parking Ratio # of Stalls Required Required Studio 59 1.3 76.7 1 Bedroom 97 1.5 145.5 2 Bedroom 63 1.75 110.25 Totals 219 332 Discussion: Brock Anderson presented this application. Commissioner Fuller asked Brock if the external stairways have been addressed. Brock stated he has spoken to the applicant and explained the exterior stairs do not meet code and they will need to come up with an alternate plan. Commissioner Fuller stated if the applicant moves the stairs, they will lose parking spaces. Brock said if they lose parking stalls, they would need to reduce the number of units. Commissioner Fuller asked  if it would be possible for the applicant to enclose the stairs. Brock said they could as long as they keep the same number of parking stalls. Adam Davis, the applicant, then addressed the Commission. Mr. Davis stated they have been working with staff to address any issues. He has also been working with the architect on the external stairs. Mr. Davis expressed being between a rock and a hard place. He explained there is a shared space on the third floor, and they need stairs running to that floor for evacuation purposes without losing any parking spaces. He will continue working with staff on this issue. Commissioner McEwen would like to have the complete picture when applicants come to the Commission for approval. He feels the Commission rubber stamps some of these proposals and leaves them for staff to later take care of. He would like to continue this application until the loose ends are tied up. Commissioner Winters understands what Commissioner McEwen is saying and has felt the same way with proposals that have been presented in the past. He feels this proposal has minor enough issues that the Commission does not need to continue the application. Commissioner Lovato agreed with Commissioner Winters and expressed not wanting to hold up this project. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve C-14-2020. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen No Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Majority – C-14-2020 – Approved CA-4-20 Wasatch Fleet Service Expansion 2290 S. 5600 W. LI Zone (.37 acres) The applicant, Scott Haslam representing Wasatch Fleet Service, is requesting conditional approval for expansion of a commercial vehicle upfit facility at 2290 S. 5600 W. This property is zoned LI, Light Industrial. It is located within the 5600 West Overlay Zone and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as Light Manufacturing. The surrounding zone is LI to the north, south and west. The zoning is M, manufacturing to the east across 5600 West. The surrounding uses include salvage yard type businesses to the west, warehousing to the south, UDOT property to the north and the Warner Truck Center to the east. Wasatch Fleet received conditional use approval for their main facility at 2265 S. 5650 W. in 2019 (C-12-2019). The business sells and installs truck and van racks, truck flatbeds, snow plows, custom van interiors, service truck bodies and lift gates. Office uses and vehicle sales are also conducted from the site. During construction Mr. Haslam acquired additional property to the south and has been working with UDOT to get an access approved on 5600 West. The original plan was to only have access from the west off 5650 West. There is a Delay Agreement in place for those street improvements and the 5600 West would access would solve some Fire access issues and feasibility issues with actually constructing 5650 West so they are working diligently to get that alternative access approved. However, one of the issues with the 5600 West access is UDOT will most likely require a median and turn/decel lane. That would impact the previously approved design for the 5600 West Streetscape Improvements which includes a 15’ landscaped area, a 6’ sidewalk and a 9’ landscaped area with decorative street lighting. Those improvements have not been constructed at this time so that provides some flexibility with the location of the sidewalk and landscaping in that setback area. Staff is working with the applicant and UDOT and will continue to review plans as the location of the roadway improvements get determined to ensure that there is appropriate sidewalk connectivity to the parcels to the north and south for when they (re)develop in the future. The final site design has not been completed but they will need an exception for those setbacks based off the location of the newly constructed on site improvements (parking lot and building) that were part of the original construction and now the new right-of-way requirements. The streetscape design will most likely just be reduced in the 9’ landscaped area behind the sidewalk on the north side of the site but again that depends on the final location of the curb and gutter and how the sidewalk lines up with the adjacent properties. Other site considerations that are being reviewed include an existing building on this expanded site. It will be used for storage and the exterior will be updated and maintained. The landscape plan will also be updated so overall there is a minimum of 10% landscaping throughout the entire site and all areas on the new parcel will be improved and maintained accordingly. There is an old septic system and well that is in the process of being abandoned. The parcels all need to be consolidated and the sidewalk and lighting easements will be updated. We are also coordinating a new address off 5600 West (2272 South 5600 West). The Fire Department has indicated that is for some reason the access along 5600 West does not get approved or installed that the original 24’ fire lane requirements for 5650 West would need to be installed within 30 days of written notice or occupancy will be revoked. Lastly, we are also working with Mr. Haslam to ensure a proper fire access is maintained around the building, that storage is not placed out in the right-of- way of 5650 West and that the required parking spaces are not used for vehicle display or merchandise. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. The overall site and landscaping must be installed per the approved plan and in accordance with all the applicable standards set forth in Title 7. 2. An exception is granted for the 5600 West Streetscape Improvements and the requirements may be modified according to the UDOT right-of-way requirements and that setback area shall be designed to ensure connectivity to the adjacent parcels to the north and south. 3. The exterior of the existing building on site must be maintained and repaired. 4. No outside storage or merchandise display is permitted in required parking areas, within the right-of-way or along the fire lane around the perimeter of the building. All merchandise shall be stored in the building or within the designated paved area that is secured with decorative fencing (wrought iron). 5. Must meet the requirements of all affected departments and agencies including but not limited to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department. 6. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented this application. Scott Haslam, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Haslam explained when the access was off 2300 South, there were safety concerns, and they need access to be off a road that can be maintained. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve CA-4-2020 subject to the six staff alternatives.  Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – CA-4-2020 – Approved PUD-1-2020 Alpizar PUD 4565 West 3500 South RM Zone 50 Units 3.07 Acres 16.3 U/A BACKGROUND Mr. Russ Platt, representing the property owner, is requesting preliminary approval for a residential development to be known as Alpizar PUD. The property was recently rezoned from the C-2 Zone to the RM Zone. Property to the south is zoned residential, with commercially zoned property to the east and west. 3500 South is located to the north and will be the main access into the development. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: Public Works Department:  Authorization required of ditch/water users for any abandonment, relocation, piping or any other modifications to existing ditches or irrigation structures. This includes the North Jordan Canal located along the south boundary of the subdivision.  Contact Salt Lake County Auditor’s Office for approval of street names and subdivision names.  Revisions to plat required.   Flood control issues to be coordinated with Public Works and UDOT.  Coordination for access required from UDOT. Utility Companies:  Standard Utility Easements required. Granger Hunter Improvement District:  Project is subject to all GHID requirements and design standards.  Coordination with UDOT regarding access for water and sewer. Fire Department:  Proposed fire hydrant locations need to be shown on subdivision plat.  Project shall meet all provisions of Fire Code relating to this type of development.  Will need to review radius to ensure fire truck turnaround will work. Building Division:  Will require a soils report. The report shall address all aspects of the project site for building construction. ISSUES: Project Overview: The Alpizar Planned Unit Development will be a residential community consisting of 50 units on just over 3 acres. This equates to an overall density of 16 units per acre. Proposed townhomes will be 3 stories with two different building types. Proposed unit sizes are 1,750 square feet for the west units and 1,950 square feet for the east units. Each unit will have 3 bedrooms and a bonus room that could be used for an office or similar. As with similar proposals from Mr. Platt, the architecture is very urban. All units will have a roof top patio which has been used in the Cobalt Landing PUD on Redwood Road. This has been a nice selling feature in Cobalt Landing, and they are perpetuating that here with all units having that amenity. Proposed building materials are stucco, fiber cement siding and tile. The developer is suggesting that two color schemes be used for this project. The colored variations will need to be substantial enough so that one color does not dominate the  project. Final colors for this project will be reviewed by staff during the final plat stage of this project. All townhome units will have a two-car garage for parking. Overall, there are 174 parking spaces shown on the subdivision plat, of which 100 of these spaces will be in garages. 40 spaces will be in driveways on the east units, and 34 guest spaces will be provided along the west side of the private street. The resulting parking ratio is 3.5 stalls per unit. This number is consistent with other recent projects such as Cobalt Landing and the Villages on 27th. These projects were parked at 3.9 and 3.7 spaces respectively. Erin Hills on 5600 West and 3500 South was parked at 3.2 spaces per unit. Other matters related to this project: Access: Access to the subdivision will be gained from 3500 South. Since this project contains less than 100 units, a single access is allowed under the Fire Code. The preliminary plat indicates that the street width for the main access road will be 34 feet which does provide for 26 feet of asphalt. A sidewalk will be located on the east side of the private street. Per the development agreement, the developer is dedicating an additional 17.5 feet along 3500 South to accommodate a future right-of-way width of 115 feet. Public improvements will be installed in accordance with plan and profiles approved by UDOT. It very well may be that the existing improvements will remain until a later date when full right-of-way improvements are installed. The developer will coordinate all matters related to access with UDOT. All internal drive access will be private. Drive courts will be a minimum of 20 feet in width. Depths of the drive courts are shallow enough that turnarounds will not be needed. The drive court and main access road itself will serve as a hammerhead configuration for emergency services and garbage collection. Building Setbacks: Building setbacks for this project are illustrated on the site plan. Along 3500 South, a 25- foot setback is proposed. Setbacks along the remaining sides will be 10 feet or greater. Since this project is a planned unit development, there is flexibility in site design standards. As the project moves through the review process, changes may occur to the site plan. However, a substantial change would warrant review by the Planning Commission. Landscaping/Fencing: While landscaping is generally addressed at the final plat stage, staff would like to mention a few things at this point in the review process. The overall open space will comprise 50% of the project site. The developer will be required to submit a full landscape and irrigation  plan. This plan will need to address landscaping along 3500 South, the perimeter of the entire property and of each building. The project has a large central open space on the west side of the development. Staff wants to make sure that if storm water is planned to be retained/detained in this area, that the developer ensure that this space does not have a depressed area that would reduce the amount of useable open space. The developer may need to look at other storm drain storage options to ensure that this requirement is met. Staff will work with the applicant and the City’s Engineering Division to ensure that the large common space is able to be used for the purposes it is intended. Upon completion of all of the on-site improvements, the developer shall provide a letter to the City from an independent engineering firm which certifies that all of the on-site improvements are completed as shown on the plans approved by the City. For the purposes of this provision, on-site improvements shall include landscaping, irrigation, private streets, sidewalks, parking, lighting, entrance features, fencing, playground equipment, picnic tables and any other outdoor recreational amenity. The developer is required to install a 6-foot masonry wall along the south boundary of the development. In addition, all areas adjacent to the EZ Auto Sales will be fenced with the same masonry wall. According to the developer, the masonry wall will be a post and panel wall. A pattern and color have yet to be selected. Staff will coordinate this item during final plat review. North Jordan Canal: A right-of-way or easement for the North Jordan Canal is located along the southern boundary of the subdivision. According to a recent site visit by the City Engineer, it does not appear that this site takes any storm water to the canal easement. In fact, there is not much of a canal operation at all. I spoke with the Canal Company and they are going to research whether the canal can be abandoned or not. If it can, the developer can fence right to the property line. If the canal cannot be abandoned, the developer would need to coordinate with the Canal Company as to their preference. They could still fence at property line and pipe the canal, landscaping the area inside of the masonry wall, or install the required masonry wall to the easement line and leave the property as has been done on both the east and west sides of this property – vacant with weeds to be maintained by the canal company. The Canal Company will review the canal operation and decide as to what can and cannot be done at this location. The applicant will need to coordinate the results with the Canal company and respond accordingly. Entry Feature:  The development agreement specifies that an entry feature will be installed. The developer will provide staff more information as the project moves forward. The frontage for this development is only 125 feet in width. However, the east side of the development will have sufficient area for the entry feature. Staff will coordinate the design and location of the feature as further reviews take place. Lighting: The project site will require internal streetlights. In addition to the streetlights, there will need to be lighting within and around the open space areas. Staff will recommend that a lighting plan be submitted at final plat. In previous planned unit applications, developer’s have simply used the City’s standard acorn light. They are however, built to a more residential scale. Amenities: The City’s multi-family residential design standards require projects with 50 to 75 units to include at least two amenities from a list included in the ordinance. The amenity package as submitted will meet or exceed this number. During the rezone, the applicant agreed to install courtyards, rooftop patios for all units, a tot lot/playground, a walking path and BBQ and picnic areas. The walking path will allow residents to walk around the entire project with a connection at 3500 South. As the project moves forward, staff will coordinate the amenity package with the applicant. Soils Report: The applicant is not planning basements for these units. However, whether baements are planned or not, a soils report will need to be submitted. The developer will need to coordinate findings of the soils report with the Building Division and Engineering Division regarding the construction of housing and street improvements. Garbage Collection: The proposed project will need to coordinate with a private garbage collection company to serve this project. Dumpsters are not required here as each resident will be allowed to have their own garbage can. In previous Russ Platt designs, the garages have been large enough to store the can inside. Staff will work with the applicant to try and accomplish the same thing here. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant preliminary approval for the Alpizar PUD subject to the following conditions: 1. That the developer resolve all staff and agency concerns.  2. That the Planned Unit Development be subject to the multiple family design standards outlined in the City ordinance, and the development agreement negotiated during the rezoning process. 3. That a soils report be prepared prior to final plat review. 4. That the developer provide an overall landscape plan to be reviewed during the final plat review. Said landscaping plan shall provide measures to ensure water conservation techniques will be used in accordance with City ordinances. 5. That all requirements of the West Valley City Fire Department be satisfied including turning radius for the hammerhead turnaround areas. 6. That the developer coordinate a review with the North Jordan Canal Company regarding the status of the canal easement. Specific discussions should center around whether the easement can be abandoned and where the required masonry wall should be placed. 7. That compliance be made with Granger Hunter Improvement District, i.e., water line extensions, connections, water rights and fire protection. 8. That the subdivision name and street names be approved by the Salt Lake County Auditor’s Office. 9. That building setbacks and height be in accordance with the site plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. Slight modifications can take place if needed during final plat review. However, the perimeter setbacks shall remain as proposed. 10. That lighting be provided throughout the entire development. Said lighting will be reviewed during the final plat. 11. That the developer coordinate access into the development with the Utah Department of Transportation. 12. That a masonry wall be installed across south property and along all property lines adjacent to EZ Auto Sales. B. Continuation, in order for the developer to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented this application. Russ Platt, the applicant, stated that Steve did a great job addressing their application, and he did not have anything to add. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve PUD-1-2020 per the twelve staff alternatives. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes  Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – PUD-1-2020 – Approved SMI-11-2020 Flores Subdivision 2283 West 3800 South R-1-8 Zone 2 Lots .97 Acres BACKGROUND Steven Flores is requesting preliminary plat approval for a two lot subdivision in the R-1-8 Zone. The subject property is located at 2283 West 3800 South. An existing dwelling occupies the front portion of the property and will remain as part of the subdivision. STAFF/AGENCY CONCERNS: Fire Department:  Fire hydrants to be installed in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code. Granger Hunter Improvement District:  Project will need to run availability for water, sewer and fire protection.  Subject to design and review inspections. Utility Agencies:  Subject to all standard easement locations. Public Works:  Authorization required of ditch/water users for any abandonment, relocation, piping or any other modifications to existing ditches or irrigation structures.  Revisions to plat are required.  Drainage issues need to be addressed.   May use adjacent soils report information. However, if a deeper basement depth is wanted, a new soils report would be required Building Inspections:  A soils report should be done to determine the basement depth of the new dwelling. However, the recent soils report for the Northridge Subdivision to the east can be used, but the basement depth would be relegated to approximately 4 feet below existing top back of curb. ISSUES: The applicant is proposing a flag lot subdivision consisting of 2 lots. Lot 1 will be approximately 10,900 square feet while lot 2 will be approximately 30,900 square feet which excludes the stem portion to the new lot. All frontage and area requirements relating to both lots will be satisfied as part of the R-1-8 zone. · Access to the subdivision will be gained from 3800 South. All public improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and stamped colored parkstrip are currently in place. The applicant is proposing to use a single drive approach to the new lot. The driveway for the existing single family dwelling will remain. A new water and sewer line will need to be installed for lot 2. The applicant and/or builder will need to coordinate with the City Engineering Division the replacement of existing infrastructure when the water and sewer line is installed. The existing dwelling will remain on what will become lot 1. The existing free standing outbuildings will be removed to make way for the new lot. It is anticipated that the new home would be located directly behind the existing dwelling. The remainder of lot 2 could be used for a detached garage or garden space as it is rather large. Another option could be that the far south portion of lot 2 could be incorporated into a future subdivision should property to the south ever develop. · As with all new subdivision development, there is a concern with the potential of ground water impacts. A soils report is needed to determine water table depth. For the Northridge Subdivision to the east, the basement depth was approximately 4 feet below existing top back of curb. If Engineering and the Building Official are comfortable using the report that was prepared for that subdivision, a new report would not be required. However, the applicant would be relegated to follow the recommendations outlined in that report. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Approval of the Flores Subdivision subject to a resolution of the items outlined in the staff report. B. Continuation to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented this application and there was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve SMI-11-2020. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – SMI-11-2020 – Approved SMI-12-2020 Wallace Stegner Academy Subdivision 5990 West Parkway Boulevard A & R-1-10 Zones 1 Lot 1 Remainder Parcel 42 Acres BACKGROUND Tyler Bodrero, representing the property owner, is requesting preliminary subdivision approval for the Wallace Stegner Academy Subdivision. The subject property is bordered on the north and west by agriculturally zoned property, the east by Rocky Mountain Power and the Mountain View Corridor and Parkway Boulevard to the south. ISSUES: The proposed subdivision has been submitted to divide an existing 42 acre site into one 6 acre lot and a remainder parcel of approximately 36 acres. The 6 acre lot or lot 1 as noted on the plat, will be used for a new Charter School. The remainder parcel will be developed at a later date. As a requirement of the subdivision, the property owner will be dedicating right-of-way along Parkway Boulevard. Improvements will be installed along this right-of-way consisting of curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt. The right-of-way improvements along this section of Parkway Boulevard will be constructed by the City as a City project. To provide access to the school itself, a new public road will be installed along the west boundary of the subdivision running north from Parkway Boulevard. This road will be a 54-foot right-of- way and will also be constructed with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. This road will be built by the applicant. The new road will stub to the north providing a connection to the remainder parcel for when it develops. Access to the school will be via the new road with two points of ingress/egress. Staff has included a preliminary site plan for the School and will include that in the power point presentation. The preliminary plat identifies two parcels along the west boundary of the plat. The alignment of the new road is taking into consideration improvements from the adjacent land owner that encroach the proposed subdivision. Anticipating a resolution with the property owner to the west, the road has been designed to accommodate those improvements along with a new drive access to the single family dwelling. These issues are being negotiated at the present time. Staff will provide an update during the regular meeting. If a resolution to these issues cannot be worked out, it is expected that the School would maintain the parcels as part of their overall project maintenance. A permitted use application will be reviewed for the school itself. Site considerations regarding parking, landscaping, storm water etc. will be handled with that application. Therefore, staff and agency comments will be better addressed through that process which is already on-going. The subdivision will create the new lot and will dedicate Parkway Boulevard and the new right-of-way for future access to the remainder parcel. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: Approve the Wallace Stegner Academy Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. Continue the application to address concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented this application. Tyler Bodrero, representing the property owner, addressed the Commission. Mr. Bodrero stated that if Ivory Homes didn't make an agreement with the adjacent property owner, they would maintain the parcels. Elizabeth Wright, from the public, then spoke. Mrs. Wright stated she would like the area to be maintained as an agricultural area. She is concerned the addition of a school would increase the interest to add more housing projects. Steve explained the surrounding land would not automatically be eligible for new housing. He stated if someone were looking to  put in a housing project adjacent to the school, they would need to request a rezone. Mrs. Wright asked if the school façade could be built to match an agricultural zone. Steve explained this application is for the subdivision of the land, and a site plan for the school has not been submitted yet. Steve said we could make a recommendation to the applicant about the building façade. Tyler Bodrero stated he had taken notes about Mrs. Wright's requests, and he will pass them onto the architect. Mr. Bodrero asked Mrs. Wright if she had anything she would like to suggest. Mrs. Wright said wood tones, something other than what a typical school looks like. Chair Meaders asked Steve if the subject property would need to request a rezone for the school. Steve said land uses such as schools and churches are able to locate in any zone without requesting a rezone. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve SMI-12-2020 subject to the resolution of staff and agency comments. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimous – SMI-12-2020 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from November 4, 2020 Study Meeting Commissioner McEwen motioned for approval of the November 4, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt Administrative Assistant