Planning Commission Public Hearing

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2021 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 Clover Meaders, David McEwen, Cindy Wood, Mathew Lovato, Brent Fuller, Martell Winters and Darrick Porter ABSENT Harold Woodruff WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Pastorik, Jody Knapp, Steve Lehman, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 5 people in the audience. ZT-2-2021 West Valley City A zone text change to add regulations for internal accessory dwelling units City staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to add regulations for internal accessory dwelling units. HB 82 was passed by the Utah Legislature in the 2021 General Session of the Utah Legislature and later signed by the governor. A copy of this bill is included with this report. Among other changes, the bill “requires municipalities and counties to classify certain accessory dwelling units as a permitted land use” and “prohibits municipalities and counties from establishing restrictions or requirements for certain accessory dwelling units with limited exceptions”. In summary, cities must now allow internal accessory dwelling units within single family dwellings and the State now limits the extent of local regulation of internal accessory dwelling units. Below is the list of items cities can regulate under HB 82: a) prohibit the installation of a separate utility meter for an internal accessory dwelling unit; b) require that an internal accessory dwelling unit be designed in a manner that does not change the appearance of the primary dwelling as a single-family dwelling; c) require a primary dwelling: i. to include one additional on-site parking space for an internal accessory dwelling unit, regardless of whether the primary dwelling is existing or new construction; and ii. to replace any parking spaces contained within a garage or carport if an internal accessory dwelling unit is created within the garage or carport; d) prohibit the creation of an internal accessory dwelling unit within a mobile home as defined in Section 57-16-3; e) require the owner of a primary dwelling to obtain a permit or license for renting an internal accessory dwelling unit; f) prohibit the creation of an internal accessory dwelling unit within a zoning district covering an area that is equivalent to: i. 25% or less of the total area in the municipality that is zoned primarily for residential use; or ii. 67% or less of the total area in the municipality that is zoned primarily for residential use, if the main campus of a state or private university with a student population of 10,000 or more is located within the municipality; g) prohibit the creation of an internal accessory dwelling unit if the primary dwelling is served by a failing septic tank; h) prohibit the creation of an internal accessory dwelling unit if the lot containing the primary dwelling is 6,000 square feet or less in size; i) prohibit the rental or offering the rental of an internal accessory dwelling unit for a period of less than 30 consecutive days; j) prohibit the rental of an internal accessory dwelling unit if the internal accessory dwelling unit is located in a dwelling that is not occupied as the owner's primary residence; k) hold a lien against a property that contains an internal accessory dwelling unit in accordance with Subsection (5); and l) record a notice for an internal accessory dwelling unit in accordance with Subsection (6). Items a-f and h-j are all addressed in the proposed ordinance. Item g refers to septic tanks and does not apply to West Valley. Items k and l can be done without an ordinance amendment. Item f was addressed by prohibiting internal accessory dwelling units east of 4000 West. The stated goal of HB 82 from the bill’s sponsor, Ray Ward, was to increase the availability of affordable housing. The east side of the City has more affordable housing than the west side and single family homes on the east side of the City are generally older and smaller than those on the west side. For these reasons, staff is suggesting that internal accessory dwelling units not be allowed east of 4000 West. As of February of this year, the total area in the City that was zoned primarily for residential use was just under 10,000 acres. The area of single family home parcels east of 4000 West that are larger than 6,000 square feet (since lots 6,000 square feet or less in area are already excluded) is nearly 1,900 acres. Hence, the proposed prohibition of internal accessory dwelling units east of 4000 West is below the 25% maximum of the area zoned primarily for residential use. During the study meeting the Commission expressed interest in continuing this application to learn more about building code requirements for internal accessory dwelling units. Staff Alternatives: 1. Continuance. This application should be continued until the May 12th Planning Commission meeting to allow time for the Commission to learn more about other code requirements for internal accessory dwelling units. 2. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. Discussion: Steve Pastorik explained that during the April 7, 2021 study meeting, the Planning Commission had questions about how the building code would still be able to be applied and in what ways the building code would be changed with this proposal. In the staff report, Steve recommended that we continue this application to the May 12, 2021 public hearing. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to continue ZT-2-2021 to the May 12, 2021 public hearing. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimous – ZT-2-2021 – Continued. Z-2-2021 Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, LLC 6865 West 4100 South Zone change from A to RE and R-1-8 7.55 acres Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, LLC has requested a zone change on 7.55 acres at 6865 West 4100 South from A (Agriculture, minimum lot size of ½ acre) to RE (Residential Estate) and R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.). Surrounding zones include R-1-8 to the north and east, A to the west, and M (Manufacturing) to the south. The property is surrounded by homes to the north and east, vacant property to the west, and railroad tracks and Northrop Grumman property to the south. The subject property is designated as large lot residential, which anticipates 2 to 3 units/acre, in the West Valley City General Plan. The request for R-1-8 zoning is only for 2’ wide strip of land running about 518’ north to south. The requested zone on the balance of the subject property is RE. Existing fencing along the east edge of the proposed subdivision is encroaching onto Northrop Grumman’s property. The 2’ of R-1-8 zoning would allow the developer, Shaun Johnson, to keep existing fencing along the east edge of the subdivision where it is. Development Proposal The applicant has submitted a concept plan, which is attached, that shows the subject property together with about 11.7 acres to the east that is zoned R-1-8 being subdivided into 58 lots yielding an overall density of 3 units/acre. Section 7-13-705 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6’ tall masonry wall for double frontage lots with a rear yard adjacent to arterial streets. Since the City recently installed a consistent style masonry wall along 4100 South between Bangerter Highway and 5460 West, staff recommends the same style of masonry wall be installed for this subdivision. Development Agreement A development agreement is required for this project. Section 7-11-213 of the West Valley City Zoning Ordinance states: “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 standards set forth in this Part shall be used as a minimum basis in all Development Agreements to address housing quality and exterior finish materials.” For the development agreement, the applicant is proposing to simply follow the City’s housing standards. The applicant is also proposing setback exceptions for some of the proposed lots. On the attached map entitled Development Agreement Map, there is an area highlighted in red north of the proposed lots 109-112. This red area reflects where the fences of neighboring owners to the north are encroaching on Northrop Grumman’s property. The developer hopes to relocate this fence. If he is successful, he is requesting a 2’ rear yard setback reduction for proposed lot 109. If he is not successful in relocating the fence, he is requesting an 11’ rear yard setback reduction for proposed lot 109 and a 5’ rear yard setback reduction for proposed lot 110. Given the shallow depth of the property in this section from north to south, staff is supportive of a rear yard setback reduction on these two proposed lots of up to 5’. The applicant is also requesting a 4’ rear year setback reduction on proposed lot 230. This again is due to the shallow depth of the property in this section from north to south and the size of the required cul-de-sac. Staff is supportive of a rear yard setback reduction on this lot of up to 5’. Staff Alternatives:  Approval. The application should be approved as it complies with the General Plan. The recommendation for approval is made subject to a development agreement including the following standards: o All homes in the subdivision, including proposed Phases 1 and 2, shall meet the City’s housing standards found in Part 2 of Chapter 7-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. o A 6’ tall masonry wall shall be installed along 4100 South. The style of the masonry wall shall match what the City installed along 4100 South between Bangerter Highway and 5460 West. o A rear yard setback reduction of 5’ shall be granted for proposed lots 109, 110, and 230 as shown on the proposed concept plan. o 33’ of right-of-way shall be dedicated along 4100 South for proposed Phases 1 and 2.  Continuance.  Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Lyndon DeYoung, representing Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, explained that they are working with a developer who is looking to purchase this property. Mr. DeYoung stated a 10-foot fence encroachment is the reason for the request for a setback exception. Mr. DeYoung does not think the exception is decided in this meeting; however, he wanted to justify the request. Steve Pastorik explained that the setback exception would be addressed in the development agreement, which is done in tandem with the rezone request. Mr. DeYoung said they are looking to relocate those fences, but they may have difficulty with the adjacent homeowners. Steve clarified what fence Mr. DeYoung is looking to relocate with the site plan. David Madsen, a resident, does not have any major objections to this proposal. Mr. Madsen first addressed the strong winds that come from the south. He explained the subject property would not be protected from those winds. This would not only cause a build-up of snow and tumbleweeds but potential damage to buildings. His next concern is to have a chain-link fence separating the subject property from the rail line. Mr. Madsen feels the proximity of the rail line will  cause residents to be unhappy hearing a train pass by at inconvenient times. He would like to suggest the developer be notified of these possible issues. Commissioner Winters feels that Mr. Madsen brought up some interesting points. He was wondering if the City is obligated to send any notification regarding things that could be problematic. Steve explained that for properties next to an agriculture property there is a requirement for a note on the subdivision plat that states the potential for smells. Steve does not believe there is a requirement for a similar message about being next to railroad tracks. He said that is something the developer could disclose to potential buyers. Commissioner Fuller asked Steve if we still have overpressure zones and if the subject property is within that zone. Steve explained there are still overpressure zones that still apply; however, a residential property can be built within this zone if they comply with specific building requirements. Steve stated the subject property is within an overpressure zone. Commissioner McEwen asked if there is a fencing requirement specific to the RE zone. Steve explained there are not specific fencing requirements per zone. Commissioner Lovato feels the chain-link fence would keep the graffiti down; however, he can also see wanting a fence to lessen the sound from passing trains. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve Z-2-2021 as it complies with the General Plan. The recommendation for approval is made subject to a development agreement including the four items listed in the staff report. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimous – Z-2-2021 – Approved. GPZ-4-2021 West Valley City Various 12 acres total West Valley City has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for 8 parcels located at various locations. The attached spreadsheet lists each of the 8 parcel numbers and their addresses, current zoning, proposed zoning, current General Plan designations, proposed General Plan designations (some of which are not proposed to change), acreages, and ownership information. The Utah Legislature recently passed HB 98 that, among other things, removed cities’ ability to regulate most building design standards for a one to two family dwelling or townhome where no development agreement exists. Most vacant properties in the City planned for residential use either have a development agreement that includes building design standards, or they are within an agricultural zone where staff anticipates a development agreement upon a future zone change. The subject properties do not have a development agreement and are zoned R-1-6, R-1-8, R-1-12 and RM. The properties zoned R-1 could be developed as single unit dwellings without many of the City’s building design standards once HB 98 becomes effective. The properties zoned RM could be developed as townhomes without many of the City’s building design standards once HB 98 becomes effective. Staff’s original list of properties included a nineth property – the Sonrise Baptist Church parcel at 3550 S 4400 W which is zoned RM. Upon hearing about the proposed zone change, the owner agreed to a development agreement where any future multi-unit residential development would follow the City’s current design standards. This development agreement is being considered by the City Council on April 13th. Below is a brief commentary on each of the eight parcels:  4128 W 3100 S: At the time this report was written, staff had received no input from the owner. If this property is rezoned from R-1-6 to A, the owner could later apply to rezone the property to R-1-7 or another larger lot zone.  1581 W 3300 S: At the time this report was written, staff had received no input from the owner. If this property is rezoned from R-1-12 to A, the owner could later apply to rezone the property to R-1-7 or another larger lot zone.  3846 S 2200 W: The owner contacted staff and was opposed to the application. If this property is rezoned from R-1-8 to A, the owner could later apply to rezone the property to R-1-7 or another larger lot zone.  3838 S and 3822 S 4400 W: The owner, Anil Singh, contacted staff and was opposed to the application. A letter from Mr. Singh is included with this report. If this property is rezoned from R-1-8 to A, the owner could later apply to rezone the property to RE since the two parcels together are over 2 acres.  3991 W 4100 S: At the time this report was written, staff had received no input from the owner. If this property is rezoned from RM to C-1, the owner could later apply to rezone  the property to RM.  3870 S Redwood Rd: The owner contacted staff and is considering a development agreement similar to the owner of the Sonrise Baptist Church. The owner indicated that he will let staff know his decision before the Planning Commission meeting. If this property is rezoned from RM to C-2, the owner could later apply to rezone the property to RM.  4914 W 4700 S: At the time this report was written, staff had received no input from the owner. If this property is rezoned from RM to A, the owner could later apply to rezone the property to RM. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Steve explained this application is for rezoning and, in some cases, a General Plan change on eight different parcels throughout West Valley City. Steve then went over each parcel separately, explaining the zone change, and in some cases, the General Plan change request. Steve said he had received an email from Anil Singh in opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Winters asked Steve if this proposal is approved how many properties could go back to the original zone with a development agreement. Steve went back through the different parcels and pointed out what parcels could go back to their original zoning. Commissioner Winters said it looks like there is only one case where they could not go back to the original zoning, is that correct? Steve confirmed his statement. Loay Alabbas, owner of the property at 3846 South 2200 West, addressed the Commission. Mr. Alabbas would like to keep the current zoning on his property. Steve explained the option of a development agreement. Steve also stated Mr. Alabbas could leave his comment of not wanting his property rezoned. The Commission can still vote in favor of the rezoning. Then, this application will be sent to the City Council. Steve explained he could attend this meeting and give his feedback there as well.  Mr. Alabbas would like to develop his property, and in speaking with his neighbor, Steve Lehman, he was informed that 1/3 of an acre minimum was needed to develop his property. So, he put a hold on his plans. Steve Pastorik said the 1/3 of an acre minimum could have been regarding flag lot requirements. If this property was to have a flag lot, there could be challenges with meeting the required minimum lot size. Chair Meaders asked Mr. Alabbas if he would want to pursue a development agreement with the City. He stated he would like to look into a development agreement. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GPZ-4-2021 as to those properties that have not agreed to enter a development agreement or express interest and continued indefinitely the properties at 3846 South 2200 West and 3810 South Redwood Road. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimous – GPZ-4-2021 – Approved. GPZ-5-2021 Superior Water and Air LLC 3536 S. 1950 W. General Plan change from general commercial to light manufacturing Zone change from C-2 to M 1.71 acres Superior Water and Air LLC, represented by Jason Kelley, has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for property totaling 1.71 acres located at 3536 South 1950 West. The property is currently zoned C-2 (general commercial) with a General Plan designation of general commercial. The proposed zone is M (manufacturing) and the proposed General Plan designation is light manufacturing. The surrounding zones are C-2 with a portion of property to the southwest that is zoned M, Manufacturing. This property was rezoned from C-2 to M in 2019. The surrounding land uses include auto service, a Union Hall, barbershop and Million Dollar Pawn to the north, auto service and auto/service/sales to the south. There is an Advance Auto Parts to the east and Advanced Body and Paint to the west. The primary purpose for the rezone is to accommodate outside storage which is only allowed in the M, manufacturing zone. Superior Water and Air LLC has been at this location for approximately 20 years and their business model has evolved over time. They now have equipment and vehicles that remain on the site for longer periods of time and have a need for outside storage. They have also implemented a recycling program so there is occasionally equipment and materials stored outside before they get recycled. They have also reorganized the site and removed some landscaping to accommodate outside storage and are therefore deficient in the 15% site landscaping required for the C-2 Zone. The M Zone required 5% so that would allow some flexibility for them to reorganize their site. If the property is rezoned, then the outside storage use would need conditional use approval from the Planning Commission to establish the appropriate conditions and site improvements for the intended use. Given the location of the property and the zoning/general plan designation of the neighboring uses Staff recommends the approval be subject to a development agreement. The development agreement would allow for the current C-2 uses to continue with the addition of only outside storage. Uses prohibited in the M zone would also be applicable. Staff Alternatives:  Approval of the zone change to the M zone and the GPZ change to light manufacturing subject to a development agreement that restricts the uses as outlined above.  Continuance, for reasons determined at the public hearing.  Denial of the zone change to the M zone and the General Plan change to light manufacturing as the current zoning and General Plan designations are more appropriate for this location. Discussion: Jody Knapp presented the application. Jason Kelly, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated not having anything to add to Jody’s presentation, but would answer any questions the Commission had for him. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve GPZ-5-2021 subject to a development agreement outlined in the staff report. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion.  Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimous – GPZ-5-2021 – Approved. GPZ-6-2021 Greg Larsen 3525 S 6800 W General Plan change from Low Density Residential and Large Lot Residential to Medium Density Residential and zone change from A to RM 9.9 acers Greg Larsen has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for five parcels totaling 9.9 acres located at 3525 S 6800 W. 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) on the two northern most parcels and Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre) on the three parcels on the south. The proposed zone is RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) and the proposed General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential (7 to 12 units/acre). Surrounding zones include R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.) to the east; A to the south; A and R-1-8 to the west; and A, R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft.), and R-1-8 to the north. Surrounding land uses include single family homes to the north, west, and east and a single family home plus agricultural property to the south. Aside from agricultural buildings, the subject property is vacant. The applicant is proposing a 65-unit, single level, senior living development. The proposed density of the project is 6.6 units/acre. Each unit would have a two-car garage and a driveway large enough to park two vehicles in. The proposed minimum unit size is 1,500 sq. ft. The attached concept plan and application materials from the applicant provide details on and support for the proposed project. For comparison, the table below describes four existing senior condo developments within the City: Year # of Project Name Address Built Acreage Units Density Zoning 2000- Valley Vu Villas 3561 S 4800 W 2002 11.8 80 6.8 R-1-8  2002- Hunter Villas 3260 S Hunter Villa Ln 2003 16.3 90 5.5 R-1-10 2009- Reunion Woods 3639 S 5600 W 2013 4.1 24 5.9 R-1-8 2015- Bingham Point 3151 S 7200 W 2019 12.9 81 6.3 R-1-8 In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Is this the right location for a senior living development? 2. Assuming the location is appropriate, does the quality of the project further City goals? These two questions are explored below. Is this the right location for a senior living development? According to the City’s zoning ordinance, zone changes to the RM zone can only be considered by the City if the following four conditions are met: 1. For properties without existing Structures which are proposed to be developed, the property must be a minimum of one acre and the Density must not exceed 12 units per acre. For properties with existing Structures proposed to be redeveloped, the property must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet and the Density must not exceed 20 units per acre. For properties that are west of Redwood Road and within one-half mile of the West Valley Central light rail station, the Decker Lake light rail station or the Redwood Junction light rail station, the Density may exceed 20 units per acre; 2. The property shall meet any one of the following 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; 3. A Development Agreement must be proposed with the zone change application that addresses Dwelling Unit sizes, exterior materials, architecture, Landscaping, and project Amenities; and 4. A traffic impact study prepared by a registered traffic engineer is required for projects with 100 or more Dwelling Units. This application meets the first condition in that the property is over 20,000 square feet, includes structures proposed to be redeveloped and has a proposed density below 20 units/acre. For the second condition, the subject property has access and frontage on 3500 South, which has a planned right-of-way width of 106’. On the third condition, the applicant’s development agreement standards are addressed later in this report. The fourth condition does not apply because the project is under 100 units. While the property is eligible for RM zoning, the City may still deny requests for RM zoning. An argument could be made for the RE (residential estate) zone given the surrounding single family homes. The Newton Farm Subdivision, which is the largest RE zoned development in the City, is approximately 430’ to the south. Included with this report is an email from Scott Feulner, the owner of the property to the south, who argues that the subject property should be developed as single family homes. 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. Dwelling Unit Sizes The proposed units include 2 bedrooms plus a flex space that could function as a third bedroom. The proposed minimum unit size is 1,500 sq. ft. For dwelling units that are attached to the side of each other, City Code requires 1,100 sq. ft. for a 2-bedroom unit and 1,400 sq. ft. for a 3- bedroom unit. 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 and stone where the stone would be at least 25% of the exterior. This means that fiber cement siding would comprise more than 60% of the exterior. The applicant is asking for an exception here as the fiber cement siding will have a mix of horizontal, vertical, and shake patterns in lieu of a third material. Architecture Based on a preliminary review of the proposed building architecture by staff, the proposed units appear to meet or exceed the architectural requirements in the City’s multi-unit residential design standards. If this application is approved, a more thorough review will be conducted by staff on the elevations submitted for a building permit. Landscaping The soon to be adopted ordinance addressing landscaping and recreation space requires a total of 50% landscaping and recreation space for a planned unit development (PUD). The ordinance also states that: “Reduction may be made to the percentages of required Recreation Space by the Planning Commission and upon a showing that the Recreation Space in the site area will provide amenities; which will substantially meet the needs of future residents.” The applicant provided two alternative concept plans – one with an access to 6800 W at 48.5% open space and one with without an access to 6800 W at 49.2% open space. Given the number of amenities described below and the importance of a connection to 6800 W, staff prefers the concept with the connection to 6800 W (as the connection to 3500 S will be right-in/right-out) and believes a reduction to the landscaping and recreation space is warranted given the amenities offered. As an alternative to the landscaping and recreation space reduction, the number of units could be reduced to reach the 50%. Project Amenities For a project of this size, the ordinance requires two amenities. The proposed project includes four amenities from the ordinance: clubhouse, fitness room, sport court or pool, and walking trail. Interior finishes and amenities include 9’ ceilings, two-tone paint, and solid surface countertops throughout all cabinet areas. In the proposed development agreement standards, the developer is also proposing concrete or stone address plates for each unit, street lights, a combination of vinyl and concrete fencing installed on the perimeter, and 13 visitor parking spaces. The applicant is also proposing “oversized 2 car garages” which is somewhat subjective. To have the development agreement standards be more objective, the applicant is now proposing a minimum garage size of 550 square feet. Other Considerations The current improvements and right-of-way width along 6800 W are inconsistent and not supportive of development on the east side of the street. To provide consistency and a level of improvement supportive of development along 6800 W, staff has recommended a number of requirements for the development agreement under the first approval option under the staff alternatives below. Some of these improvements extend beyond the subject property to connect the improvements to 3500 S. While improvements are typically only required along the frontage of a property being developed, staff is recommending the extension of the improvements to 3500 S given the requested increase in density. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This General Plan/zone change application should be approved subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards proposed by the applicant with the following additions recommended by staff: a. As proposed by the applicant, the development will be aged restricted where 80% of the units must have at least one resident that is 55 years old or older. b. The total amount of landscaping and recreation space may be reduced to 48%. c. A private street connection shall be made to 6800 W.  d. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way along 3500 South in accordance with the Major Street Plan, which shows the future right-of-way on 3500 South at 106’. e. The developer shall do the following along 6800 W between the south end of the subject property and 3500 South: i. Pipe the ditch ii. Bury the power lines iii. Install curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the east side of 6800 W iv. Install 24’ of pavement along the east side of 6800 W v. Dedicate right-of-way on parcel #s 14-34-201-024 and 14-34-201-004 to match the right-of-way west of parcel # 14-34-201-023. vi. Provide survey and topographic information for the existing right-of-way including the property dedicated by the developer vii. Use the horizontal and vertical curb and gutter alignment information provided by the City to design the road improvements f. Upon receipt of the survey and topographic information from the developer, the City’s Engineering Division shall provide horizontal and vertical curb and gutter alignment information to the developer within 2 months. g. With the exception of the amount of fiber cement siding requested by the applicant, the project shall meet the standards in Part 4 of Chapter 7-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. h. As proposed by the applicant, the minimum garage size shall be 550 square feet. i. 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, sports court, and any other outdoor recreational amenity. 2. Approval. This General Plan/zone change application should be approved subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards in staff alternative #1 above with the following revision for item b: “The total amount of landscaping and recreation space shall be 50%.” 3. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 4. Denial. This application should be denied. RE zoning is more appropriate at this location. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. Greg Larsen, the applicant, stated that he did not have anything to add to Steve’s presentation. However, he is available to answer any questions. David Madsen, from the public, addressed the Commission. Mr. Madsen said he spent time on the Community Council for Orchard Elementary, and during his  tenure, there was significant concern about development along 6800 West. He explained currently, 6800 West is not a thru-street, and he would like to keep it this way for the safety of the children walking to and from the elementary school. Mr. Madsen is also concerned about future development along 6800 West, encouraging it to become a thru-street. Melissa Post, from the public, agrees with Mr. Madsen. She stated a senior community is located just north of the subject location, and another development is not needed. She feels the zoning should remain RE and allow for larger homes to be built instead of the senior development that will have more turnover. Tom Pearce, the property owner, expressed his desire to live on his property. Mr. Pearce is older and does not feel he can maintain the property; therefore, he proposes this senior development. He has been a real estate broker for 48 years and explained the demand for this type of housing is very high. The current senior housing has people waiting to reside there, and future developments are almost rented out. Mr. Pearce feels there is a need for more senior community developments to keep the aging residents in our City. Commissioner Lovato and Commissioner Winters both feel there is high demand for senior developments. Commissioner Winters mentioned that he lives near one of these communities and has not witnessed much in and out traffic. Commissioner Wood noted the recent development and asked Steve if there is enough demand to support another senior development. Steve said, looking at the housing market and the interest level, he feels this project will be successful. Commissioner Winters asked Steve if the property to the south of the subject property could develop as a 55+ community or would they need to apply for the RE zone? Steve stated the subject property has frontage and access onto 3500 South. However, the property to the south does not. Based on our current criteria, they would not be able to apply for the RM zone. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GPZ-6-2021 subject to the nine staff conditions. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chair Meaders Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimous – GPZ-6-2021 – Approved.