Planning Commission Public Hearing

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 10, 2021 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Meaders in the City Council Chambers at West Valley City Hall 3600 Constitution Boulevard, West Valley City, UT 84119, and using Zoom at https://zoom.us/j/95328405803. WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS David McEwen, Clover Meaders, Brent Fuller, Mathew Lovato, Darrick Porter, Martell Winters, Cindy Wood, and Harold Woodruff ABSENT WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman, Brock Anderson, Jody Knapp, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill AUDIENCE There were 9 people in the audience. GPZ-15-2021 Hamlet Development Corp. 3702 and 3716 South 5450 West A to RE 4.42 acres Hamlet Development Corp. has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for two parcels totaling 4.42 acres located at 3702 and 3716 South 5450 West. The property is currently zoned A (agriculture, minimum lot size of ½ acre) with a General Plan designation of Rural Residential (2 or less units/acre). The proposed zone is RE (Residential Estate) and the proposed General Plan designation is Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre). Surrounding zones include A to the north and south, R-1-8 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet) to the west, and R-1-10 (single unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet) and A to the east. Surrounding uses include senior condos, single family homes, and a church to the west and single family homes on all other sides. The larger parcel at 3702 South includes a home that was built in 1947. The smaller parcel at 3716 South includes a home that was built in 1969. 5450 West has an eclectic mix of zoning, lot sizes, homes, and street improvements. Moving from north to south, zoning varies from R-2-8 (two unit dwelling residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet), R-1-8, R-1-10, A, RE, A, and then back to R-1-8. Lot sizes vary from just under 6,000 square feet to over 3 acres. Many of the homes on the street were built before 1950. The latest development along the street is The Reserve, an 8-lot subdivision on the east side of the road that was rezoned from A to RE in 2018. The road is approximately ½ mile long, is tree lined along some sections, and is mostly devoid of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Development Proposal The applicant has submitted a concept plan, which is attached, that shows the subject property being subdivided into 12 lots averaging 15,202 square feet and yielding a density of 2.7 units/acre. Three of the lots would be flag lots. Two of the lots would need a lot width reduction since the minimum lot width in the RE zone is 100’ and the minimum width for the driveway leading to two flag lots is 24’. The two existing homes would remain. As a reminder, a concept plan is included to give the Commission an idea of the potential number of lots and to show how the property could be developed. Generally speaking, concept plans have not been engineered, meaning that storm drainage, topography and utilities have not been accounted for. For this reason, concept plans are subject to change. Also attached is a letter from the applicant supporting his application. 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 applicant has submitted the attached development agreement standards that are similar to those used for The Reserve development on the east side of the street. Staff Alternatives:  Approval of the General Plan/zone change subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant. In addition, staff recommends that up to 2 lots be allowed to have a reduced width of 90’.  Continuance, for reasons determined at the public hearing.  Denial, the General Plan should remain Rural Residential, and the zoning should remain A. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He explained that a concept plan is requested when proposing a zone change. However, at this stage, the concept plan gives an idea of what could be built on the subject location. Steve stated that if the zone change is approved, the applicant will submit a subdivision plat that incorporates more detail, such as the engineering, and the plat could differ from this concept plan. He said there is a development agreement as part of this proposal that includes the housing standards. Monty Merrell, an adjacent property owner, pointed out the proposed driveway running along the fence separating his property from the subject property and asked how close to his house the driveway would be. Steve explained that the driveway does not have a setback requirement so, it could be on the property line. However, the proposed building would have a setback of ten feet. Mr. Merrell said that his property is now surrounded by development on three sides. He is concerned about the displacement of wildlife and the possible removal of a well that waters the animals. He stated that one remaining lot adjacent to his property is still zoned agriculture and asked that it would not be rezoned. Chair Meaders explained that the lot he is inquiring about is not part of this application. She said to Mr. Merrell that his concern would be noted. Cody Neville, a property owner in The Reserve development, stated that he does not approve of an HOA for the private street without any other amenities offered. He said that many issues arose in his development, and he did not want this new development to have the same problems. Mr. Neville said that residents do not want a private road that they need to maintain, pay for, and hall trash down to the public street so the City will pick it up. He feels the private street should be the responsibility of the City. Mr. Neville explained that the developer had said a basement could be added to his home without issues. However, due to the sewer line placement, he needs to pump out water and sewage from his basement. He addressed that lighting is not required along 5450 West, which leaves the area open to theft. Mr. Neville would like the applicant to consider keeping all trees on the subject property, not just those along 5450 West. Rhett Olson, an adjacent property owner, agrees with Cody's statements regarding the private road. He asked if the private road was part of the overall size of the lots. Mr. Olson is concerned about the parking, and he feels the homeowners will fill up the parking in their driveways and force people to park along 5450 West. Mr. Olson explained that the street is not wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the road. He would like the subject location to keep its current zoning to allow for larger lots. Susie Hindley explained that she grew up on the property in question, and neither she nor her siblings had the money to buy the property. She said that Mr. Brodsky has an excellent reputation as a developer, and he is willing to keep and renovate the two existing homes as part of his proposal. The subject property has been part of Mrs. Hindley's family since the 1900s, and she would hate to see the property destroyed by renting it out. Steve Pastorik addressed the public concerns. He explained that the private road is not included in the size of the lots. Steve said the minimum lot size requirement is 12,000 square feet, and the average lot size for the development is 15,000 square feet. Therefore, you can have lots as small as 12,000 square feet as long as larger lots are included so that the overall average is at least 15,000 square feet. Steve explained that the retention of trees is not a requirement in the code. He said that the applicant could propose to retain more of the trees on the subject property, but it is not a City requirement. Steve said lighting on a private street is not a requirement. However, it can be added to the development agreement for the City Council to review. Steve clarified that the City ordinance allows for both public and private streets. Rhett Olson asked what the process is from here for the proposal. Chair Meaders said that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council to approve or deny the application. She asked Steve if the application would still go to City Council if the Commission denied the proposal. Steve said it would still go to Council with the recommendation of the Commission and will appear on their agenda in about a month. Commissioner Wood asked why a developer would prefer a private street over a public street, and Steve explained that a private road could take up less space. He stated that a public street with improvements has a width of fifty-four feet, whereas a private street would measure closer to thirty feet wide.  Commissioner Wood feels that the future residents living along a private road should know the responsibilities that go along with it. Commissioner McEwen asked Steve if it is decided to add curb, gutter, and sidewalk down the road as part of this development, who would be financially responsible. Steve said if there is a delay agreement, the future owner would be liable. He noted that the improvements would usually apply only to the properties with frontage on the street. Commissioner Woodruff asked what the City could do to ensure the developers hold up to their obligations. Steve stated that the City could enforce anything that is part of the ordinance or the development agreement. Commissioner Woodruff motioned to reopen public comment to allow the applicant to address any concerns. Chair Meaders opened public comment. Mr. Brodsky would prefer not to be judged by the performance of other developers. He said that he would try and keep as many trees as he could. After this meeting, Mr. Brodsky would like to speak to Mr. Merrell regarding the driveway and try to make the addition less of an impact to him. Mr. Brodsky is okay with adding streetlights along 5450 West as part of the development agreement. Mr. Brodsky said that part of the HOA disclosure includes the homeowner's responsibilities living on a private street. Commissioner Woodruff feels that the developer has addressed all of his concerns. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve GPZ-15-2021 subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant. In addition, staff recommends that up to 2 lots be allowed to have a reduced width of 90’. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – GPZ-15-2021 – Approved PUD-2-2021 Heather Villas PUD – Request to Reduce Landscaping Requirements 6087 West Parkway Blvd. RM Zone 84 Units 13.8 Acres 6.1 Units/Acre BACKGROUND Mr. Ken Milne is requesting a reduction in the landscaping requirements for the Heather on Parkway. This is a senior community that was rezoned in April 2021 and received preliminary approval in August 2021. As the developer was finalizing the building footprint, they decided to plat the largest unit 2000 square feet compared to what was approved in the development agreement of 1500 square feet. According to the developer, the increased square footage would allow more options for those potential buyers in this project. However, doing so would reduce the amount of overall open space for the project. The request is to reduce the landscaping percentage from 50% to 44.4%. Title 9-4-105(7) of the West Valley City Code states the following: Recreation Space and Landscaping. Each project shall meet the following standards for Recreation Space and Landscaping: a. Residential condominiums which contain multiple unit structures having three or more Dwelling Units per structure shall provide Recreation Space and Landscaping in accordance with Section 7-11-414. Residential condominiums which consist of structures containing two or less Dwelling Units shall provide not less than 50 percent Recreation Space. 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. As part of the developer’s presentation to the Planning Commission for preliminary approval, 3 amenities were proposed. They included a club house, walking path and pickle ball court. In addition to those amenities, each dwelling unit will have a private patio space with access from the kitchen and/or master bedroom. A covered patio is also considered a minor amenity. So, for this project, the developer is proposing 3 major amenities and 1 minor amenity. While discussing the potential for a reduction with the applicant, staff asked that a letter be provided further discussing the reasons for the reduction. Mr. Milne sent that letter to staff. While the letter is included in the packet, staff would like to include those items in the staff report which follows:  The clubhouse would be 4000 square feet in size and will have the following features:  o Full Gymnasium o Sauna o Theater Room o Inside Mail Room o Full Kitchen o Family Gathering Area  We are providing a pickleball court. It was determined that this activity is found more often in senior communities rather than a pool, and the maintenance cost is much less.  A full perimeter trail of approximately 3,800 linear feet will be provided. This equates to a total distance of .80 miles. We have learned that walking is an activity that is probably enjoyed most by seniors as they are able to exercise, walk with grandchildren and a pet if they have one.  We are providing an outside covered patio space of 85 square feet for each unit  We are providing large garages of 625 square feet – where the standard is 400 square feet. This option would allow someone to have space for a craft room or small wood shop. This is a concept not found in any senior projects we’ve looked at.  If we reduced the square footage of our units to 1500 square feet, we would have 59% open space.  Our project is located within a half mile of the Meadowlands Park. This is within walking distance for our residents and would offer them an opportunity for additional recreational opportunities – for themselves and/or with children and grandchildren. Based on those items noted above, the developer believes these would offset the reduction in open space and would provide for an exciting community. If the Planning Commission feels that other amenities should be added to offset the request, the Planning Commission can do so. The amenity section of the City’s ordinance states, “any other amenity that, at the discretion of the Planning Commission, meets the intent of this Section and is roughly equal in value and utility to other amenities in this Section could be added. As discussed with the developer, it is likely that not all units will be sold at 2,000 square feet. However, since we do not know what that mix will be, the developer is simply asking for the reduction as if all units were built at the higher square footage. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant approval for the reduction in open space based on the criteria outlined by the developer. B. Grant approval for the reduction in open space with added amenities as discussed and approved by the Planning Commission. C. Denial of the reduction request as the project should have 50% open space. D. Continuation, in order for the developer to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Steve explained that while preparing final drawings of the preliminary plat, Mr. Milne had a notion to plat 2,000 square foot units instead of the 1,500 square foot units that were initially proposed. He explained the larger units would require a landscape reduction from 50% to 44.4%. Steve stated that Mr. Milne submitted a letter to the Planning Commission that includes the amenities he is offering to offset the reduction in open space. Steve noted that the applicant is open to adding the enhanced landscaping as discussed during the study meeting. Commissioner Wood feels the Meadowlands Park will not be utilized by the senior residents where they would need to walk a half-mile to get there. She also does not think the residents would send their grandchildren that far away on their own to play. Therefore, she does not consider the park an additional amenity. Commissioner Wood feels strongly about the applicant meeting the landscape requirement of 50%. Commissioner Lovato asked if a mix of unit sizes is being proposed or just the 2,000 square foot units and Steve said they are only offering 2,000 square foot units. Steve did speak to the applicant about providing a mix of differently sized units, and Mr. Milne stated that he would like to offer the largest unit available with the expectation that not all units will be sold at 2,000 square feet. Ken Milne, the applicant, explained that when he presented this application to the City Council, a Council member stated that they would like to see units larger than 1,500 square feet. Mr. Milne would like to offer the largest unit he can, and if the future occupant would like a smaller unit, he can accommodate that request. He explained that it is challenging to give an exact percentage of landscaping where the unit sizes could be different. Chair Meaders asked the applicant if he was willing to add the enhanced landscaping, and Mr. Milne said he was okay with that addition. Commissioner Lovato asked if a car could park on the apron in front of the units? Mr. Milne said there is room to park there. He explained that they wanted to add two additional parking spots at the end of the driveway. However, those spaces would not be considered part of the open space percentage, so he removed those spaces from the plans. Chair Meaders asked Steve if the Commission decides to include enhanced landscaping, is there an outline of what is considered enhanced somewhere?  Steve said that the Commission could set parameters for the landscaping, or we could negotiate the landscaping with the applicant during final plat and plan review and then bring it back to the Commission during a study session. Steve addressed Commissioner Lovato’s question about the parking and stated that each driveway could accommodate two parking spots. Motion: Commissioner Lovato moved to approve PUD-2-2021 per staff alternative B. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood No Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Majority–PUD-2-2021– Approved. PUD-6-2021 4100 Commons Office Condominiums 3745 West 4100 South RB Zone 7 Acres BACKGROUND Mr. Rej Hintze, representing Back Development is requesting preliminary approval for a condominium conversion of the old Granger Medical Office Building. The subject property is located at 3745 West 4100 South and is zoned RB. It is bordered on the east by the Utah Surgical Center and residential zoning to the south. The purpose of the residential business zone (RB Zone) is to provide for various office uses, single family dwellings, and institutional uses which do not deal in merchandising, retailing, warehousing or manufacturing and should project business hours which are in harmony with contiguous zones. As a side note, the RB zone was removed from the City’s Ordinances during the last update. However, the zone still exists and will function as noted above. ISSUES: The original Granger Medical Office Building received conditional use approval in 1997. It was occupied with a variety of medical uses and remained in operation until the new Granger Medical Center was opened in Fairbourne Station. Since that time, the building has largely remained vacant, but the site has been well maintained. Back Development recently acquired the building and would like to re-purpose the site by converting the interior space for individual condominiums. In a letter to the Planning Commission, the applicant states, “Our purpose and proposed use is to create an office condo facility where businesses who prefer to own an asset in real estate as opposed to leasing/renting space that does not generate value and equity can come and own their condo unit. The entire building will be divided into smaller units which allow smaller users the affordability to own a piece of a much larger, nicer facility. It creates synergy within the building with like-minded ownership”. As noted from the photos staff presented to the Planning Commission, the site has been well maintained. The developer noted that shortly after the purchase of the building, they went through an evaluation process to determine what improvements were needed. Referencing the applicant’s letter, the following items are noted in their master plan:  Painting the exterior  Resurfacing the parking lot  A full roof resurface  Updating the software for the building management system  Upgrading the exterior parking lights to high efficiency LED lighting  Updating the interior common space (flooring, paint, LED lighting system). Staff did inquire about future potential owners of the condominium units. The applicant explained that the building was intended to be a medical/office building from its creation, and it will continue to serve that purpose, but with owner users instead of leased tenants. Provided the uses within the building comply with provisions of the RB zone, staff believes this application is a great start to re-purpose the existing building and surroundings. According to City Ordinance, the definition of a condominium is the ownership of a single unit in a multiunit project, together with an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities of the property. All exterior parking spaces, landscaping and common areas will be held in common ownership. The applicant has submitted a preliminary declaration of condominium and CCR’s which will be recorded along with the condominium plat. The applicant has also submitted a condition of property report and proposed modifications to the interior of the building. This has been sent to the Building Official. Modifications that require a building permit will be made at such time those improvements are ready. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the 4100 Condominium conversion subject to a resolution of staff comments and developer commitments. 2. Continue the application to address concerns raised during the Planning Commission  hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. He stated that the applicant proposes converting the old Granger Hunter medical building into condominiums which requires a subdivision plat. Steve presented the plat to the Commission. Steve explained that the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed enhancements, and the letter is part of the Commission's packet. Steve noted that an HOA would maintain the common areas of the subject location. Rej Hintze, the applicant, explained that Back Development had developed many condominium projects. However, this is their first project in West Valley City, and this is the largest building they have converted. Mr. Hintze said that they purchased the subject property a year ago and have invested $600,000 in improvements so far. He stated that all internal and external lighting had been replaced using a more efficient energy system. Mr. Hintze said dividing the subject property into smaller units allows businesses to own their property instead of leasing. He feels this will be an excellent opportunity for companies to operate within West Valley City. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve PUD-6-2021 subject to a resolution of staff comments and developer commitments. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously –PUD-6-2021– Approved. S-2-2021 Weston Field Subdivision – Revised Preliminary Plat 6740 West 4180 South R-1-8 Zone BACKGROUND: The Weston Fields Subdivision received preliminary approval in April 2021. The subdivision as approved consists of 20 lots on 6.4 acres. This equates to an overall density of 3.1 units per acre. Lot sizes range from 8,000 square feet to 11,118 square feet. The average lot size has been calculated at 8,775 square feet. During the review and approval of this subdivision, a proposed amendment of lots 309-312 of the Brookfield Phase 3 Subdivision and lot 1107 of the Brookfield Phase 11 Subdivision was also approved. The subdivision amended those lots to resolve existing fence locations that had been in existence for over 30 years. Rather than remove fences that have been in place for many years, the developer was willing to give up a few feet of property so the fences could stay. Incorporating these lots into the subdivision would be easier than individual boundary agreements with each of those property owners. These owners have been contacted and agree to them being incorporated into the subdivision plat. Now that the subdivision is going through final plat and plan review, the surveyor of record noticed that 3 additional lots in the Brookfield subdivision are also in the same predicament. The developer has reached an agreement with the adjacent owners of lots 1103, 1104 and 1105 of the Brookfield Phase 11 Subdivision to the north. In addition, the revised preliminary plat will adjust the north property lines of lots 110-112 of the Weston Fields Subdivision Phase 1. Staff believes the resolution to this fencing matter is a good faith effort on behalf of the developer to allow existing fences to remain in place, thus reducing the impact to residents who have landscaped and used their yards for many years. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Grant revised preliminary plat approval to lots 110-112 in the Weston Fields Phase 1 Subdivision and grant approval for the amendment of lots 1103-1105 of the Brookfield Phase 11 Subdivision. B. Continue the application to address issues raised by the Planning Commission. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Benjamin Nielson, representing the applicant, said that Steve did a great job with his presentation, and he is available to answer any questions. Motion: Commissioner Fuller motioned to approve S-2-2021. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously –S-2-2021– Approved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant