Planning Commission Public Hearing

MINUTES OF THE WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 26, 2025 THE WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2025 AT 4:00 PM IN WEST VALLEY CITY HALL, 3600 CONSTITUTION BLVD, WEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AND CONDUCTED BY CHAIR MATHEW LOVATO. THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: Mathew Lovato, Chair Martell Winters, Vice Chair Nancy Drozdek, Commissioner Harold Woodruff, Commissioner Darrick Porter, Commissioner (online) Rob Durfee, Commissioner Pauline Matagi, Commissioner PLANNING DIVISION STAFF PRESENT: Steve Pastorik, CD Director Brock Anderson, P&Z Senior Planner Jody Knapp, P&Z Zoning Administrator Steve Lehman, P&Z Planning Manager Max Gula, P&Z Planner I Julie Davis, P&Z Administrative Assistant LEGAL DEPARTMENT: Eric Bunderson, City Attorney PRESENTATIONS: GPZ-3-2025 Clark Construction & Services, LLC 5990 West 3500 South, 3.4 acres General Plan change from Large Lot Residential and General Commercial to Low Density Residential, and a zone change from A to R-1-8. Background: Clark Construction & Services LLC is requesting a General Plan change from Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre) and General Commercial to Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre) and a zone change from A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The property with the existing dwelling will continue to be zoned A and will be approximately 27,750 square feet in size. The property is located at 5990 West 3500 South on 1.99 acres for the zone change and 3.4 acres for the General Plan change. Properties to the west and north are zoned residential including R-1-8 (single family with a requirement for 8,000 square foot lots and R-1-10 (single family with a requirement for 10,000 Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 1 of 15 square foot lots. Properties to the east are zoned A. The Meadowlands Subdivision to the north is zoned R-1-10 but approved as a PUD, so many lot sizes in that subdivision are quite a bit smaller than 10,000 square feet. The narrow parcel in the middle of the subject property is owned by the City. The parcel serves to handle storm water from 3500 South. It extends due north terminating in 3360 South. If this application is approved, the City would need to surplus this property and sell it to the developer for the project to move forward. The City Engineering Division is recommending that as a condition of the City’s willingness to sell the 16-foot-wide parcel, the applicant will be required to work with the two landowners on 3500 South at the intersection of 6000 West to consolidate two existing driveways into one. One of the driveways would need to have a cross-access easement to serve the other. This recommendation is being made to help improve the possibility that UDOT would consent to installing a streetlight at the intersection of 6000 West and 3500 South. Development Proposal As shown in the concept plan, the applicant is proposing to develop a subdivision with 11 new single-family lots with a minimum size of 8,000 square feet. As noted earlier, the existing dwelling on 3500 South will remain and will be platted as a 12th lot in the subdivision. The property to be developed is 3.4 acres in size. The proposed density is 3.2 units per acre with an average lot size of 9,950 square feet – excluding lot 12. The concept plan shows that all lots with the exception of lots 5 and 6 will meet the 80-foot frontage requirement of the R-1-8 zone. Lots 5 and 6 are approximately 75 feet in width and will need an exception regarding the frontage requirement. Since those lots are less than 80 feet in width, the applicant is asking for an exception that a 2-car garage be allowed with a pad built on the side to comply with the city’s parking requirements. All streets are public as required by City ordinance. The developer has prepared a concept plan showing a 54-foot right-of-way with the required improvements including a cul-de-sac to accommodate emergency and other services. The cul-de-sac will extend to the east property line providing a point of access for future development when that occurs. The developer is also providing a corner radius at the southeast corner of lot 506 Meadowlands Subdivision. It is not anticipated that the developer will need to acquire any land from that owner to make the right-of- way work. There are a couple of options to manage the sliver along the north side of the new street. 1. Plat that area as part of lot 11 and require improvements of that area with trees and cobble or other landscaping. 2. Deed that portion over to lot 506 if that property owner is willing to accept it. Since lot 506 in the Meadowlands Subdivision is now going to be a corner lot, staff is recommending that a 6-foot vinyl fence be installed on the property line. Whether the sliver of property mentioned above is part of lot 11, or deeded to lot 506, a fence will provide a buffer from the new right-of-way. The fence will need to extend from the southeast corner of lot 11 up to the front setback of the existing dwelling on lot 506. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 2 of 15 Proposed homes will be a combination of rambler and two-story dwellings. Square footage is planned at 1,800 square feet for a ramble and 2,000 square feet for a two story. All homes would include unfinished basement subject to soil conditions. In previous rezone applications, the development agreement has been written to exclude basement entrances to help reduce single- family homes from turning into rentals. Since this area is west of 4000 West and since the City allows for accessory dwelling units for properties west of 4000 West, the applicant is proposing to leave that type of condition out of the agreement. Development Agreement Section 7-11-213 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 submitted a development agreement proposal which includes the following: • The maximum number of lots shall be 12. • The developer will need to purchase the City property used for storm drain purposes and incorporate that into the engineering drawings. • The developer will need to consolidate two driveways on 6000 West and 3500 South with one having a cross-access easement for the other. • The minimum square footage for ramblers will be 1800 square feet and 2000 square feet for two story homes. • All homes shall include an unfinished basement subject to soil conditions. • 3-car garages will be built on all homes except lots 5 and 6 where a two-car garage will be permitted but will provide a 10’ by 18’ concrete pad alongside the garage. • A mix of single story and two-story homes with farmhouse, craftsman or modern exterior elevations. • New homes will comply with design standards outlined in Section 7-11-211 of the City Code. • Fiber Cement Siding will be installed on all sides of the home with brick or stone being used on 25% of the front elevation except for the farmhouse elevation where no stone or brick will be required. All materials will have a maintenance free guarantee of 10 years. • The frontage of lots 5 and 6 is reduced to 74 feet. • Lots 1 and 3 will be permitted to have a 15-foot rear yard setback. • Front Yard landscaping meeting City standards will be installed by the builder. • A vinyl fence will be installed on the south side of lot 506 Meadowland Subdivision. • A vinyl or chain link fence will be required along the east boundary of the property adjacent to land zoned A. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant along with the other items noted in the staff report. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 3 of 15  2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Given the Large Lot Residential designation in the General Plan, the RE zone is more appropriate for the property at this location. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented. Vice Chair Winters asked if there were any concerns from neighbors. Steve replied that he has received two concerns. One concern is that if a traffic light is installed at 3500 South and 6000 West residents will have trouble turning east off Meadow Breeze Way. The other concern is increased traffic in the area. Steve feels that 11 homes isn’t going to noticeably increase traffic. The fire code allows for up to 30 lots on a single point of access, and there are multiple points of access for fire. The applicant, Chelsea Clark with Clark Construction, was available to the Commission and added that Clark Homes uses Hardie Board on all four sides and is not a proponent of stucco. Emily, a resident of the neighborhood, was concerned about traffic due to there being one entrance off Meadow Breeze Way. She asked if there could be a traffic study done or if an additional entrance could be added. Steve replied that a subdivision of this size does not require a traffic study. He pointed out other streets that can be used. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve GPZ-3-2025. Commissioner Woodruff seconded. A voice vote was taken and all members voted in favor of the motion. UNANOMOUS—GPZ-3-2025--APPROVED GPZ-2-2025 Valley Fair Holdings, LLC 3601 S Constitution Blvd., 50.1 acres General plans change from General Commercial to Mixed Use and zone change from C-2 to MXD Wasatch Guaranty Development LLC has submitted a General Plan/zone change application on 10 parcels totaling 50.1 acres of property located at 3601 S Constitution Blvd. The property is currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. The proposed zone is MXD (Mixed Use) and the proposed General Plan designation is Mixed Use. The original application involved 12 parcels; however, the applicant chose to remove the parcels that include Wells Fargo Bank and Petco because the MXD zone does not allow financial institutions on individual pad sites (Section 7-6-309) and it is more restrictive on commercial uses than the C-2 zone (Section 7-6-301). Surrounding zones include C-2 and RM (Multiple Unit Dwelling Residential) to the north, CC (City Center) and R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.) to the Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 4 of 15 west, and C-2 to the south. Surrounding land uses include the commercial and rental townhomes to the north across 3500 South; Costco, the new Opal Apartments with 263 units, and additional commercial to the south; retail, office, City Hall and single-family homes to the west, and I-215 to the east. The subject property is developed as the Valley Fair Mall and associated commercial development. The applicant is proposing the following changes to occur over 4 phases: • demolish 183,000 square feet of vacant or underperforming retail space, • build 620 apartment units housed in three 6-story buildings with structured parking, and • build 80,576 square feet of new retail space. The attached concept plan and application materials from the applicant provide details on and support for the proposed project. In reviewing this application, staff suggests that there are two primary questions to answer: 1. Should the City allow apartments on the mall site? 2. Assuming the location is appropriate, does the quality of the project achieve City goals? Each of these questions is explored below. Should the City allow apartments on the mall site? General Plan Considerations The quotes below from the City’s General Plan can help answer this question (italics added for emphasis): “When considering rezone requests for high density residential development, the proximity to transit, the size of the project and the proposed level of quality (i.e. exterior finishes and amenities) should be primary factors for evaluation along with other site- specific considerations.” “In areas where retail development is aging (at least 30 years old) and underperforming and where transit is readily accessible, consider the addition of some multi-family residential as part of a redevelopment strategy to add more retail demand.” When it comes to proximity to transit, no other location in the City has access to more public transit options than this location. In addition to light rail service, the bus hub at the West Valley Central Station by City Hall is serviced by 9 local bus routes. One of those routes stops on the south side of the mall along 3800 South. Another route stops on the west side of the mall along 2700 West. In addition, UTA is currently constructing a new bus rapid transit (BRT) line called the Midvalley Connector that will connect the West Valley Central Station to Salt Lake Community College and the Murray Central Station that is serviced by Frontrunner and the TRAX Red and Blue lines. The General Plan comment about the size of the project was made because larger apartment Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 5 of 15 developments (those with 200 units or more) tend to have more amenities, on-site management, better security, and owners that reinvest in and update the units. If approved, the three proposed apartment buildings would represent the largest apartment development in the City under one owner. The proposed level of quality is addressed later in this report. All of the retail space proposed for demolition was constructed in 1970 as part of the original mall building and is either vacant or underperforming. As an example of the vacant or underperforming space, when Hobby Lobby moved into the space vacated by Macy’s, they left the eastern 40% of the building vacant. This is one of the areas proposed for demolition. While certain tenants within the mall are doing well, the mall overall is underperforming relative to the City as a whole. From 2019 to 2024, sales tax collected at the mall (excluding Costco) increased by about 20%. However, inflation during this same period increased by 23%. By comparison, sales tax collected within the City as a whole from 2019 to 2024 was up by about 40%. Adding residential to mall sites is a national trend to replace vacant retail space like empty department stores, chip away at the housing shortage, and bring people closer to the remaining retail space. A CNBC article on this topic is accessible here. Parking (Sections 7-9-104 and 7-9-105) The applicant’s proposal includes a request to reduce the amount of required parking. This request is supported by a parking study conducted by Hales Engineering. In summary, the applicant is proposing to reduce the existing amount of parking from 3,000 stalls to 2,800 stalls though the City ordinance would require 3,656 stalls with the proposed changes. The parking study justifies the 2,800 stalls through three steps. First, by counting actual parking demand over Black Friday weekend, they determined that the parking demand rate for the overall shopping center was 3.08 stalls per 1,000 square feet of occupied space, yielding 3,020 stalls. Second, they applied time-of-day adjustments from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the various land uses within the project. Third, they added a buffer of 10% to account for occasional demand surges, yielding 2,784 stalls. Staff is supportive of the parking reduction request for the reasons described in the parking study and the following two additional reasons: • Over the many years the mall has operated, staff does not recall a time when there has not been a significant oversupply of parking at the mall. • The City’s minimum parking requirements for commercial use were largely established using the latest edition of ITE’s Parking Generation Manual. For example, ITE data shows that the average parking demand during the busiest time of the week for a shopping plaza of 40,000 to 150,000 square feet is 3.11 stalls/1,000 square feet of building and the City’s parking requirement for general retail is 3 stalls/1,000 square feet. However, for shopping centers over 150,000 square feet, ITE’s average parking demand Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 6 of 15  during the busiest time of the week is 2.43 stalls/1,000 square feet. Traffic The applicant’s proposal includes a traffic impact study performed by Hales Engineering. In summary, the traffic impact study evaluated the level of service of 17 intersections with and without the proposed project using traffic modeling data for 2024, 2029, and 2050 and made recommendations to improve the level of service where needed. Pages 2 through 4 of the traffic impact study summarize the findings and recommendations from Hales Engineering. In addition to the issues identified in the traffic impact study, staff discussed two other traffic issues with the applicant and Hales Engineering. First, southbound traffic on 2700 West turning left into the mall at the Lehman Avenue access regularly backs out onto 2700 West because vehicles entering the mall site stop at the first intersection. The applicant has asked Hales Engineering to evaluate solutions to this problem. Second, the drive aisle just east of Wells Fargo does not align with the drive aisle between In-N-Out Burger and Panda Express. The applicant has indicated that they will realign the drive aisle east of Wells Fargo to align with the drive aisle between In-N-Out Burger and Panda Express. The applicant is proposing to implement the on-site mitigations recommended by traffic impact study. The applicant is also proposing to install the recommended traffic signal on 2700 West just south of Wells Fargo with a request that the City pay half of the cost. The recommended traffic signal at 2400 West and 3800 South is not addressed by the applicant because, in the applicant’s words, “This recommendation impacts the entire block, not just our property. Given that, we see this as a broader planning matter rather than a site-specific obligation.” Since the traffic study identifies this traffic signal being needed because of the proposed project, staff is not recommending that the City pay half of the cost. While not addressed by the applicant, the traffic study also recommends a new traffic signal at 2400 West and 3800 South by 2029 as a result of background traffic. Public Works is recommending that this traffic signal be installed by the developer. Since the traffic study recommends this improvement in 2029 due to background traffic that is not a result of this project, staff is reluctant to make this a requirement in the development agreement. Neighboring Land Uses In some instances, apartments in the City are built next to existing single family residential neighborhoods. In this case, the proposed apartments are located between 3500 South on the north, I-215 on the east, the main mall building on the west, and Costco to the south. Apartment residents would be next to shopping and services including Costco, banks, restaurants, shops at the mall, Planet Fitness, Megaplex, All-Star Bowling, and Springhill Suites. Including a mix of uses in close proximity to each other can reduce automobile trips that would otherwise occur when uses are segregated. In fact, the traffic study referenced above estimated a 20% reduction in trips due to trips that stay within the development given the mix of land uses. An additional trip reduction of 5% was applied due to the proximity of the transit at West Valley Central Station. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 7 of 15 Does the quality of the project achieve City goals? The City’s General Plan includes the goal to “promote higher quality multi-family residential in appropriate locations.” To that end, the City amended its multi-unit residential design standards in 2020. Projects that meet or exceed these latest standards and include management standards similar to other recently approved apartment developments help the City accomplish the General Plan goal to promote higher quality multi-family residential. The sections that follow address each component of the City’s multi-unit residential design standards. Pedestrian Access and Circulation (Section 7-11-403) The ordinance requires one bicycle parking space for every 20 dwelling units, which would yield 31 bicycle parking spaces for the proposed project. The applicant’s development agreement proposal mentions 10 spaces; however, after discussing this issue with the applicant, he has agreed to meet the ordinance requirement. General Requirements (Section 7-11-404) Garage Parking: The City’s ordinance requires at least one parking space in a garage for each stacked apartment unit. There are a total of 620 apartment units and 541 garage parking stalls proposed (0.87 stalls/unit). The applicant provided the following explanation specific to Phase 1 for requesting an exception to this standard: “Structured parking is a significant cost factor in mixed-use developments. When constructing five stories of residential units, the most efficient parking solution is typically achieved with two levels of structured parking, allowing for a 1:1 stall-to-unit ratio while keeping the development footprint compact. However, structured parking adds significant costs for the additional level due to high material and construction expenses. To balance parking efficiency, cost management, and site utilization, our proposed approach consists of: 1. A one-level podium parking structure beneath the residential building. 2. A dedicated two-acre surface parking field adjacent to the building. Parking Breakdown for 234 Residential Units: • 1 level of podium parking (under the building): 169 stalls (0.72 stalls per unit) • Dedicated surface parking field (2 acres): 182 stalls (0.78 stalls per unit) • Total dedicated residential parking: 351 stalls (1.5 stalls per unit) This strategy exceeds urban mixed-use transit-oriented parking demands while Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 8 of 15  optimizing land use. Alternative Scenario – Additional Structured Parking If we were to construct a second level of structured parking, we would achieve 338 total stalls (1.44 stalls per unit). However, this would introduce an additional $9 million cost, making the project financially unfeasible while also resulting in fewer total stalls than our proposed solution. The inefficiencies introduced by additional ramps further reduce the effectiveness of structured parking beyond the first level.” Dwelling Unit Sizes: The proposed project includes a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. As described below, the proposed unit sizes exceed those listed in the City’s ordinance. Unit Type # of Units Minimum Size Proposed Size from Ordinance (Sq. Ft.) (Sq. Ft.) Studio 130 400 498 One-bedroom 358 600 782 – 935 Two-bedroom 112 850 1,162 Three-bedroom 20 1,100 1,271 While the applicant’s proposed plans show larger unit sizes, the proposed development agreement simply refers to the ordinance minimums. Patio/Balcony: The ordinance requires each unit to have its own patio or balcony of at least 60 square feet. Of the 620 units, 490 have a balcony and 130 (the studio units) do not. Building Materials (Section 7-11-405) For materials, the City’s multi-unit residential design standards state: “All multi-unit residential Building exteriors shall be brick, stucco, EIFS, stone, ceramic tile, faux wood composites, architectural metal panels/siding that is used only as a veneer and not as structural sheeting or sheathing, 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, EIFS, ceramic tile, faux wood composites, architectural metal panels/siding or fiber cement siding are used, at least 20 percent of the Building’s exterior shall be brick or stone. Corrugated metal and metal panels/siding with exposed fasteners are prohibited on Building exteriors. Wood and vinyl may be used as trim, soffits and/or accent materials only.” The proposed residential buildings are a mix of stucco, EIFS, stone, fiber cement siding, architectural concrete, brick, and textured/colored concrete block. The architectural concrete and textured/colored concrete block would require an exception in the development agreement. The applicant is also proposing 20% masonry; however, it isn’t clear if this means brick or stone. Building Relief (Section 7-11-407) Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 9 of 15 The ordinance requires two different relief treatments to be utilized at least once per dwelling unit. The studio units utilize only one treatment. All other units utilized include two treatments - building offsets/projections and balconies. Window Treatments (Section 7-11-408) The ordinance requires the use of at least three window treatments on the primary façade (south façade). Staff identified the use of two window treatments: varying the size and/or style of windows and window grids. This section also requires at least 25% of the primary façade to be fenestration (windows/openings on the building). Based on a rough calculation from staff, it appears that the building meets this requirement. Building Design Treatments (Section 7-11-409) and Garage Treatments (Section 7-11-410) The proposed building meets or exceeds these standards. Roof Treatments (Section 7-11-411) Where pitched roofs are not used, the ordinance requires at least one variation in the height of the parapet wall for every two dwelling units. All sides of the building meet or exceed this standard except the south side, which is short two variations in the height of the parapet wall. Amenities (Section 7-11-412) The ordinance requires at least five amenities for developments with 100 units or more with at least three of the five being major amenities. The table below outlines how the proposed project exceeds ordinance standards for amenities. Phases 3 and 4 are evaluated together as these buildings are adjacent to each other. Major Amenities Phase 1 Phases 3 and 4 Outdoor swimming pool X X Courtyard X X Clubhouse X X Fitness room X X Minor Amenities Phase 1 Phases 3 and 4 Tot lot/playground X Outdoor sport court X Hot tub X X Walking/exercise trail X X Building lobby X X Indoor bicycle storage X X Electric vehicle charging stations X X The applicant is also proposing the following finishes/features that are not addressed in the ordinance: • Enhanced sound proofing o Floors/ceilings and unit separation walls shall have a minimum Sound Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 10 of 15  Transmission Class (STC) rating of 58 (higher than the IBC-required STC 50). o Windows shall have an STC rating of 32 (higher than the industry minimum STC 28). • Interior features o Minimum of 9-foot ceilings. o Walk-in closets in all master bedrooms. o Two-tone paint throughout all unit interiors. o Washers & dryers in all units. o Garbage disposals in all units. o Solid surface countertops (e.g., Corian, Swanstone) in kitchens and baths. o High-speed internet capacity in all units. • Solar panels shall be installed on apartment roofs as part of a broader sustainability project on the entire mall site. This shall be subject to the mall’s capital requirements, permits, etc. • The applicant has included management standards outlined in Figure F of the proposed development agreement. Landscaping and Recreation Space (Sections 7-6-302 and 7-11-414) There are two standards for landscaping and recreation space that would apply in this situation. First, the MXD zone has a minimum landscaping percentage of 20% that would apply to the entire area being rezoned to MXD. By comparison, the minimum landscaping percentage under the current C-2 zone is 15%. When the mall site was originally constructed in 1970, there was very little landscaping installed. It appears that when the mall was built, the County only required 5% of the parking area to be landscaping. When the mall site was renovated in the late 2000s, significant landscaping was added to strategic locations like along 2700 West and in the mall plaza. However, the entire mall site was not required to come into compliance with the C-2 zone requirement of 15% landscaping. Staff recommends a similar approach with this project. Instead of applying the 20% requirement to the entire mall site, this standard would be applied to the areas that are being modified. The second standard is found in the multi-unit residential design standards that have a minimum recreation space percentage of 40% for developments with a density over 30 dwelling units/acre that apply to just the residential portion of the mall site. For reference, recreation space is defined as: “a. Outdoor space shared by residents of a residential Development for passive and active recreation. Examples include terraces, Courtyards, plazas, shared roof decks, sports courts, sports fields, open lawn areas, private parks, swimming pools, hot tubs, tot lots, picnic areas, fire pits and trails. b. Indoor space shared by residents of a residential Development for passive and active recreation. Examples include fitness rooms, libraries, computer labs, swimming pools, hot tubs, sports courts, lobbies, clubhouses, social rooms, classroom space, community Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 11 of 15  centers, recreation centers, community game rooms and theater rooms. c. Private outdoor space provided only for the use of the residents of the Dwelling Unit to which it is attached. Examples include private Yards, front porches, patios, balconies, decks and roof decks.” Based on calculations from staff, it appears that 40% of the area devoted to Phase 1 would exceed the 40% minimum landscaping and recreation space requirement. Phases 3 and 4 combined would also exceed this standard. Questions raised by the Planning Commission During the study session the Planning Commission asked several questions that are addressed below. • Question 1: Does Granger Hunter Improvement District have sufficient capacity to serve this project? • Response 1: Staff contacted Granger Hunter, and they indicated that there is sufficient water capacity for all phases. For sewer, sufficient capacity exists for Phase 1 and may exist for other phases pending modeling currently underway. The model results may reveal needed sewer improvements. • Question 2: What improvements were recommended in the traffic impact study? • Response 2: As mentioned earlier, pages 2 through 4 of the attached traffic impact study summarize the recommended improvements. These improvements will be addressed in the staff presentation during the public hearing. • Question 3: What other apartment developments are in the surrounding area. • Response 3: Staff has included with this report a map entitled “Multi-Family Residential Map 2025” that displays the name, name of units, and density of existing and approved multi-family developments within the City. • Question 4: How have other recently approved apartment developments performed and how do they compare with the features proposed for this project? • Response 4: The applicant is compiling market data on the vacancy rates and rents of recently approved projects. Staff will compile a comparison of features of other recently approved apartments developments to this proposal. • Question 5: Is this area oversaturated with apartments? • Response 5: As mentioned above, staff has included the attached map shows surrounding apartment developments. The applicant is also compiling market data to share with the Commission. Staff Alternatives: 4. Approval, subject to a development agreement that includes the standards proposed by the applicant as well as the following additions/revisions recommended by staff: a. All new commercial space shall be subject to the Commercial Design Standards found in Part 3 of Chapter 7-11 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. b. As part of Phase 1, the developer shall incorporate mitigation measures Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 12 of 15  recommended by their traffic engineer to address the stacking issue occurring on 2700 West at the Lehman Avenue access. c. As part of Phase 1, the developer shall realign the drive aisle east of Wells Fargo to align with the drive aisle between In-N-Out Burger and Panda Express. d. As part of Phase 1, the developer shall install a traffic signal on 2700 West at Access Road 1 (identified in the traffic study) just south of Wells Fargo Bank. e. The required 40% landscaping and recreation space shall apply to all areas associated with Phase 1 including the building, parking, landscaping, walkways, amenities, etc.). In like manner, the required 40% landscaping and recreation space shall apply to all areas associated with both Phases 3 and 4 combined. f. The pole signs in the existing development shall be maintained as originally approved. (The MXD zone prohibits pole signs.) g. The project shall include at least 31 bicycle parking spaces. h. To grant some design flexibility while still reflecting the developer’s intent to build larger units, all unit types shall exceed the City’s minimum unit sizes by at least 15%. i. At least 20% of the building exterior shall be brick or stone. j. All buildings shall meet the minimum required amount of roof treatments. k. Except where otherwise stated in the agreement, the City’s Multi-Unit Residential Design Standards found in Part 4 of Chapter 7-11 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance shall apply. 5. Continuance, for reasons determined during the public hearing. 6. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented. Commissioner Woodruff asked if West Valley City Ordinances address how parking structures facades look. Steve replied that the window-like openings will be covered with black wire mesh and agrees that more attention to detail should be addressed. Commissioner Durfee asked what color the parking garage walls would be. Steve replied that as of now, the color would be concrete grey. Vice Chair Winters asked about the walkway between JCPenney and if there would be doors on the east side. Steve referred the question to the applicant. Commissioner Drozdek asked if there would be trees along the walkways and courtyard areas. Steve replied that landscaping will be added to the walkways, along with a park east of JCPenney. Commissioner Durfee is concerned about losing parking to residents around the movie theater and Springhill Suites. Steve clarified that there would be additional parking available for the residential units. Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 13 of 15 The applicant, Blake Hansen, was present. He addressed concerns about parking, stating that the site is underutilized, and the proposed development would provide better use of the land. Blake also discussed the traffic study, acknowledging that the project would have a small impact on traffic. The Planning Commission raised questions about the on-site flow of vehicles and the potential impact on nearby streets, to which the applicant responded, stating that the project would help reroute traffic internally and reduce the impact on nearby streets. Commissioner Drozdek asked Blake if the aesthetic of the buildings could be improved. Blake responded that they do have plans to continue designs of the exterior features of their buildings, especially when they submit for building permits. Blake assured the Commission that the designs will meet Code, and they are committed to the open spaces, as an urban environment it creates offers a better feeling for the community. Vice Chair Winters asked Blake about separating JCPenney from the mall. Blake responded that the idea would be to open it up and have connectivity in the mall, so shoppers can walk through the mall to the other side, inside and out. He doesn’t know the exact location of the JCPenney doors. Vice Chair Winters then asked if all the traffic lights could be timed better if they weren’t already. Eric Brondum, Traffic Engineer for West Valley City Public Works Department, stated all the signals in Utah are on the same central system. There is an effort to time them all together. The complicating factor is the Trax line. Whenever a train comes, it changes the signal automatically and that can throw timing plans off, depending on their headways. Michele Porter, a property manager in California, encouraged the increase of parking for the apartment buildings. Blake explained that providing more structured parking would significantly increase costs and rents. Commissioner Matagi added that she’s not concerned about the parking because a lot of the current generation of young adults don’t have driver’s licenses, they use Uber and take public transportation. Blake added that rents in the State of Utah and West Valley don't justify costs for structured parking without significant public assistance. The amount of structural support to provide those additional parking structures is roughly $50,000 to $60,000 a stall. To add just another level underneath a building is roughly 10 million dollars, which ultimately is passed on to the renters. Casey Bulkley, the mall's general manager, expressed support for the project, highlighting the need to revitalize the underutilized east side of the property and improve traffic flow. Motion: Commissioner Durfee motioned to approve GPZ-2-2025 subject to conditions (a) through (k), plus two additional conditions being: 1) provide one stall per unit in the parking structures; 2) landscape around the ground level parking structures. Commissioner Woodruff seconded. A roll call vote was taken and all members voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Layton AB Commissioner Durfee Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Vice Chair Winters Yes Commissioner Drozdek Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 14 of 15  Commissioner Matagi Yes Chair Lovato Yes UNANOMOUS—GPZ-2-2025--APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: The Commission considered the Minutes of the Study Meeting held March 5, 2025, and the Public Hearing held March 12, 2025. There were no changes. Commissioner Durfee motioned to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Drozdek seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and all members voted in favor of the motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN: There being no further business, Commissioner Winters moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:15 pm. I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true, accurate and complete record of the proceedings of the Public Hearing of the West Valley City Planning Commission held, March 26, 2025. Respectfully submitted, Julie Davis Julie Davis, Admin Assistant Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearing March 26, 2025 Page 15 of 15