Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 11, 2022 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://us06web.zoom.us/j/88955119737. 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 10 people in the audience ZT-3-2022 West Valley City An ordinance change to prohibit private streets, allow parking spaces for townhomes and condominiums attached to the side of each other to back onto a street, and create two new street classifications for use in planned unit developments. At the request of the City Council, City staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to: 1. prohibit private streets,  2. allow parking spaces for townhomes and condominiums attached to the side of each other to back onto a street, and 3. create two new street classifications for use in planned unit developments. For the first change, the City Council has expressed concerns about the financial burden private streets place on the residents of planned unit developments (PUDs) with private streets. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the creation of new private streets. Streets internal to a development under one ownership, such as an apartment development where no subdivision is needed, would still be allowed. For the second change, the current ordinance includes requirements that prohibit the driveways for attached housing like townhomes to access public streets. Section 7-9-106 prohibits vehicles in parking spaces for all development except single and two unit dwellings from backing onto streets. Section 7-9-107 establishes minimum spacing between driveways for all development except single and two unit dwellings. The proposed ordinance adds townhomes and condos that are attached to the side of each other to the list of uses that are excluded from these two provisions. For the third change, two new street classifications are proposed for use in planned unit developments with attached housing. The current standard for residential streets is a 54’ wide right-of-way composed of 29’ of pavement, 2.5’ of curb and gutter on both sides, 5’ parkstrip on both sides, and 5’ sidewalk on both sides. The proposed new street classifications are:  a PUD Primary Street that is a 44’ wide right-of-way composed of 29’ of pavement, 2.5’ of curb and gutter on both sides, 5’ parkstrip on one side, and 5’ sidewalk on one side and  a PUD Secondary Street that is a 34’ wide right-of-way composed of 29’ of pavement and 2.5’ of curb and gutter on both sides. There are several reasons for creating two new street classifications for use in PUDs with attached housing. These reasons are outlined below:  By ordinance definition, PUDs are intended to allow flexibility and initiative in site and building design and location. Having only one residential street classification limits flexibility and initiative in design.  Many PUDs have sidewalks that are internal to the development. For example, the fronts of rear-loaded townhomes often face each other with the front door in the front of the unit. Requiring sidewalks on all streets would result in sidewalks on the sides of buildings with no doors.  With roughly 92% of the City developed, new development often occurs on small, infill parcels or developed parcels that are redeveloped. Such parcels are often narrow, have an awkward shape, require connecting to adjoining streets, or exhibit other characteristics that make development more challenging. Having only one residential street classification would make development on such parcels difficult if not impossible in some cases. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff.  2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. As discussed during the study meeting last week, he showed examples of existing alley-loaded townhomes and how the new proposed cross-sections would work within those developments. Norm Dahle explained that he has a client, Godfrey Trucking, looking to subdivide some of their industrial property into two lots for future development. He asked if there would be a way to develop the property without putting in a public road servicing the larger parcel. Steve said that the proposed ordinance would no longer allow private streets. He stated that an apartment complex with its own internal driveways or circulation under one owner would not be considered a private street. If there are two or more owners with properties accessing the same road, it would need to be a public street. Steve said he would talk to Mr. Dahle offline regarding his specific situation. Mr. Dahle asked what the reasoning was behind eliminating private streets. Steve said that the Council had received comments regarding residents paying both property tax and an association fee, and the City is not responsible for the private road. They have also been informed of underfunded associations that cannot provide proper maintenance or repairs of private streets and those associations are coming to the City for help. Mr. Dahle said that it sounds like this is a housecleaning issue for residential properties. Steve stated that the Council did not limit it to residential properties; it encompasses all properties. Mr. Dahle asked if it would be possible to make an exception for industrial properties. Chair Meaders asked Mr. Dahle what he believes is the benefit of a private road for industrial uses. He stated that the property owner would be able to control who has access to the property. Steve said if the Commission feels it would be beneficial, they could make a recommendation to the City Council to allow private streets for industrial development. Chris Clifford stated that the City Council recently denied his application for a PUD due to the ambivalence of private streets being allowed. He presented the site plan that he submitted and his application showing detached units located on several stub streets that connect to one main road. Mr. Clifford asked the Commission to consider this plan, expanding the street widths, as an option for single-family homes within a PUD. Steve explained that the code already has provisions for single-family detached driveways. He noted that the new curb cuts would only apply to attached housing projects. Steve pointed out several dead- end streets depicted in the site plan presented by Mr. Clifford and explained that they are only permitted when stubbing into an adjoining property. Steve said that  staff discussed a possible hybrid option of public and private streets with the City Council, and they were not in favor of that option; they wanted only public streets. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve ZT-3-2022. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Commissioner Woodruff isn’t sure how he feels about not allowing dead end streets, where it would impact a number of projects in the City. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to continue ZT-3-2022. Commissioner Fuller Seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimously – ZT-3-2022 – Continued Z-6-2022 Wadsworth Lake Park, LLC 4625 West Lake Park Blvd. Zone change from M to B/RP 5.78 acres Wadsworth Lake Park, LLC has requested a zone change on a 5.78 parcel at 4625 West Lake Park Blvd. from M (Manufacturing) to B/RP (Business/Research Park). About 30% of the parcel is already zoned B/RP with the balance being M. Surrounding zones include M to the north, east, and west and B/RP to the south. Neighboring uses include office buildings to the north, west, and south and the Stonebridge Golf Course to the east. The subject property is designated as business park in the West Valley City General Plan and is developed as an office building that, according to the Salt Lake County Assessor, is 81,170 square feet in area. The current M zoning on the property does not allow medical office; however, the B/RP zone does allow medical office. The applicant is requesting this zone change to expand the leasing options on this property to include medical office. For reference, staff has included the commercial and manufacturing zone use table to compare the allowed uses in the M and B/RP zones. Staff is supportive of this request because:  a portion of the property is already zone B/RP,  part of the Lake Park Corporate Center is already zoned B/RP,  the B/RP zone is more closely aligned with the General Plan designation of business park than is the M zone, and  the M zone includes uses that would, in staff’s opinion, not be appropriate in Lake Park. Staff Alternatives:  Approval. The zone change should be approved as it complies with the General Plan.  Continuance.  Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve Z-6-2022. The zone change should be approved as it complies with the General Plan. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimously – Z-6-2022 – Approved SMI-2-2022 Sunny Subdivision 2508 South Redwood Road C-2 Zone 2 Lots 1.2 Acres BACKGROUND: Mike Nadeau, representing the property owner is requesting minor subdivision approval for the Sunny Subdivision. The subdivision is located on the southwest corner of Redwood Road and Parkway Boulevard. The subdivision is bordered on the north by manufacturing zoning, the east by Redwood Road, the south by a senior living center zoned C-2 and the west by RM zoning. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: As this application will be followed up by a permitted or conditional use application, staff and agency comments will be better addressed at that time. The purpose for the commercial subdivision application is to simply divide the property into 2 lots for future development. ISSUES: The subdivision will create two lots. Lot 1, or the corner lot, is occupied with a gas station and C store. Lot 2, or the vacant portion of the property, will be used for a future commercial use. Lot 1 is 31,430 square feet and lot 2 is 20,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the C-2 zone is 20,000 square feet. As part of this application, the developer will be installing public improvements along Parkway Boulevard. At the present time, public improvements exist to the east and west of the vacant portion of this property. These improvements will need to be coordinated with the City Engineering Division. The subdivision plat will contain easements and other information applicable to the division of property. An additional application will need to be submitted for permitted and/or conditional uses on the vacant property at such time as it develops. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Sunny Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency concerns. 2. Continue the application for reasons determined in the Planning Commission meeting. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Mike Nadeau, the applicant, said that he did not have anything to add to Steve’s report. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve SMI-2-2022 subject to a resolution of staff and agency concerns. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes  Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimously – SMI-2-2022 – Approved C-11-2022 Castlewood Development 2940 West 3650 South Conditional use approval for a 330-unit apartment development 3.02 acres Castlewood Development is requesting conditional use approval to redevelop 3.02 acres at 2940 West 3650 South into a 330 unit, 3 to 7 story, Class A apartment development. The proposed unit mix for the project is 42 studio units, 193 one-bedroom units, and 95 two-bedroom units. The majority of the property (2.94 acres) is zoned CC (City Center) and the balance (0.08 acres) is zoned R-2-8 (Two Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). The entire building is within the CC zone. The property is designated as very high density residential (over 20 units/acre) or office for most of the property and promenade/plaza for the remaining north portion in the Fairbourne Station Vision, which is part of the City’s General Plan. The property is currently vacant as the office development previously on the property was demolished in 2014. During the study meeting there were questions raised about parking and possible future improvements along 3650 South. While there are some locations on 3650 South where on-street parking can occur now, the frontage of the subject property is not one of those locations. According to the Public Works Department, 3650 South will be improved between 3200 West and 2700 West in 2024 or 2025. Planned improvements include consistent curb, gutter, and sidewalk along both sides of the street as well as a left turn lane in the middle of the street. Once these improvements are made, no on-street parking will be allowed. The Commission also inquired about visitor parking since the parking structure is secured. The applicant is working on solutions to this issue. Project Review The first section below outlines the purposes in the CC zone and how this development accomplishes these purposes. The remaining sections address the main ordinance standards (it is not a comprehensive list) applicable to this development. Staff provided the applicant with a list of items where the development plans needed to either be corrected or clarified. At the time this report was prepared, updated plans had not been received. For this reason, staff is recommending that this application be continued. City Center Zone Purposes The following is a list of purposes from the CC Zone (underlined) as well as a brief description of how the apartment development meets the stated purpose:   Create a recognizable center or downtown for West Valley City. At 7 stories, this apartment development will add to the unique, urban environment in Fairbourne Station.  Encourage and direct development that supports transit. High density residential development is one of the best land uses for supporting transit.  Encourage infill and redevelopment near the future transit station by City Hall. The apartment building replaces an office development demolished in 2014 and is approximately 650’ from the West Valley Central TRAX station and 400’ from the bus hub.  Reinforce the use of public transportation by locating higher-intensity development, including employment-oriented businesses and higher density residential uses, adjacent to transit stops. This project is creating higher intensity development by replacing a low intensity, 1 to 2 story office development with 330 residential units.  Encourage mixed-use development to reduce automobile dependency and roadway congestion by combining trips and locating destinations within walking and biking distances – all interconnected with transit. This is the third residential building in Fairbourne Station that will complement the hotel, medical office building, police headquarters, and professional office building.  Provide a mix of housing types, costs and densities. This project will provide a variety of studio, 1-bedroom, and 2-bedroom layouts with varying rents. At 109.3 units/acre, the proposed density of this project exceeds that of Phase 1 of the Residences at Fairbourne Station at 78.7 units/acre and of Phase 2 of the Residences at Fairbourne Station at 69.8 units/acre.  Promote architectural and site design treatments that enhance the visual appearance of development within the Zone. At the time this report was prepared, staff was waiting on updated plans to verify compliance with the architectural and site design treatments. Parking The parking ordinance allows the Planning Commission to reduce the parking standard for multi- family residential from 2 spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit for studio units, 1.5 spaces per unit for one-bedroom units, and 1.75 spaces per unit for two-bedroom units if the Commission finds that the reduction is not detrimental to the surrounding area and will enhance the proposed development. The CC Zone also allows a 10% reduction to parking requirements. The applicant has submitted the attached parking study in the form of a memo from Hales Engineering to support the proposed amount of parking. The table below summarizes the parking calculations for this development. Unit Type # of Units Parking Ratio # of Stalls Required Required Studio 42 1.3 55 1-Bedroom 193 1.5 289 2-Bedroom 95 1.75 166 Totals 330 510 Minus 10% City Center Zone reduction (51) Total parking required after allowed reductions 459 Total parking proposed 459 Amenities For a project of this size, the ordinance requires a minimum of five amenities from the list in the ordinance with at least three of the five being major amenities. This project has six major amenities (outdoor swimming pool, courtyards, clubhouse/community room, rooftop patio, fitness room, and community game room/recreation room) and seven minor amenities (outdoor fire pit/fireplace, hot tub, building lobby, package locker system, indoor bicycle storage, electric vehicle charging stations, and outdoor covered pavilion with tables and a grill). Landscaping and Recreation Space The ordinance requires a minimum of 10% of the site area as landscaping and a minimum of 40% of the site area as landscaping and recreation space. While staff is waiting on revised plans to verify these numbers, it appears based on the plans submitted that the project will meet these standards. A 5’ landscaped area is needed along the west side of the property and additional detail is need on the landscape plan. Architecture Staff needs updated plans to verify compliance with the architectural standards. There are several inconsistencies between the floor plans and elevations that also need to be addressed. Signage Wall signs are not allowed for residential buildings with frontage on 3650 South. However, a monument sign is allowed and such a sign could be considered as the required entry feature. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations Outdoor bicycle parking is needed. Additional pedestrian connections from the building to the sidewalk along Lancer Way and to the adjoining park are also needed. Staff Alternatives 1. Continuance. There are several outstanding issues with the plans that staff believes should be addressed before the Commission approves this application. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He stated that staff is suggesting this item be continued to provide more time for the applicant to address the many outstanding issues. Chair Meaders asked Steve to explain the Commission's authority regarding conditional use applications. Steve said that there are two types of decisions for applications, legislative and administrative. He stated that with a legislative decision, the Commission and, ultimately, the City Council have broad discretion about whether to approve or deny an application. With an administrative decision, when someone applies, the zoning is already in place, and if the use is permitted and the applicant meets all of the ordinance requirements, the City would need to approve it.  Commissioner Fuller asked if the proposed middle lane for Lancer Way would run the length of the entire street. In speaking with Public Works, Steve said they stated the left turn median would run between 2700 W and 3200 W. Commissioner Fuller asked if adding the median was derived from the traffic study. Steve said that he believes the middle turn lane was already planned before this project, but he can confirm with the Public Works Department. Haley Pratt, with Castlewood Development, stated that they believe they will be able to hit all of the code requirements and are excited to start the project. Robert Walter, a West Valley City resident, would like the Commission to consider the current and future residents' quality of life. Mr. Walter gave examples of how new development displaced parks and open space, keeping residents from enjoying their environment. Mr. Walter also believes that the increase in traffic from the multi-family developments will be detrimental. He suggested adding different routes connecting to the main street to prevent traffic congestion. Chair Meaders asked Steve if he had anything else to add regarding Mr. Walter's concerns. Steve said not at this time. Motion: Commissioner Fuller motioned to continue C-11-2022. There are several outstanding issues with the plans that staff believes should be addressed before the Commission approves this application. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimously – C-11-2022 – Continued C-12-2022 KeyBank West Valley 2807 S 5600 W C-2 Zone (1.12 acres) The applicant, Ben Gingrich, is requesting conditional use approval for a new bank, which will be located at 2807 S 5600 W. The property is zoned C-2, General Commercial, and the West Valley City General Plan designates this area as General Commercial. The subject property is also located in the 5600 West Overlay Zone. The surrounding zoning is C-2. Adjacent land uses include a credit union to the north, a restaurant to the east, and multi- tenant commercial buildings to the south and west. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,442 sq. ft. KeyBank branch. Access to the site will be from existing shared access points on Grantham Lane, which is a private street, Highbury Parkway, and High Commons Way. There are two existing buildings on the adjacent parcels: a restaurant to the east and a multi-tenant commercial building to the south. The subject parcel has an existing pad in the north-west corner that was placed there for a future building. There have been multiple proposals to develop the pad in the past, but no one has followed through. The proposal for the bank does not utilize the existing pad. That area will be incorporated into a portion of the new building footprint and into expanding the parking lot. The bank will be oriented to the north and will have drive-thru lanes on the east side of the building. Some of the existing parking lot and landscape islands will be reconfigured. The applicant is working on providing additional information to staff on the existing uses in the neighboring buildings so that parking can be determined for the site. The exact number of stalls needed will be based off the shared parking calculations in 7-9 for all the uses on the site. The existing 5600 West streetscape landscaping will remain west of the sidewalk. The rest of the landscaping on the site needs to meet the other general site and parking lot landscaping requirements of Title 7. The applicant is proposing to remove the lawn east of the sidewalk and landscape with trees, shrubs, perennials and ornamental grasses. All landscaped areas need at least 50% coverage of live plant material. The building shall meet all the Commercial Design Standards outlined in 7-11-300P. Since the building is also located in the 5600 West Overlay Zone, there are also additional building requirements for the exterior like 100% masonry materials on the street-facing façade, which is the west elevation, as well as a requirement that the design of all building elevations shall be such that there is equal emphasis on all sides of the building. There will be wall signs on the building. The applicant has not requested a new monument sign at this time, but there is enough street frontage for one additional monument sign in the future. All signage on the property shall comply with the regulations in Title 11. Staff Alternatives: Approval, subject to the resolution of any concerns raised at the public hearing as well as the following: 1. The site shall be constructed per the approved plan. 2. Parking on the subject and adjacent parcels shall comply with the regulations found in 7-9 of the West Valley City code. 3. Landscaping shall meet all applicable Title 7 requirements, which includes at  least 50% coverage of live plant material in all landscaped areas. 4. The building elevations shall meet all the Commercial Design Standards outlined in 7-11-300P, as well as the 5600 West Overlay requirements found in 7-14-403. 5. Signage shall comply with Title 11 of the West Valley City Code. One additional monument sign is allowed. 6. Shall meet the requirements of all affected departments and agencies. 7. Subject to review upon valid complaint. Continuance, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Discussion: Brock Anderson presented the application. Brian Wimmer, the attorney representing the owner of the adjacent Chow Time Restaurant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Wimmer stated that the owner is concerned about the double drive-thru impeding the parking and that the bank exceeding what was granted initially to this property in terms of the CC&Rs and the original plan. He asked Brock if he knew the size of the proposed building, including the drive-thru canopy. Brock said that he could look that up and get back to him. Mr. Wimmer believes the original plan provided for up to a 5300 square foot building. However, that plan had the building placed further north, and the owner is concerned the new placement would block the view of the restaurant. He asked Brock if he could address any of the owner’s concerns. Brock stated that one of the staff comments was for the applicant to provide an updated parking ratio to ensure enough shared parking, meeting the code requirements. He said that if the Commission is not comfortable approving this application, they could continue it until those numbers are provided. Brock noted that he was unaware of the pad site being called out or of a maximum building size. He explained if that information is part of the CC&Rs, it would need to be worked out between the property owners. Mr. Wimmer said if there are issues with the CC&Rs, we would want those resolved before construction to avoid any conflict. He said it would be in our best interests to look into this further and then requested a continuance. Commissioner McEwen said he has concerns about parking and doesn’t want any disputes between business owners, so he feels this application should be continued for two weeks. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to continue C-12-2022, to allow for the resolutions of any issues raised at the public hearing. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion.  Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimously – C-12-2022 – Continued PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from March 2, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from March 9, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve both meeting minutes. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Meaders Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Unanimously – March 2, 2022 and March 9, 2022 Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant