Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 25, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Woodruff 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 David McEwen WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF Steve Lehman, Brock Anderson, Jody Knapp, and Kirsten Hunt WEST VALLEY CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were 5 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. This application was continued by the Planning Commission during the public hearing on May 11. 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. He reminded the Commission that this item was continued from the May 11, 2022 public hearing. Chair Woodruff said that he would recommend the City Council reconsider the impact eliminating private streets would have on project development. He stated that the small, long, and narrow projects, in particular, would need approximately double the amount of asphalt at the expense of landscaping. Chair Woodruff noted that the increase in the amount of asphalt used would increase the heat, creating more runoff for the storm system to handle. Commissioner Winters asked how the Commission could add the points made by Chair Woodruff to the ordinance. Steve said that the Commission could potentially put in some carve-out or exception. Commissioner Fuller asked if the City would have any issues maintaining the proposed street sizes. Steve explained that the proposed cross-sections would remove the sidewalk and park strip from one or both street sides. However, the asphalt would be the same width as a standard road, 29 feet. Commissioner Winters asked if large trucks would have trouble turning around without the extra room on the side of the street. Steve said that the Public Works Department would ensure enough room to turn around. Commissioner Fuller agrees with Chair Woodruff’s recommendations. However, he would like confirmation that they can be added to the ordinance before the application is approved. Commissioner Winters asked if the Commission decides to continue this application, would it make a difference where the Council makes the final decision. Chair Woodruff said that was why he was leaning toward approving the application with our recommendations. Commissioner Winters stated that an applicant might not be able to develop a lot using only public streets. In that case, could they have the option of convincing the Commission why something else would be acceptable? Steve said that the City has that kind of flexibility using a development agreement. However, he doesn’t believe that a development agreement could permit the use of a private street when the code does not. Steve asked Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney,  if he was accurate with that statement. Brandon said it would be challenging to address this issue through a development agreement. He stated that another option would be to look at the other standards impacting the public street standard, such as landscaping or setbacks, to see if any relief could be found there. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve ZT-3-2022, with the addition that the applicant can request an exception to other standards impacted by the ordinance via development agreement. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. The Commission asked Steve what to do if they could not reach a motion. Steve asked Brandon sense this application had been continued once already, and the Commission could not come to a motion during this meeting if the application could be continued a second time. Brandon said the item could be continued again. Brandon stated that it seems the Commission's primary concern is the lack of flexibility this proposal would create, and this would apply to a variety of contexts. The Commission agreed. Brandon provided other motion options that the Commission had not discussed. Chair Woodruff noted that Staff had presented many different options to the Council, which have been discarded. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to deny ZT-3-2022 with the recommendation that the City Council consider how this proposal would limit the development of narrow parcels, single-family detached PUDs, and development within an Industrial zone. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – ZT-3-2022 – Denied There was one person in the audience to speak to C-12-2022, Chair Woodruff asked if there could be a motion to adjust the agenda and have this application be presented as the second item.  Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to have C-12-2022 be the second item on the agenda. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – Agenda Adjustment- Approved 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. This application was continued from the May 11, 2022 Public Hearing. The Planning Commission requested that some issues raised during the meeting regarding parking and the building footprint be addressed. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,442 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 adjacent parcels with existing buildings on them: 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. There are currently 187 stalls on the three parcels that share parking, circulation and access. The proposed building and parking lot modifications would result in 154 stalls remaining on the site. Based on the existing and proposed uses, 150 stalls are required when calculated using the shared parking table in 7-9-105. During the Public Hearing there was also a concern raised about the size of the proposed building and drive-thru canopy. The subdivision plat does not regulate locations for building pads or dictate maximum building footprint sizes. The City does not get involved in CC&R regulations, if there are any. The only City Code that regulates building size in a C-2 zone is the provision that buildings cannot occupy more than 50% of the lot area. Allowable building size can also be affected by required setbacks, parking and landscaping provisions. The proposed building size meets all zoning regulations. 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. One-hundred percent masonry materials are required on the street-facing façade, which is the west elevation, and the building needs to be designed so that there is equal emphasis on all facades. 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 shared parking 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. Ben Gingrich, the applicant, said Bock did a great job with his presentation. He stated that they are trying to meet all of the standards, but he would like to discuss the issue he has regarding the relief treatment requirements. Mr. Gingrich explained that the addition of a colonnade to the west façade would be needed to meet the relief requirements. He feels there is enough movement in the building as proposed and the colonnade would not fit the design of the building. Mr. Gingrich would like the Commission to consider the horizontal plane proposed sufficient to meet the requirement. Brock explained that there is an option in the code allowing the Commission to approve any treatment they feel meet the intent of 7-11-300P. Brandon Hill, Deputy City Attorney, confirmed Brock’s explanation. Bion Wimmer, representing the owner of the adjacent buffet, explained that his client is concerned about there not being enough shared parking spaces. He would like to discuss what is outlined in the CC&Rs with the applicant. Mr. Wimmer asked Brock to review the number of shared stalls available. Brock reviewed the breakdown and the number of shared stalls available throughout the day. Mr. Wimmer said his client is also concerned because the calculations are incorrect. Brock reviewed the numbers and found a discrepancy of 4 stalls. He said they would be required to have 154 stalls not 150 and they are proposing 154, meeting the requirement. Commissioner Winters asked Mr. Wimmer if he is more concerned about the math or lack of parking. Mr. Wimmer said the concern is not having sufficient parking for the buffet. He then exchanged information with the applicant to discuss the CC&Rs outside of this meeting. Steve Pastorik stated that he had another option for the required relief treatment. He pointed out a part of the wall on the west façade of the building that could be moved back to create another plane that would meet the requirement. Mr. Gingrich said he feels this to be arbitrary. He stated that Brock is only counting part of the west side of the building as the west façade but there is a lot of depth if you look at the entire west side. Brock explained that he was doing the applicant a favor counting a portion of the wall as the west façade. This portion would allow the applicant to meet the 100% masonry requirement. Commissioner Winters is comfortable with the parking ratio meeting what is required. He also feels the materials submitted meet the intent of the code.  Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve C-12-2022 subject to the seven staff alternatives and an amendment to the fourth condition stating the current proposed west elevation is acceptable. Commissioner Fuller seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – C-12-2022 – Approved SMI-3&4-2022 Valley Fair Mall Lots 9-10 Subdivisions 3599-3639 South Constitution Boulevard C-2 Zone 2 Lots .97 Acres BACKGROUND: Ted Didas, representing the Valley Fair Mall, is requesting preliminary approval for 2 individual subdivision applications. The purpose for the applications is to divide the remaining outbuildings on the west side of the mall into individual lots. Because these applications are essentially the same, staff will prepare one report that addresses each subdivision. ISSUES: The proposed application is being submitted to create 2 individual subdivision lots. According to Brian Moss, Partner with Coventry Real Estate Advisors, creating new lots will provide the owner an option to sell stabilized properties separately from the larger mall asset that continues to evolve and requires redevelopment. He further states that the proceeds from potential sales of the lots will be utilized to pay debt and allow Coventry to continue to invest in the future development of the mall site. One such example of this, is the revitalized plaza space located between these two lots. The mall recently completed improvements to the plaza to make it more accessible, open and inviting for a multitude of activities. As we did with the first subdivision applications, staff inquired about parking and cross access and was informed that the newly created lots will be created with shared parking and access agreements. The larger mall asset will stay with Coventry so that no restrictions on the redevelopment of the mall property would be subject to approval from new property owners. According to Brian’s letter (attached as part of the packet) he states that, “retail’s general headwinds and the pandemic, specifically relating to interior malls have required owners of properties to spend meaningful time, think creatively and invest additional capital to ensure the mall components succeed.” He lists a number of ways the mall ownership has done this in his letter. Each lot will comply with provisions of the C-2 Zone. Specifically, each lot will meet or exceed 20,000 square feet which is the base minimum of the C-2 Zone. During the review of the original outparcel subdivisions, the Planning Commission inquired about Granger Hunter Improvement services to the mall property and the creation of individual lots. A master easement agreement is in place to manage services provided by GHID. In addition, since the mall property is private, a master storm water easement is also in place. Staff recommends to mall ownership that any new tenants within these lots be made aware of the requirements and regulations regarding water leaving the individual building site. All of the existing buildings, landscaping etc., have been reviewed by Staff in previous applications. At this point, no changes to those buildings or sites are expected. The application simply allows the mall owner a future opportunity to sell these newly created lots and reinvest the proceeds back into the mall. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Valley Fair Mall Lots 9-10 Subdivisions subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. 2. Continue the application to address concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. He then answered the Commissions questions regarding parking from last weeks meeting. Steve explained that the Valley Fair Mall has an overall operating easement agreement for cross access and parking. He said that Granger Hunter has a master plan for the entire mall, and whomever ends up owning one of the proposed lots would need to be part of that plan. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve SMI-3-2022 and SMI-4-2022 subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. Commissioner Lovato Seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes  Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – SMI-3-2022 and SMI-4-2022 – Approved SA-1-2022 Western Flats Subdivision Lot 1 Amended 3685 South 3200 West R-1-8 Zone 2 Lots BACKGROUND Mr. Juston Puchar, is requesting preliminary plat approval and an amendment to lot 1 of the Western Flats Subdivision. This subdivision was recorded February 2008. The property is bordered on the north, east and south by existing residential development. The proposed application will amend lot 1 by creating an additional building lot. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: Granger Hunter Improvement District: Project will need to run availability for water, sewer and fire protection. Subject to design and review inspections. Utility Agencies: Subject to all standard easement locations. Public Works: Revisions to plat are required. A new curb cut and drive approach will need to be coordinated with Public Works. Follow recommendations outlined in the soils report or basement depth. Boundary gaps will need to be resolved prior to plat approval. Building Inspections:  Follow recommendations outlined in the soils report. ISSUES: Mr. Puchar is proposing to create a new lot within the existing lot 1 of the Western Flats Subdivision. An existing single-family dwelling is located on the lot at the present time and will remain. The new lot will be created between the existing home and the dwelling on lot 2 to the east. Lot 1 or where the existing dwelling is located will be 13,490 square feet and 9,600 square feet for the new lot. Both of these lots meet area and frontage requirements of the R-1-8 zone. Just a side note, the average lot size for the overall subdivision is 10,200 square feet. Access to the subdivision will be gained from 3200 West for the existing dwelling and from Flats Circle for the new lot. Street improvements are already existing including curb, gutter, sidewalk and asphalt. The cross section is an integral curb, gutter and sidewalk design. Parkstrip does not existing in this project. The developer and/or builder will need to coordinate the new drive approach as part of the building permit. As with all new subdivision development, there is a concern with the potential of ground water impacts. The original developer of this subdivision provided a soils report indicating that ground water was encountered at a depth of 10 feet. City ordinance will allow basements provided that the lowest floor slab is 3 feet above the high water mark. Should ground water be encountered at excavation, coordination with the engineering and building divisions will need to occur. During review of the subdivision plat, the Engineering Division identified a couple of boundary gaps along the north and east sides of the property. These gaps will need to be addressed and resolved prior to final plat approval. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval of the Amended Western Flats Subdivision subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. 2. Continuation to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve SA-1-2022 subject to a resolution of staff and agency comments. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes  Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – SA-1-2022 – Continued S-2-2022 Kent Booster Subdivision 4408 South 4800 West A Zone BACKGROUND: Mike Chambers with Hansen Allen and Luce Inc., and representing Granger Hunter Improvement District, is requesting preliminary approval for the Kent Booster Subdivision. The purpose for the subdivision is to configure property lines that will be consistent with ownership of existing water tanks between Granger Hunter Improvement District and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. STAFF/AGENCY COMMENTS: This application is for an existing property and will not involve any modifications to existing public improvements. ISSUES: Granger-Hunter Improvement District is in the process of acquiring one of Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District’s 5MG tanks and is currently soliciting bids to replace the existing booster pump station at 4404 South 4800 West. As part of the tank purchase and upcoming pump station construction, Granger Hunter is proposing to acquire from Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, the parcel on which the tank is currently located, as well as additional property for tank piping. This acquisition requires that the existing property be subdivided. The proposed subdivision is gained from a single access point from 4800 West. Because Jordan Valley still has utilities on their two parcels, both Granger Hunter and Jordan Valley will enter into arrangements granting permanent access and various easements in and through the property to operate and maintain said utilities and appurtenances. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the Kent Booster 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. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve S-2-2022 subject to a resolution of staff and agency concerns. Commissioner Winters Seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – SA-2-2022 – Approved C-11-2022 Castlewood Development 2940 West 3650 South Conditional use approval for a 330-unit apartment development 3.02 acres This application was continued by the Planning Commission during the public hearing on May 11. The applicant has since requested that the application be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on June 8 to allow more time to amend the development plans to address staff comments. 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. The applicant has requested additional time to amend the development plans. Discussion: Chair Woodruff stated that the applicant has requested this application be continued to the June 8, 2022 public hearing. He asked Steve Pastorik if he had anything to add. Steve said he had nothing to add at this time. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to continue C-11-2022 to June 8, 2022. The applicant has requested additional time to amend the development plans. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Unanimously – C-11-2022 – Continued PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from March 16, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from March 23, 2022 Regular Meeting Approval of Minutes from April 6, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2022 Regular Meeting Motion: Commissioner Wood motioned to approve the four sets meeting minutes. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes  Unanimously –Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant