Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 22, 2022 The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Fuller 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, 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, Deputy City Attorney AUDIENCE There were 7 people in the audience ZT-4-2022 West Valley City An ordinance change to reduce the minimum area required for shopping centers in Section 7-7-124 from one acre to three quarters of one acre. At the request of the City Council, City staff is proposing an ordinance amendment to reduce the minimum area required for shopping centers in Section 7-7-124 from one acre to three quarters of one acre. The current one-acre minimum shopping center size was adopted in March of 2017. At the time the City had reviewed many L-shaped strip malls that were proposed on smaller commercial parcels in several locations. Prior to March 2017, there was no minimum area specific to shopping centers. After having several discussions on this topic, the City Council directed staff to change the ordinance to allow shopping centers on properties that are at least three quarters of one acre in area. Included with this report are documents the City Council requested during their discussions on this topic. These documents include:  A map showing undeveloped property under 1 acre that is zoned C-1, C-2, or C-3  A map showing developed property under 1 acre that is zoned C-1, C-2, or C-3  A PowerPoint presentation showing five examples of existing strip malls within the City that are under one acre in area. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. 2. Continuance. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He said that the City Council had discussed this issue several times over the past few months, and they feel the one- acre minimum for shopping centers is too restrictive. Commissioner McEwen asked how many businesses are located in the 2851 S Redwood Rd strip mall. Steve believes that there are six businesses currently. However, he is not sure if all tenant spaces are occupied. Steve noted that staff would like to include clarifying language within the code if the Commission is amenable. One clarification would be quantifying what a group means within the definition of a shopping center. Another would be if  someone owns a pad site in a shopping center, it is part of the shopping center, not a shopping center in and of itself. Commissioner McEwen asked what the parking requirement is per business. Steve explained that it depends on the tenant mix and explained the requirement for a retail business instead of a restaurant. He said that the City keeps track of tenant turnover, ensuring the number of stalls meets the code requirements. Commissioner Lovato asked if there is a standard for stall size and flow movement in a parking lot. He feels that some parking lots have more room to drive through and park than others. Steve said that there is a minimum depth and width between stalls and the travel lanes in between the stalls. Steve noted that in determining the parking demands, two factors are involved: the tenant's use and the tenant's size. Motion: Commissioner Winters motioned to approve ZT-4-2022. The ordinance should be approved as proposed by staff. Commissioner Woodruff seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato No Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen No Majority – ZT-4-2022- Approved Z-9-2022 Shane Keyvani 3940 South 5200 West A to RE 10.6 acres Shane Keyvani has requested a zone change on four parcels totaling 10.6 acres at 3940 South 5200 West from A (Agriculture, minimum lot size of ½ acre) to RE (Residential Estate). Surrounding zones include R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 sq. ft.) to the north, west, and south and R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft.), A, and R-1-8 to the east. The property is surrounded by homes to the north, east, and west and a church and homes to the south. The subject property is designated as large lot residential, which anticipates 2 to 3 units/acre, in the West Valley City General Plan. Development Proposal The applicant has submitted a concept plan, which is attached, that shows the subject property being subdivided into 25 lots yielding a density of 2.4 units/acre. Also included is a letter from the applicant supporting this application. The concept plan includes 10 lots that do not meet the minimum lot width for the RE zone of 100’. After reviewing the applicant’s concept plan, staff’s opinion is that the plan can be modified so that no width exceptions would be necessary. Development Agreement A development agreement is required for this project. Section 7-11-213 of the West Valley City Zoning Ordinance states: “All new subdivisions involving a rezone of property, or a PUD, shall participate in a Development Agreement that addresses housing size, quality, exterior finish materials, Streetscapes, Landscaping, etc.” The applicant’s proposed development agreement is attached. Staff has two concerns with the proposed development agreement. First, a few of the proposed standards are, in staff’s view, too subjective to be enforced. For example, for the architectural standards, the proposal simply states: “The architecture of the homes will be comparable to the following illustrations”. The proposal then includes three renderings of home plans used in the Newton Farm Subdivision. To remedy this issue, staff recommends one of two approaches – either include specific renderings/elevations that will be used in this development or include specific standards that are objective and measurable. An example of an objective and measurable standard is all homes shall have a minimum roof pitch of 6:12. Second, when compared with other recently approved development agreements, the standards in the proposed development agreement are lower. Below are specific examples:  House Size: The proposed size for multi-level homes is 500 square feet smaller and there is no commitment for basements.  Exterior Materials: There is no minimum amount of brick or stone and thin brick, brick veneer panels, and stucco are included in the list of allowed materials.  Architecture: As pointed out earlier, there are no specific architectural standards listed.  Entry Feature: The applicant is requesting an exception to the entry feature requirement in the RE zone. Given the relatively little land remaining in the City, the City Council has emphasized larger, high quality homes on larger lots to provide a more balanced mix of housing within the City. Staff Alternatives:  Continuance. This application should be continued to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed development agreement.   Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He mentioned that many of the lots would not meet the frontage requirement in the original site plan submitted by the applicant. Steve then presented a revised site plan that would have one lot that did not meet the requirement. However, the staff believes the project can be arranged without any frontage exceptions. Steve stated that the staff has concerns with the development agreement submitted by the applicant. He explained that the language is too vague and needs to be objective and attainable. Also, the housing standards outlined in the agreement are of lesser quality than those of the recent development agreements. Chair Fuller asked if the applicant was in attendance, and they were not in attendance to speak or answer questions regarding this proposal. Jonathan Gardner, a neighbor to the subject property, asked what the expected increase in traffic would be and if there was a way to stop speeding along Rancho Vista Lane. He said that kids would be coming and going from school, and the increase in traffic and speeding would be a concern. Steve said one option would be to eliminate the connection with Rancho Vista Lane and have the road end in a cul-de-sac. He noted that some other options for traffic calming would be adding speed bumps or a speed table. Mr. Gardner stated that he is not opposed to the proposal; he wants to ensure the neighborhood is safe. Pat Nesbitt, residing at 3943 S Rancho Vista Ln., asked the Commission if they are positive the development will be homes, not duplexes or high-rise buildings. Chair Fuller said the proposal is for houses. McEwen feels that the applicant should be at the hearing to answer questions. Commissioner Winters asked if the Public Works Department would prefer the road to connect and not end in a cul-de-sac. Steve said that Public Works might opt to make the connection for utilities, such as a sewer line. However, until it has been reviewed by engineering, it is hard to say if the connection is needed. He stated that, generally speaking, the city would like road connections to provide more options when traveling throughout the city. However, a cul-de-sac could be the better option where speeding is a concern. Commissioner Winters asked if the connection was made, could there also be stop signs or speed bumps added to address the speeding? Steve said he would check with our Traffic Engineer about the possibilities for traffic calming. Commissioner Wood said she lives in the same neighborhood as the subject property and wanted to address some of the public concerns. She told Mr.  Gardner that Sandburg Elementary School was closed, and she wasn’t sure of any plans for that location. Commissioner Wood confirmed that the development would be homes for Mrs. Nesbitt. She feels this would be a great addition to the neighborhood. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to continue Z-9-2022. This application should be continued to allow the applicant time to modify the proposed development agreement. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – Z-9-2022- Continued SD-3-2022 Decker Lane – Partial Street Dedication 2860 South 2050 West BACKGROUND: Joe Salisbury, representing DAI Utah, is requesting a partial street dedication for a portion of Decker Lane. The property to be dedicated is part of the H2O Lofts development and is located at approximately 2860 South 2050 West The H2O development received conditional use approval from the Planning Commission in March 2022. During the City’s Engineering review of the site plan, it was determined that additional right-of-way was needed on the east side of Decker Lane. The right-of-way in question was dedicated in 2003 as part of the Decker Lane and Decker Lake Boulevard Extension plat. When this right-of-way was dedicated, public improvements included curb and gutter on both sides of the street and sidewalk on one side. However, with the new residential development going in east of the dedicated street, additional right-of-way is needed for parkstrip and sidewalk improvements. The existing curb and gutter will remain and will be modified only where new access points are proposed. The dedication will only affect property that is being developed as part of the H2O Lofts. The right-of- way will increase in size by 10 feet which will provide 5 feet each for the parkstrip and sidewalk. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approval of the dedication plat, subject to West Valley City Engineering standards. 2. Continuation, to address issues raised during the public hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner McEwen motioned to approve SD-3-2022, subject to West Valley City Engineering standards. Commissioner Porter seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – SD-3-2022- Approved SA-2-2022 4100 Commons Office Condominiums Amended 3745 West 4100 South RB Zone 7 Acres BACKGROUND Brook Hintze, representing Back Development, is requesting consideration to amend the 4100 Commons Office Condominium Plat. This plat was recorded with the office of the Salt Lake County Recorder in December 2021. The property is located at 3745 West 4100 South. The purpose for the original condominium plat was to re-purpose the old Granger Medical site by converting the interior space for individual condominiums. The original plat divided interior spaces into smaller units which allow businesses the opportunity and affordability to own a piece of a much larger, nicer facility for business operations. According to the applicant during the original approvals, “It creates synergy within the building with like-minded ownership”. Subsequent to the plat recording in 2021, Back Development has experienced more growth and interest in the project. They have been asked by a particular client to modify portions of the plat to accommodate their needs. This adjustment will affect a small area on the first and second floors. In addition, adjustments are being made to the parking areas to include limited common spaces and a reduction of common area parking spaces. All parking requirements within City ordinances will continue to be satisfied. To remind the Planning Commission, the definition of a condominium is the ownership of a single unit in a multiunit project, together with an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities of the property. All exterior parking spaces, landscaping and common areas will be held in common ownership. The applicant will need to record an amended declaration of condominium and CCR’s to reflect the proposed changes. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: 1. Approve the amended plat for the 4100 Commons Office Condominiums subject to the revised plat and amended declaration of condominium and CCR’s. 2. Continue the application to address concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Betty Garcia, residing on Ander Drive, said that she would like to have the pedestrian gate on Andera Drive closed. Steve explained that the gate has a different property owner and the issued would need to be addressed with them, it is not part of this application. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve SA-2-2022 subject to the revised plat and amended declaration of condominium and CCR’s. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes  Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – SA-2-2022- Approved SV-2-2022 Right-of-Way Vacation 7000 West 5400 South BACKGROUND Katherine Pasker, representing Northrop Grumman Innovation systems Inc., is requesting a vacation for a perpetual easement and right-of-way dedicated to Salt Lake County in 1932. The purpose for the vacation is to clean up title records. ISSUES: According to County records, Arnold and Areva Petersen dedicated 33-feet of their property to Salt Lake County for a future public highway. This deed was recorded in November 1932. The highway was obviously not built, and the property was subsequently developed by Hexcel. Although the unimproved street will be vacated by ordinance, the ordinance will have no force or effect of any franchise rights of any public utilities, nor would they be impaired thereby. The ordinance will also protect any holders of existing franchises, water drainage pipelines, or other such uses as they may presently exist under, over or upon said property or as are or may be shown on Salt Lake County records. STAFF ALTERNATIVES: A. Approval of the street vacation. B. Continuance to address issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting. Discussion: Steve Lehman presented the application. Katherine Pasker and Lindon DeYoung, the applicants, said they are available to answer any questions. There was no further discussion. Motion: Commissioner Porter motioned to approve SV-2-2022. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Chairperson Fuller Yes  Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Porter Yes Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Unanimously – SV-2-2022- Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant