Planning Commission Regular Meeting

WEST VALLEY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 13, 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 Darrick Porter 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 15 people in the audience GPZ-5-2022 Scenic Development, Inc. 3672 and 3690 S 5600 W General plan change from Low Density Residential and Large Lot Residential to General Commercial and zone change from R-1-8, A, and A-2 to C-2 5.79 acres Braiden Rindlisbacher with Scenic Development, Inc. has submitted a General Plan/zone change application for three parcels totaling 5.79 acres located at 3672 and 3690 S 5600 W. Each of the three properties is zoned differently – R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet), A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre), and A-2 (Agriculture, minimum lot size 2 acres). The properties zoned A and A-2 have a General Plan designation of Large Lot Residential (2 to 3 units/acre) and the property zoned R-1-8 has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre). The proposed zone is C-2 (General Commercial) and the proposed General Plan designation is General Commercial. Surrounding zones include R-1-8 to the north, west, east, and a portion of the south and A for the remaining south portion. The property is surrounded by homes except for some undeveloped land to the south. Two of the three parcels include homes and the third parcel is vacant. If this application is approved, the applicant plans to build two, two-story medical office buildings on the subject property. The existing structures on the property would be demolished. Included with this report is a concept plan for the property along with a letter from the applicant that supports this application. As pointed out by the applicant, the University of Utah is planning to construct a hospital on the property directly to the south. To this end, the University of Utah has acquired 22.3 acres of land to the south. According to the University, construction on the hospital is anticipated to start in late 2023 or early 2024. Completion is anticipated in late 2026. Traffic During the Planning Commission’s study meeting, a question was raised about the traffic impact of the proposed development. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), a medical office building generates 34.8 weekday trips per 1,000 square feet of building. At 99,000 square feet, the proposed medical office buildings would generate an estimated 3,445 weekday trips. According to UDOT, AADT (average annual daily trips) on this section of 5600 West was 32,000 in 2019 and 28,000 in 2020. Mountain View Corridor opened in June of 2021 between 4100 South and SR-201. As a result, the Wasatch Front Regional Council projects AADT on this section of 5600 West to be 18,000 in 2024 as many commuters using 5600 W have moved to the Mountain View Corridor. To put these numbers in perspective, a 5-lane arterial street can handle 26,500 trips at a level of service (LOS) C and 30,500 trips at a LOS D. Development Agreement If the Commission believes the changes proposed in this application are appropriate at this location, staff recommends a development agreement for several reasons. These reasons are outlined below:  While the applicant’s intended use is medical office, the C-2 zone allows for many other uses, some of which would be more impactful on neighboring homes. For this reason, staff recommends that the development agreement limit the uses allowed on the property to those uses allowed in the C-1 zone which is more restrictive than the C-2 zone. A copy of the commercial and manufacturing zone use table with this report for reference.  No parkstrip exists along the frontage of the property. When UDOT widened the intersection at 3500 S and 5600 W as part of the Mountain View Corridor project, parkstrips were added along 5600 W north of the subject property. Parkstrips create a safer and more comfortable environment for pedestrians, improve the aesthetics of streets by softening the edges of streets with landscaping, create a place for snow storage in the winter, and make space available for things like streetlights and utility boxes so that they don’t encroach into the sidewalk. Staff recommends that the development agreement require a parkstrip to be included along the frontage of this property by shifting the sidewalk 5’ to the west. Staff is also working with the University of Utah to include a parkstrip along their frontage.  Overhead power exists along 5600 W. The City has worked to bury power lines wherever possible to reduce the risk of power disruptions and to reduce clutter along streets. Where this project involves redevelopment and a zone change that allows for more development intensity, staff recommends that the development agreement require the burial of overhead power along 5600 W. Here again, staff is also working with the University of Utah to bury the powerlines along their frontage to the south.  The City’s ordinance requires a 6’ masonry wall to be installed when new commercial development occurs adjacent to residential uses. To ensure consistency between this site and the proposed hospital to the south, staff recommends that the development agreement state that the masonry wall type and color be established by the City in cooperation with the University of Utah. Staff Alternatives: 1. Approval. This application should be approved subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards recommended in this report. 2. Continuance. This application should be continued for reasons determined during the public hearing. 3. Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He pointed out the parcels directly south of the subject property where the University of Utah will be building a hospital. Steve stated that staff spoke to the University and said that the construction is anticipated to begin in late 2023 or early 2024 and be completed by late 2026. He mentioned that the Commission had questions regarding the impact on traffic if this proposal is approved. Steve explained that the projected traffic numbers are based upon a few things, such as the size and type of business. He then reviewed the traffic volume provided by UDOT from 2019 and 2020. Steve explained that UDOT’s data only goes through 2020, and The Mountain View Corridor, which decreased the volume of traffic on 5600 West, was opened in 2021. Therefore, we do not have the traffic volume that has diverted from 5600 West to the Corridor. Steve provided the projected traffic volume up to the year 2024. Steve reviewed the proposed recommendations of staff that would be outlined in a development agreement. Commissioner Winters asked Steve if there was any data on traffic volume, that would include the future hospital. Steve stated that he does not have the level of detail in terms of the hospital’s square footage per use to provide those numbers. However, a traffic estimate could be provided when we have that level of detail. Commissioner Winters asked Steve to review what the City does not have control over when a state entity, such as the University, is proposing a General Plan/Zone Change. Steve said a state entity is not required to meet the City’s zoning code. However, they have been great to work with, and he doesn’t anticipate any significant issues surrounding the future hospital. Commissioner Winters stated that he is contemplating if approving this proposal would significantly impact the neighborhood where the subject property is much smaller than the hospital will be. Commissioner Lovato asked if there is a regulation regarding the hours of operation for a business with a permitted use. Steve said there is no regulation. Kim Rindlisbacher, the applicant, explained that the property owner had approached him to help build something on this property. He explained that the intent is to develop something that complements the hospital. Mr. Rindlisbacher said this rezone request is to get ahead of the curve and work in tandem with the hospital construction. He gave some examples of potential uses for the proposed building. Mr. Rindlisbacher said the physicians would not need to do anything commercial for a medical office and having medical services next to one another would greatly benefit the community. Commissioner Winters asked if they have an issue limiting the use to what is allowed within the C-1 zone. Mr. Rindlisbacher said they are happy to comply with those uses and the purpose of requesting the C-2 zone is to build taller structures and provide sufficient parking. He noted they want a uniform masonry wall for the proposed structure and the hospital. Commissioner Winters asked what the hours of operation would be. The applicant explained that if it is a medical use, he doesn’t see it being used very often during the evening hours. Commissioner Winters asked if they were predicting something like an urgent care would be a potential tenant. Mr. Rindlisbacher said it is too premature to know who the tenants would be. Tom Hudson, a property owner south of the subject property, said this would be one hundred feet from his backyard, which doesn’t sit well with him. Mr. Hudson stated that the traffic is horrible on 5600 West currently, and with the addition of a hospital, it would only get worse. He would like the proposed building to be constructed further south on 5600 West. Shawna Mills Hudson, a neighbor of the subject property, explained that she had conversations with most neighboring homeowners, who are all opposed to this rezoning. She stated that the surrounding property value would decrease. Mrs. Hudson said she had researched the future hospital and found out that they will be providing many outpatient services. She stated that the existing hospitals are not at capacity, so there isn’t a need for another medical building. Mrs. Hudson explained the hardship the residents experienced during the construction of the Mountain View Corridor and how many of the residents needed to move. Therefore, she would like to see single-family homes on the subject property. She also expressed her concern about the potential increase in traffic. Mrs. Hudson stated that wildlife on the subject property would also be displaced. She feels the hospital would have less of an impact than the proposed structure. Katelyn Thompson, a neighbor of the subject property, said she recently purchased her home and does not want this in her backyard. She stated that many people are looking for homes currently, and there is more of a need for single- family homes than medical offices. Ivy Crain, a neighborhood resident, said that she had lived there for fifty-two years, and due to the construction of the Mountain View Corridor, her mountain view was greatly reduced, and the proposed structure would block her view completely. Kim Rindlisbacher said he sympathizes with the public and realizes change is difficult. He noted that they would do their best to be as noninvasive as possible. Mr. Rindlisbacher feels the property owner has the right to develop their property and this proposal would complement the hospital nicely. Chair Fuller asked the applicant if the property owner had looked into other types of development. He said they have not, but the property is not large enough for multi-family residential, and where the property faces the main road, a single- family development would not be the best use for this location. Commissioner Winters stated that he lives just south of the subject location and feels the traffic flow has improved since the construction of the Mountain View Corridor, and he believes the proposed use would make for a good neighbor.  Commissioner Winters also understands the want for single-family, however it would also be adjacent to the hospital, and he isn’t sure that is the best option. Commissioner Wood said that she is torn as well. She feels that the traffic will be worse along 5600 West with approval of this proposal than it was prior to the construction of the corridor. Commissioner Lovato stated he is also unsure about approving this application. He believes that if this was being constructed in his backyard, he would prefer a medical building over residential. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff motioned to approve GPZ-5-2022 subject to a development agreement that incorporates the standards recommended in the staff report. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Wood No Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Majority – GPZ-5-2022 – Approved Z-9-2022 Shane Keyvani 3940 South 5200 West A to RE 10.6 acres This application was continued by the Planning Commission at the applicant’s request during the public hearing on June 22nd. The applicant requested continuance to allow more time to “get a more objective and detailed development agreement in place”. At the time this staff report was prepared, the applicant had hired someone to help him draft a revised development agreement, but a revision had yet to be submitted. The report that follows is the same report from June 22nd as no additional information is available. 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 noted that this application was continued from the June 22, 2022 meeting and proceeded to review the application. He said the applicant had revised the development agreement, and the wording is now objective and measurable. Steve explained that the applicant’s latest proposal requests an exception to the frontage for two lots. He stated that the ordinance requirement for homes is for a three-car garage; however, the applicant proposes a two-car garage. Steve Pastorik stated that the Commission had asked if it was possible to add traffic calming along Rancho Vista Lane. He said that Steve Lehman had looked into this and asked him to explain what he had learned. Steve Lehman gave a bit of a background on how the City has determined the traffic table to be the best option. He explained that a traffic table is a raised portion of the asphalt that doesn’t damage the large trucks used by our Public Works Department and has proven effective in controlling the speed of traffic. Steve Pastorik said if the PC is leaning toward approval, the traffic table can be added to the development agreement. He said another, and possibly better, option would be for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that research be done to determine the best method of traffic calming for this location. Shane Keyvani, the applicant, said their goal is to build beautiful homes that would enhance the neighborhood. He stated that this project would align with the City’s goal to maintain communities. Mr. Keyvani noted that the proposed structure would link the five stub roads and benefit the neighborhood. Commissioner Winters asked why they are proposing smaller homes than what is required. Mr. Keyvani said that they feel where the housing market is so high, this would be a more economical approach for potential buyers. Commissioner Winters said that is what he thought, he just wanted confirmation. Steve noted that where a development agreement is required, the Planning Commission should state any standards or exceptions they want to recommend to the City Council. Seth Vance, the project engineer, explained that they are requesting frontage exceptions for the two lots sitting on the knuckle. He explained that the frontage is already smaller than the other lots because of their placement. Commissioner Woodruff feels that where the applicant is requesting the zone be changed to RE, they should have higher housing standards. He believes that the applicant should work with staff on the development agreement.  Chair Fuller agreed with Commissioner Woodruff and stated that it is a slippery slope once we start making exceptions, so the standards need to be more uniform. Commissioner Lovato and Commissioner McEwen are also in agreement. Commissioner McEwen stated that he isn’t greatly concerned about the applicant requesting a two-car garage. Commissioner Winters said he could see approving or continuing this application. He stated he would be more willing to approve the application if they had proposed adding basements. Motion: Commissioner Woodruff moved to continue Z-9-2022 to provide time for the applicant to work with staff on the development agreement. Commissioner Lovato seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – Z-9-2022 – Continued Z-10-2022 John Baird 3909 South 2200 West Zone change from A to R-1-8 0.52 acres John Baird has requested a zone change on a 0.52-acre parcel at 3909 South 2200 West from A (Agriculture, minimum lot size ½ acre) to R-1-8 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 8,000 square feet). Surrounding zones include R-1-8 to the west, R-1-10 (Single Unit Dwelling Residential, minimum lot size 10,000 square feet) to the north and east and A to the south. The property is surrounded by single unit dwellings. The subject property is Low Density Residential (3 to 4 units/acre) in the General Plan. Development Proposal The subject property includes a home that was built in 1924. According to the applicant, he would like to subdivide the property into two lots, keep the existing home on the west lot, and build a new home on the east flag lot. While the existing lot is large enough in area to be subdivided, there is not sufficient lot width to allow for two lots without a development agreement exception. The applicant is requesting that the lot width be 79’ for the west lot. For reference, the minimum lot width in the R-1-8 zone is 80’. 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.” For the development agreement, the applicant is proposing to use the same standards that were in place up until July of last year. These standards are attached for reference. After a site visit, staff identified some items that we would recommend addressing in the development agreement. These items are described below:  Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements extend up to the northern boundary of the subject property but not across the frontage of the subject property.  The driveway for the existing home is in poor condition and in need of repairs.  The exterior of the existing home has some peeling paint and is in need of maintenance.  The landscaping on the property is in poor condition (large dead tree, weedy/dead lawn) and in need of maintenance and/or replacement.  The existing detached garage serving the existing home would fall on the new parcel and would likely be demolished. While the ordinance does not require a garage for a home of this age, the Commission may want to consider requiring a new detached garage to serve the existing home since it currently has one. Staff Alternatives:  Approval. The application should be approved. The recommendation for approval is made subject to a development agreement including the following standards: o The lot width of the west lot may be reduced to 79’. o The home built on the new lot shall follow the standards proposed by the applicant. o Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements shall be installed across the entire frontage of the property. o The cracks in the existing driveway shall be repaired. o The wood portions of the exterior of the existing home shall be repainted. o All dead and weedy landscaping shall be replaced with landscaping that complies with City standards. o A new, two-car garage shall be built on the same lot as the existing home.  Continuance.  Denial. Discussion: Steve Pastorik presented the application. He reviewed the development agreement standards proposed by the applicant as well as those proposed by staff. He stated that the applicant requests a one-foot exception on the lot's frontage with the existing home. Commissioner Lovato asked if the driveway could be repaired or if it needs to be replaced. Steve said he isn't sure if the driveway is salvageable or not and asked Chair Fuller if he thinks it could be repaired. Chair Fuller said a repair would be complicated, so repaving the driveway would be the best option. Steve said he could have the development agreement state that the driveway be replaced. John Baird, the applicant, said that he believes this project aligns with the City's goals. He stated that he had reviewed the development agreement with Steve Pastorik and is willing to meet the standards recommended by staff. Commissioner Winters asked the applicant if he had any concerns with adding a garage or replacing the pavement for the driveway. Mr. Baird said he is okay with meeting all requirements from staff. Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve Z-10-2022, with the modification to the fourth staff alternative to state the driveway be replaced. Commissioner Winters seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – Z-10-2022 – Approved PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Minutes from May 4, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from May 11, 2022 Regular Meeting Approval of Minutes from May 18, 2022 Study Meeting Approval of Minutes from May 25, 2022 Regular Meeting  Motion: Commissioner Lovato motioned to approve the four sets of meeting minutes. Commissioner McEwen seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioner Wood Yes Commissioner Woodruff Yes Commissioner Winters Yes Commissioner Lovato Yes Commissioner McEwen Yes Chairperson Fuller Yes Unanimously – Meeting Minutes – Approved There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kirsten Hunt, Administrative Assistant